Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1989

Vol. 123 No. 8

Joint Services Committee: Motion.

Mr. Lanigan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann concurs with Dáil Éireann in its Resolution communicated to Seanad Éireann on 29th November 1989.

(1) That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Services Committee) consisting of nine Members of Dáil Éireann and nine Members of Seanad Éireann be appointed.

(i) to direct and control the Oireachtas Restaurant;

(ii) to assist and advise the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach in the direction and control of the Oireachtas Library; and

(iii) to regulate and supervise the operation of the research service for Members and to recommend to the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach any improvements in the operation of the service which may appear to it to be desirable from time to time.

(2) That the Joint Committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to delegate any matter comprehended by paragraph (1) of this resolution to a sub-committee.

(3) That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote.

(4) That all questions in the Joint Committee and in each sub-committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

(5) That the quorum of the Joint Committee shall be five, of whom at least one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and one a Member of Seanad Éireann, and that the quorum of each sub-committee shall be three, at least one of whom shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and one a Member of Seanad Éireann.

Mr. Manning

I have no difficulty in concurring with what is proposed before us today. I would have preferred, perhaps, if we had somewhat more notice of this. All Members of the House, at this early stage in the life of this Seanad, would like to take a detailed look at the operation of the overall committee system within the Oireachtas. For some time now it has been fairly clear that the committee system has been working in a fairly haphazard way. Some committees have been successful and effective. Others have been operating in a rather desultory way and have not been performing the purposes for which they were intended. There are five new committees before us today. I want to make one or two observations.

First, I greatly regret the omission of two committees from the list here today, one is a committee on foreign affairs. It is disgraceful that the House of the Oireachtas do not have a permanent committee on foreign affairs. We have seen, over the last decade or so, the increasing awareness of developments elsewhere on the life of this country, the enormous interest in, and also the impact upon this country, of these events.

We have witnessed the recent events in Eastern Europe. We had a very full debate on that over the past two weeks. Without labouring the point, I think the time has come when we should have a full comittee on foreign affairs in this House. I do not believe any Government have anything to fear from such a committee. If it causes inconvenience to the civil servants, so be it. I believe, in fact, that the majority of civil servants who deal with foreign policy would welcome greater discussion of major issues in the Houses of Parliament. It is only by full debate on these matters, by fully informing ourselves and by using the debate here to communicate with the wider public that we can have the sort of healthy, open debate we require. It is regrettable that the main discussion on foreign affairs is taking place in seminars outside the Oireachtas. It is taking place under the auspices of the Royal Irish Academy. They had an extremely worthwhile seminar last week. It is a great schame that such discussions are not taking place in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I want to add the full and total support of my group to the call for a full committee on foreign affairs.

It is also regrettable that no attempt has been made to reconstitute the Committee on Overseas Development Aid. I believe that in the Oireachtas of 1982-87, by far and away the outstanding committee was the committee on Overseas Development Aid. That committee, more than any other, brought into public focus the enormous issues of policies in central America, the effects of famine in Africa and the consequences for us of what we were doing or not doing with regard to overseas aid. That committee had enormous educational influence within this House. It also demonstrated, in a very tangible way to the many agencies outside, and to the increasing number of people who take a very lively and committed interest in these issues, that the Houses of the Oireachtas did care and that there was a body of concerned, educated, informed opinion within these Houses of people who wanted to express their points of view and also wanted to have a sense of accountability from the Government of the day as to what was being done. I believe the workings of that Oireachtas were greatly enriched by that committee.

I would make a plea from the heart to the Government to reconstitute that committee. If the Government feel embarrassed about the level of overseas development aid that is not a good enough reason for not setting up such a committee. We, in these Houses, should act as pressure points where we think it is correct. We should act as pressure points on the Government to increase development aid if we think that is what the Irish people would want, and if we think it is the right thing to do.

What I am saying on this issue is shared by people in all parties in this House. No party has a monopoly on right or virtue on this matter. No party has a monopoly on compassion. All of us want to see this committee reconstituted.

I would also, in this very brief debate, take issue with the length of time it takes — and this is not a criticism of the Government — in each session to have committees constituted. There should be some quasi-automatic device whereby committees come into existence virtually at the same time as a new Parliament meets. We should not have to wait so long for the committees to be set up. Effectively, these committees will only begin their programme of work after Christmas. They should have been set up ages ago. The mechanisms should have been there. The committees should have been ready to run almost at the same time as the life of the new Parliament began.

I would also ask the Government at this stage to consider the greater use of select committees for the consideration of detailed and technical Bills. We, in this House, now see all the irony of the Companies Bill, to which this House gave such attention during the life of the last Seanad. Now the other House has referred it to a select committee. It might be more appropriate that from the very beginning Bills like the Companies Bill should, for Committee Stage, be referred to either a committee of this House, or of the other House, or to a joint committee.

Those of us who worked on the Bankruptcy Bill in joint committee will realise the greater flexibility which such committee work gives on detailed, technical Bills of this kind. I would ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Government the feeling that greater use of select committees on technical, complicated legislation would make for more efficient and effective working of the House.

In welcoming the establishment of these five committees today, and assuring the House that we will certainly play our full part in seeing that they are effective, I would like the Leader of the House to convey to the Government our concern lest this be seen as the end of the matter. There is a need for a considerable number of other committees in this House.

We have, on the Order Paper, a motion asking for the reconstitution of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. That was a very timely committee. Some very important issues were aired when that committee was in existence. Some very important legislation emanated from that committee. We are asking for its reconstitution. I would ask that while we obviously accept what is proposed today the omissions from the list be noted by the Leader of the House and that we be given a further opportunity to come back to this matter.

Mr. Staunton

I support Senator Manning in general. Specifically I agree with him on this question of an overseas development aid committee. It is a great lapse in present policy, the extent of aid in that sector. A committee of the Oireachtas is a vital element in it and would help to expedite the issue.

I would like to say a few words about the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. I had the privilege some years ago, in 1973, of being a member of the first——

Mr. Lanigan

I do not like to interrupt on this particular debate but the Order of Business was agreed, and it was agreed that the leaders of the groups would——

Mr. O'Toole

On a point of information, in regard to the Leader's suggestion, there was no agreement on that. I think it would be possible to agree a time, but it would not be possible to agree——

Mr. Staunton

A Chathaoirligh, you gave me the floor and I am in mid-stream.

An Cathaoirleach

I intend to leave it with you, too.

Mr. Staunton

I want to talk briefly about the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation. I was a founder member of this committee in the Dáil in 1973 and 1977 and I know quite a bit about its workings. But, just as this year in the context of the NESC report we are reviewing Ireland's place in the context of the European Community, it may be time to take stock as well in so far as this specific committee is concerned. It is entitled the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. Its primary functions are: (1) to examine programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission; (2) such acts of the institutions of this Community; (3) such regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972; (4) such other instruments made under statute, etc.

The point I wish to make is that this committee has been an extremely useful instrument of Parliament. Unfortunately, it is reactive in nature and is not initiating much discussion. It is reacting against many historical legislative issues already adopted by the Community. It is entirely reactive because of its charter. It does not have the scope on a wider basis to initiate debate or initiate activity or to take a broader view in positive Irish sense where the Community is concerned. I would ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Government my views in that regard, that, perhaps at the first meeting of this newly-established European Committee, the charter on which it is based be examined with a view to giving it much broader and positive scope rather than having it as simply a reactive instrument.

Mr. Ross

I do not share the sort of consensus that seems to exist in this House about the worthiness and use of these particular committees which are being set up. Indeed, on the whole they are a waste of public money and a waste of the time of the public representatives. I have been — I was going to say "privileged", but that is an unfortunate word — I have been on various committees for the past seven years and without exception I can say I do not think any of them have achieved anything in terms of legislation and very little in terms of the improvement or change in public attitudes to the subject which they have been addressing. Indeed, were the committees to be reformed in this House, or to be reformed in the Dáil, I would possibly be able to support setting them up today but the fact is that these particular committees have no teeth, have no powers and have no influence.

The terms of reference of nearly all of them are simply and solely to report to the Oireachtas. Neither House of the Oireachtas is under any obligation to debate those reports, to read them or to make recommendations as a result. Indeed, I can remember few of these reports being debated in the Dáil and very few of them being debated in this House. What they have come to be is just a form of window dressing of particular issues which have served no purpose for this House and no purpose in legislation. We had no proposals from the Leader of the House when he proposed that these committees be set up that they be given teeth or influence or that there is any obligation on us to debate their reports.

There are certain areas where what Senator Manning said is correct. Were more select committees set up, were more committees set up which actually looked at legislation, recommended legislation or amendments to legislation on an all-party basis, I suggest that there might be some merit in setting up these committees here today. For any of us who have sat on them for years it would be dishonest and dishonourable to suggest that they have achieved anything or that they have changed public attitudes. Indeed, I would say that in certain respects the presentation of the reports of these committees is dishonest. It is not secret to those of us who have sat on the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies that the reports which are issued are not written by Members of the House, as is suggested in what emerges; they are written by consultants who are paid large sums by the Houses and by the committees and are rubber stamped by the committee when they get the report of the consultants. It does not even stop at that. Not one single report was issued by the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies which was not written by paid consultants.

In addition to that, when the management and the board of those organisations which were under examination were called in to be examined by those committees, the questions which were to be asked by the Deputies and Senators were written out for them by the consultants. I sat there at meeting after meeting with Deputies and Senators literally taking a piece of paper in front of them which was given to them by the consultants and asking questions which were numbered 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 and so on. Not one single piece of individual initiative was necessary and hardly any was used. Yet when the report was issued it was presented as though it was, first of all, written by the Members of the Oireachtas and, secondly, that the questions asked of management and unions were initiated by Members of the Oireachtas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

To take another example, the B & I report which was issued — a very extensive good report, again written by consultants — was actually presented and written after the B & I Bill came before this House a few weeks later. It was an absurdity that there were Members of the Oireachtas wasting their time writing a report which had absolutely no input into the legislation which was already before the House. That report was never debated, will never be debated and should not be debated. Yet hours of paid consultants' money was used for that particular purpose.

I sat also on a committee which, thank God, is defunct, a committee on legislation. That committee was sitting and taking submissions on the Radio Bill which was supposed to come before the House a few months later. All that committee did was sit, take submissions, accept submissions and make no recommendations and issue no report. Yet expenses were claimed, time was spent, special civil servants were used for the purpose of keeping that particular, utterly redundant and useless committee going.

If these committees are to be supported they have got to have teeth. They are not to be used as a means of party political patronage, where the chairmanships are given out willy-nilly on the basis of one for each party and to those who do not get Cabinet posts or do not get senior Opposition posts. That is exploitation of the committees of this House. It is giving nominal positions to those who do not get positions in other areas and it is showing scant respect for the work of the committee. I oppose these committees because they are going to produce reports which nobody will take any notice of.

Mr. McGowan

I think the statements and the outburst by the previous speaker are sensational and dishonest.

Mr. Ross

I would ask the Senator to withdraw "dishonest".

Mr. McGowan

I am nearly 20 years in the House——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mooney)

I am reluctant to interrupt the Senator, but the use of the word "dishonest" is unparliamentary language and I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. McGowan

I amend the word to "sensational". It is inaccurate.

Acting Chairman

The use of the word "dishonest" is a personal attack on a Member and is unparliamentary language.

Mr. McGowan

I withdraw it and insert the word "inaccurate". I believe that the Senator who made the statement knows well that it is totally inaccurate. I am nearly 20 years in this House and I have never seen a draftsman or a professional back-up service drafting a motion or a question for any Senator. Perhaps the Senator has such facilities because of his profession but those facilities are not available to the average Senator and certainly the Seanad Members of my party have no such facilities. With regard to the information given to the House by the Senator, I would say he is indulging in luxuries that the vast majority of this House do not have.

Mr. Ross

I am sorry, Senator, I cannot put up with this. Senator McGowan completely misunderstood what was said. What I was saying was——

Acting Chairman

I am sorry, Senator Ross. Senator McGowan without interruption, please. He is entitled to make his contribution. If you wish to make a comment you may do so after.

Mr. McGowan

It is not my intention to please the two Senators who are interrupting me because both Senators find it very difficult to allow anybody else to speak in this House at all.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McGowan

I have heard a lot of waffle. They are manipulators and are manipulating. I think the last speaker would be in the front row.

It is a necessary part of the structure and order of the House to have the committees which are on the supplementary Order Paper. It has taken to this stage to organise and to get the names of different Members of the House onto an ordered committee. Even today we still have not got all of the names from all of the different parties. It is only in our endeavour to make sure that there is equal and fair representation to all of the parties and individuals in the House that we are at this stage still waiting for the formation of these committees.

Mr. O'Toole

Some of us did not hear about the committees until yesterday.

Acting Chairman

Senator O'Toole, please allow Senator McGowan to continue without interruption.

Mr. McGowan

I do not think it is right. Senator O'Toole attended a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I do not think he could be without knowledge. It is an unfair comment, to say the least of it.

Mr. O'Toole

On a point of order, these named committees were not available until yesterday afternoon at 5 o'clock.

Acting Chairman

I am most reluctant to interrupt you, Senator O'Toole. However, that is not a point of order, with respect.

Mr. McGowan

The Senators knows full well that there are no sensational new committees. All of the committees referred to are reorganised forms of committees which were already in existence. The Senator is having a bit of fun, nothing more.

Mrs. Jackman

In support of the need to include two committees, the foreign affairs committee and the overseas development aid committee, I would like to refer to the need for the overseas development aid committee to be established. It is sad that we respond to Ethiopia when it becomes an emergency and that we are dependent on the media to highlight something that has been ongoing since the mid-eighties. We could multiply Ethiopia by many African states. We are talking about Africa in crisis. It is essential that a committee such as the overseas development aid committee would address the whole issue of development, which is not just emergency moneys or financial assistance but an ongoing assessment of our need to raise the whole issue of development. We are not so very far away ourselves from a famine situation and the attitudes, values etc. that exist today in relation to famine in Africa are very like the attitudes that existed way back in our own country.

If we are to have such a committee, the new area which worries me is that, with the changing face of eastern Europe, African countries and Third World countries in general will be way down the priority list of funding, which will create a greater emergency for them. There are historical problems, colonial problems, the problem of drought, physical problems, climatic disabilities, etc. I have not had an input into a previous overseas development aid committee but I hope that with the emergence of such a committee the first thing we would tackle would be our disgraceful drop in relation to how low we are in this so-called Christian country as regards reaching the United Nations target.

It is extraordinary that in this country we have to rely over and over again on voluntary contributions. That is not just in relation to Third World development; it is in relation to our own poor, who depend on voluntary organisations rather than the Government. I know we have had problems ourselves with regard to recession but there is always the danger that when we are in recession we forget totally about those who are deprived, starving and dying. It saddens me that we have to have a discussion today about why the emergency debate could not take place to help Ethiopia now.

In supporting Senator Manning, I hope that when we have that committee — and I say "when", not "if"— it will be constructive and will view what I would consider the most needy global situation and that we will not be perceived as craw-thumping or responding when the media tell us but will respond as a Government to the deepening crisis.

It is Africa in crisis, and we should consider the problem constructively, sincerely and in a non-political fashion. We should lift our contributions, especially if the economy is becoming buoyant. We should not forget that the most generous country in regard to Third World aid happens to be a Third World country itself. I think that puts a big question mark on our western values and western democracy. I plead that that committee be given priority and that we do not just respond to Ethiopia at emergency level but look at the full notion of development which brings it right down even to the classroom. I plead with the Minister for Education that she instantly set up a development section and include development education in the new curriculum, to create an awareness in our young people that they will follow through. The underlying related problems should be studied. We should not become mobile only when we see the problem on our screens and when the media tell us we should act.

Mr. Fallon

Very briefly, I would like to support the view of Senator McGowan in regard to his comments to Senator Ross. I regret to have to say that Senator Ross is looking for an element of notoriety. I was a member of the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and I attended most of those meetings.

First, he made the point that members were claiming expenses. That is ridiculous because the meetings were all held on the days the Seanad or Dáil met. He levels very serious reflection on many members of those committees and I regret that very much. In my time on those committees I never saw a question handed to a member of the committee to ask. We debated reports which were prepared by our members, notably Senator Mary Robinson. Senator Ross should withdraw much of what he said because he has been unfair to the many members of those committees and the officials who work very hard to bring about good results.

Mr. Ross

On a point of fact, I withdraw not a word of it.

Dr. Upton

I was hoping that the Labour Party would have been allowed into this debate sooner. I do not wish to become paranoid and start tuning up about our problems but it seems as if the whole matter is merging into a complex or syndrome situation. Secondly, I gather we are confined to four minutes for speaking; one minute seems to be a long period in terms of Seanad time.

Acting Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator but my understanding is that there is no agreement on the limitations for this debate.

Mr. Lanigan

Agreement was reached.

Acting Chairman

I accept the statement of the Leader of the House on the matter.

Dr. Upton

In so far as the selection of committees is concerned, truly they are instant committees. I got them in much the same way as one purchases instant soup, two seconds before one cooks it. I got these one minute before the House sat this afternoon. It is unacceptable to expect anybody to make a meaningful comment on the contents of these committees when they are administered to one in that manner. Certainly, we would have liked to have had a reasonable opportunity to go through them to see what is contained in them and what is left out. As far as what is conspicious by its absence, certainly the foreign affairs committee is of concern to us. It is in this House and those in the other House who should be formulating and be involved in the creation of policy in relation to foreign affairs rather than it being the exclusive property of civil servants.

I am very concerned that the overseas development aid committee does not appear. That has to be a matter of great and immediate concern to us, because we all have seen, even as late as last night, the terrible situation which is developing in Ethiopia. It is important that this country, if for no other reason but for its own self-interest, should take a reasonable and serious attitude to development aid for Third World countries.

There are other matters also which are conspicuous by their absence. There is no mention of a committee on poverty. The report from the Conference of the Major Religious Superiors tells us in fairly stark terms that there are of the order of one million people in this country who are living below the poverty line. Surely those people are worth consideration by a committee of the Oireachtas?

To judge our values and our priorities, the page dealing with the first committee, which incidentally I had an opportunity to read, tells us that it is: "To direct and control the Oireachtas Restaurant". Lo and behold, item number one by way of priority for the Houses of the Oireachtas is to control and direct the Oireachtas Restaurant. What does that tell us about ourselves? I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Item No. 3 states: "To regulate and supervise the operation of the research service for Members". As far as the Labour Party are concerned, we will be talking about basic research, research tools such as a chair to sit down on and a desk on which one can write letters rather than writing them up against the wall and, at the same time, trying to get an opportunity to sneak a phone call while one of our colleagues is speaking in the Dáil. It is disgraceful that we should have to talk in these terms when we are expected to function as serious parliamentarians who have to make meaningful contributions to serious issues affecting our people — to find that we do not have a desk to sit at or have the use of a telephone.

I am sure the other committees are OK because, as somebody said, if they worked in the last Seanad they should be able to work in this one also.

Mr. O'Toole

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Acting Chairman on his elevation to high office.

Despite the outburst of Senator McGowan from the Fianna Fáil Government benches, I want to put it clearly on the record that the first I heard, or as far as I know anybody on this side of the House heard, about these committees — their number and the names — was this morning and not last night, although there was an indication that they were coming. However, at the last meeting of the Committee of Selection there was no indication they were there. If, as Senator McGowan said, they have been selecting members for those committees over a period of time, that is grossly unfair to the rest of us who heard nothing about them until this morning. We now have to make a decision before tomorrow morning for the report of the Committee of Selection. If information was available earlier we should have had it. We certainly did not have it — by inference, by innuendo, by information, or otherwise.

We are very cranky in this House when Ministers are interrupted in order to go to vote in the other House. One of the great problems of the work of the committees of this House is that, precisely as Senator Fallon has said, they all meet during the sittings of this House. I have long been opposed to that extraordinary practice. If committees are to be operational, functional, effective and efficient they should meet at a time when the Houses are not meeting, and somebody else can worry about expenses. It is disgraceful that when a vote is called in this House or in the other House when a committee is in session half its members have to leave. That is going on all the time and, for that reason, committees should function outside the times of the sittings of the Houses.

I now want to put on record again what has already been said by Senator Manning and Senator Jackman in relation to the resuscitation or the reinstatement of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Co-Operation. It is essential that this committee be set up. There are people in this country whose life's work is to look after overseas development. Their involvement is full time and complete. At present we are giving 0.16 of a percentage point of GNP to overseas development aid. In 1986 that figure was 0.27. In other words, it has actually halved over the last three years, halved in the period of time since this committee was abolished, because we are failing to keep public awareness and consciousness on this issue. The United Nations' recommendation is 0.7. We are a disgrace in the civilised world.

We are disgracefully selfish and greedy as a State. It is not good enough for us to say that people are giving it on the ground. This form of unsolicited taxation which people are paying should be reflected by the State. If the people are generous, the State should reflect a similar generosity. That is something we need to look at, it is something we are required to look at and it is something that we are committed to in the UN.

If we are serious about that commitment it is essential that it should be reflected in the Estimates for the Departments each year. It is clear that Ireland, being the 23rd or 24th richest country in the world has one of the most abysmal records in terms of official State aid to the Third and developing world. That is a fact. It does not matter what people put into black babies boxes or how they try to expiate our national embarrassment by contributing to all sorts of fund raisings. That is the people's response to the Government's abrogation of its responsibility.

One small step along that road would be the setting up of the overseas development co-operation committee. This would be a reflection of what people want. People have shown this in their response to Live Aid and in other initiatives collecting money and resources for the Third World. They respond to it every time a television programme shows another of the world's black spots. We have a great sense of need to respond quickly and immediately but the Government we elect to do that job are ineffective and refuse to move on it. It is good that we are really top of the league for independent generosity to the poor but we are much nearer the bottom in terms of Government and State aid.

I want to draw attention to the fact that that dichotomy exists. It is reflected here today in the fact that we do not have a committee to direct attention to something which is of grave interest to all citizens of this country because there is no doubt that as well as being top of the league in terms of generosity to the Third World individually and being at the bottom of the league in terms of State support for Third World and overseas development aid, our citizens are among the most knowledgeable in the developed world about what happens in other parts of the world. That concern, generosity and interest should be reflected in the setting up of an overseas development aid committee.

Mr. Norris

First, I would regret if the Labour Party became paranoid about the order of speaking and I would simply remind them that they do not actually have sufficient numbers to constitute a group. So, in some ways, allocation of time can be seen as reasonably generous. I say that in a spirit of total begrudgery because Senator Upton stole my best line. I, like him, had clearly noticed that the very first item is the establishment of the restaurant, which seems to place the senatorial gaff above the needs of the world. There is no question of doubt that this is underlined by the fact that a number of distinguished public figures were throughout lunch time outside the gates of Leinster House picketing both Houses of the Oireachtas because of the shameful situation that is being allowed to occur with regard to overseas development aid.

I join completely with what has been said around the House, that we are in a very regrettable situation. I will not repeat what Senators Upton, Jackman, O'Toole and others have said but I would simply add my little grain to what they have said. It is not just the situation that our contribution officially has declined catastrophically. It is, in addition to that, true alas, to state that we actually benefit disproportionately from many of the Third World countries. For example, as our aid to Sudan has declined, our exports to Sudan have rocketed. We are, in fact, profiteering at the expense of those whom we no longer find it convenient to support at the levels of a few years ago, which even then did not meet the requirements of the situation. I urge that the committee which existed previously should be re-established.

I would like to say that I applaud Senator Shane Ross's honesty in what he said. His experience is quite different from mine.

Mr. Fallon

But incorrect.

Mr. Norris

It is not incorrect. He is totally correct.

Mr. Fallon

But incorrect.

Mr. Norris

I may say that I also was aware that the operations of the committee to which he referred were suspect precisely because, although Senator McGowan proved incapable of understanding the point Senator Ross was making, reports were drafted by civil servants and questions were supplied. I was aware of this, that, in other words, it was merely a dumb show intended to mislead the public into thinking that intellectual activity of some kind was actually taking place when it was not.

However, to be fair, I have to say that the committee in which I was involved did very good work. It was non-partisan and there were positive contributions from all the parties involved. That was the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights chaired by Deputy Monica Barnes. That important committee which considered reports, interviewed leaders of industry and examined sections of Irish life where there was a possibility of women being discriminated did very valuable work. I would like to correct the record because it was stated without contradiction that these committees met always on sitting days of the Oireachtas. This was not the case with this committee. We quite frequently met, even during a period in the summer, when neither House was sitting. It is important that accuracy be maintained in this matter.

I would like to seek some guidance from the Chair with regard to whether it is possible and, if not, why, to amend this item to seek the inclusion of an expediency motion requiring the establishment of an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs which has not been established. I would like guidance to see if it is not possible to amend this item so as to include that important matter. I certainly believe it is logically related. If we are not able to include it, does that not tell us something about the way in which our operations are spancelled by red tape and out-of-date regulations in this House? I would like to say that I consider it extremely important that we establish this foreign affairs committee. It is related to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Development Aid.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Staunton)

If the Senator would allow me to make just two points. My understanding is that Senators are being allowed four minutes each. The Senator has now exceeded his time. I would be glad to give him another few words if he wishes. In relation to the committee on foreign affairs, it is a matter which should more properly have been raised on the Order of Business. It is not relevant specifically to the motion before the House. Senator Norris, to conclude.

Mr. Norris

I would like to propose that amendment in that case because I did indicate in what I said on the Order of Business that I was concerned about this. I attempted to raise it.

Acting Chairman

It is out of order in the context of the motion before the House. My understanding and advice is that the Senator cannot move an amendment now. It is a procedural issue.

Mr. Norris

I see. I am sure I will be allowed a minute or two of injury time.

Acting Chairman

The Senator was entitled to four minutes. He has exceeded it by about two minutes already. Let us give him another minute.

Mr. Norris

Thank you very much. With regard to the foreign affairs committee, the recent remarks by a former senior civil servant would, in fact, underline very clearly the necessity for this committee when it was urged on the Irish people that instead of sitting smugly at home receiving gifts from the Americans, we should be shameless in our support of western values.

Acting Chairman

Senator, please. I must ask the Senator to resume his seat. I gave him another minute and was tolerant but he is going into areas which are quite irrelevant to the motion.

Mr. Norris

The question of the attitudes of people who control foreign policy in this country are very relevant——

Acting Chairman

That is not pertinent to what is at issue before me.

Mr. Norris

I would not of course, wish to challenge the Chair. May I just make a point?

Acting Chairman

No. I ask the Senator to resume his seat.

Mr. Norris

I would just simply make one point if I may, and I believe it is relevant.

Acting Chairman

If I deem it relevant to the motion.

Mr. Norris

Thank you. It is simply a technical point with relation to the necessity for the establishment of a foreign affairs committee.

Acting Chairman

No. I must ask the Senator to resume his seat. That is quite irrelevant to the motion.

Mr. Norris

Every other Senator has been afforded an opportunity to speak on this.

Acting Chairman

I must ask the Senator to resume his seat, please.

Mr. Norris

May I just point out that every other Senator has been allowed to speak on this matter? It is a discrimination——

Acting Chairman

No. We must now restore order. I have given the Senator latitude of about three minutes beyond his time and he has abused the latitude I have given him. I must ask him to resume his seat, please.

Mr. Norris

I will certainly do so but would the Acting Chairman explain to me why I have been uniquely selected for this particular form of discrimination? Every other person referred in extensive terms to the creation of a foreign affairs committee. Is it because I am secretary of the existing foreign affairs committee?

Acting Chairman

My only comment there is that I came to the Chair when the Senator started speaking. There was nobody else. Senator Costello, please, and then Senator Lanigan to conclude.

Mr. Costello

I would like to take issue first with Senator Norris in his rather begrudging reference to the Labour Party, that they do not properly constitute a group. I suppose if we looked at a textbook definition of what constitutes a group it might be difficult to find that a number of Independents constitute a group either. I would not like to introduce the same note of begrudgery into the matter. They are quite entitled to form a group for whatever reasons.

In relation to the matter before us, not having been in the House before obviously I have not had the experience of seeing Oireachtas joint committees in operation. I have not had the opportunity of going through them but the very first one there relates to a matter that, proportionately, is far more trivial than what is being referred to as being absent from the supplementary Order Paper. I would like to lend my voice to those who have asked that the foreign affairs committee should not be omitted. We have already in this House discussed the question——

Acting Chairman

I ruled that issue out of order. It is a matter that could more properly be raised on the Order of Business. It is not appropriate to what is before the House. I rule it out of order. I am going to be very firm.

Mr. Costello

I will not dwell on the matters, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

Acting Chairman

If the Senator is going to persist I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Please be relevant to the motion.

Mr. Costello

I will move on to the next point. A committee on foreign affairs has already been referred to and I lend my support to those who said it should be included. The overseas development aid committee has been referred to and has been dealt with at length as well. We are a country which has provided a tremendous amount in charity but when it comes down to discussing what the State should do in taking the initiative the matter is not allowed to come before the House. It is left with the civil servants or to the populace at large but we who have the authority to take decisions on this matter are not given the opportunity in relation to committees.

My colleagues, Senator Upton, has said there should be a further committee in relation to poverty, unemployment and emigration. These are very relevant issues which concern every single man, woman and child in this country. We do not have a committee to deal with them. We are talking about one million poor, about 250,000 unemployed, about 40,000 to 50,000 emigrating annually. Why have we not got a committee dealing with those matters? These are substantial relevant matters and should be on the supplementary Order Paper today.

Mr. Norris

May I ask——

Acting Chairman

I am calling on Senator Lanigan.

Mr. Norris

On a point of order, may I ask for clarification as to why, for example, discussion of overseas development aid or the committee on poverty, neither of which also appear on the Order Paper, was deemed to be less irregular than commentary on the foreign affairs committee?

Acting Chairman

Senator Norris had exceeded his time by two or three minutes and I asked him to make his remarks relevant to what was on the Order Paper. Senator Costello spoke well within his limit and I was a little tolerant. I now call on Senator Lanigan to conclude.

Mr. Costello

You were far from tolerant.

Mr. Lanigan

We are here today to discuss five joint committees of the Houses. The matter of other committees is not before us today. We are speaking on specific issues. I am very perturbed that somebody tried to trivialise the work done by certain committees. It is disgraceful that people should get up here and just because there is a joint committee on services in this House there is an intent to trivialise it. The Senators who are talking about the setting up of this particular committee are the very people who give out about the waste of public money in this House and possibly outside this House.

The Joint Services Committee is a most important committee and there is a lot of money spent by the Members of this House and on the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I do not think it should be trivialised as was attempted. It is a most important committee but, of course, it might be a question of seeking a headline. Perhaps that was not what was meant but I must say it seemed to me that was the inference that was being drawn.

I was disgusted to hear the remarks of Senator Ross on the operation of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC. That committee sat day after day, hour after hour and it has brought forward many——

Mr. Ross

And never once——

Mr. Lanigan

It is the one the Senator was on. The Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC was the committee that was mentioned and it was one committee that did sit and brought forward a large number of reports. The Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies definitely brought forward a lot of reports and is well regarded——

Mr. Ross

By itself.

Acting Chairman

Senator Lanigan without interruption.

Mr. Lanigan

It was well regarded by everybody who attended those meetings. Questions were asked by Members of the Oireachtas. It is disgraceful that it is inferred here by Senator Ross that these questions were put into the mouths of members of that committee. That is not true. The word "inaccurate" was mentioned. I would say that it is not true. It is disgraceful that matters like this should be brought up in this House. Again, there is a trivialisation of the work of these committees. In future this type of trivialisation or inaccurate statement should not be allowed to be made in the House.

Mr. Ross

This is nonsense. Senator Lanigan was not even sitting on the committee.

Mr. Lanigan

The situation is that we have agreed that there are these joint committees. I take on board the points that have been raised regarding the need for a foreign affairs committee and for the committee on overseas development aid. Again, we can bring forward these suggestion to the Committee on Procedures and Privileges and to the Government and we can take it from there.

On the setting up of other technical committees, joint committees or committees of this House, committees of this House are a matter for the Committee on Procedures and Privileges of the House in consultation with the Government and we will have discussions with the Government on the setting up of other committees.

Mr. Harte

On a point of order, the situation is that one of the points that Senator Upton made was, that today they were handed a document as new Senators and without having any opportunity whatever to consider the terms of reference as set out they are being asked to vote on something which they have not been able to digest and examine properly.

Acting Chairman

My advice, Senator, is that once the Leader of the House summarises, the debate is closed at that point.

Mr. Harte

I agree with that. I can understand that procedure. The fact of the matter is that he did not reply to the question Senator Upton raised and that was whether they would be afforded time or not.

Mr. Lanigan

The situation is that these joint committees have been set up. The question was asked last week by the Leader of the Opposition in this House as to when these committees would be set up and I replied. If Senators look at last week's debate they will find out exactly what I said. I do not think it should be inferred that this has been thrown at new Members or anybody else. It was brought to the notice of the Members of the House last week when the Leader of the Opposition asked a question.

Mr. Harte

They only got the contents when they sat down here today.

Acting Chairman

I have to deal with the procedures here. The Leader of the House has summarised. Unless there is a point of order, I must put the question.

Mr. Manning

On a point of order, some very serious charges were made by Senator Ross. My understanding of what he said was that all committees of the House operated in the way in which he described.

Mr. Fallon

Exactly.

Mr. Ross

No.

Mr. Manning

May I please speak without interruption for one moment to make my point? My understanding was — I listened very carefully — and that all committees operated in this particular way. As somebody who has served as a chairman of a committee and vice-chairman, who wrote many reports, none of which appeared under my name without my being fully aware of what was in it and having written most of it — the same was true of Senator Robinson on the same committee, of Senator Walsh as he then was — I take very great exception to what he said. I feel this is a slander on all people who worked on those committees over the years and who produced reports, some of which may have been ignored, others of which may have been influential but the reports were produced by the people concerned.

I really want to clarify today whether the charges made by Senator Ross are being made against all the committees or whether they are being made against one specific committee. If he is making very serious charges of what amounts to a virtual dereliction of duty against members of a specific committee, this matter is so serious that it should be referred to either the Committee on Procedures and Privileges of both Houses or to some body where the charges can either be substantiated or, as I am sure is more correctly the case, shown to be false. I cannot have a situation where a gross slander is allowed to stand against the names of many very hard-working Members of all parties in both Houses. I regard the matter as one of extreme gravity.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order——

Acting Chairman

I will take a point of order. I propose then to put the question.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order, first, I wish to record my opposition to this motion for the very good reason that the Leader of the House misled the House just now in his speech. Secondly, because you have allowed Senator Manning to ask the question, which was stretching the procedures of the House, I should be allowed to reply to it. The point I was making about questions asked by Members of both Houses being put to them and written by consultation apply to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies and I stand fully and four-square behind that statement. It applies exclusively to them.

Question put and agreed to with Senator Ross dissenting.