Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 1995

Vol. 142 No. 5

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs: Motion.

Mr. Manning

I move:

(1) That Seanad Éireann concurs with Dáil Éireann in its Resolutions communicated to Seanad Éireann on 1st March, 1995 that the Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs be rescinded and that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas, which shall be called the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, be appointed consisting of 21 members of Dáil Éireann and 10 members of Seanad Éireann, excluding the ex officio members of the Committee referred to in paragraph (7).

(2) That the Joint Committee shall have power to appoint sub-Committees and to delegate any matter comprehended by paragraphs (4), (8), (9) and (11) to a sub-Committee.

(3) That the Select Committee of Dáil Éireann shall consider the Estimates for Public Services submitted to Dáil Éireann in respect of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and report thereon to Dáil Éireann and the Select Committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee for this purpose.

(4) That provision be made for the referral to the Joint Committee of Bills initiated in Dáil Éireann by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or a Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Bills initiated in Seanad Éireann by the Leader of the House and originating in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

(5) That in the case of a Bill originating in one House, the motion of referral in the second House shall constitute a Second Reading of the Bill and the debate thereon shall be confined to the general principle of the Bill and where the Third Stage has been dealt with in the Joint Committee, the Bill shall on its receipt in the second House after being passed by the originating House be set down for Report Stage, the First, Second and Third Stages being waived.

(6) That the report of the Joint Committee upon every Bill which is referred to it shall be set down for Report Stage in the originating House.

(7) That the Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be an ex officio member of a Committee or sub-Committee which is considering——

(i) a Bill referred to it, or

(ii) Estimates for Public Services,

and may nominate a Minister or Minister of State to be such ex officio member in his or her stead.

(8) That the Joint Committee shall consider the impact on equality of policy and legislation in respect of the Department of Foreign Affairs and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(9) That the Joint Committee shall consider such aspects of Ireland's international relations as the Joint Committee may select and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(10) That any consideration by the Select Committee, the Joint Committee or a sub-Committee of security issues relating to Northern Ireland shall be in private session.

(11) That reports relevant to the Department of Foreign Affairs may be referred to the Joint Committee for discussion, observations and recommendations, and the Joint Committee shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(12) That the Joint Committee shall make an annual report to both Houses of the Oireachtas which shall detail:

(i) the work carried out by the Committee,

(ii) the work in progress by the Committee,

(iii) the attendance and voting records at meetings of the Committee,

(iv) its future work programme, and

(v) such other matters as the Committee deems appropriate.

(13) That the Select Committee, the Joint Committee and each sub-Committee shall have power to send for persons, but information need not be provided to a Committee or a sub-Committee if a member of the Government certifies in writing that such information is confidential or that its disclosure would be prejudicial to the State's international relations.

(14) That the Select Committee and the Joint Committee shall have power, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist them or a sub-Committee for the purpose of particular enquiries.

(15) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Select Committee, of the Joint Committee or of a sub-Committee who are unable to attend particular meetings; and that Members of the Oireachtas, not being members of the Joint Committee, may attend meetings and take part in the proceedings of the Joint Committee and each sub-Committee without having a right to vote.

(16) That Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland (including Northern Ireland) and Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may attend meetings of the Joint Committee and of its sub-Committees; and that other Members of the European Parliament may, at the invitation of the Joint Committee or of a sub-Committee, attend particular meetings. Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe attending on such occasions may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to table amendments to Bills referred to the Committee under paragraph (4).

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

(18) That all questions in the Select Committee, the Joint Committee and 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.

(19) That every report which the Select Committee or the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Committee, be laid before Dáil Éireann or, in the case of a report by the Joint Committee, both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, together with any document relating thereto which the Committee proposes to publish, whereupon the Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report and the said document, or documents, as the case may be.

(20) That notwithstanding paragraph (19), where the Joint Committee has completed Committee Stage of a Bill, it shall be empowered to print and publish the said Bill as amended, where appropriate.

(21) That the Joint Committee shall have the power to discuss and draft proposals for legislative changes and new legislation for recommendation to Ministers which are relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (9).

(22) That the Joint Committee shall have the power to receive submissions and hear evidence from interested persons and organisations.

(23) That the Joint Committee shall have power to print and publish from time to time minutes of evidence taken before it together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

(24) That Ministers and Ministers of State shall discuss with the Joint Committee, where practicable, general proposals for legislation relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (9) prior to such legislation being approved and published by Government.

(25) That Ministers and Ministers of State shall appear before the Joint Committee to discuss current policies relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (9) and the implementation of such policies in their Departments. A Minister or Minister of State may request the Joint Committee to convene to enable him or her to explain current or proposed policy or to initiate a debate thereon.

(26) That the quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 8, the quorum of the Select Committee shall be 5 and the quorum of each sub-Committee shall be a number to be decided by the sub-Committee when such sub-Committee is appointed.

(27) That no document received by the Clerk to the Select Committee, the Joint Committee or a sub-Committee shall be withheld, withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of such Committee.

(28) That the Joint Committee shall have power to liaise and consult, as its deems necessary, with the Joint Committee on European Affairs to ensure co-ordination and co-operation between both Committees in relation to areas of common activities as provided in the respective Orders of Reference.

(29) That the Joint Committee shall have power to request, as it deems appropriate, of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, that a joint meeting of both Committees be held to consider a specific matter or matters of common activity.

(30) That in the case of any joint meeting held with the Joint Committee on European Affairs the following shall apply:—

(i) the Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs shall also act as the Chairperson of any such joint meeting and in the event of his or her unavoidable absence from a joint meeting, a temporary Chairperson shall be elected from among the members present and voting;

(ii) the quorum for the joint meeting shall be 9, of whom at least 2 shall be members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and at least 2 shall be members of the Joint Committee on European Affairs; and

(iii) the Orders of Reference, as set out herein, shall otherwise continue to apply.

(31) That all appointees to high office in the State shall attend meetings of the Joint Committee, as appropriate, and subject to the legal constraints of their office, to discuss issues which are relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (9).

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to move these motions because they mark a further step along the road to parliamentary reform. All of us are aware of how difficult it is to change major institutions, whether they be universities, sporting organisations, churches or whatever. The inertia and difficulties of managing change are formidable. In these Houses of Parliament we were in years past ironically exhorting other institutions to update their procedures and practices to gear themselves for change but we were certainly not leading by example. It is only in the last decade or so that parliamentary reform has become a major topic in these Houses.

In saying that, we are not that much in insolation. We lagged behind a number of parliaments but virtually every parliament in the world has had to face up to problems of change and, more especially, the need to carve out new roles. Parliaments everywhere have been beset with a range of forces competing for the grounds once held by them. This can be seen in the form of international organisations and the ceding of power to bodies like the European Union, the growing importance of television and radio as the fora in which much national debate takes place and the growing power of pressure groups who are frequently able to get direct access to Government to influence legislation. Competition has also come from the increasing scope and size of Government, its enormous complexity and the sheer range of its activities. With all of these developments taking place. Parliament tended to be left out.

Political scientists and parliamentarians throughout the world have for some time been concerned with the eroding power of parliament. Various proposals have been made and some parliaments have adapted more quickly than others. More modern parliaments, especially the Bundestag, have been examples of this. The Bundestag had the advantage of coming into existence not cumbered by any great legacy of parliamentary history, it was a new institution. It emphatically put the committee system at the very centre of its activities. There is a realisation that it is through committees that parliaments will function most effectively.

I am a great believer in plenary sessions and in this and the other House acting as Houses in full session, especially for the playing out of the great issues. Parliament to a great extent is the people talking to itself. It is expected to have an element of drama about it, to touch upon the lives of people and to influence and affect them. However, Parliament in plenary session is not always suited to detailed discussion of a wide range of topics. The plenary session is not sufficiently flexible. It does not allow for focus, for Members to exchange views in an informal way, for the questioning of witnesses and for civil servants to participate in debates where their input is requested. Thus, the plenary session has a great number of limitations which are certainly met by the committee system.

The committee system, from the point of view of ordinary Members of either House, has two very important roles. The first is job satisfaction. Through the committee system Members can specialise in particular areas and develop expertise in them. They can make contributions which are informed and backed up by research. The level of debate can be higher than is often the case in more general debates and Members can feel job satisfaction.

I have often said that the most frustrating time of my life as a Member of Parliament was during my years on the Government backbenches in the 1980s. There is no more frustrating role than that of a Government backbencher. If one expresses independent views one can be accused of being disloyal, rocking the boat or seeking undue attention. If one supports the Government line one is accused of being a lackey and the statement "He would do that wouldn't he" is the response. It is a difficult role and the level of frustration I personally experienced during those years made me question whether I wanted to stay in politics.

The committee system is an antidote to that type of frustration because it allows the Member to become involved in specific projects and issues where, if the committee is working well, the Member feels that he or she has a meaningful role. There is a general acceptance in these Houses that the committee system should be at the core of any major reforms of our parliamentary system. In the 1980s we saw an experiment with committee systems introduced by the then Leader of the House, Deputy Bruton. Some of these committees worked and others did not.

The key factor in the success of those committees was the chairperson. An effective, dedicated, intelligent chairperson will lead the committee, set the agenda, drive the other Members and ensure the committee is heard. Where the chairperson lacks these qualities the committee is likely to be less effective. The committees need leadership. If one goes back and examines the committees that worked and those that did not, the common factor will in almost all cases be the quality of the lead given by the chairperson. There was also an element of hit or miss in the committees of the 1980s as to whether or not their terms of reference were appropriate.

From the point of view of Members, I would also draw attention to the educational function of committees. One of the most effective committees in the 1980s was the Committee on Overseas Development and Overseas Aid. It allowed people who did not have a background in overseas aid to get stuck in, learn a great deal, travel, see problems for themselves on the ground and interact with the agencies and the people involved. By the end of that session there was a strong lobby in both Houses for greater Government and national commitment to overseas aid.

There was also a body of people who had become highly educated on the complex issues involved in overseas aid. Educating ourselves and the wider public is important. It is also important to show to the various voluntary groups which are doing good work that people in the Houses of Parliament are prepared to listen to them, learn from them and represent their points of view. It is important to show them that they have a place in Parliament where they will be listened to and where their points of view may well influence Government policy. This interface between Parliament and the bodies that make up the wider public is often achieved better through the committee system.

The Fianna Fáil/Labour Government introduced a wide range of committees. The general agreement is that they have functioned well. I am not one of those who takes the view that the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, which inquired into the events surrounding the collapse of the last Government, failed in its job. I believe it succeeded because the wisdom of Solomon would be required to know the exact truth of those events. Truth has many shades and aspects, and in many cases the truth depended on the position from which one observed the events.

The committee has put on the record for all time the almost contemporaneous accounts of the people involved and it will be for history to judge. Few historians looking at past parliamentary events will have such a rich body of material at their disposal when they come, in the fullness of time, to write of the events of those days. I believe that committee did a very good job and I do not think it was the job of the committee to be judgmental where the evidence did not warrant it. If one compares the cost of that committee with the cost of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry, the taxpayers got very good value indeed.

We are all learning about the potential of committees. We were not sufficiently included in the 1993 reform of the committees; we were excluded from three of the four major committees. In the committees proposed today there is an extension of Seanad membership on the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. The new committees will be joint committees; therefore Members of the Seanad will have a greater role in the new committee system. However, these proposals are not the end of the story. These Houses are at the early stages of parliamentary reform. We must look at a range of other ways to do our work. That is why I initiated the debate on the reform of this House and I hope Members will contribute to that discussion in the coming weeks. I also announced my proposals to establish a small all-party committee to see how we can refine our ideas, set firm time targets and focus on the things we want to do in the short term. This House will look at and update its own procedures and practices over the next ten years.

Item 1 deals with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. This will be a flagship committee and that is why I am pleased that the number of Senators on it has doubled. This committee will have the power to establish subcommittees, to deal with Bills on Committee Stage which have been referred to it by either House, to monitor, as will all committees, the impact of legislation on equality and to ask civil servants or other groups for information when necessary.

I draw the attention of the House to the question of privilege. As we remember from last November and December, privilege was at the centre of the preparatory work of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. Privilege of witnesses and people appearing before committees is an area which needs clarification. The Government hopes to introduce at the earliest possible opportunity the Houses of the Oireachtas (Privileges and Compellability) Bill, which will provide privileges for witnesses and others in connection with proceedings of Oireachtas committees as well as compelling witnesses to attend before these committees. This important issue is at the centre of the successful working of the committees.

The committees will also have the power to engage specialist assistants. When we spoke last week on the reform of the Seanad, Senator Lee, whose views on the role of this House are interesting, confessed that the level of debate in this House is superior to that in many of the academic fora he attends. I hope I did not misinterpret what he said.

Mr. Norris

I confirm the Senator's impression of academic life.

Mr. Manning

I also agree with that view.

Mr. Magner

I must be talking to my friends.

Mr. Manning

He made the point last week that the absence of expertise is frustrating. Knowledge and information are power and we are often not in a strong position to deal with people who are narrowly focused and experts in their own area. We need help in this regard and the committees will have the power to engage expert assistance. I despair of the word "consultant", but the committees will be able to engage outside expertise when necessary.

It is interesting to note that under section 16 of this proposal Members of either House and members of the European Parliament and other parliamentary groups are free to attend and speak at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs, even if they do not have voting rights.

I will not go into great detail on the committees because others wish to speak. Those being established today include one on the family, which will consider the impact of social change and State policies on the family in both its extended and nuclear form. There will be particular reference to the protection and enhancement of the interests of children and the elderly and measures which can be taken to support them, including child care — raised on the Order of Business this morning by a number of speakers — education, juvenile justice and care of the elderly.

The Committee on Small Businesses and Services will examine how to improve the operating environment for such firms, following the reports of the various task forces in these sectors. This highlights a great lacuna in the way we do our business. Few countries produce as many task force and commission reports as this country. The Law Reform Commission and NESC publish reports every two months or so. These reports land on our desks with great regularity, but then lie there. The committees will be in a position to consider these reports in detail, to see whether and how they are being implemented, and how they should be implemented, and to ensure they are followed up, because this is lacking at present.

The Committee on Sustainable Development will identify measures designed to maximise the advantage to Ireland of environmentally sustainable sectoral policies, bearing in mind the national sustainable development strategy being prepared by the Government. It will consider, by way of case study or otherwise, the extent of Irish participation in the growing world market for environmental goods and services and means by which this market share can be increased.

These are the three new committees which will have an important advisory and information gathering function. They are intended to enable Members of both Houses to put their views to Ministers in anticipation of legislation, to ensure Members of either House are not seeing legislation for the first time when the Minister introduces it after a long process. Members will be in a position at an early stage to put forward good ideas, force Ministers to listen to them and where appropriate see those ideas put into legislation.

We are at an important stage in the life of this Parliament. The measures proposed today will enrich and enhance the lives and work of Members during the remainder of this session. The committees have been carefully thought out, although I do not suggest there is no room for improvement or that they are the last word on the subject. There may be room for changes and for new committees as time passes.

I ask Members to support the new committees and give them a chance to prove themselves. I hope the committees will be pro-active and not simply react to events, and that they will quickly establish their authority. Through the committees I hope we can put pressure on Government to ensure that the resources needed for the proper working of these Houses are supplied.

The report Senator Magner's committee prepared on the Library services should now be re-examined in the light of the new committees, and he and I will put pressure on the Government to ensure ensure the report is implemented in full. It is no secret that the idea for this report came from the then Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Bruton. He is now in a position to do something about the report. I am reminding him of this fact on the record and I will also do so when next I talk to him.

I commend these motions to the House. This is an important day and I look forward to hearing the views of other Members.

Mr. Roche

This is an important set of motions which gives us the opportunity to consider the parliamentary committee system again. It is well known from the public record that I am a strong, even passionate, advocate of a full working parliamentary committee system. However, although I do not wish to be negative, I am somewhat disappointed at the focus of these proposals. I will offer criticism of the proposals which I hope will be viewed as constructive and will be taken in the context of the improvement of the committee system in general. I could score the odd political point but I will avoid that temptation today.

My party will not challenge these proposals as it is much better to record progress on the committee system than to continuously talk about it and do nothing. However, we will press in the forthcoming period for improvements in the way the committee system is structured and the focus of the committees in order to improve and enrich them and, in particular, to improve the contribution that can be made by Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This applies in particular, as Senator Manning said, to the hapless Government backbenchers who find themselves committed to being criticised either because they are on a leash or because they are getting off the leash. However, that is a debate for another day.

There can be no doubt that the Houses of the Oireachtas require reform. We have been talking about that in a variety of fora for the best part of 20 years. Equally, there can be no doubt that a great deal has been achieved in recent years, although I contend with some impatience that not enough has been achieved. The systems, procedures, working arrangements and, in part, working conditions in which Members of both Houses work are antediluvian and archaic. They are not in any way focused on efficiency or effective representation. The Houses are not only out of date but in many ways they are a fraud on the Irish people. We come to both Houses with great promise and hope invested in us. In reality, however, we know that the amount we can achieve, particularly as backbenchers or in opposition, is really quite limited. Power resides with the Executive and over the years our form of Government has become highly centralised and Executive driven. Today's debate affords us the opportunity to say how things could and should be different.

I agree with all the points made by Senator Manning, although my emphasis might have been somewhat different in a couple of them. We need a strong working system in both Houses because the advantages of the working system of committees are self evident. They are so self evident to people both outside and inside the two Houses that I am mystified why we have not made more progress and been more radical. That applies not just to these proposals but also to proposals introduced by the last Government and previous Governments dating back to the late 1970s.

A properly constructed committee system, in which committees are focused on functional areas of Government, could achieve a huge amount. It could revolutionise Irish politics overnight. We could change the way Irish people look at politics and, if we had enough political will to do so, we could change the face of Irish politics forever. If we had, for example, committees focused on the functional areas of Government, such as the activities of either individual Departments or groups of Departments, we could achieve much in a short time. My criticism of these proposals is that they are focused in a somewhat ad hoc way rather than in a functional way. That said, the work these committees will do and the experience people will gain on them will help us in the longer term to re-orient the committees. They will educate people and show how fruitful committee work can be.

If we had properly focused committees we could progress the business of both Houses rapidly. If, for example, we had five functional committees — committees dealing with agriculture, with industry, trade, commerce and tourism, with energy and transport, with welfare and health and a committee dealing with education — they could process five separate Bills at the same time. Senators and backbenchers in the other House could play a far more meaningful role in the processing of legislation if the committees were focused on the executive actions of Government in a functional way.

The greatest single advantage of the committee system is that it allows us to approach the issues of public policy and, most importantly, law making in a less partisan, divisive and stupid way than we do at the moment. Most of the show acting and posturing which goes on when legislation is being debated is just a piece of theatre. There is nothing wrong with a piece of theatre but when one is supposed to be progressing the work of the nation, theatre should be limited to the odd plenary session.

Mr. Magner

It is happening in the other House today.

Mr. Roche

The Senator is quite right and it will happen here next week because we will not have consensus and a meeting of minds. I agree with Senator Magner; that is the point which I am seeking to make. We could have a far less partisan debate if more of the early stages of legislation were given to committees. The only way we can do that is to functionally focus the committees and to have committees dealing with the major executive areas of Government as well as critical areas such as European affairs, public accounts and State enterprises which require specific committees.

The most important point in this regard is that the committee system allows Members to concede points. It means that we do not always have to posture and take the extreme opposite view; the Government is not committed unequivocally to one particular course of action as if it was the sole possessor of all knowledge and the Opposition is not committed to arrogant, wasteful opposition for the sake of it. We can concede points in committees. Properly focused committees are a marvellous way for Members to sit around the table and use their best efforts to progress the life of the nation.

We have had a number of committees over the last few years, for example, the committee on company law which achieved a huge amount in a short time. Members from all sides contributed and Ministers, who would not normally be prepared to concede even a point, a comma, a decimal place or a hyphen in a debate in the Dáil Chamber, listened carefully to what the Opposition had to say and changed and improved the legislation on that basis.

Members can also, as Senator Manning said, make far better use of their expertise, knowledge and experience in the committee system than they can in the nonsensical arrangements which exist in the plenary sessions. It is wrong that legislation should have to go through the high farce or theatre of a plenary session when, at the early stages, committees could consider the legislation and Members could utilise the vast wealth of talent which exists in both Houses. I do not say this in a patronising way but Members of both Houses have, despite all the cynicism which surrounds politicians, an extraordinary wealth of experience which we should be prepared to use. It is wrong that we have a parliamentary system which ignores that experience or consigns it to a secondary role because there is not sufficient talent in the nation to waste any of it.

Members could play a far more active role, as Senator Manning said, in the committee system and both Houses could also play an alternative role to their current one. They could lead the nation in a way which they currently do not if we had a properly focused and functioning committee system with the proper staff and resources. We could win back much of the respect of the nation which has been eroded by cynicism, which sometimes has been well deserved in recent years.

What needs to be done to improve the present system? I have believed, and have said for a number of years, that the committees need to be focused in a different way than these committees are focused. I am not suggesting that small businesses, for example, do not deserve a committee but the issue of small business would be better dealt with by a committee looking after industry, trade, commerce and tourism. This is my view; perhaps other Members will differ. Obviously, I respect and am prepared to listen to those views. However, a mistake is being made in the way the committees are being focused on a rather ad hoc basis. The full range of Government is not covered by these committees and the first thing we should do in a network of committees is cover the full range. If this was done we could then have a situation where every Bill would be initiated in a committee and the only issues which would come to plenary sessions of the Dáil and Seanad would be those of major political difference, which must be discussed and aired on a political basis.

I have had some experience as a chairman of an Oireachtas committee for a number of years and I found that the committees are appallingly funded. When I was chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies there was a budget of £48,000 for all the committees. We were looking after billions of pounds of the nation's patrimony in that committee and I recall that when we carried out the first examination of the national lottery, we did not have enough money to bring in any consultants. Work was done on a voluntary basis, and that is wrong and ridiculous.

The committees are not properly staffed. The staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas simply do not have enough hours in their day to cover the existing committee system, let alone an expanded system. We have no research facility on an ongoing basis and I very much welcome the suggestions made about Library improvements. These are long overdue. The Library serves us extraordinarily well, with a very limited range of resources, and I look forward to co-operating with the Leader of the House and others to improve matters.

I wish to make a point to Senator Manning which I have made to my party. There is something extremely bizarre about the way both Houses of the Oireachtas are funded, let alone the committees. Why should the Department of Finance control the budget of these Houses?

Mr. Magner

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Roche

Why should the Department of Finance control the budget of Dáil Éireann? Constitutionally, Dáil Éireann controls the finances of the nation. We should be similar to other Parliaments and have our own budget. This would be established by the House, which is charged constitutionally with the task of protecting the public purse. The budget should be sufficient, no more and no less, to meet the needs of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We — not the officials in the Department of Finance — represent the people and the diversities of the people. I served for many years in the Department and I know the officials there. Although they regard themselves as having come from some higher place, I do not necessarily think that they should have the right to usurp the constitutional role of Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Norris

Hear, hear.

Mr. Roche

We should carefully examine the reform of establishing, between the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the leaders of the parties, a budget committee as exists in other Parliaments to determine the parliamentary budget and the work which should be done within it.

The work of the committees is largely ignored in the press, with the exception of The Irish Times. There is little coverage of committee work, even in The Irish Times, and it is largely ignored by national radio and ignored almost in its entirety by local radio. It is even ignored within the committee system. This House is consigned a couple of miserly seconds in “Oireachtas Report” every day. Politics is about publicity and we should not shy away from the fact that members of committees will work hard if they believe they will get some return for their effort. However, if they are totally ignored by the media, the public will not know what the members are doing and the committees will quickly wither away.

When I was chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies, there were superb members of that committee, but I remember having to scurry around the House looking for a quorum. People were so annoyed by the fact that they had been ignored in their entirely that they simply did not turn up. It is not just the media which is responsible for this. How many times have we discussed in the Dáil or Seanad the reports produced by committees? We all know that in the 16 years the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies existed, only two of its reports were ever discussed in the Seanad and only one in the Dáil. This is a scandal. Why set up a committee, give people a task and then ignore their reports?

There is impossible pressure on Members. One of the fears I have for this particular arrangement is that there will be problems for the committee chairman in getting a quorum. It has to be accepted that Members in the Dáil and from country areas will have the gravest difficulties providing the time needed for service on committees. There are only a limited number of Members in both Houses who have the time or inclination to serve on committees. A significant proportion of the talent of the House is taken up by front bench duties in Opposition or by serving the Government, by the Members who are Ministers or Ministers of State, or the people who fill officer positions in the House. At any time there are Members in both Houses who are considering that they are nearing the end of their political careers. There is a relatively small number of people who are willing to serve on committees. This is an issue we will have to address.

Senator Manning has addressed the problems which exist and the Government will, in the near future, be introducing legislation regarding the compellability of witnesses and the thorny issue of privilege. That matter has dragged on since 1972. It is crazy that it has gone on for that length of time and there has been so much discussion of reform but little actual reform. I look forward to that legislation being introduced and the Government side can be assured that we will do all we can to constructively assist in its progress.

The Houses of the Oireachtas, as I have already said, ignore the committees. The Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies is seldom discussed. Not only do the Houses of the Oireachtas ignore the committees but the Executive also ignores them. If we take, for example, the reports produced by the Committee on European Affairs, we find the same points being made over the years and time and again those points and recommendations being ignored. Many recommendations were made by the Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies which have been largely ignored. There has been little willingness on the part of the Executive or the public service to implement the recommendations of committees. That should not be accepted by either House of the Oireachtas, it is intolerable. When a committee makes a recommendation there should be a time limit for the Executive to respond. Ministers have to respond to the Committee of Public Accounts and they should equally have to respond to recommendations made in a committee report.

There is another issue on which both Houses should take a strong view. The Houses of the Oireachtas have no right to punish a person who treats a committee or the Houses themselves with contempt. I am not suggesting we build a tower and incarcerate people in it, but I recall many years ago, before I was a Member of either House, that the Committee of Public Accounts went to inspect a premises operated by Telecom Éireann and they were locked out. The national media thought this was great crack. It was a joke. In any democracy which takes itself seriously that would not have been tolerated. Imagine a Senate or Congressional committee in the United States going to a public building to examine what was happening to public funds and being treated with contempt by the chief executive of a State enterprise. They would not get away with it, they would not last ten minutes. Yet, because it convenienced people, an Oireachtas committee and its chairman were pilloried and forced to answer cynical comments.

The same thing happened when the Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies was examining the affairs of the Irish Sugar Company. Strong allegations were made to me at that time as Chairman. We were in the process of examining that company and our committee was thrown off the scent by false allegations made about the previous chairman. We spent six months on a false trail laid by senior executives of the Sugar Company which perverted the work of that committee. It is a fact and a matter of record — neither House of the Oireachtas took any action — that summonses to appear before that committee which were sent to every board of the company, were intercepted by senior management — senior management who left the public service in some ignominy later — and destroyed. They were never given to board members. That is a serious interference with the work of the Houses of Parliament and is something which should never be accepted.

Neither House has moved to improve the level of media coverage given to committees; I have made this point on a number of occasions. We have a broadcasting committee; I do not believe that the current broadcast has enough time allocated to it. The people involved do excellent work, they have to put the broadcast together in a tightly edited fashion. No matter how ingenious they are there is no way they can cover the diversity of views expressed here. It is often suggested that the Irish people have a narrow attention span in these matters and that is what determines how much time RTE allocates to the affairs of both Houses. The extraordinary popularity of the subcommittee investigating the collapse of the last Government meant it almost became prime-time viewing. Those who decided in RTE how much time should be devoted to television programmes might give a little more consideration to how they would represent the views of Parliament in an expanded format. I am not suggesting every word recorded here is of such wisdom that it should be elevated but they are sincere views of those elected by the public and they should get more airing than at present. I believe that forced, tight editing gives a false view and must, of its nature, highlight what is dramatic as opposed to what is more thoughtful.

What should we do? Both Houses should take the issue of committees more seriously than in the past. We should aggressively support the committee system, demand proper resources for these committees and demand the respect they are entitled to. At the same time the committees should operate in a manner which will win the public's respect. In fairness, I do not think any committee has ever been found wanting in that regard. The committee system should operate on a functional basis, focused on the executive activities of Government. I hope that in the year ahead, particularly in Senator Manning's initiative with regard to an all-party committee to look at the way we operate in this House, we could address that issue. Proper funding, proper resources and proper staffing are absolute requirements and the committee system will not work without them. In the not too distant future, in the all-party committee initiative suggested by Senator Manning, I will be making the proposal that a budget for each House of the Oireachtas, controlled by the Oireachtas, should be considered.

The final issue to be addressed is that we cannot talk about parliamentary reform in isolation from other important reforms. Dáil reform cannot be discussed in isolation from reform of the electoral system. The proportional representation, single transferable vote, multi-seat constituency electoral system is a fine one in terms of representing the views of the people but there is a high cost. It produces a form of public representation which has been referred to as high paid "messengerboyism". I do not agree that is necessarily the way we should view the kind of representation we get, but it is a representation almost exclusively focused of the constituency service. We get a type of representation, particularly in the Dáil, from our electoral system which is extremely competitive, and frequently competing on the same cases. I had a case yesterday from the housing section of Wicklow County Council where the letter I received had been sent to six other public representatives in the county, in other words there were seven people chasing one public representative about the same issue. That is crazy. It is wasteful, it is duplication and it is not proper representation. As long as we have the PR-STV multi-seat constituency system we will have that kind of representation. If we are serious about parliamentary reform, and in particular about Dáil reform, we will have to look sooner rather than later at some system, perhaps a continental list PR system, which will allow legislators to operate as legislators and to have a balance in the way they operate their time.

In conclusion, I would like to make a few comments on specific committees. I have made this comment on a number of occasions, even to Ministers in the last Government. The Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies is focused on the commercial State-sponsored bodies. The non-commercial State-sponsored bodies were specifically set up so that an area of public policy could be taken out from under the dead hand of ministerial responsibility. Currently, those bodies are above parliamentary review, and that is wrong. The time has now come for the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies to look at the commercial and non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. The non-commercial State-sponsored bodies dispense a huge amount of public funds. They operate in place of Government Departments and in important and critical areas of public policy, but not always in the most efficient manner. I ask — I am not a member of that committee — that perhaps the committee should take a view on that issue.

It strikes me that the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on the Family are essentially task force committees as opposed to long term ones. If we are to focus on a specific issue and establish a committee, it should have some responsibility and time horizons before it, because otherwise it would become an arid talking shop and I would hope that would not be the case.

We are not opposing these motions or calling for a vote on them. I offered those views — they are my own views and that of many members of my party — in a constructive sense and I hope that they will be seen in that light. They are not intended to be destructive. I wish all of the committees and their chairpersons well, because they have a fairly daunting task before them. Rather than knock them, we should celebrate the potential contribution that they can make to the life of our nation.

Mr. Magner

Naturally, I support the motions establishing these committees. The Seanad is fortunate at this stage to be led by Senator Manning, who has a record of innovation and commitment to reform. The Seanad is well poised, not only under his leadership but also because of the attitude of the Opposition as expressed by Senator Roche, for the possibility of real reform. It is forgotten that these committees were hard fought for by many people who now occupy other positions. When Deputy Michael D. Higgins was a Senator, he demanded the establishment of a foreign affairs committee.

Mr. Norris

Absolutely.

Mr. Magner

The Government, of which of course we were all part, thought the sky would fall if it allowed ordinary people to have a say——

Mr. Manning

It was the people in Iveagh House.

Mr. Magner

We again come back to Senator Roche's point. One is either the political master or servant. I do not blame the people in Iveagh House. The people with the political mandate either listened to or were browbeaten by the permanent Government and the committees were not established. I am sure that Deputy M.D. Higgins is smiling to himself, now that he is occupying a seat in the Cabinet, that these committees were established.

Senator Roche made many points with which I would totally agree. Of course, the Houses of the Oireachtas should organise and regulate its own budget. It is a nonsense of immense proportions that somebody—faceless, nameless or whatever—would decide its needs from their perception, cut it by half and then supply the money. It is a nonsense. I do not think this is done anywhere else; it is certainly not done in the House of Commons because I had occasion to visit and study it.

I had the honour of chairing the Joint Services Committee. I took the strong view that the level of services this House required was not to be dictated by either the offices of the House or the Civil Service but by the needs of the Members. I got great co-operation from many of the offices and personnel in this House in making the small changes I was able to effect, but I am far from satisfied that we have even begun the task of reforming this House as far as support services for Members are concerned. The Library has been mentioned both by Senator Roche and the Leader of the House. As the Leader well knows—he was the author of the report on the Library—it is inexcusable in 1995, when we are faced with powerful business, environmental and other lobbies, that the legislators should be the least able to defend their position because they do not have that expertise.

Senator Roche referred to the miserable allocation of consultancy money. I remember the case of a chairman of a joint committee on an important sector of State endeavour, which was responsible for looking at the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, not having an allocation sufficient to buy a cup of coffee for some of the groups he met, never mind having a budget for consultancy. It was simply a nonsense. I am in favour of the establishment of these committees because they have proved their worth, not only in this House but in other parliaments throughout the world.

Senator Roche made the important point that a completely farcical situation is being played out in the other House today. The Leaders of the Opposition in truth agree with the legislation proposed by the Government. It is the responsibility of those now in office to bring forward legislation to conform with the referendum. That was common cause among us all. Then the teams on the pitch changed, and so did the rules. This is simply an instance of where false conflict is generated for reasons other than the legislation itself. We cannot afford such conflict, our island is too small for this. There are enough real wars to be fought between the Government and Opposition on real policies rather than on this charade of tipping at the edges of legislation because it is politically expedient to do so. I know well that some in the Opposition side would fully agree with these points.

I am part of the system and a Whip of the Labour Party. One has to "take the shilling and carry the gun" in many cases. I am responsible in part for party discipline. I have often voted for measures in this House that I did not agree with and I am sure I will again. As somebody said in reference to a free vote, join the free vote party.

Mr. Norris

Here we are.

Mr. Magner

It was a different consituency, Senator Norris.

I am conscious that other Members want to contribute on this issue, but I want to touch on another point that was mentioned by Senator Roche—the public perception of what we do. We are the worst in the world for putting what we do before the public. We currently have an information officer. I hope that officer, when she gets her portfolio together, will supply material to schools that explains precisely what this House is about—the workings of not only the Dáil and Seanad but its various committees and sub-committees and how it deals with the whole process of government. There should also be competitions in both primary and secondary schools. This should also be the case for third level students. It is beyond me how some of these people get through university because they are as thick as a ditch when it comes to knowing how this country works. I am not saying this in a joking way. Some of them are appallingly ignorant of the way in which they are governed. Most of them just seem to be happy to get their grants. They do not care how they are governed. As we know from the voting patterns, those that ought to be voting — those aged between 20 and 30 years of age—are not voting and this is disgraceful. If the committee work is to be fulfilling for the Member, it must be relevant to the public and must be publicised. This was the point Senator Roche made.

We have a dilemma. Newspapers are commercial entities and newsprint and reporting is expensive. They would say that they are performing a public duty by giving the amount of space that they believe is adequate. Those of us in the House would believe that it is totally inadequate. Some way must be found to encourage newspaper proprietors to give committees more publicity; perhaps by reducing VAT on newsprint, for example. If we want people to use money their own money for in-depth reporting of committees, perhaps that is a legitimate cost we may have to address. The same can be said of television and radio. There is no excuse for RTE; it broadcasts enough rubbish. There is positive proof that the public is interested in what goes on in both Houses. The committee to which Senator Manning referred—I concur with his remarks in that regard — did the job it was asked to do at a minuscule cost. That is the way committees of this House should be set up to investigate specific cases in the future.

As Senator Roche said, the more publicity committees can get, the better. There is nothing worse than somebody who cleverly gets publicity by making a few statements at strategic times in the ear of a reporter whereas a person on a committee painstakingly working on sometimes tedious legislation may get no publicity. Whether we like it or not, that person suffers at constituency level, and one cannot afford that. That is something we must look at in terms of the reform of this House because it also involves the media. There must be an encompassing discussion if we want to effect real change.

I come from a school of thought which believes in fixed terms for Parliament. The notion that the Government could fall if somebody breaks their leg is nonsense. Could one imagine a company operating on the basis that if somebody gets sick the whole edifice falls? It is outdated nonsense. It may have been proper to have a change of Government in the House of Commons if a Tory sire fell off his horse, but it is totally inapplicable to a modern democratic society. Fixed terms would cut out a lot of nonsense. As somebody once said, dictatorship tempered by assassination is a perfect form of government. I support the committee system and the reforms of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Now that we are talking about reform of the Seanad, perhaps we could discuss the public perception of what we do and the impact we should have.

Mr. Norris

It is important to recognise the considerable interest which not only the Government and Opposition benches have taken, but which the Independent benches have traditionally taken in the establishment of committees. Senator Magner referred to Deputy Michael D. Higgins and the establishment of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I was a junior colleague in that battle and the Leader will remember that on three occasions I raised the issue of the establishment of a Foreign Affairs Committee on Private Members' Time. I followed the gyrations of the political parties as they changed their views on the establishment of a Foreign Affairs Committee, depending on whether they were in or out of Government. It was entertaining to look at the reversals which took place, but eventually such a committee was established.

On the third occasion I raised this issue in Private Members' time. After discussions with Members of all parties, I knew there was a genuine feeling that Ireland should end its isolation in Europe by being the only EU country not to have a Foreign Affairs Committee. Since the Government was reluctant to establish one, we decided to go ahead and do so. I was modest enough to realise that I was not sufficiently eminent to be chairperson. Deputy Michael D. Higgins became chairperson and I became secretary. We attracted membership from all parties in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I like to believe that that little ginger group played a role in the establishment of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I do not always believe it when people pay tribute to the Seanad and say that the standard of debate is higher than in the Dáil or in academia, although I agreed with Senator Magner when he made that point. However, the three speeches we heard this morning were excellent, informed and informative, which is exactly what this Chamber should be about. It is pity that more members of the press are not here. I am, however, glad that a number of young citizens, a large group of school children, were in the Chamber earlier. When speaking to my colleague, Senator Quinn, we both realised that as school children or university students, we were never in either House of the Oireachtas. It is a shame that we do not reach out and educate people more, particularly in relation to the type of consensus and intellectually driven debate we had today, where partisan points were not scored. That is one of the most important things I discovered about the committees of the House on which I have served. The Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights worked well. It ceased to be partisan, people represented genuine interests, made valid points and were prepared to reach some degree of consensus, which was useful.

Some Members mentioned the importance of involving schools. Senator Magner mentioned the production of a leaflet. In the past couple of days I received an excellent package of leaflets from the Department of the Environment. One leaflet described the Seanad and the method of election. I would like to see such an information pack being sent to schools.

As regards consensus, we have been extremely well served by the former and current Leaders, Senator Wright and Senator Manning respectively. Both have attempted to work towards consensus and the non-confrontational operation of this House, which is the way we should work. I commend Senator Manning for culling important points from our previous discussion on reform of the Seanad. I have read the recommendations, which are useful and which will inform the continuing debate in this area.

While I do not want to appear partisan, although I praised Members from the Government parties, I would like to say that Senator Roche's contribution was fascinating. Like Senator Magner, I am sure Senator Manning in summing up will agree with some of the practical suggestions he made. A number of the elements of his speech were trenchantly expressed, consistent, coherent, well thought out and would have my support. It is ludicrous that there is no budget committee and that we, as Members of the Oireachtas, elected Members of a democratic Parliament, are subject in the conduct of our business to the housekeeping provisions of anonymous civil servants in the Department of Finance. That must end and a budget committee should be established. Senator Roche made a well argued point when he stated that the Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies dealt only with commercial State-sponsored bodies and that it should be extended to include the work of non commercial state-sponsored bodies, which should also be subject to parliamentary review, that they should not be immune to investigation.

The Independent group welcomes the establishment of these committees on which we will seek representation. I hope there will not be a grudging mechanical operation of an archaically derived mathematical system for the allocation of places. We can swell our numbers artificially and use the rule book. We are not grudging the chairmanship of the committees, but we want to play an important role on every committee. It was a source of sadness to me that some of my highly qualified colleagues on the Independent benches, such as Senator Quinn, with his experience in business and commerce, his interest in the family, his interest in a whole range of affairs and his capacity to speak on these matters, were not given a position on any of these committees. Similarly, Senator Henry was a clear choice for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights, on which I served for two terms. I pushed myself onto the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and I am glad I did. There were only five Members from the Seanad on that committee. I also managed to get onto the bureau and my colleagues have agreed with me — tentatively and without obligation, as they say in solicitors' letters—that I should be nominated again. I hope and seek to retain my position on the bureau if I am so nominated.

With regard to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, I welcome the expedient way in which the motion is framed — that we have the power to send for people. I note Senator Manning said the issue of compellibility will be addressed and that legislation is promised. That is very positive. However, I note with regard to foreign affairs that there is a select committee which is only a Dáil committee. Members of the Seanad are precluded from membership of it and voting at it because, under the Constitution, we are not allowed to issue Exchequer Bills and spend money. Virtually all the other committees have a provision to permit Members of Seanad Éireann to attend, take part in the proceedings but not to vote. I ask the Leader that an amendment be made so that Members of Seanad Éireann have a right of participation on the select committee. The financial provisions would be met by our not being allowed to vote.

I could say more but my colleague, Senator Quinn, would like some time and I will yield to him if that is in order.

Mr. Quinn

I thank Senator Norris for his kind comments. I would correct a point he made about my not being involved in committees; I am a member of the Joint Services Committee, which Senator Magner has admirably served as chairman. He has shown an ability to get things done around the Houses of the Oireachtas—in the Library, for example.

I am sure Senator Norris would agree with my first point that small is beautiful; I am not talking about our heights. Smaller groups have a better chance of getting things done than larger groups. From that point of view, if these Houses are to earn respect—I emphasise "earn"—they will do so because we find a better way of getting things done. As Senator Manning and Senator Roche have said, the steps being taken with these resolutions represent a manner of getting things done by re-engineering how one does things in order to achieve better results.

I would like to draw attention to the issue of the ability to empower people and groups. If we can empower these groups with the ability to specialise in certain subjects—this is clearly the objective in these resolutions and in the legislation introducing privilege and compellibility the Leader has promised —we will be able to achieve better results than in the past. It will mean that people can specialise and the expertise that individual Members of the Oireachtas have can concentrate on particular areas to achieve better results.

The skill and ability of chairmanship is important. When I became chairman of An Post 15 years ago I had no experience of chairing committees. I went to an Irish Management Institute course on how to chair and my eyes were opened at the abilities and methods which there were. I suggest that the Irish Management Institute be invited to provide a course for the chairmen of many of these committees, particularly if they have not had experience in the role.

I have been impressed by the ability of a chairman to achieve a great deal, particularly in regard to time, action and standards of management. How does one achieve in a committee? One of the criticisms of boards or committees is that they become talking shops. One of the problems in this House is that when Members are allocated 20 minutes to speak they often feel obliged to spend 20 minutes talking so as not to let the side down. We should emphasise that speaking for a long time does not necessarily mean saying more.

I proposed previously that action groups should have a number of rules. First, there should be no chairs; meetings should be held standing up, and that would make them a little quicker. Second, they should be held very early in the morning; not breakfast meetings but before breakfast meetings. There is a fair possibility that the lack of food will cause an urgency to get things done. Third, in arranging the next meeting it should be agreed that it will not take place until what was agreed at the previous meeting has been finished. In other words, it should not become a talking shop which meets again although it has not done what it was to do.

There is a variety of skills and abilities dotted among the 60 Members of this House. While everybody cannot be a member of every committee, it seems a shame that we do not find some formula for those who have a particular skill or expertise to be able to concentrate on those areas, no matter from what party or group they come. It may not be easy or possible to do. It was possible to find a place on the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation for Senator Wilson. We all agree that his was a voice that needed to be heard and if the seats on the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation had been distributed on another basis it is possible that Senator Wilson's voice would not have been heard. However, because there was a need it was possible to find a place for him.

Similar thinking may be possible in regard to these committees. I am not sure how it could be done, or if it is possible to achieve it under normal traditions. Perhaps this is a time for discarding some of the normal traditions and the old rules that applied. In accepting these motions this House is ready to throw away some of the past traditions where they are recognised not to be useful in the future. I encourage and support the motions for these new committees.

Mr. Daly

I welcome the motions and the decision to expand the committees. We have had a number of opportunities to speak about reform of the House and, on a previous occasion, I referred to the lack of representation for this House on the previous committees. This is now being remedied and that is welcome.

I would generally be critical of the number of committees. If there are too many committees, with fragmentation, overlapping and duplication, they lose their impact, and the public perception would be scattered rather than focused on a smaller number of committees. I cannot see the need for a Joint Committee on European Affairs separate from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I know that European affairs are important and will have a great impact in the coming years, but they could be dealt with by the subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I was critical at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the breaking up of the committee into subcommittees, which at times found it difficult to get a quorum to enable a meeting to proceed. That would be a mistake. It would be preferable to have a limited number of committees with good representation which focus their work and create a public awareness of their work by sending out the message that valuable work is being done.

Very few people out in the streets today know what goes on in Oireachtas committees, what they do or what their purpose is. They do not know a lot about what goes on in the House or who their representatives are, but that is another matter. It will be more difficult to explain the work done by committees to the public if there are too many committees. They will be less useful to the Government if they are fragmented in a way that will lead to duplication of work and to a lack of clarity in the message which they send to the public.

These committees are very important for the Government. If committees work well and suggest amendments to legislation, they can be very worth while for Ministers. They can be a very good sounding board for Ministers who wish to tackle divisive issues. The committee system is an ideal way to tease out issues on which there might not be general agreement. The committees proposed here give Members an opportunity to formulate a general view that would be less contentious and less difficult to get through the Houses of the Oireachtas at a later stage when legislation is brought forward.

I welcome in general some of the committees proposed, especially the Committee on small Businesses. Another committee deals with Government development plans. Those two committees could be amalgamated so as to reduce the number of committees overall. The Government proposes to establish a committee dealing with natural sustainable development strategy and the small businesses committee could be incorporated into that dealing with business generally. The best part of the objective of that committee is that of maximising the advantage to Ireland of environmentally sustainable policies. It will be concerned with getting a market for environmentally friendly goods and how the environmentally friendly image that we have here in Ireland can be promoted.

I am contradicting myself in saying this, but a committee could be established to deal with the environment generally, because environmental issues are more important now. The proposed Committee on the Environment is to deal with environmentally friendly production of goods, capitalising on our image here and maximising our opportunity in the market. But we have seen in numerous cases the damage that has been done to the environment through various Government policies, we have seen the discussion and controversy that has arisen in relation to environmental issues and we have seen the huge support from the public for parties which support environmental issues.

There is no proposal before us here for a committee which would deal with the environment generally. Legislation was recently enacted to establish the Environmental Protection Agency and its responsibilities were clearly defined. There is an opportunity for a committee of the Houses to look at the environment generally, to look at both the national and international issues that affect us and formulate a clear policy. At present there is no clearly defined policy in relation to many environmental matters and this has many implications for business and for the economy generally. While I am critical of the number of committees, there is no forum in which to raise some matters such as the environment and we could deal with these matters on an all-party Oireachtas committee basis.

The Committee on Women's Rights has been re-established. I compliment the members of that committee for the work they have done over the years; but in spite of that work and in spite of a large amount of EU legislation on women's issues, we still find a lack of women in the decision making process and to a very large extent that has not been remedied. Women are still at the lower end of the salary bracket, and that situation has deteriorated rather than improved over the last few years. The establishment of the committee will continue to focus the attention of the Houses of the Oireachtas on the necessity to further proceed with the elimination of discrimination against women and the encouragement of more women into decision making, whether it be in the courts or in the European institutions.

Women are underrepresented in the institutions of the European Union. It is staggering that the European Union has been to the forefront in the campaign to eliminate discrimination against women, but women are very seriously discriminated against in the Courts of Justice and in the Commission and in various other institutions of the Union. Nevertheless, this committee will offer a further opportunity to eliminate the discrimination against women in our society. I compliment the members of the former committee for the work they have done in that regard.

Overall the motion is timely. It is opportune to emphasise the necessity to further streamline and modernise our operations here. An opportunity has been afforded to members of the Parliament and others to address committees, and this is welcome. I would like to see fewer committees, less overlapping and duplication, which would lead in turn to better use of limited resources. There are complaints about limited resources in committees; and if there are too many committees, the Government will find it difficult at times to get a quorum to hold a meeting. Apart from those comments, I welcome this proposal.

Mr. Dardis

I have mixed views about the motions before us today. It is a bit like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. I do not welcome some parts of it; but, having said that, I do not envisage voting against the motion.

The committee system as it operates, and as it is proposed to be expanded, means that we will wind up with 17 committees for a membership of 225 people between both Houses of the Oireachtas. Contrast that with the situation across the water where, if I am correct, there are 38 committees standing in the Houses of Parliament at Westminster where membership of the House of Commons is 650. Membership of the House of Lords is indeterminate but a couple of hundred probably attend on a reasonably regular basis, so the ability to man those committees is much greater than it is in our case.

Is the expansion of the committee system nothing more than just a way of finding jobs for the boys and the girls? We have chairpersons and convenors who receive generous allowances. Is this just a way of compensating people for their disappointment at not reaching higher office? We already passed legislation to create two extra Ministers of State. We have a lean-to Minister to the Cabinet. He sits on the high chair at the Cabinet table and can listen but not vote. There seems to be a trend towards a creeping bureaucracy which becomes all pervasive.

This is not to say that committees are not needed; of course, they are needed. The questions arises as to whether there are too many of them and whether they could be operated more effectively. Perhaps the need for committees could be reduced if attention was given to the fundamental reform of parliamentary questions. If such questions could extract meaningful information, there might not be such a need for the committee system. It was remarked during the course of the beef tribunal, and very widely reported, that Mr. Justice Hamilton said that had questions been answered properly in the Dáil there might have been no need for the tribunal.

I have no objection to the expansion of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. There are aspects of this expansion which I welcome, two of them in particular. One is that it can engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it or a sub-committee for the purpose of particular inquiries. This is to be welcomed, as is the provision that Irish members of the European Parliament and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe can attend and be heard at the committee's meetings, even though they cannot vote. These are welcome developments and within the context of Oireachtas reform—I do not want to stray into the debate on Seanad reform which will take place later—are matters at which we could usefully look. In the previous debate on Seanad reform there was a fair degree of support for the view that MEPs and members of the European Commission would have rights of audience in and access to the House when we are debating matters relevant to EU activity.

There is provision for joint meetings with the proposed Committee on European Affairs. I am not too sure about the need for a separate Committee on European Affairs. I realise these are extremely important matters and that a great deal of detailed work has to be done in this area, but it may be more efficient to do this by the establishment of a subcommittee of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to deal with European affairs. There is provision for the establishment of such subcommittees in the proposals before us.

An important matter for the Committee on European affairs to discuss—I am assuming it will be set up, even though I think it can be questioned whether it would be better to establish a subcommittee—is the preparation for the Intergovernmental Conference in 1996. This will be crucial and very important during the coming year. We need to have a fairly coherent view about Ireland's future within Europe in terms of foreign affairs, defence and so on. These are matters the committee could tease out.

I would recommend to this committee that it should examine how Europe can be made more relevant to our citizens. Rotary clubs in Ireland run a leadership competition to send young people—24 from the North and the South went on the last occasion—to Strasbourg to visit the European Parliament and to work for a few days as if they were a parliament, with their own committees. I met a young person from Kildare who was fortunate enough to win a place on this trip. He made a very telling point by saying that European young people of his age—that is, in the mid-teens— had a much better understanding of how Europe worked and the roles of the Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament than their Irish counterparts. He believed this was because such understanding was a formal part of the educational curriculum in those countries. While he had a civics class once a week, these children were given ongoing teaching on European affairs. there has been talk about the so-called information deficit. The Committee on European Affairs could look at how we can make Europe more relevant to citizens, who are also citizens of the European Union under Maastricht.

Senator Daly made a point which I wish to reinforce and which I had intended to make. This relates to the Committee on Sustainable Development. When we read what this committee of 15 Members of Dáil Éireann and four Members of Seanad Éireann are asked to do, we need a translation of this. They are asked to identify, in prospect of the national sustainable development strategy being prepared by the Government, measures designed to maximise the advantage to Ireland of environmentally sustainable sectoral policies and, in particular, to consider, by way of case studies or otherwise, the extent of Irish participation in the growing world market for environmental goods and services and the means by which this market share can be increased and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am not sure I know what this means. Are we talking about consultancy companies which are touring the world, or will we ask The Rainbow Warrior to dock in Dublin basin so we can have a look at it? I want to reinforce the point made by Senator Daly. The environment and the maintenance of a clean environment are of such importance economically to this country that they should be the focus of the committee rather than being this woolly unspecified beast. I cannot nail down the matters with which it will be involved.

The same applies to the Committee on Small Business and Services and the Committee on the Family. I have more difficulty with these committees than with the one on European Affairs because I do not see any justification on policy grounds for their establishment and I am not sure what they will do. The Committee on Crime sat for nine months and produced a report in July 1992, which recommended that as a matter of urgency a Juvenile Justice Bill be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas but we are still waiting for it. These committees need to be focused on what they are doing so that the reports they produce will be acted on. This leads to the area of parliamentary efficiency and Oireachtas reform, which I do not want to stray into too much because I realise there is an ongoing debate on it.

I welcome the Leader's statement that a privileges and compellability Bill will be introduced at a very early date. This is at the core of the whole efficiency of committees. It is no good having them unless they have teeth, can do the job and ensure that the people they need to hear have to appear before them. There must be legislation to achieve this. We have seen the deficiencies when the Dáil Select Committee on Legislation and Security produced its report. I do not criticise it for the work it did or the report it produced, but the constraints under which it had to operate made it very difficult for committees to work effectively. Even taking into account constitutional constraints in terms of the rights of individuals attending committees, some vehicle must be found within the context of reform to ensure that committees can be effective and work well.

There is an argument that in the case of senior State appointments we should have a committee system on the lines of that in America. People should be subject to examination by a committee so that what needs to be made public about them is made public. They should be subject to public scrutiny and once they pass this they would be suitable for appointment to State positions.

Another matter which arises is the membership of the committees. It is proposed that 28 Senators sit on committees. There are ten on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, six on the Joint Committee on European Affairs, four on the Joint Committee on the Family, four on the Joint Committee on Small Business and Services and four on the Joint Committee on Sustainable Development. That amounts to nearly half the membership of the House. It is getting to the point that I wonder how it will be possible to man the committees effectively.

Having said that, it is absolutely essential that all parties and those who are not members of parties are represented on committees. The committees should represent the Houses of the Oireachtas and I do not mean on a proportional basis. If there are groups such as the Progressive Democrats, the Green Party and the Independents which offer a different perspective on the matters the committees are discussing, they should have audience at those committees. They should be at the table and they should have a vote. The difficulty is that if this is done on a strictly proportional basis, one could have up to 40 members on a committee, and that is not desirable.

I do not have a ready answer to this problem but it is essential that all opinions are articulated. My experience is that this House has always been reasonable in that respect. There are times when I and my colleague might not have the right to be heard, but the House has always been accommodating in trying to let each shade of opinion be represented and articulated.

There are three Opposition representatives on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. Due to the change in Government and size of Fianna Fáil, this excludes the Progressive Democrats from the committee, which is not desirable. Originally we were not going to have a place on the Joint Committee on European Affairs but that has been resolved and a place found. The Leader is aware of the point I am making. It is important and one with which he would agree in principle. Those of us from the minority parties or who are non-party should be adequately represented.

The question of resources has been mentioned. I can only reinforce the arguments made. It is essential that the committees are properly resourced to do their work and bring the necessary people to the meetings. There is also the question of research. In that respect it has to be acknowledged that the Opposition are at a disadvantage in terms of access to information and officials. The dynamic nature of politics in the last couple of years has brought about change on both sides of the House. Those who are now in Government can readily recognise the difficulties the Opposition confronts.

It is not just a question of providing ammunition—if I may put it in those terms—for the Opposition; it is a question of improving the level of debate and improving the input. If the committees are to work effectively, it should be on the basis of the consensus model rather than the adversarial model of parliament which we have observed in Westminster. There are lessons to be learnt from looking further afield to Europe, where politics are based very much on the consensus model. Differences can be resolved within the committees, providing a coherent approach which can go forward to Government.

There has to be some check on the Executive, because in recent years the power of the Executive is becoming totally disproportionate to the power of Parliament. I have spoken before about fundamental parliamentary democracy and the fact that the Executive increasingly seems to treat the Parliament with a degree of contempt which, in my view, is not acceptable. Frequently, we are just here to rubber stamp matters.

In fairness, both the current and former Leaders of this House valiantly attempted to prevent that from happening. At all times there was and is an attempt to reach consensus in the way we do our business. Obviously, we have our political differences and they remain fundamental at times; but a reasonable attempt has been made to accommodate some of the criticisms I made in the past.

It is desirable that lobby groups would have access to the committees. It would be far more preferable to have lobby groups brought in on a formal basis to put their case to all parties rather than have a tour of each person. In the present context there might be something to be said for that as it would prevent the type of phone calls which we have received and which I received most recently this morning.

I worry about the proliferation of committees. There is a role for them, but it has to be focused and efficient. I have made certain recommendations which I hope can be taken on board at some point. I note that Senator Manning said this would not be the last word on the issue. I was glad to hear him say that. I hope we can progress towards a more efficient Parliament and a more efficient committee system.

Mr. Manning

I thank the Senators who participated in what has been a constructive and well informed debate. It was one of the best debates to which I have had the privilege of listening for some time. I will be slightly invidious and single out Senator Roche. I do not like praising somebody in their absence, but Senator Roche's speech was one of the best speeches I have heard on parliamentary reform. I can only do him the ultimate compliment of circulating it to my students at UCD who are studying the workings of Parliament.

Every Senator made a valuable contribution. There were a number of points made from the Opposition benches with which I find myself in some agreement. The English in defining the objectives of the Joint Committee on Sustainable Development is somewhat difficult to penetrate. Clarity is certainly not the first word that springs to mind when reading the functions of that committee. There may well be a strong case for a major environmental committee and that is my honest reaction to what was said on the opposite side.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether there should be separate committees on European Affairs and Foreign Affairs and subcommittees. The important thing is, as Senator Dardis said, that it is up to us to make the rules as we go along. It is up to the committees themselves, if they find they are not working, to suggest changes. For too long we have all have waited for big brother or big sister in the Government to tell us how to organise our affairs.

A telling point made by Senator Roche, and supported by Senator Magner and others, concerned the absence of a separate budget for Parliament, leaving it to depend on the whims of the Department of Finance as to what it can or cannot do. A self confident Parliament should be the best judge of what it needs to do, how to do it and how much it will cost. Similarly, it is really up to us to say whether the committees are working, how they can be changed and to demand those changes. It is to a certain extent in our own hands and that is why I said at the beginning that this is not the last word. I hope we are at the beginning of a process of change in these Houses and that today is just a first step.

Senator Dardis raised the question of representation for smaller groups. There are formulae which are used to allocate places and these can be unfair to smaller or non-party groups. I will certainly try, at the Seanad Committee of Selection, to meet the points made by Senator Dardis as far as possible. I know I will have the support of Senator Wright and Fianna Fáil in seeking, with Senator Magner, to get the widest possible range of representation. We all know it is not always possible to please everybody, and some committees are perhaps more glamorous than others, but we will do our best.

I conclude by thanking all Members who contributed. The points of criticism as well as the points of support will be noted. I am happy that the House will support the motions.

Question put and agreed to.