Members will recall that at the select committee meeting on the last occasion some Deputies expressed reservations about the numbers of members being appointed to the select sub-committees established under the order of the Dáil on 8 June last. Deputy Doherty was of the view and he proposed that the numbers intended to be appointed were insufficient. On foot of a reasonably lengthy discussion, it was agreed that Deputy Doherty, in accordance with Standing Orders, would submit a motion to the Clerk to the Committee. He has done that and it has been circulated to members. I ask the Deputy to formally move the motion.
Membership of Select Sub-Committee on Finance: Motion
I move:
Pursuant to the order of the Dáil of 8 June which established the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, that Dáil Éireann amend Standing Order 82A(4) in regard to the select sub-committee and enlarge the membership of the select sub-committees on finance, public expenditure and the Taoiseach's Department to include all members of the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.
I second the motion.
We had quite a lengthy discussion on the last occasion. It was reasonably well ventilated. In fairness, Deputy Doherty might speak briefly on the motion.
We have discussed this at length. All I want to say is the draft schedule indicates that there will be many meetings at which members, particularly those who are on the Select Sub-Committee on the Department of the Taoiseach, would not be able to participate as full members. It is important, as we discussed last week, that the membership should be extended. I see no reason it should not be extended. As we see even from the attendance today, it will be rare when there is full attendance at these meetings and they will not become unwieldy with the number of members being the full complement of the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform.
Are there any other views?
I concur with that statement. Every member who is here today should be entitled to be a full member dealing with the issues of finance and public expenditure and reform and some members should not be excluded from full participation in the relevant sub-committees. We all would appreciate being able to engage fully on the two Departments under the remit of this committee. That is why we are asking the Dáil to amend the Standing Orders as passed on 8 June.
The Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service in the previous Dáil was made up of only 11 members and this select sub-committee will be made up of nine members, which is not a significant difference.
We should move this issue on. We cannot change it anyway because it was agreed in the Dáil. It is more important that we get down to work on the issues with which we must deal. Every member of this committee and every Member of the Dáil can still participate in the debates as they happen in this committee. We need to get down to work on this.
It is a matter of the utmost simplicity for the Dáil to vary an order of the Dáil. The Dáil proposes and the Dáil can amend. I strongly support the proposal, as I did last week. The issues that are to be under consideration by these committees are quite demanding in terms of time, etc., and this type of broader proposal will facilitate the work of the committees and the input of individuals and their parties and groups. I fail to see any reason for Government members to oppose this proposal. Were it to be agreed here, it would be a matter of a simple amendment that, if the Dáil so wished, could be taken on any morning without debate and by agreement without even a vote.
I will not rehash the contribution I made at the previous meeting. As members already have covered this ground, the motion should simply be moved. Members should make a decision and move on. This meeting is clashing with meetings of other committees of which several members also are members and it is difficult to get through the business.
While I will not support the motion, I have a certain amount of sympathy with it. It is important to realise that one reason an effort has been made to reform committees was to prevent the very point articulated by Deputy Kevin Humphreys with regard to Members having multiple membership of committees and being obliged to go here and there. If this is the case, one will find the committees will become dysfunctional in the months ahead. I am concerned that the method of breaking down the committees will merely replicate what happened in the previous Dáil, in which Members were going from one committee to another without knowing what they were at.
In conjunction with the other Chairmen, it will be important for the Chairman to monitor the new system because my concern is it might fall into the same disrepute as did the previous system. At the time, I strongly advocated and proposed the policy that each Oireachtas Member should only be a member of one committee to prevent this from happening. I am also a member of the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, which is considering Estimates at present, and in effect one ends up attending neither committee. Consequently, while I will not support the motion, I have a certain sympathy for it. Perhaps this matter should be revisited pending the future operation of the committees.
Clearly, the Government can push through this measure if it so wishes. However, if that is the case and the ultimate outcome, I suggest consideration be given to a discussion among the Chairmen of all committees through the existing process of having a Chairman of Chairmen. This group might come together to consider the workings of committees in general over the next six to eight months and then report back in a non-partisan way. Sadly, I believe today's decision will break down on party lines and I do not consider this to be helpful. Moreover, having spoken to other Members and to members of this committee in particular on this issue, they are not happy with it either. Consequently, I am unsure on what basis this process has come about. Nevertheless, members now are faced with it and must deal with it in the manner in which committees generally do. However, it is not helpful at this stage and will not be helpful on an ongoing basis.
A review should be put in place. This is not an attempt to force the Government to back down on this issue but is about finding a solution that works for all Members of the Houses. In my experience as a Member of the Oireachtas since 2002, both as a Senator and a Deputy, by and large the sabre-rattling is put away in committees and a good non-partisan approach is usually taken to their workings. I acknowledge there certainly are times when policy issues come into play and committee members get into the bunker around the point at which their respective parties stand. However, for the important issues that are to be addressed in respect of the financial sector in particular, a way around this issue should have been found. Let whatever happens today happen but I urge the Chairman to take the suggestion from this committee to the grouping of Chairmen and to try to come up with a workable solution away from the party Whips because it is not the preserve of the Government, the Opposition or anyone else to decide how best committees can work. I make this proposal to the Chairman for consideration.
That is a helpful suggestion. I have taken note of it and will take it up.
I remain sympathetic to the view expressed in the motion on the basis of my own experience. The major business before the select committee probably is the finance Bill and together with the Committee of Public Accounts, it probably now is the key Dáil committee in respect of the ongoing impact of the bailout. In the context of discussing legislation in particular, it would be good to have available the experience and talent of all committee members during, for example, debate on finance Bills. Consequently, I remain sympathetic to the view. I acknowledge the Chairman is under a certain remit because of the manner in which responsibility for public expenditure was broken away from finance. I consider it to be the same function anyway and that the committee is looking after one function. Obviously, if this is how it must be, so be it but I am sympathetic to the general view that has been expressed because when a finance committee goes through the nitty-gritty of important changes in taxation or whatever, everyone available to serve on that committee is needed.
I also am sympathetic to the motion. As for the suggestion that members might opt for the status quo before the proposal of this motion and then review the issue after six months, I believe the next six months will be critical for the country. As Deputy Broughan and others have noted, the contributions being made by the wider number of the full committee during that six months would be valuable.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Higgins, Joe.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Michael.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
Níl
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Mathews, Peter.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- White, Alex.
Question declared lost.