Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The following message had been received from Seanad Éireann:

(1) That Seanad Éireann concurs with Dáil Éireann in its Resolution communicated to Seanad Éireann on 2 June, 1983, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities) be established consisting of—

18 members of Dáil Éireann and 7 members of Seanad Éireann (none of whom shall be a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities)

(a) to examine

(i) such programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission,

(ii) such acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(iii) such regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972 (No. 27 of 1972), and

(iv) such other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities

as the Joint Committee may select and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas; and

(b) to examine the question of dual membership of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann and the European Assembly and to consider the relations between the Irish representatives in the European Assembly and Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas;

(2) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee who are unable to attend particular meetings and that members of either House, not being members of the Joint Committee, be allowed to attend meetings and to take part in the proceedings without having a right to vote;

(3) That representatives in the Assembly of the European Communities, who are also members of either House, be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in proceedings without having a right to vote;

(4) That the Joint Committee shall, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, have power to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purpose of particular enquiries;

(5) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman who shall have only one vote;

(6) That all questions in the Joint 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;

(7) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit; and

(8) That five members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann."

Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. J. Bruton)

I move:

(1) That a Select Committee consisting of 18 members of Dáil Éireann (none of whom shall be a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities) be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities

(a) to examine

(ii) such acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(iii) such regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972 (No. 27 of 1972), and

(iv) such other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities

as the Joint Committee may select and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas; and

(2) That in the absence from a particular meeting of the Joint Committee of a member who is a member of Dáil Éireann, another member of Dáil Éireann nominated by the Party to which the absent member belongs may take part in the proceedings and vote in his stead: and that members of Dáil Éireann, not being members of the Joint Committee, may attend meetings and take part in the proceedings without having a right to vote;

(3) That members of Dáil Éireann who are representatives in the Assembly of the European Communities be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in proceedings without having a right to vote;

(5) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman who shall have only one vote;

(8) That five members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann."

In moving this and other motions before the House today, I am honouring the commitment given in the Programme for Government to reform our parliamentary institutions to make them relevant and effective. You may recall it was promised that:

The Committee system will be greatly extended. In addition to Committees already in existence, others will be established to provide a debate on the main areas of public policy in an atmosphere that would be much less party political than that which exists in debates held on the floor of the Dáil.

I am also responding to the debate which we had here in January and February on the subject of Dáil reform when the House resolved that its proceedings should be reformed to improve efficiency and its control over the public finances.

I would like, at this stage, to acknowledge formally the helpful role played by the Opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, in the advancement of Dáil reform in general and these new committees in particular. Over the past few months there have been numerous contacts between the Whips, Deputy Seán Barrett, Minister of State, and Deputy Bertie Ahern, and between the Leader of the Opposition and myself. All our discussions were carried out in a friendly and helpful atmosphere. The House will be aware that the Opposition have proposed the establishment of further Oireachtas committees, details of which are on our Order Paper as Private Members' motions. I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that the Government are giving urgent detailed consideration to these proposals and it is my intention to have the Government's formal response in the near future.

In moving to establish the Committee on Public Expenditure the Government are aiming directly to improve the method by which the Dáil exercises its responsibility in the voting of public money. The new Dáil Committee on Public Expenditure will complement the work of the existing Committee on Public Accounts and will involve Dáil Deputies to a much greater extent than in the past in reviewing the effectiveness of and justification for ongoing programmes of public expenditure. The committee will not be directly concerned with the annual Estimates process but with the longer term review of spending programmes in any area of public expenditure they so choose. It is open to them to look at, for example, the operation of the health service, in terms of the level of health care received for the money spent, in a given period, say, the last five years.

The committee will be able to propose cost effective alternatives which will meet the objectives of Government policy but in a manner which uses less public money, which means less taxpayers' money. While I have used the health service here by way of illustration, there are many areas of public expenditure which can be selected by this new committee. On completion of one review, the committee would report to the Dáil and then move on to another area of expenditure. As I will indicate it will be possible for it to be conducting more than one inquiry at once because the committee will be able to operate by way of sub-committee if it sees fit. It would be my hope that after five years or so, the Public Expenditure Committee would have reviewed the major areas of Government spending so that a reasonably regular scrutiny of all expenditure by elected representatives will become a permanent feature of political life in the country.

To enable the committee to provide themselves with the necessary information needed to do their work, provision has been made for them to hire consultants or other specialists to assist them. At present much of the information that comes to Members of this House about the operation of public bodies, comes from either the public bodies themselves or through the medium of the civil service. The availability of specialists will act as a counter-balance to the standard information flow. While the committee are being given a general power to hire consultants to assist their work I hope that they will use this power sparingly owing to cost implications. It is my belief that the committee will be able to obtain much information on a voluntary basis from public spirited individuals who will be happy to put facts before the committee. In the House of Commons in Westminster it has been found that much useful information is given to select committees by academics and other experts in this way. This would help to reduce the expense of providing consultancy services.

An important feature of this committee is that much of their work will be done in public. Meetings will be held in public and evidence will be given in public. Obviously, when the committee are deliberating a report they may wish to do so in private but as far as evidence is concerned, I would hope that the committee would see fit not to move into private session except where this is absolutely necessary. It is very important that the public be aware of the valuable committee work of Dáil Deputies in this area.

Specifically included in the terms of reference is the review of expenditure by non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. While the commercial State-sponsored bodies are catered for by a Joint Committee of both Houses, the performance of State agencies in the non-commercial field has not previously been the subject of systematic Oireachtas review. It is my intention that the Public Expenditure Committee will either directly, or more likely by way of sub-committee, review the operations of non-commercial State-sponsored bodies either individually or as part of an overall review of a particular area of Government spending.

Following discussions with the Leader of the Opposition, I have amended the terms of reference of the Committee in relation to the examination of non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. Where previously the term "non-commercial State-sponsored Bodies" was used the term "State-Sponsored Bodies not included in the Schedule to the Order establishing the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies" has been substituted. This change makes the distinction — sought by the Leader of the Opposition — between the work of the two committees in relation to State-sponsored bodies more clear and takes account of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition in this regard.

In addition to the hiring of consultants, the committee will be empowered to send for persons, papers and records to assist them in their work. Another significant provision is the presentation of an annual progress report to the Dáil by the committee on its activities and plans. This will allow the Dáil to monitor the work of the committee and to know of the future plans of the committee. Such an annual assessment is necessary in view of the longer-term nature of the work of the committee.

I will move separately a motion providing that reports of the Committee on Public Expenditure will be automatically debated in this House within a specific period after their presentation. For too long committee reports—once produced after considerable effort—have tended to be lodged in the Library and not considered by the House. The reports of the Public Expenditure Committee may be very relevant in providing new thinking on the way in which we organise our public spending. When such a debate takes place in this House a suitable opportunity will be available for all Members to discuss issues which intimately affect the lives of our people. Furthermore, the report of the Committee on Public Expenditure will provide a direct Parliamentary influence on the central question of the provision of public services.

Once this committee is established, it is very important that it sets out for itself a basic plan of its activities for the coming years. It should also examine the arrangements for its meetings so that the public can best be informed of its work.

As I mentioned earlier, I intend to review the operations of this committee in about one year's time. As with all experiments, it cannot be expected that all will go exactly as planned. However, the major and most difficult step is now being taken and only improvements can follow.

Before moving on to the other committees I should like to mention one which I had hoped would be discussed here today along with the new ones being discussed now—the Committee on Public Expenditure about which I have just been speaking, the Committee on Legislation and the Committee on Small Businesses — that is the Committee on Women's Affairs. The House will probably be aware that there have been——

Mr. Haughey

Women's Rights.

Mr. J. Bruton

——discussions between the Opposition and the Government on this matter. This is motion No. 10 on today's Order Paper in the name of the Minister of State, Deputy Nuala Fennell. I understand that the Opposition have some suggestions to make in this regard. Following discussions with the Opposition Whip this morning it was decided that it would be best if we could take these into account in framing the final motion to be presented to the House.

Therefore, it has not been possible to proceed with that committee today. But it is the intention to proceed with it this day week, when Deputy Fennell will be moving it. I am sure that she will be anxious — as will be the Government — to take into account the suggestions of the Opposition in regard to their terms of reference which I understand will be constructive, as have been their suggestions in respect of the other committees.

If I may turn now to the Joint Committee on Legislation. I am aware of the consensus which exists in this House regarding the need for improvements in the legislative process. This consensus was clearly illustrated in the many valuable contributions made by Deputies in the debate on Dáil reform earlier this year.

The primary function of this committee is to modify various aspects of the legislative process by improving the method of input of Members of this House and of the Seanad and by providing for greater participation in the legislative process by the general public. What is notable in the functions of this committee is the proposal that investigative hearings in public will be a regular feature of its work. The committee will have power to invite written and, if considered necessary, oral representations from individuals and interest groups outside the Oireachtas on Bills or other legislative proposals referred to it; a legislative proposal could include, for example, draft heads of a Bill as well as the circulation of the Bill itself.

I envisage this aspect of the terms of reference of the new committee as being a major step forward in reforming the legislative process. It will pave the way towards the establishment of a direct link between those formulating and processing legislation and those members of the public who will be affected by it when enacted. In assimilating the views of outside parties and in presenting the results of these hearings in its report to both Houses, the committee will provide Members with valuable information which will be of help to them in their assessment of the legislative measure. The terms of reference provide that a Bill or other legislative proposal, other than measures relating to the budget, can only be referred to the Joint Committee on Legislation with the consent of a member of the Government. However, it is my hope that the work of the committee, over the next year or so, will prove to be of such value that the selection of Bills for public examination ultimately will devolve to the committee itself. It is envisaged that consultation will take place between Government and Opposition before any Bill or other legislative proposal is referred to the committee for the taking of evidence or for a public hearing under paragraph (1) (a) of the motion establishing the committee.

It is my concern that the role of the backbench Deputy be given its due recognition and importance. Central to the success of representative democracy is the level at which Deputies make known the interest of the public which they represent. Accordingly, provision is being made that, subject to the prior approval of the committee, any Member of either House who wishes to do so will be able to participate fully in any investigative hearings.

Perhaps I might amplify that. Obviously the committee will be holding hearings on a wide range of legislation in respect of some of which there will be members who will be particularly specialised. One value of this procedure— whereby a Member other than a member of the Committee on Legislation can participate in the hearings — for example, will be to allow the spokesman of the Opposition Party to participate in the hearings on a Bill which affects his area of responsibility, even though he might not be an actual member of that committee. Naturally enough, there will have to be some control on such activity, hence discretion is given to the committee in this matter as to who they should allow participate in addition to their normal membership.

The opinion has been expressed in this House that if in the past we had outside contributions to the legislative process of the type envisaged some of the laws on our Statute Book would be somewhat different in detail and workings and somewhat better. There are few Deputies who would disagree with this, and I believe that the Joint Committee on Legislation, through the investigative hearing process, will help to make for better law in the future.

The new committee will combine the functions of the existing Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and the Seanad Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is, I think, important that a consolidation of our committee system should carry with it a streamlining of the functions of other committees. While it was the intention to incorporate the functions as well of the Committees on Private Bills in the new Legislative Committee, the issues involved here are very complex and arise only once or twice every five years or so. Accordingly, those functions, that is the ones in regard to Private Bills, will remain separate from the new committee.

In adopting the functions of the Seanad Committee on Statutory Instruments, the new committee will be fulfilling an extremely important function in its own right. However, many Deputies have expressed a sense of dissatisfaction as to the validity of a committee which reviews the making of statutory instruments but which only has power — as is the case with statutory instruments at present — to accept or reject the instrument. Under our present procedures amendments cannot be recommended. I believe that the practice of rejecting a total instrument which may be unacceptable in one article only is an archaic and unnecessary one. This is why the new committee, in addition to the power to recommend annulment, are being given power to recommend amendments. The committee will also be in a position to require written and oral submissions from the Department or instrument-making authority involved so as to aid them in their consideration.

The Joint Committee on Legislation will also have a function in examining and reporting to both Houses their opinion on the reports of the Law Reform Commission. In including this provision in their terms of reference, I have sought to provide a forum in the Oireachtas in which law reform matters can be considered. The type of assessment and subsequent reporting will lead us inevitably to the point where various reports and recommendations of the commission will be put to the use for which they are intended, namely, as the basis for the formulation of legislation.

The terms of reference also include the general function that the committee keep the law under review and bring forward proposals for law reform. This would be normal for such a committee and will enable members of the committee to look at matters which they may consider relevant beyond what has been considered by the Law Reform Commission to date.

Under the proposals for the Joint Committee it will be possible to combine both the Dáil and Seanad Committee Stages of a Bill. This provision will not, of course, apply to Money Bills. The advantage which such a system will confer is that, in particular with highly technical Bills, a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Legislation can act instead of a Committee Stage on the floor of the Dáil and Seanad. Both Houses will then be able to consider the measure again in Report Stage. However, nothing in this resolution will prevent this House or the Seanad from exercising its right to have its own Committee Stage if it sees fit. It will only be with the agreement of both Houses that the Joint Committee on Legislation will deal with Committee Stage of any particular Bill. This provision should not alone expedite legislation but will permit serious technical consideration of a measure outside the time constraints which can exist in both Houses.

As a rider to the proposal that the Joint Committee deal with the Third Stage of certain Bills, it has been provided that either the Minister or Minister of State responsible for any proposal under examination will be an ex officio member of the committee for that purpose. In addition, the committee will be able to draw on the special expertise of individual Deputies for detailed Committee Stage examination of Bills as provision is made for the participation of any Member of either House in this process.

There is a general power included in the terms of reference for the appointment of sub-committees. This will enable the committee to divide up their work on a rational basis, appointing sub-committees to deal with the Third Stage of Bills, other sub-committees to deal with specific investigative hearings, others to deal with law reform, others to deal with statutory instruments. However, all reports of sub-committees will be submitted to the Dáil via the Joint Committee.

Finally, I would expect that Members will co-operate and participate fully in the operations of this committee. I believe that it has the potential to be the agent of very significant reform in our parliamentary institutions. It is my intention that the committee will operate initially on an experimental basis and that Members will have a full opportunity to debate the usefulness of the committee in their operations after a period of, say, 12 months.

Finally, I wish to refer to the Joint Committee on Small Business. The Programme for Government provides for the establishment of a committee of the Dáil and Seanad to assist in the development of the small business sector of the economy, and make such recommendations as they think necessary. This committee will comprise nine Members of the Dáil and seven Members of Seanad Éireann.

The experience worldwide is that small firms show greater adaptability and resilience than many larger firms to the vicissitudes of the business and trade cycles. Members of the Oireachtas are now being given the opportunity to apply their collective talents and wisdom to the question of developing a more dynamic small industry sector in Ireland. In particular I would envisage that the committee will devote their time to: an assessment of the performance of the small business sector; the identification of obstacles to small business development; and the development of recommendations for new policies and programmes.

The terms of reference have been constructed in such a way as to allow the committee the widest possible scope in their deliberations on the small business sector and to come forward with proposals on many areas crucial to the development of this sector. Deputies are being asked to put forward proposals in respect of the development of Irish small industry which, despite its progress to date, still lags behind that in other member states of the EEC.

At present there are 5,500 manufacturing companies in Ireland. Of these 82 per cent are small firms employing up to 50 people. Medium sized firms, 50-200 employees, account for 14 per cent with the balance of 4 per cent being accounted for by large firms employing 200 workers or more.

Following the launch on a pilot basis in 1967, the IDA's Small Industry Programme was extended nationwide in 1969. In 1978 SFADCo were given a special mandate for the intensive development of small industry in the mid-west region. The regime of State assistance has been adapted and modified throughout these years to respond to the growing and varied needs of the small industry sector and the increasing entrepreneurial skills of Irish management. In 1978 the Enterprise Development Programme was introduced and additional incentives in the form of loan guarantees and interest subsidies were made available for first-time entrepreneurs possessing managerial and technical skills who had not formerly owned a business of their own. More recent developments include the assignment of a small industry specialist to each of the IDA's regional offices and the initiation of a new concentrated small industry programme on a pilot basis in Cork city and the non-designated areas of the country.

I would expect that the proposals which the committee will bring forward will be well developed — merely putting down what might be laudable objectives will not represent progress. Accordingly thought and effort will be required of each committee member.

A brief word now about the terms of reference of the committee. The situation has developed where for administrative expediency the definition of small industry in Ireland differs between State agency and State agency and between official and private industrial organisations. A need for a common set of criteria is apparent.

I am particularly conscious that the successful development of first-time enterprises is strongly influenced by the ability of the entrepreneur to receive the necessary loan finance on attractive terms for either working capital or fixed asset investment. I am not altogether happy that the banking community adopt the right approach to the provision of loan finance for industry. While it must be recognised that the banks have a responsibility to their shareholders, they also have a wider responsibility to the community, particularly in these recessionary times, to act as a catalyst for the promotion of enterprise. The time has come for an abandonment of the traditional conservative approach to the provision of finance for "risk" enterprises. I am at present engaged in discussions with the banks about the possibility of providing venture capital type finance for industry. I have also met the Stock Exchange in this regard.

The importance of research and development and innovation in industry cannot be overstressed. It is imperative that the necessary mechanisms and incentives should be available here in order to ensure that Irish small business can participate in any financing scheme proposed at EEC level.

Ireland is highly dependent on exports for continued economic growth and, accordingly, it is necessary that the range of export finance schemes already available be fine-tuned to ensure that Irish small business will not be hampered from benefiting from the export opportunities arising from the upturn in the world economy predicted for later this year.

I am particularly conscious that, in addition to attracting overseas investment, future wealth and job creation will depend to a large extent on the exploitation of the opportunities for linkages between indigenous small industry and the medium and large overseas industries attracted to locate in Ireland.

The potential of the sector cannot be fully utilised if the management structure of companies is not adequate to the challenge facing industry in the present competitive environment. Management retraining schemes will form a crucial part of any successful development effort in this sector in the coming decade.

The Minister for Finance is establishing a Committee of Inquiry which is to recommend a simplified tax regime for family businesses. The House would, no doubt, welcome the Joint Committee's observations on this work.

Finally, it is particularly appropriate that this Joint Committee should be established in 1983 — the year designated by the European Parliament as the year of the small and medium-sized enterprise.

Before concluding I should like to draw the attention of the House to the following printing errors which occur on the Order Paper:

Motion No. 7, column 2464, paragraph 7, should read:

That any Member of either House may attend and be heard in the proceedings of the Joint Committee or a sub-committee in relation to a matter comprehended by paragraph (1) (a) subject to the prior consent of the Joint Committee.

The word "due" was placed here in error.

Motion No. 9, column 2467, paragraph 5, should read:

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

The paragraph as it appears on the Order Paper does not make sense.

Motion No. 9, column 2,467, paragraph 6 should read:

"Resolution" in place of "Order" in line 3.

This is only an expediency motion, the order for the Small Business Committee will come around after the Seanad has discussed the expediency motion.

I should like to thank all those who have been of assistance in getting the process of Dáil reform this far. Already I expressed my appreciation of the constructive approach adopted by the Opposition in the many consultations I have had with them. I spoke of the Government's anxiety to look constructively at the proposals which the Opposition recently made in this area. The House and the country at large may not be aware that considerable progress has been made in other matters and, of course, proposals for Dáil reform are also proceeding in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That committee are now meeting on a weekly basis to consider various proposals to improve and to streamline the procedures of the House. There has been a positive and constructive attitude in the committee towards the proposals in relation to these committees. The extent of the valuable committee work this House already does is greatly underestimated. That work will now be enhanced by the broadening of the scope provided for in these committees.

It is my earnest hope that it will be possible for the various media, press and otherwise, to give suitable prominence to the work of the committees, to show the very valuable role being played by public representatives and the role that will be played by them to an extended degree in the future as members of the new committees to be established. As the House is aware it is the intention of the Government in due course, after consultation with other parties in the House, to introduce broadcasting here. I do not wish to prejudge matters but it will be discussed in due time. I am not making this a substantive issue now. I merely say that it would be of assistance in drawing attention and public notice to the valuable work Deputies already do on committees as well as here in the House.

Mr. Haughey

We on this side of the House wish to give qualified, cautious approval to these committees which the Government are proposing to establish. That approval is subject to some particular conditions which I and my colleagues will mention later. We are anxious to discharge our role as a constructive Opposition. In that regard we recognise the enthuasism of this Minister for the committee system, which he now intends to expand greatly. His personal enthuasism is perhaps the explanation for the fact that as Minister for Industry and Energy it is he who is bringing these proposals before us. One would have thought that at the present time the Minister would have a full briefcase of work as Minister for Industry and Energy, particularly in view of the unemployment situation, and that the area of Dáil reform would be left to somebody else. However, we accept that he has taken a personal interest in this and we are quite happy to accept that these proposals should be put forward by him.

I want to make it very clear what our specific concern is because as usual attempts have been made to misinterpret our position. Indeed, I understand that this morning on a radio programme a fairly definite attempt was made to misconstrue our approach to this exercise by the Minister——

Mr. J. Bruton

By me?

Mr. Haughey

No. It was a radio programme dealing with our attitude and our response to the Minister's proposals. A very well-known programme presenter does not very often hesitate to misinterpret Fianna Fáil's position on any issue, if he can do so. As the Opposition, we want any innovation to make this House more effective to succeed, and it is precisely because we want any new departure to succeed that we are voicing concern and reservation about these proposals. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that our approach has been a constructive one. The Minister has been entirely co-operative in coming to the Opposition and explaining to us what he has in mind and justifying his different proposals.

It is simply because we want to make sure that anything done in this House will be done to improve it and not to its detriment that we want to make sure that if there are to be committees they will work and function effectively and efficiently. That is why in all conscience we have to voice some serious reservations about the proposals—more to the extent of the Minister's proposals than the quality of them. If all the committees the Government have proposed to date, plus our committees, were to be set up there would be 20 committees. I will deduct from that the Committee of Selection, that peculiarly routine mechanical committee which do not have any great significance or importance. That would leave us with 19 committees. You could take an average attendance of ten members and that means that 190 Deputies and Senators would be involved. If all the quorums were to be supplied by Deputies, and you have to envisage that because of the nature of the Seanad, you would have 190 Deputies attending committees, and when you take out the Government and the Ministers of State there are only about 130 Deputies left. In all seriousness, I think the Minister must have a suspicion that he is overloading the committee system.

It has been my experience, and it is a practical common-sense experience over a reasonably long period of years in this House, that it is not an easy matter to get these committees to function. I know a lot of commentators and people who do not know the realities think this is a wonderful system which will solve all our problems. I know, and many of my colleagues know, that the problem is to get Deputies to man these committees once they are established. That is a very genuine worry I have. I would have preferred to see a programme whereby a limited number of committees would be established and we would get them under way and working effectively and efficiently and then move on to one or two more and so on. I fear that the Minister in his enthusiasm may be proceeding with this system in a way which, in the end, will not be entirely satisfactory.

The question of the press and publicity is very important. Our newspapers, because of the many constraints and burdens on them, find it very difficult to service this House as it sits from day to day. For instance, Private Members' Time is very rarely adequately reported. By the time Private Members' Time comes around in the evening, whatever sort of staffing arrangements the newspapers and RTE have, very often there is only one member of the press on the Gallery, presumably taking notes for all of his colleagues. That is a regrettable fact. I am not blaming anybody for it, but it is a sample outcome of the workings of this House and the demands it makes on the press that only a limited amount of our affairs can be fully and adequately reported.

Now we are going to have a large number of committees which, I understand, should be available to the press. I doubt very much if the press will be able to give these committees the coverage we would all like to see and which will be essential if they are to operate efficiently and in the way we would like and if they are going to be able to make the contributions we would all like them to make.

Those are two fairly practical aspects of these proposals which I do not think the Minister has fully adverted to at this stage and I fear the whole proposal may not be as effective as we would all wish it to be for that reason. My personal view is that this Chamber is the place where we should do our political business. I accept that in some limited areas, which are of a non-party nature, a joint committee can do useful work but, by and large, the real political debate and discussion, in my view, should take place in this House and be fully reported to the general public. In so far as the superfluity of these committees would seem to encroach on that basic principle to which I adhere, then I am somewhat unhappy about them.

Basically decisions have to be taken by the Government. Those of us who have been in Government know that is the reality. We can get things examined by interdepartmental committees, or committees of this House or committees of any other sort, but the running of the country, particularly the running of the economy, is a matter for clear hard decisions by the Government. I do not want us to indulge in some sort of self-deception that by setting up these committees we are going to avoid the hard crunch difficult decisions because they have been discussed in some committee perhaps on a non-party basis. I want to make the point that it is the business of the Government to govern and it is the business of the Government to take the executive decisions that have to be taken, and that we should not think for one moment that we are going to obviate that hard central need by establishing these committees.

There is another aspect about which I worry, although perhaps with all-party consultation and a reasonably intelligent and mature approach we can get over this difficulty. We in the Opposition, and I am sure the Government backbenchers too, find the procedures in this House restrictive from time to time. We try to shuffle off those restrictions as best as we can through one sort of subterfuge or parliamentary device or another, but nevertheless they are there. The very nature of our business means we must have rules and regulations and we must have debates confined within particular limits. I am afraid these committees may restrict the freedom of Deputies either on the Opposition benches or the Government backbenches rather than the reverse. I could very easily envisage a situation developing where Ministers being questioned will take refuge in the answer that that matter is being discussed, has been referred to such and such a committee and that he is awaiting the outcome of the committee. I want to tell the younger Members of this House that I have seen that happen; in fact, I would go so far as to say that I might have been guilty on the Government benches of resorting to that device from time to time. Unless we are very careful, with 19 committees operating, it could very seriously restrict the scope of debate and Question Time in this House.

These are aspects which I feel may not have been fully adverted to by the Minister and the Government. I would like to mention briefly the status of the different committees as we see them now. The Committee of Selection, the Committee of Procedures and Privileges and the Committee of Public Accounts have been established and are operating. The process of establishing the Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, the Committee on Secondary Legislation of the EEC and the Joint Services Committee are before us today for the final stamp of approval. I do not intend to take up the time of the House talking about them because we have more or less accepted them. The Minister is proposing de novo the Committee on Public Expenditure, the Committee on Legislation and the Committee on Small Businesses. I want to say a few brief words about them.

I do not know that the Committee on Legislation will be very valuable but I would not be strong enough in my view to oppose it. It is one of the committees to which I give qualified approval but I would emphasise that our agreement to this committee is very much on the basis that the reference of any particular piece of legislation to this committee will be by agreement. The Minister has gone a fair way to meet me in that regard, but I am not happy that he has gone far enough.

What I would like to see developing is a situation whereby the reference of a piece of legislation to the Committee on Legislation would be by agreement with the Opposition in the same way as the Business of the House is agreed from day to day. We are entitled to that. If we proceed on those lines the Committee on Legislation will work much better than it otherwise would.

I want to put that reservation very strongly to the Minister. We feel he should give us a more clear affirmation of his acceptance of the principle that Bills, and particularly important Bills, can be referred to this committee only by agreement between the parties. Otherwise legislation of very keen political interest could be shuffled off to one of these committees and perhaps the political confrontation which should take place would not necessarily take place.

The Committee on Expenditure worries me a little because I am not quite sure how it will operate. The Minister kindly accepted one of my proposals with regard to the terms of reference, although he did not accept the other. I am not too happy about the terms of reference. I would have preferred them to be much broader in their import. I wonder has the Minister clearly thought out the need for this committee as a separate committee from the Committee of Public Accounts. Traditionally the Committee of Public Accounts has had a historic role. It looks at expenditure after that expenditure has been undertaken. It examines that expenditure to see whether or not it has been justified and properly undertaken.

Apparently this committee will be looking at ongoing Government expenditure. Would it not be possible to combine the two functions? Let us look again at the practicalities. Apparently the secretary of a Department and his panoply of officials will go to the Committee of Public Accounts and give all the explanations and justifications for items of historic expenditure. The same set of officials will go to another committee where they will be asked to justify and elaborate on current expenditure. I am not too sure that this division needs to be made, because even the expenditure which is examined by the Committee of Public Accounts in an historic context is still ongoing. Perhaps that is something that could be looked at: whether or not this new Committee on Expenditure should not be merged with the Committee of Public Accounts, with one committee being given a mandate to review all expenditure historic, ongoing and future.

There again I should like to enter a caveat and ask: who ultimately is responsible for expenditure? Are not the Government? Take an item of expenditure on the health services. Is it not really a function of the Government whether that expenditure should be engaged in? Are not the Government ultimately responsible to the House and to the people for that expenditure? I wonder is this committee being placed in an invidious and unreal position if it is being asked to take decisions on ongoing Government expenditure. I suppose only time will tell whether this committee will meet the Minister's expectations. My own view is that it will be very difficult indeed to get a quorum to attend a meeting of this committee.

I have no great faith in the Minister's Small Businesses Committee, as he knows. Any average sized businessman could give a very quick answer about his problems and difficulties today. He would almost certainly say the cause was Government interference at every level of his business and the fact that he is completely burdened with impositions from the Government in one shape or another, from taxation to the filling in of forms, and a whole battery of what he sees as interference by the Government or the local authorities with his capacity to run his own business as he would like to run it.

Mr. J. Bruton

Quite right.

Mr. Haughey

We have a Committee on Building Land which is operating. We have agreed to it. There is probably a social need to look into that. I do not see why the Government could not have done what Deputy Kelly suggested and taken a decision on it in its own right. The Committee on Marital Breakdown is the subject of discussion between ourselves and the Government at the moment. I am quite optimistic that that committee can come into being without any undue difficulty or undue delay.

The Committee on Women's Rights is another committee which we are prepared to accept in principle. We would like to have some discussion with the Government people concerned on the exact terms of reference. I do not think we will have any great difficulty about that committee either. The Committee on Development Co-operation is also on the way. Subject to some doubts about the efficacy of these committees in some cases, and some doubts about their usefulness in others, we are prepared to go along with the Government. The Government seem to be committed to this process and, despite our very serious reservations, we are prepared to give this process a reasonable trial.

Our committees must get serious consideration from the Government. I should like it to be clearly understood that our agreement to accept the general scheme of committees proposed by the Minister is totally dependent on the Government meeting us in a very substantial way in regard to the committees we propose. We believe that a number of the committees we propose are far more appropriate than some of the ones the Government have proposed, and are certainly more relevant to present day circumstances and very real present day problems.

I do not think I need to justify the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. The Committee on Marine Affairs will be widely welcomed. There is a great area there which needs to be looked at on a non-party basis. The same applies to the Committee on Science and Technology. If we are to have a committee system, these are the sort of areas which should be the subject of an all-party approach in joint committees. I personally am very keen on seeing the Heritage Committee established and also the Committee on Arts and Culture. Very good positive work could be done by different Members of the House coming together on those committees.

The other two we propose are agriculture and energy and natural resources. That is the sort of structure we see as appropriate. Our whole agreement to this process being proposed here today depends on the Government meeting us very fairly and in a very substantial way on the seven committees we have put forward.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I welcome the efforts made to bring about this reform of the House. I congratulate the Minister on responding so quickly to the debate which took place some weeks ago on the whole question of this House being involved in a committee system. I welcome that departure to the extent that it is a departure. Instead of setting up a committee to see how it will function, the Minister seems to be suggesting that we should go much further than that and put greater emphasis on a committee system. The numbers of committees which are being set up seem to indicate that. I have no fault to find with that. These committees are welcome and will, in due course, benefit the House.

We have been complaining for a long time that legislation comes through the civil service and that Deputies and Senators do not have an input into it at the pre-legislative stage. We are approaching a stage where Deputies and Senators, in most cases, will have an input, by way of making reports and examinations, to legislation. As elected representatives that should be a modern function of Parliament.

Much criticism, some of which is justified, has been made about there being only four or five Deputies in the Chamber. I often wonder what the people who report this kind of thing expect. Do they think there should be 168 Members sitting here from 10.30 a.m. until 10.30 p.m.? The whole role of a Deputy must be re-examined. If anybody came in here and saw 168 Members sitting from early morning until late at night there should then be criticism because the function of a public representative is not wholly exercised by sitting in this House. There are monitors in all the Deputies' rooms where we can listen to debates. I was listening to the Minister's introductory remarks on this debate and that is what brought me into the House. No one even mentioned that aspect of debates, and criticism has been exaggerated. Of course there is justified criticism which, unfortunately, is often included in an overall criticism which is not justified. We can get away with the wrongs we do by defending the inaccurate comments which have been made.

I am a member of the Committee on Public Accounts. I was also a member of the outgoing committee and it is a worth-while one. It has an audit function by reporting to the House on expenditure which has been made. I think it should not have a management function which should seek to examine expenditure before it is made. It should examine the accuracy of expenditure which has been made. This is the difference between the Committee on Public Expenditure and the Committee on Public Accounts. It would be a mistake, contrary to what the last speaker said, to amalgamate these committees because there is a definable difference between their functions. The Committee on Public Accounts has a very special function to play and that should be protected.

I have a question on the Order Paper to the Minister for Justice asking him to consider setting up a committee on crime. I did not raise it when we were debating the reform of this House and no other——

Mr. J. Bruton

The Deputy did raise it.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Did I? Thank you. I do not recall raising it. No other Deputy raised it at that time and it is down as a question to the Minister for Justice. I hope the Government will accede to this request. It would be a very worth-while committee but, unfortunately, has not been included in Government proposals. I hope that when we are dealing with questions to the Department of Justice next week the leader of the House will have consulted the Minister for Justice and that there will be a positive response to this. There should be a committee on crime because of the serious problems in this area. However, I will not go into the matter now as it would be more appropriate on a debate about the Department of Justice.

The Committee on Public Expenditure is one of the more important committees which the Minister is proposing to set up. I suspect, in common with many other representatives and members of the public, that there is a lack of care in the spending of public funds. It is true that we are not as careful in spending public money as we are with our own finances. That is understandable but, for far too long, expenditure in the public service has been allowed to continue unchecked. We have now reached the point of saturation in taxation and we must be very careful to see that we are getting value for money and that the State is not being taken for a ride in its public expenditure. There is room for improvement and it should be examined on a factual basis. I regret that the Minister has not gone the whole hog and appointed an expenditure commissioner to work with this committee because it would benefit the committee and the House if such a person were appointed. I know the Minister has considered this in the past. We cannot change everything overnight but this suggestion is worthy of consideration.

We are spending vast sums of public funds and we are the people who vote that expenditure. We are elected and given a mandate on behalf of the people whose hard earned money this is. There should be more control and answerability regarding that expenditure. As the people who supply those funds we must be satisfied that they are being spent in worth-while areas. We should be trying to find out if the money is spent wisely. It is the taxpayers' money and they must know how it is being spent. Many sections in Government Departments feel they must spend the money allocated or they will not get it the following year. The reverse should be the case and there should be incentives within the civil service to save, not by skimping on worthwhile schemes but by cutting down on waste. We should give much thought to this in these difficult times of constraints.

For far too long we in this House have been apologising to all sorts of people for our existence. It is time that we stopped this nonsense. We went through rough times to be elected and anyone else wishing to be elected to Parliament should go through the same tough times. We have been bending the knee to trade unionists, journalists and pressure groups and this must stop. It is part and parcel of the problems of Parliament that we have allowed ourselves to be at the beck and call of everybody. We have been afraid to stand up and be counted, but we must be determined to do this. It is not easy to become elected to this House and even more difficult to stay elected. Many of us take the job seriously and work very hard and it is time we told those who want to run the country that they should stand for Parliament. We should put right the wrongs of Parliament and should not apologise for being here. We are here to do a public service and to do it to the best of our ability. No other profession would stand up to the examination we undergo but it must be a proper examination. No other profession would work the long hours, take the abuse or make the effort. We have to put up with abuse, much of it manufactured and unearned. I have absolutely no complaint against fair and balanced criticism, and criticism which goes beyond that. However, if it is totally manufactured and people are facilitated in manufacturing it by access to this House, we must take the matter seriously.

Would the Minister consider the matter of contempt of committees? What would happen, for instance, if someone is called as a witness — say, a senior manager in a public service company or some other witness, and he does not give accurate information to the committee or resists reasonable questions put by the committee? What powers of censure will the committee have in such matters? I suggest that they should be given reasoned and balanced powers to cope with this situation.

Within this Chamber, Members are becoming increasingly more inaudible. When we are in recess, I hope the Minister will take the necessary steps to ensure that that is put right. However, I shall not make a meal of that point.

We have had much criticism from Members of the House about the scandal of ministerial pensions. That is not relevant to this debate, but we are appointing a number of chairmen of committees. These people will be asked to take on extra responsibilities and extra work. In no other section of the public service or private enterprise would that be asked without remunerative reward. According to the procedure of this House, a Member of 40 years' service cannot get service pay or one penny more than someone like myself who has been in the House for only two years. That is not very fair. A Minister in Opposition who gets a small pension could be given an increment in this way. This is open to misinterpretation and there is a peculiar element, not always outside this House, who deliberately misinterpret such matters for their own short-term benefit. It is time we examined the matter. I ask for no special privileges for Members of this House, but do not want them to have any special disadvantages either. Time and time again, Members are asked to carry burdens and accept standards which no self-respecting trade union leader or member would accept. It is time we said that we are not going to accept them either. The Minister should give consideration to rewarding chairmen of the committees and, if necessary, providing staff for these chairmen from existing civil servants. We have no need to engage additional staff.

We are moving more into the line of full-time parliamentarians and I welcome that. We have moved away from the time when there was a night shift in the House when the Four Courts closed down and then it became a club. This Parliament is becoming more representative of the people. It has become increasingly difficult for working class people or people without another source of income to become a Member of this House or to compete as such. I want to see a full-time Parliament which is respected and has self-respect. It is time we stood up for ourselves. We must become involved in this extra work and represent what we should represent. We should work for those for whom we should work. We should be properly facilitated, remunerated and staffed to do that work. When we are examining the whole question of committees, we should deal with a number of these questions — for instance, back-up research facilities. The people who lose by not having those facilities are not the Deputies — because most Deputies will keep up their image and work in their constituencies and find themselves re-elected — but the public. The vast amounts of money taken from them in taxation are not being properly accounted for by us who should be doing this. We should be ensuring that this money which we vote here time and time again is spent to our satisfaction and not to the satisfaction of anybody else.

I want a stronger and more open Parliament which relates to the people and to their needs. I do not wish there to be any pandering to Deputies. The minimum facilities should be provided and we have been too afraid to take upon ourselves the necessary powers to provide these. Now when we are setting up these committees is the time to act.

I was talking to a United States Senator of the State of Washington who told me that there they had a committee on committees. We have many committees, but I do not suggest that there should be one on committees. I suggest that the Minister provide machinery for an automatic review of this whole system within a fixed period of time, so that we can deal with existing problems and solve them. I congratulate all those who were involved in bringing these proposals before the House. It is a good day's work and an excellent action on the part of the Minister in taking the debate in the House so seriously and in coming forward with proposals for committees.

Mr. B. Ahern

One of the reforms we are anxious to operate in the House is that we do not have long speeches. I am not suggesting that the speeches made so far have been long but I know there are at least ten Deputies who wish to contribute to this two hour debate. It would be bad example if I go on for too long and I ask those who contribute after me to conclude reasonably quickly.

We have been trying to get away from the practice where Deputies from the back benches have been brought in to make speeches to keep the House going. I am glad to say that it is a dying art. Perhaps we will lose one of the great traditions we had where senior Deputies, at a moment's notice, could go into the House, make a long speech and keep the House going. While we cannot regulate the length of time a speech should take, it is an area where I would be anxious to co-operate with the Government Whip.

I agree with the setting up of these committees. I thank the Minister for Industry and Energy for his courtesy and for the time he spent on this. He does not neglect his chores in other areas but does much of this work outside of what would be considered normal hours.

People outside the House often attack us, justifiably or not, as being irrelevant. If we can streamline our business then we have an obligation to ourselves, if to no one else, to do so. When the Dáil resumed after the Christmas recess we spent the first week talking about Dáil reform. We were accused of wasting time. In the months since then almost every second day there have been meetings about these committees to try to see how best they could work and bring in rules and regulations to make them more attractive.

An attempt has been made — I am sure it will not be 100 per cent successful — to bring forward these committees, change the terms of reference of some others and suggest new ones. I understand from the Minister that we will get favourable decisions on at least some of the committees we suggested. As regards some committees which have not been agreed on, it is a case of not having completed our discussions. We put forward some necessary amendments to the Joint Committee on Women's Affairs. That committee's terms of reference included a reference to all women being vulnerable. It is our party's understanding that all women are not vulnerable. This committee is trying to help those in need and not all women. We have some other minor amendments like that.

Deputies must make themselves available to attend these committees. I am not sure we can compel them to attend or entice them by some other means. Deputies are accused of being involved in messenger boy politics and of doing this, that and the other. However, that is what they are elected for. Politicians are answerable to the electorate and to no one else. The politicians who receive the highest number of votes are those who mix parliamentary activities with good constituency work. People who do one or the other may be elected but do not do quite as well. However, there is no conflict between the two. If the energy spent in saying that TDs are messenger boys was spent on saying why they have to be messenger boys it would be much better. If the people who spend their time writing and preaching outside the House about all the things we do wrong spent their time looking at some of the other areas they would serve society better. However, I suppose they will not listen to that.

We are in favour of the majority of these committees. We have put forward some amendments. I have been an active member of committees and know the difficulties involved. We must keep the committees as active as possible and make sure they get as much publicity as possible. Politicians live on publicity and if they were to receive publicity for being active on these committees members would agree to attend. The problem about committees is that nobody really cares what happens at them. Only some of them report.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which deals with affairs which directly affect Deputies, often has a poor attendance. It is often difficult to get this meeting off the ground. My understanding from conversations which have taken place is that there is a will on all sides to be actively involved, to try to make the committees work and bring forward legislation, examine expenditure and deal with other matters. In that way we will show we are fulfilling our obligations as parliamentarians and are not just concerned with regional or small parochial matters but are also interested in national affairs.

As I have said privately to the Minister and in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, if we want suitably qualified people to stand for election to Dáil Éireann we must give them the facilities, financial and otherwise, to carry out their duties. It is no secret that a number of us who do not have other interests find this increasingly difficult. When we stood before the electorate we knew we were not taking up the best paid job but we did not know we would have to forego all future national wage agreements and make sacrifices no other section of the community have to make. In the last 18 months we have had three elections. As people know, we are not paid during that period. I accept that my party did not implement things which were agreed last year by the CPP. However, I ask the Minister to use his efforts to ensure we are paid in line with the grades we have been linked to. Such a line of action would mean that we would not be forced, in order to provide for our families, to go outside and earn an adequate wage. People do not appreciate that. Some people consider £13,800 an enormous salary. Perhaps if they tried being a Deputy for a year they would understand the problems.

It is not a question of our having known on entering this House what the situation would be. We were not told that we would not get the benefits of the wage agreements in line with the grade with which we have relativity, that is, a grade about sixth down the line. At least if I were receiving what I understood on coming in here that I would be receiving I would have no grievance. If Deputies do not have sufficient means by way of their salaries from here they must spend some of their time on other duties. One might argue that this should not be the case, but as one who has been here for six years and involved in numerous committees I am aware of the problems of Deputies in this regard. We may have a small band of Deputies who are wealthy but the number in that respect is decreasing. The majority of Deputies fit into the category I am talking about. If they did not have to engage in these other activities, they could afford to be here on Mondays and Fridays.

Perhaps the most effective manner of dealing with legislation and public expenditure committees is to have them meet outside Dáil time. At times when the Dáil is in recess these committees could do a lot of work. Many of the Deputies who would be involved are around. I do not know of any Deputy who can afford to take three months holidays. It would be convenient to have the committees meet on Mondays and Fridays as well as during the summer recess and also during the month of January and during the Easter recess. That sort of arrangement would eliminate the present situation whereby committees are interrupted continuously to allow Members to vote in the House. On Thursday last we spent about two hours of a seven-hour debate to-ing and fro-ing in response to division bells. This is not a productive way of spending one's time. I realise that divisions are an important part of parliamentary procedure but we could streamline some of the activity in that regard. The Minister has undertaken to examine the situation.

In addition to the committees being debated here today, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges are examining also the question of the Order of Business and of Question Time. Question Time has become self-defeating. Some of the Ministers who were appointed in December last have not succeeded in getting their turn to answers questions yet. We should be able to have Ministers here to answer in respect of the areas of policy with which they are associated. On the other side of the coin, the Minister for Health and Social Welfare was here for three weeks answering questions. In the autumn session we are to try some experiments. For instance, we will endeavour to have a Minister per day here for Question Time and any question not asked on the expiration of the time allotted for questions will be put at the end of the list. This may prove an attraction for people not to ask so many supplementaries and to ask them only in cases where they are absolutely necessary. It may lead also to parochial-type questions being put down for written reply instead of taking up the time of the national Parliament with such matters as water grants which, though important, should not consume the hour allotted for questions each day.

In addition we have succeeded, by way of suspending Standing Orders, in having matters of urgent importance discussed promptly. During this session this has led to four or five debates on matters of urgent public importance. For instance, we had a debate on the Fairview Park case and also on a number of major factory closures.

This indicates to the people that the Dáil is talking about issues that affect them instead of having a situation in which they read that the Chair, through no fault of his but in compliance with Standing Orders, must rule certain matters out of order. At least half the Standing Orders should be changed.

We have made a good deal of progress in six months. A number of committees are meeting on a weekly basis. We must do our utmost to influence people in what we are doing and also to win the respect of outside bodies so that when any of these bodies are due to appear before a committee of the Houses, they will send their appropriate people who will treat the committee seriously. I hope, too, that our friends in the media will endeavour to promote the committee system and to show that the Dáil is not as uninteresting a place as one might think from reading the press sometimes. I accept that a good deal of the criticism is true but we must do our best now to make this institution more relevant. It in a year's time we find that we have not gone far enough in terms of committees, we can make whatever amendments are necessary or we may drop any committee that may not be effective. It is only in that way that we can be seen to represent the people who returned us to this House. I appreciate the amount of time that the Minister has put into this whole area. We have considered all his suggestions very seriously. Our parliamentary party and in particular our Front Bench have spent a considerable number of hours on our proposals for committees and in drafting amendments to the Minister's committees. I hope that before we go into recess we will be able to set up at least the four committees we proposed as priorities. These are committees to deal with crime, lawlessness and vandalism, marine resources and maritime affairs, heritage, culture and the arts. If we have those committees set up together with the Committee on Women's Affairs and the all-party committee on marriage we would at least in one session be attempting some kind of Dáil reform. We can report at a future date on how workable all this appears to be.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 21 Jun 1983

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Motion.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Jun 1983