Like previous speakers, I will be brief. Today marks a very important stage in the process of Dáil reform. We know it is only a step in that direction but it is a step which is long overdue and very great credit is due to the Minister who has managed successfully to combine this task with the effective and vigorous carrying out of his job as Minister for Industry and Energy.
I was puzzled by the somewhat lukewarm approach of the Leader of the Opposition to the whole question. I suspect that on this subject the Leader of the Opposition is at variance with many of his own backbenchers. I know there is great enthusiasm among backbenchers and members of the front bench on all sides for the process which has begun and this came across very clearly in the speech made by Deputy Ahern. Nobody is so naive as to think that what is happening today will radically transform overnight the workings of this House or make us appear to be more relevant or give us any greater degree of control over the areas where we should have control. Nobody inside or outside this House will see what we are doing as the beginning of an assault on the sovereignty of Parliament. This House has, unfortunately, long since lost its sovereign central role. We are not, in any overnight fashion, transforming the workings of Parliament nor are we engaged in some assault on the traditional role of Parliament; rather are we beginning a process which will bring back to politicians and to this House in a belated way the respect and the purpose which they should enjoy and exert.
During the course of the debate on parliamentary reform earlier this year one theme came across very clearly from virtually every speaker — the need for a committee system which would be more effective and more thorough going than any existing already which would cover areas of public policy and areas of parliamentary and Government practice not at present being covered. It is also clear that, while almost everybody wanted committees, they were for the most part fairly vague as to how these committees should function and the powers they should have. Many claims were made during the debate for the introduction of committees. We see today these vague ideas worked out and given a reality and they will serve for the future development of our committee system.
It is clear that the Minister was not carried away by the enthusiasm which came from many of us and he still sees the central role of Parliament resting in this House in full plenary session. Nothing in these proposals attempts in the slightest way to diminish that sovereignty. The Minister has learned from the good ideas expressed in that debate and he has also learned from the experience in other countries where committees are not a luxury or an addition but are essential to the smooth functioning of Parliament. These committees involve Members in detailed scrutiny of Government proposals and Members are allowed to specialise in various areas. Ministers are very often chosen without any specialist preparation for the enormous portfolios they must administer and we can see in this system an amateurish approach. Committees will at least allow Members to specialise so that when they show expertise in a particular area they will be serving their apprenticeship for a Ministry at a later date and will be better prepared than would otherwise be the case. In other countries these committees allow policy proposals to be discussed earlier than is the case here and they allow Members to carry out detailed investigations and to hear evidence, the kind of things they should be hearing, if proper legislation is to be introduced. The Minister has learned from all of these lessons and these aspects are incorporated in his proposals.
The experience universally in those parliamentary systems which have vigorous extensive committee systems is that the work of Parliament is enriched and made more complete while the role and job satisfaction of Members is far greater, as is their impact on the public.
As Deputy Haughey and others pointed out, a committee system in a Parliament such as ours must face up to a number of major obstacles. The first of these is the view, which I suspect is held by Deputies Haughey and Lenihan, that Parliament is there to provide Governments and Governments are there to govern, to be strong and decisive and that the Government should not be hampered in carrying out this decisive role by too great a degree of scrutiny and too great a degree of daily accountability to Parliament on, perhaps, minor matters. This is a view which is very quickly adopted by virtually everybody who becomes a Minister. The present Minister is one of the exceptions and there are other exceptions on both sides of the House. It is strange how quickly Ministers who feel they have vitally important work to do can become very impatient about having to come into the House to answer even to their own back benchers. They have a lukewarm approach to backbench committees of their own party and they have a reluctance to be questioned by a full, wellversed parliamentary committee. Those who become Ministers may feel that they know best and have the best advice and that what they have to do must be done quickly in the interests of the country.
I suspect that the experience of all Governments over the past few years shows many instances where parliamentary scrutiny and detailed questions would have prevented us from embarking on some of the great disasters such as NET, Whitegate, Knock Airport and Irish Steel. Many of these ventures might not have got off the ground had there been detailed scrutiny in Parliament and had wider advice been taken. There is a deep-rooted feeling among many people that lip service is paid to the idea of committees but that essentially they hamper the full working of decisive government. It is a view with which I totally disagree.
A second obstacle which faces the effective working of committees is the work practice which we have inherited and which is part and parcel of being reelected. One need not talk at length about the huge tyranny of constituency work which has an urgency about it and which will prevent many Deputies who would like to take part in committees from doing the background preparation which is an essential part of smooth committee functioning.
No great answer has been found to the dilemma which faces us. I could propose a heresy such as that there be a single mandate, that no TDs should also be members of local councils and that no member of a local council be allowed run for the Dáil. That might involve constitutional change but I know it is not on. However, the burden of council work which TDs are forced to carry in addition to Dáil work distorts their overall parliamentary performance. More realistically, we could have a simplification of the procedures, a better appeals system in local and central Government, the type of reform the Minister, Deputy Boland, is trying to introduce.
The biggest possibility of change would be a change in public attitudes. In many cases there is a public tyranny, a sense in which the public expect Deputies to be at every garden fete and every public event in their constituency. The public expect Deputies to be available for every local meeting, to do a lot of constituency work and, at the same time, to be functioning effectively in the Dáil. In part it is because of unreasonable public demands that we are in this situation. The resolution of this part of our political culture is central to any effective working of a committee system.
I was not clear about the attitude of Deputy Haughey to committees. On the one hand he wanted a limited number of committees working effectively, but on the other hand, instead of allowing the committees mentioned today to go ahead on an experimental basis, he has proposed seven or eight new committees. If adopted those committees would tax the capacity of the House. I accept that many of the committees Deputy Haughey has proposed are worth-while. I hope some type of accommodation is possible and that some of them will be set up before too long.
The Minister has dealt with some of the difficulties. A back-up service is essential but here we need a certain maturity. Before there is detailed questioning and raising of hands in horror at the hiring of outside consultants we should get this question into scale and perspective. If committees have to hire a few outside experts, so be it. The quality of the advice given will greatly outweigh the small cost involved but I am sure that much of the expertise can be supplied from within the public service. That expertise is there and I hope it will be possible for those in the public service who have a contribution to make to do so as part of the back-up service for the committees.
In setting up the committees the Minister avoided one great pitfall. It would have been tempting to set up a whole range of committees over certain policy areas such as health, education and agriculture, areas where those committees would inevitably draw into membership those who had a vested interest in extra spending in those areas. The result might have been a whole series of committees which would become lobbies for extra spending rather than acting in a balanced way or looking at the problems and questions from the point of view of the House. The Minister has carefully avoided that pitfall and avoided setting up extra forces for spending within the new system.
The Minister was correct to have the committees as open as possible, to have as many public hearings as possible and to have them broadcast or televised should the interest arise. We are living in an age where the fullest possible access is essential because without such access rumours and innuendoes thrive. They may well thrive where there is full access but at least we are in an area where open Government is in everybody's interest. I am glad the committees will function for the most part openly, that evidence will be taken openly and that the media will be invited to attend to relay to the public what is happening. That is in everybody's interest.
The Minister is right to be confident that interested parties will give evidence freely to these committees. Many of the groups we all meet in the course of our daily work will be delighted to get an opportunity to put forward their point of view. The process of allowing them put their point of view to those who in some way take the decisions will remove much of the remoteness which surrounds the working of Parliament. It will make the bringing forward of those views a legitimate part of parliamentary activity. In most other countries that is done openly; a lobby makes its point of view openly and it is assessed by all. The committees will open up Parliament to those who have a right and an interest in being heard. I wish the Minister well. I congratulate him on his extremely constructive and well fleshed-out proposals. I assure him that backbenchers on all sides welcome his approach and that we have made the first real step towards strengthening the House.
