Joint Committee on the Irish Language.
That the Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee on the Irish Language be amended as follows:—
(i) in paragraph (5), by the addition of the following:—
Provided that in the case of a substitute nominated by a Party which is a Government Party, such substitute may be a Member of another Government Party.'; and
(ii) by the addition of the following paragraphs after paragraph (10):—
(11) That the Joint Committee shall have the power to discuss and draft proposals for legislative changes and new legislation for recommendation to Ministers which are relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (2).
(12) That all appointees to high office in the State shall attend meetings of the Joint Committee, as appropriate, and subject to the legal constraints of their office, to discuss issues which are relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (2).
(13) That Ministers and Ministers of State shall appear before the Joint Committee to discuss current policies relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (2) and the implementation of such policies in their Departments. A Minister or Minister of State may request the Joint Committee to convene to enable him or her to explain current or proposed policy or to initiate a debate thereon.
(14) That Members of Dáil Éireann, not being members of the Joint Committee, may attend meetings and take part in the proceedings of the Joint Committee without having a right to vote.'."
Today we are in the business of making our society more democratic; we are putting forward far-reaching and detailed proposals which will make the Government more clearly accountable to the Dáil and the Dáil more accountable to the people. We will also be getting the Dáil to work more effectively; all new legislation — and the spending by each Government Department — will be examined more thoroughly and more efficiently. This must be done. It is of critical importance that the Dáil changes so that it can respond to the needs of our rapidly changing society.
The months of November and December 1994, were arguably among the most dramatic and far reaching in Irish politics. Events and debate in Dáil Éireann led directly to a change in Government — the first time in the history of the State that there was a change of Government without an election. The people who viewed these events as they unfolded were able to immediately form their own judgment as to what was happening.This was a very good thing. The people were actively involved, through the medium of television, in the democratic process. This would not have been possible without the televising of the Dáil, a reform measure that was first proposed, and pushed by the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, more than ten years ago.
The events of last November and December taught us much about the nature of our system of parliamentary democracy and our political maturity, and it is upon those experiences which the present Coalition hope to build.
First, they taught us that our democracy works. For all its faults, for all the procedural wrangles, the Dáil is the central democratic institution where debates on the most significant events of the day have the capacity to affect the entire country and the Executive cannot neither take it for granted nor ignore its ability to examine complex issues.
Second, they taught us that we have reached a level of political sophistication where the will of the electorate is no longer expressed in simple terms of party or indeed coalition allegiance. It can transfer quickly and with conviction in response to political events.
The successful role played by the Dáil in recent events had a major influence on the framing of the Oireachtas reform section of, A Government of Renewal, the policy agreement between Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left.
As stated in A Government of Renewal many of our laws are based on laws which were passed in another century for another administration. The same applies to many of our institutions and systems of public administration.Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the Houses of the Oireachtas, which are largely based on the Westminster model.
While acknowledging that limited Oireachtas reform has taken place in the past 12 years or so, we are all aware of the need for fundamental Oireachtas reform to make it responsive to the needs of a modern democratic society. Reforms of the Oireachtas at this stage must aim to make it an Oireachtas geared for the 21st century. To achieve this, the Government believes that reform must be fundamental and radical.As outlined in our programme it must aim at: making the Dáil more efficient and business-like; enhancing the role of Members as legislators; ensuring that the various organs of State and holders of high office in the State are more answerable and accountable to the Legislature; and ensuring that the Dáil has real powers to investigate matters of serious public concern.
In pursuit of these aims, measures are being put in place which affect all Oireachtas procedures and activities. Today, on behalf of the Government, I move a number of motions with the effect of amending the orders of reference of eight of the existing Oireachtas committees and establishing four new committees.
The measures relating to Oireachtas committees of themselves constitute a radical approach to Oireachtas reform affecting the dual role of the Oireachtas, namely holding the executive to account and the effective operation of the Oireachtas as a legislature.
The development of the committee system in recent years has given rise to the comment that the Oireachtas has acquired a third chamber, i.e. one in addition to both the Dáil and Seanad. I believe that this comment has some validity, and like a new child growing up, it is developing ways and means of doing things in its own fashion, unencumbered by the rigid procedures which govern the other two Chambers. It is my firm belief that once the reforms, which we propose to introduce, are put in place, every Deputy will see the benefits, both in the expanded committee system and in this Chamber.
We have all seen recently, in the sub-committee on Security and Legislation, how effective committees can be in teasing out complex issues through the in-depth questioning of witnesses, and I want to develop that further.
For the first time, Ministers will be available to appear before committees as a matter of routine to discuss current policies and their implementation in their Departments. This will allow for a much more exhaustive questioning than is allowable during Question Time, which operates under severe time constraints and has set procedures. It will of course be a matter for each committee to invite Ministers to attend for the purposes stated.
In addition, holders of high office in the State, subject to the legal constraints of their office, may also be called before Oireachtas committees where appropriate to the matters under discussion. The provision further strengthens Oireachtas committees and will ensure that all institutions of the State are accountable to a much greater extent than heretofore. Again, it will be a matter for each committee to consider whether they wish to call relevant office-holders before them. In that context, the Government hopes to introduce, at the earliest possible opportunity, the Houses of the Oireachtas (Privilege and Compellability) Bill which will provide privilege for witnesses and others in connection with proceedings of Oireachtas committees as well as compel witnesses to attend before the committees.
The legislative role of committees is also being enhanced. The Government recognises the contribution made by the four legislative committees established by our predecessors, which have proved extremely successful in breaking the log-jam whereby legislation could be with the Oireachtas for lengthy periods before being considered. These committees have also ensured that departmental Estimates are given proper consideration and it is now the norm to have in-depth and exhaustive discussions on Estimates where previously consideration, if at all, was cursory and consisted of set speeches. This development, which was first proposed by Fine Gael in Opposition, was implemented by the previous Government. Like my predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey, I will look in a constructive fashion at any reasonable proposal the Opposition might make.
While the work of the legislative committees is extremely valuable it is clear that their role could be enhanced by making them more proactive. Members of committees are gaining in expertise through involvement in the processing of legislation. It is important that this expertise is harnessed in such a way that the input of Deputies on legislative proposals is heard at an early stage where their views can be incorporated into the legislation at the time of drafting.
It is also important that where Members themselves have ideas for legislation there is a suitable forum where Ministers can hear suggestions and discuss them fully and dispassionately with Members. Too often in the past good ideas put forward during the passage of Bills were ignored because Ministers were reluctant to accept amendments because of fear of delaying the enactment of the legislation.
I do not foresee that the empowerment and consultative role being conferred on the legislative committees in relation to preparatory legislation will prejudice the role of Members, whether Government or Opposition, when Bills are eventually brought forward by Ministers on behalf of the Government.
When considering legislation on Committee Stage it is vital that Members are informed on all the implications.The public generally and members of interested organisations in particular should have access to Members considering the Bill, first, so that the Members are better informed and, second, so that the public, who are most directly affected by the legislation, are able to inform Members at first hand of their views, thereby increasing democratic accountability.
There is much talk of a democratic deficit when the institutions of the State are removed from the people. It is essential, and the legislative committees provide fora in a direct way, that the public believe that their representatives are listening to them, particularly when laws are being discussed which directly affect the public. It is for this reason that the Government is proposing that committees may, if they so wish, receive submissions and hear evidence from persons and organisations regarding Bills. In line with the Government's commitment to increased openness and transparency and with our commitment in A Government Renewal, we are proposing that the Committee on Legislation and Security should review on a regular basis the Official Secrets Act and all other statutory provisions which restrict access to information in order to bring them into line with the best international standards of public information provision.
The Committee structure is also being enhanced by the addition of four new committees. A Committee on the Family will consider the impact of social change and State policies on the family, in both its extended and nuclear forms, with particular reference to the protection and enhancement of the interests of children and the elderly and measures which can be taken to support them especially with regard to child care, education, juvenile justice, and care of the elderly.
A Committee on Small Business and Services will examine how to improve the operating environment for small business and services, particularly following the reports of the task forces on these sectors.
A Committee on Sustainable Development will identify, in prospect of the National Sustainable Development Strategy being prepared by the Government, measures designed to maximise the advantage to Ireland of environmentally sustainable sectoral policies; and, in particular, will consider, by way of case study or otherwise, the extent of Irish participation in the growing world market for environmental goods and services and the means by which this market share can be increased.
These three committees have, essentially, an advisory function. They will be empowered to gather information from all sources. They will be able to send for persons, papers and records and call witnesses to give evidence.
The Government has proposed the establishment of these committees because the issues involved are fundamentally important in social, industrial and environmental terms in the years approaching the turn of the century. All three committees will be required to report back to the Houses of the Oireachtas within two years.
The establishment of a separate Joint Committee on European Affairs emphasises the crucial role that Europe plays in all aspects of our lives and we must always keep a clear focus on European issues and developments in Europe. It will also allow the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to concentrate on other aspects of Ireland's international relations. Provision is being made in the orders of reference of the joint committees for European affairs and foreign affairs for the attendance of Irish Members of the European Parliament, including those from Northern Ireland, at meetings of the joint committees or their sub-committees. To enable the Joint Committee on European Affairs to examine EC secondary legislation, it will be necessary to amend the European Communities Acts. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be bringing forward a short Bill giving effect to this shortly.
The reduced membership of the legislative committees is necessary to help the better functioning of these committees and to take into account the establishment of the four new committees. The Government had also proposed a reduced membership for the joint committees on women's rights and the Irish language but on representation from the Opposition parties we have agreed to hold them at their present size so as to ensure maximum participation by all parties in the House.
The proposed composition of Oireachtas committees reflects the important contribution the Seanad has made and can make in the future to our consideration of the most important issues facing the country. The expertise of all Senators as well as Deputies must be harnessed in the most effective way possible to ensure the successful development of policies to address these issues. It is for that reason we are providing that all Members of both Houses may, if they so wish, attend and contribute at committee meetings, other than the legislative committees which already have the facility in respect of the attendance of all Deputies.
Deputies will be aware that the proposals on Oireachtas committees which we are discussing today are but a part of the package of Oireachtas reform proposals which I, on behalf of the Government, put before the Opposition parties on 24 January. The other proposals related to Matters of Concern, Dáil sitting hours, promised legislation and streamlined voting procedures.
The Government has already published a list of promised legislation which will be of assistance to the Ceann Comhairle and Members. I will be pursuing the other proposals in discussions with the Opposition Whips and in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I would like, however, to refer briefly to the Government's proposals on sitting hours since they are closely related to our proposals for Oireachtas committees.The Government had envisaged that non-legislative Dáil committees would meet from between 10 a.m. and 2.30 p.m. on Tuesdays. The Opposition parties, however, have pointed out that the early start would not be convenient to many rural Deputies. I accept this point. The Government is disposed to refix the starting time to 11.30 a.m. or 12 noon. There is agreement between the Government and Opposition that Friday sittings should be devoted to committee meetings. The Government also proposes that committees would meet during the months of July and September and that the Dáil would sit in plenary session during those months to take reports from the committees.
Members of the House and staff have rightly expressed concern about the workload which the proposed reforms will place on them and above all about the need for enhanced facilities. As a recent and former Opposition spokesman, I am very well aware of the need for the provision of sufficient research and secretarial staff to Members and committees as well as a proper physical environment for Members and staff. I am very pleased that those aspects were recognised in the Government's programme.I am further pleased to be able to tell the House that consultation is ongoing on those matters and I hope that the results of those consultations will be seen in the very near future. Arrangements have been put in place to ensure that staff concerns and suggestions are taken into account. Deputies and staff must, however, appreciate that all our expectations cannot be immediately realised. There are long term accommodation issues relating to the Leinster House complex which need to be addressed and, in that context, I hope to receive proposals from the Office of Public Works within the next month on the different options which can be put in place at a realistic cost and with minimum disruption to Members and staff.
In my introduction I spoke about the effect of televising Dáil and committee proceedings and the resultant interest generated among the public. I have no doubt but that experience has led to a greater interest in our parliamentary activities. The Government's programme referred to the possibility of using the new channel being put in place for Teilifís na Gaelige for, among other things, Oireachtas coverage. It is my hope that such coverage would include committees as well as plenary sittings. I have taken up this matter with the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, who is favourably disposed.
It is proposed to undertake a full and comprehensive review of Dáil Standing Orders as soon as possible.
I have asked the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to examine and report on the procedures and remedies required to ensure that privilege afforded to Members is carefully used at all times and that the rules of misconduct as they apply to any misleading of the House are revised.
The Government is reviewing the repeat role in so far as parliamentary questions are concerned.
Oireachtas reform is an essential part of our work as legislators. It is absolutely necessary that our central democratic institution changes to take account of the evolving nature of our society. It must be responsive to the needs of the people and organisations representing sectors within society.
The range of measures which the Government is introducing now and proposes to introduce address the crucial issues of accountability of the Executive and the role of the Deputy as a legislator and community representative.The Government is aware that each Deputy can make a contribution in proposing changes which can improve the way in which the Oireachtas works. From time to time the Government will advance further proposals for reform.
In that context, the Government will accept any constructive proposals for change which it believes will add to the effectiveness of our democratic institutions.I hope that I have shown this openness to consider proposals from the Opposition in the discussions which have taken place to date on Oireachtas Reform and in the proposals relating to Oireachtas committees which I am happy to put to the House today.
The Government Chief Whip used the word "openness". The Government however has not treated the House properly because in dealing with the terms of reference of the committees the Government Chief Whip made no mention of a payment for the chairpersons of the four new committees. I understand that it is the Government's intention to introduce an order to provide for such remuneration. The Government Chief Whip should have indicated this in his speech.
The Government Chief Whip indicated that he was adopting a more democratic approach. At the first available opportunity the Government introduced a Bill to provide for the appointment of two further Ministers of State. The proper approach in this instance would be to introduce the Bill providing for the privilege and compellability of witnesses at the first available opportunity.The nub of the problem is that committees do not have the power to compel witnesses to attend. The sub-committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, of which I was a member, received a favourable response. If a person had refused to attend the sub-committee would have been powerless and unable to do anything.Rather than setting up new committees the Minister should tell the House he is prepared to bring forward that Bill.
The Minister of State gives credit to the Taoiseach for pushing forward with the televising of the Dáil. I was a member of an all-party subcommittee on law reform established by a Government of which my party was a member. For some reason this Government does not seem prepared to reactivate that committee.I have in my possession a Fine Gael policy document which is signed by Deputy John Bruton and Deputy Jim Higgins, who was the Chief Whip at that time. They brought forward in Opposition various proposals for change, one of which refers to committee chairpersons.It states that committee chairmanships would be distributed on a broadly proportional basis between parties. There is not anything in the Minister of State's speech to indicate that this will be put in place, yet it is a measure his party called for when in Opposition. Why is Fine Gael not putting it in place now? The Opposition parties should get chairpersonships of committees in proportion to their strength in this House.
I do not agree that these proposals are fundamental and radical. The Minister stated that, from time to time, he will bring in proposals to this House. It should be the remit of the Members of this House, by way of an all-party sub-committee on law reform, to bring forward reforms. I accept the Minister of State has been more than amenable to me and the other Opposition Whip, Deputy O'Donnell, but the Government should not foist its proposals on this House without taking into account the proposals of the other parties.
The setting up of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, of which I was a member, was debated in this House. Fianna Fáil is on record as saying at that time that that was not the proper way to proceed. I said in this House that the order put down by the four parties involved — they were not in Government at the time but the likelihood was that some form of Rainbow Coalition would be put in place in the near future — was the genesis of the sub-committee. I made the point that if that was the type of order the new Government was going to put in place as its first order, it did not augur well for the future.
Having been a member of that sub-committee I can confirm that the attitude of Fianna Fáil has been vindicated. The fact that the committee felt constrained in making any findings as a result of the evidence it heard is a vindication of the stance we took in this House. The committee members, because of constitutional and legal difficulties and the way in which the committee was set up initially, were unable to make any findings. We knew we would be unable to make any findings based on what we heard. Unfortunately, that is what happened but we should learn from that mistake. I am not saying the setting up of the sub-committee was a useless exercise, but we must learn from mistakes.
The compellability and privilege Bill should be brought forward immediately. Rather than setting up new committees we should concentrate our efforts on six or seven separate areas of Government and give those committees real powers to investigate and make the Executive more answerable to the Dáil. The Minister of State said that his Government wants to ensure that the Executive is more answerable to the Dáil but the way in which oral questions have been dealt with by this Government is deplorable.The Taoiseach has transferred questions willy-nilly to other Ministers, a practice which was deplored by the Minister's party when in Opposition. Fine Gael, in its 1990 document on Dáil reform, stated:
It is important that the Taoiseach be seen to answer to the Dáil for issues of overall Government policy. A practice has grown up whereby Taoisigh transfer questions put down for answer by the Taoiseach himself to other Ministers. Fine Gael will introduce clear and transparent rules governing this practice so as to ensure that questions may not be arbitrarily transferred to other Ministers.
The Taoiseach is rowing back on that. The former Taoisigh, Charles Haughey and Albert Reynolds, answered all questions tabled to them but the Taoiseach is not prepared to do that.
Last week, Deputy O'Hanlon asked the Taoiseach if he was attending the Washington conference. The question was transferred in such a way that it lost all relevance. Deputy O'Hanlon wanted to know if the Taoiseach was going to the conference; he got a reply from the Tánaiste that he was attending it but we are still unsure about whether the Taoiseach will attend because we did not get an answer to the original question. That has happened time and again over the past few weeks and the Minister of State should not come into the House saying that the Government wants to make the Executive more answerable to the Dáil. The Taoiseach has been evading questions during Question Time and I take no pleasure in saying that. I put down a number of questions to the Taoiseach which were transferred to the Tánaiste. I was unable to ask questions of the Tánaiste when they arose because they were lumped together with the priority questions. Those questions concerned issues raised by Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left when they were in Opposition. I challenge them to change the rules which they castigated when they were in Opposition.
In relation to the committees, Fianna Fáil gave a response to the Dáil reform package. We agree with many of the proposals contained in the package but as a principle we feel it is wrong that new committees are being set up without reference to whether the chairpersons will be paid or the conditions they will work under. It is wrong of the Government not to give a commitment on the staffing of the additional committees when one considers that we now have 17 committees of this House. Fianna Fáil is in a position to ensure that its members will attend all those committees but Democratic Left and the Progressive Democrats, with their small numbers, will find it difficult to assign personnel to these committees. That is unfair to those parties because, in effect, they will be unable to participate properly in what are supposed to be all-party committees.
The Government is proposing that the committees be given power to discuss draft proposals for legislative change.
We have no problem with that. However, the proposals on hearing submissions and evidence would cause us difficulties. For example, if it was open season for the committees to hear evidence a myriad of lobby groups would wish to meet and put their views to them. It is not that we do not wish to hear the opinions of people but the delay in dealing with legislation would be detrimental.
We have no grave problem with all appointees to high office attending before committees but the Government should specify to whom it refers. I tabled a Parliamentary Question on this matter recently but I did not get a specific answer. The Minister has not indicated his position.
We are in favour of some of the new committees such as the European Affairs Committee and the Small Businesses Committee but perhaps it could have been dealt with by a sub-committee of the Finance and General Affairs Committee. The work of the proposed Environment Committee and the Sustainable Development Committee could also have been dealt by one of the major committees and the work of the Family Committee could have been dealt with by a sub-committee of the Social Affairs Committee. I wonder why three of the new committees are being set up for a two year period. Is it coincidental that this is the expected lifetime of the Government? Are committees being created so that the Government will be able to give out more prizes to some of those who were disappointed because they did not fit into the first 15, the second 15, or the next two posts that were created to keep everybody happy?
The Government proposes to allow Members to raise matters of concern at a particular time to which the Minister would reply by letter. This ludicrous suggestion which flies in the face of accountability was discussed at a meeting of the Whips. We want Ministers to come into this House and respond, though not necessarily immediately. Fianna Fáil proposes allowing debate on topical matters for 30 minutes immediately after the Order of Business. This would allow Members to discuss without notice matters of urgency involving Ministers or State bodies. The Minister with responsibility in this area could reply immediately or alternatively reply on the next available day during the same period. We think there should be provision also for a question and answer session on the Minister's reply.
We made suggestions on the proposed sitting hours. While we want this Dáil to work and to be seen to work — the televising of the proceedings of the sub-committee on Security and Legislation changed the public perception that this House does not work — I am happy to hear the Minister say that he is prepared to change some of the proposed times. It can take some Deputies up to six and a half hours to travel to this House. It is unreasonable to expect people to come up on a Monday night to be here at 10 a.m. on Tuesday. It should be remembered also that the staff have to work for hours after the House adjourns and if we are to extend the hours further there should be a commitment to further staffing. This is something we tend to forget. When I was Government Whip, I was the first in recent times — the late John Kelly was the first — to suggest we should sit not later than 8.30 p.m. otherwise it is unfair to staff and to the Deputies who travel considerable distances home and return the following morning.
The question of grouping votes poses problems. When Fianna Fáil was in power it made a similar proposal but on the basis that electronic voting would be in place. We will not support the grouping of votes without electronic voting. People may absent themselves from the House and that would not be good for the way the House is perceived. I have suggested at meetings of the Whips that there should be a standing committee to deal with Oireachtas reform, reviewing the procedures continuously to make the Oireachtas more relevant and accessible to the general public. I would heartily recommend any proposals to televise this House further. Perhaps the question of transmitting the Order of Business live should be discussed with RTE. RTE should also be asked to make time available every day to transmit some items live. The proceedings of the sub-Committee on Security and Legislation were viewed avidly, which proves the great public interest in the work of the Oireachtas.
We do not wish to divide on this motion and we will accept what the Government proposes on the basis that we have not the numbers to object. I have found the Minister of State amenable but the Government should not take the opposition for granted as we have probably done more for Dáil reform than any other party and our views should be taken into account.
While the Progressive Democrats Party agrees with the aspirations as laid out in the Government's agenda for Dáil reform, the Government's proposals are far from radical and do not hold out the possibility of achieving its aspirations for radical reform. Nobody could disagree with aspirations to make this House more accountable, to enhancing the role of Members as legislators and making the Executive more accountable to Parliament and ensuring the Dáil has real powers to examine matters of serious public concern, particularly in a House which champions the role of Deputies in holding the Executive to account.
I agree with much that Deputy Dermot Ahern has said. If we are to reform this House in a real way, serious consideration will have to be given to the resources available to the Members of the House and to the staffing in order to beef up the performance. It is simply unfair to expect the existing secretarial and administrative staff to resource the new committees as well as the existing committees.
When talking about the role of Deputies as legislators, it is important to consider the attraction to people who may consider entering politics. We must take into account the responsibility of Members to their families and constituents.More work needs to be done if the reform is to be radical. The Government's proposals fall flat because they tend to be unfocused and are nebulous apart from the proposal to have four new committees, which is very specific.
Compellability of witnesses and privilege are crucial matters which have not been dealt with adequately. It would be appropriate for Ministers and Ministers of State to be questioned at committee on a regular basis. Any broadening of the role of committees carries with it the possibility that they will be bogged down in unfocused work. Lobbying by interested groups is a legitimate activity in a democracy and public lobbying would be preferable to private lobbying which has been a feature of policy making.It would be better to have members of the tobacco industry or licensed vintners state their case publicly rather than do deals privately with Ministers or Members of the House. However, it would need to be regulated otherwise committees would be bogged down in hearing endless processions of vested interest groups.
The proposal that there should be a role for committees in the pre-drafting stage of Bills is interesting but it would have to be contained in some way otherwise legislation would be delayed.
We would argue for increased resources for existing committees and are opposed to the expansion or proliferation of committees. Given the constrains within which they operate, the existing legislative committess work well but they need extra resources. Anyone who has been at a committee will vouch for the fact that, for the majority of the time the committee sits, the Minister is present with officials on one side of the table and the Opposition spokespersons on the other. Members do not adequately attend committees and there is a temptation for them to leave matters to the spokespersons. It is ridiculous in a democracy that they are the only people who scrutinise the legislation in detail and spend hours pouring over it. The Minister has officials, programme managers, advisers and the entire Civil Service at his disposal but there is an imbalance in that the Opposition is badly resourced in challenging the Executive. Apart from the intellectual burden imposed on the spokespersons, they are confined for hours on end and cannot attend to other work for which they may have responsibility in the House. Levelling the playing pitch in terms of giving resources to the Opposition front bench must be looked at particularly in view of the proliferation of programme managers and advisers at the disposal of the Government.
The expression "all appointees to high office in the State" is so vague as to be meaningless. There is also a proviso: "subject to the legal constraints of their office". Which appointees to high office do we mean? Is it the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Garda Commissioner and so on? Surely this is just an expression of the status quo. This area must be dealt with in greater detail. It is desirable to have Ministers attend committees but I am not sure it is a good idea to enable Ministers to demand to attend at committees.The committees should have some degree of autonomy.
We have experience to date of the legislative role of committees but the inquiring role has not been dealt with. The reference to the Official Secrets Acts and the fact that the Government commits itself to regularly reviewing it and other statutory provisions which restrict access to information is tinkering around with an inadequate system. We urgently need a public information Act and I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerld, is working on this. We need to open up the organs of Government to public scrutiny. Our democracy is based on the Westminster model with all its faults. It is an obsessively secret model based on the fact that it is almost a challenge to the Assembly to extract information from the Government.We must get away from that mind set and have transparency. One of the main objectives of an Assembly is to hold the Executive to account.
In looking at reform and expansion of committees, the first priority must be compellability of witnesses and privilege.Much lip service is paid to accountability.If we are to learn any lesson from the fall of the last Government and the beef tribunal it is that the ability of a Deputy to ask questions and get a decent, honest and straightforward reply is vital in a democracy. We may need to retrain civil servants in how to reply to Parliamentary Questions. I recall an extract from the beef tribunal report where a civil servant was questioned by the chairman as to how he replied to parliamentary questions. The indicators were, one was promoted if one had the skill to reply to a Parliamentary Question without offering any information. One gives the bare amount of information and the Minister is delighted because he is giving the exact answer in the minimalist way. This is no use to the Deputy. On one piece of paper there was a note written, whether by an administrator or a civil servant, saying: "this reply should confuse the Deputy". We heard that when Eoghan Fitzsimons was Attorney General he was drafting a reply to the Taoiseach and had cause to write a letter stating: "this does not answer the question but it is the best I can do". We must examine this attitude of giving minimalist information in reply to Parliamentary Questions.
If a matter is raised on an Adjournment debate or a Deputy puts down a similar question this precludes the admissibility of the Parliamentary Question.There is a need to examine how replies to Members' questions are drafted and presented, or indeed admitted, for Question Time.
The Minister of State said he was examining the overall matter of Members' privilege, indicating that he was somewhat concerned that Members might abuse that privilege. I would strongly oppose any restriction of Members' privilege which constitutes a vital tool to enable Members raise matters of public importance or interest. The Minister of State said he had requested a subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to examine the overall matter of Members' privilege, to ensure that it is used responsibly, with possible sanctions being imposed for abuse. That is very dangerous, carrying the inherent presumption that something derogatory said in the House is untrue whereas, as we have experienced in the past, when Members have raised issues of public importance under privilege, as is their right, such allegations have been proved to be correct. It is the only way in which a Member can raise matters of public importance, to challenge the parliamentary system, without threat or the danger of being sued for libel. Therefore, any attempt to restrict or penalise the use of privilege on the part of Members to raise matters of public importance, should be frowned upon. The use of this privilege should be protected, in particular by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that being one of its roles.
We, the Progressive Democrats, have argued constantly for the establishment of a separate committee on foreign affairs with a remit to deal with European matters. It could be argued that one of the reasons the Maastricht vote was almost lost throughout Europe was the inadequate debate on European issues within all of the parliaments of member states. Many member state Governments, including our own were shocked to discover, when they put the Maastricht Treaty to their electorates, that their people were not with them at all, were unaware of what they had accepted, and that there was a general dearth of knowledge on all matters relating to the European Union, the information deficit already referred to. Such was the shock experienced by Governments of member states of the EU on that occasion that there has been established a Committee of Reflection, a classic EU solution, to examine the failure of the first committee system. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Gay Mitchell, is our Government representative on that committee. Perhaps it is that people are right and that Governments must fool them into believing that Europe is good for them and their welfare.
Such a subcommittee, if established would be one of the key tools of this House in rendering Europe real to our electorate, in scrutinising directives emanating from Brussels before implementation, whether in relation to agriculture, fisheries, horticulture, cheese production or whatever, a whole range of issues which have an enormous impact on people's lives. Up to now such directives have been agreed and implemented without being subjected to any substantive debate in this house. I would warmly welcome MEPS being given access to the deliberations of such committee, there being an enormous vacuum in such access as between Members of the European Parliament and of this Assembly.
We are opposed to the establishment of the three new committees on the grounds that they have not been justified by the Minister of State today, nor in any policy document produced. There is no reason these important aspects of policy could not have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis by the existing committees. Such proliferation is unnecessary, the only justification being to provide paid chairmanships for each of the three chairmen. While attending a conference in Europe — at which delegates were debating what was a region within the context of Europe — I overheard a Euro cynic say: “A region is a place whose fund is coming”. In relation to these three new committees proposed it could be said that a committee is reform whose paid chairmen are awaiting appointment that is the reality, all the more so because these three committees are being established for a particular time, to coincide with the expected lifetime of this Government.What is needed is an enhancement, a strengthening of existing committees and their resources.
It is also most important that committees' budgetary proposals and expenditure be scrutinised by the relevant committees, to ensure that moneys allocated to them are never disbursed without first being fully scrutinised.
We strongly oppose the proposal to put votes in the House in abeyance, to be held on a particular evening. Such proposal is designed merely to make life easy for the Government and its Whips. If such a proposal were to be implemented, it would have to be introduced in tandem with electronic voting because we waste 20 minutes at present going through the lobbies. If we are talking about achievable reform, surely the greatest reform to eliminate the wastage of time would be the introduction of electronic voting?
I accept much of what the Minister of State said with regard to his bona fides and goodwill to listen to proposals put forward by the Opposition Whips but there are many other Members in this House who have very good ideas to contribute to this debate. As little as possible should be left to the Whips. After all we are talking about enhancing the role of this parliamentary Assembly, and its power, to adequately reflect real democracy, which is seen to be transparent and of genuine benefit to our electorate.
I should like to share my time with Deputy Kavanagh, if that is acceptable.
I want to express my appreciation to the Minister of State and Government Chief Whip on the manner in which he has approached the various committees and their terms of reference as well as overall Oireachtas reform, on which he has been consulting consistently all concerned, his partners in Government and the Opposition parties, with a view to streamlining/ expanding the role of committees, in particular their legislative role, establishing new ones and reviewing our Standing Orders to render business conducted in this Chamber, in plenary session, much more efficient than unfortunately was the case over very many years.
The establishment of those new legislative committees by the previous Government changed the overall manner in which this House dealt with its business, having provided a thorough, expert analysis of legislation, with relevant Bills being referred to each for indepth consideration in their committee rooms and acceptance or otherwise of amendments tabled. Anybody who will have participated in any of their deliberations to date, as I did, will have realised how benefical those deliberations have been, how that exercise expedited the progress of legislation which up to now had been log-jammed at different stages in the Chamber. We must remember that committee Stages are most important in that Members, with the co-operation of Governments Ministers, can attempt to have worthwhile amendments agreed and implemented. That is why our contribution on the legislative committees has been so important. The procedure laid down in respect of the committee system has ensured that a record amount of legislation was passed by the previous Government.
One of the points raised by many speakers — and addressed by the Minister in his opening remarks — is the question of staffing, accommodation and assistance for all parties involved in committees. It is vital that all parties involved should be properly resourced and have the facilities of research officers to prepare members and groups, particularly non-legislative committees, to participate on committees at the most efficient level. The Minister gave that commitment in his opening remarks and allayed the fears and concerns which he recognised were rightly expressed by members of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas who on reading the original proposal presumed they would be put into operation without consultation. I assured them, through my response to their representations and in my consultation with the Minister of State, Deputy Barrett, that their concerns would be properly addressed. In this regard we need the co-operation of the staff who may be required to work different rosters, longer hours and so on. Of course the Government intends to discuss with the representative body of staff the changes required in the overall context of the reform package. I want to dispel any doubts in the minds of staff that the Government will proceed without that consultation and agreement. That was mentioned, in particular, by Opposition Whips and it is important that the Government Chief Whip and I put on record that we intend to address those concerns.
The Minister also confirmed that he will bring forward the other necessary legislation which is essential for the expanding role of committees, particularly the Bill dealing with compellability.My colleague, Deputy Kavanagh, will develop that point. As the chairperson of a very important committee of the House, he will be able to put on record the difficulties he encountered when people whom he sought to question refused to come forward. The Bill dealing with the freedom of information must be introduced also. Not only are committees entitled to information from Ministers, officials and holders of high office as mentioned in the documentation, the public are insisting on the right to information. When that legislation, which is being prepared by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, comes on stream, it will ensure an openness and transparency not only in the plenary sittings of the Oireachtas but in committees, legislative committees and others which have a specific role. I believe that when those changes are made this House will become more user friendly vis-á-vis the attitude and perception of the public in terms of being aware of the work being done by their legislators on a daily basis. I welcome the fact that the Minister is making arrangements to ensure that time slots on television channels will be available to broadcast the excellent work carried out in committees. Such work is normally conducted behind closed doors and competes for viewing space with the plenary sitting. This should be an incentive for committees to meet outside plenary sitting times as television coverage would be available and it would give credit to committee members who in the past few years have put so much into jobs given to them under the previous terms of reference.
I am delighted also that the procedure followed for the first time with the establishment of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was followed in setting up the new committees. When the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was established it absorbed the then EEC legislative committee, the committee on statutory instruments and other important work evolving from Europe which has a fundamental bearing on our lives. I am glad the Government has since confirmed that a special committee will be set up to deal with difficult issues arising from membership of the European Union, its enlargement and the possible accession of states as Cyprus, Malta and Eastern Bloc countries which would have a direct impact on our country. It is important that not only is a committee set up to consider that particular aspect, but also to deal with legislation relating to Europe and to have at its disposal Ministers and Ministers of State with responsibility in that area. The terms of reference of that new committee in particular are a welcome development in the changing role of Parliament which can address specifically all those areas of concern.
There was a reference to the lack of an expanded role for the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. As the then Opposition Whip said, it was set up following a good deal of disagreement but with the agreement of four parties. That was the beginning of a new procedure giving Members power through a sub-committee to investigate matters, to invite people to make submissions and to confer on witnesses a privilege that Members had enjoyed in the past. It was a major breakthrough and experience was gained in that committee and from references made by Members who sat on it, although my colleagues, Deputies Derek McDowell and Eamon Walsh expressed disappointment that its terms of reference were not broad enough. They made some useful suggestions in that regard which, I am sure, will be considered when dealing with legislation on compellability of witnesses. I welcome the establishment of the committees which must deal with a number of Bills on which they had deliberated previously. There are hundreds of Bills from Europe which affect our daily lives and there is no committee at present to deal with that legislation. Statutory instruments which have piled up for at least three years have not been dealt with. It is a matter of urgency that they be dealt with. The sooner the committees of selection are in place, meet and elect chairpersons and get on with their business, the sooner the Oireachtas can be seen to be as efficient as the Minister wants it to be. The Minister identified that it is his aspiration that they should be efficient for the remainder of the life of this Government.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Ferris, for sharing his time and allowing me to contribute on this important subject. I warmly welcome the Minister of State's initiative today in tabling the motion to set up the various committees of the House. As Deputy Ferris said, I am the outgoing chairman of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies and have been a member of that committee since 1987. That committee is one of the oldest joint committees of the House — I understand it was set up in the 1960s — and has had the responsibility to investigate the activities of commercial semi-State bodies the number of which have increased over the years. Since that time the committee has written to the previous Taoisigh and various Ministers to appeal for more powers to give the committee more teeth to enable it do its job more efficiently. I am glad the Minister confirmed that additional terms of reference will be provided for committees. This will mean that a body such as the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies will be able to operate more efficiently in investigating semi-State bodies. I am speaking about a committee with which I am most familiar.Today's motion will improve its workings.
The demand for compellability of witnesses etc., has been answered by the Minister in that he intends to introduce separate legislation in the near future. I would remind the Minister of State that down through the years I have heard similar replies from various Ministers for Finance that legislation would be introduced shortly. I can show him a good deal of documentation which contains that type of phrase. I know the Minister of State has this subject at heart and that he will introduce the Bill, I hope before the summer recess. That is a reasonable time span in which to expect him to do the necessary work.
I compliment the Minister on the new terms of reference whereby Ministers, senior civil servants and chairmen and chief executives of semi-State bodies will have to attend at committees. My experience and that of other chairmen was that on many occasions chief executives and chairmen would not attend for one reason or another and Ministers were not required to attend the committee.The Minister of State will have to go further and not only will chairmen and chief executives of semi-State bodies be required to attend but the boards of semi-State bodies, when requested, will have to attend at meetings.
In the past legal problems prevented the board of the semi-State body attending and giving evidence on a particular topic. The board of the Irish National Petroleum Corporation refused to come before the committee during the past five years because it claimed to have an ongoing legal problem with suppliers and that it was not capable of being investigated so long as that problem continued. There is no urgency to solve that problem because it cannot be investigated under the terms of reference we had prior to this. I am pleased that such problems can now be overcome.
The problems of Aer Lingus Holidays received a great deal of public attention in the past. It was an item of great public concern and involved a huge loss of money in that company. Under the terms of reference it was not possible to investigate that company. I hope that between the powers being given today and those we will be given under compellability will ensure that items of importance to the public, including the spending of public moneys, are voted by this House to semi-State bodies, can be investigated. I welcome the proposals on today's motion which provides that substitute members can attend at committees for members who have other urgent business to attend to. There has been a problem in keeping up the numbers of committees due to questions or debates in the House which members of the committee have to attend. There were occasions when it was difficult to get a quorum to start the business. It will be the responsibility of each party who has a member on the committee to substitute a member if the member is unable to attend. It is important that Members of either House can attend and become involved in the discussion although they cannot participate in a vote if one is called.
These changes will require additional staffing or existing staff will be required to work inordinately long hours. I expect there will be a demand for additional staffing and, therefore, additional funding. Not alone will funding but specialist staff, capable of giving legal advice, be required. If witnesses are compelled to attend they will probably arrive with legal advisers. Therefore chairmen and members will have to be similarly advised.
Those of us who are in this House for some time know the shortcomings and hope the motion will eliminate them. An issue which is near and dear to all our hearts in that in past committee members, attending committees, suffered from the lack of publicity. The general public visit this House and there is televising of the Dáil chamber. Many people ask where are the other Members when many of us are attending committee meetings. I hope we can televise all committee meetings, especially public hearings in the case of a Joint Committee where evidence is given and where the press and the media are in attendance. Those hearings would be topical and would attract television audiences. We became aware recently that people have a great desire to see how these Houses operate and how we conduct our business.
There is much more we could say at this time. I welcome the motion and look forward to the further legislation required to overcome the difficulties of existing committees and to provide for setting up new committees, as a result of Government policy in this area.
With your permission and that of the House I wish to share my time with Deputy Ó Cuív.
This is my first opportunity in the House to congratulate Deputy Seán Barrett on his appointment as Government Chief Whip. I wish him well in that post and offer him any assistance or advice he may need from time to time in his onerous task. So far as the proposals go, they are a good start for the Government Chief Whip in furthering the reform of the House of the Oireachtas and building on the experience and the reforms of the past eight to ten years.
A hobbyhorse of mine is that when the Houses rise from plenary session in June or July you, a Cheann Comhairle, make the announcement that the House has adjourned to some date in October. The media do their usual thing saying we are all gone on holidays for three or four months. The public believe that because they want to believe it. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that the announcement makes clear that the Dáil is adjourning to take committees during July and September. Despite the impression some people seek to give, the work of the House continues during those months.
We can spend as much time as we like talking about Oireachtas reform but unless it is part of a wider institutional reform programme we will be wasting our time. While the legislative committees were successful in what they were originally set up to do. Members were put to the pin of their collar to attend committee meetings because of the pressure of Dáil business and other business outside the House. Oireachtas reform should be seen in the wider context of institutional and local government reform. If the changes we make are not accompanied by changes in other areas they will amount to nothing. In future it may be decided that Members should not have a dual mandate.
Yesterday the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security presented its report. I have heard much weeping and gnashing of teeth by Government Deputies at the failure of the sub-committee to adjudicate on the evidence presented to it. Some of these Deputies are hypocritical in the extreme. Fianna Fáil put forward a motion to ensure that the sub-committee would have the power to take evidence, cross-examine witnesses and adjudicate on the evidence presented, but it was rejected by all the other parties.We also proposed that the sub-committee should be chaired by a senior judicial figure so as to protect the constitutional rights of witnesses. The sub-committee could not adjudicate on the evidence because of the way it had to be presented and the consideration which had to be given to the constitutional rights of witnesses. We put forward a proposal which would have protected those rights and would have given the sub-committee the power to adjudicate on the evidence.
One must ask why the other parties did not support our motion. Most of the Members who led the charge for an investigation were more interested in blood letting, political posturing and revenge than in knowing the truth. I very much regret their decision to reject our motion. The people who are crying on the public airwaves and issuing statements to newspapers should examine their consciences as they are the ones who decided that the sub-committee should not have the power to adjudicate on the evidence presented to it. It is hypocritical of them and people in the media, who knew the terms of reference, to express surprise at the failure of the sub-committee to adjudicate on the evidence.
The Minister of State said that proper secretarial and research facilities would be provided for Members and that proper accommodation would be provided for the staff. These issues are very dear to my heart and I will support any proposals in this regard. Deputy Kavanagh was one of the best chairmen of the Joint Committee on Semi-State Bodies. I will probably be shot for suggesting that instead of a Joint Committee on Women's Rights we should have an equality committee. The Minister of State should consider changing the title of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights so that it is more inclusive. This positive move would be very much welcomed.Consideration should also be given to extending the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Semi-State Bodies. The aborted Fianna Fáil-Labour Programme for Government contained proposals which would have given that committee the powers to which Deputy Kavanagh referred.
While the proposals on Oireachtas reform in the programme, A Government of Renewal, have been taken from the Fianna Fáil-Labour programme, the Government, which has committed itself to openness, accountability and transparency, failed to take on board the proposal for a Taoiseach's question time for a period of ten or 15 minutes on Wednesdays and Thursdays to deal with additional matters of a topical nature, notice of the general matters to be raised to be given at 10.30 a.m. before the questioning would take place. I wonder where the Government of openness, accountability and transparency has disappeared to. I ask the Minister of State to seek Government approval for the introduction of this proposal. He can be assured of our support in doing this. We need to do more than pay lip service to the concepts of openness, accountability and transparency. We should put our money where our mouth is and put in place a procedure whereby the Taoiseach can be questioned in the House. As Deputy Ahern said, it is very difficult to get the Taoiseach to answer questions and I can understand why he may be reluctant to discuss topical matters.
Much work was done in a very short space of time in regard to the compellability and privilege of witnesses. A Bill dealing with these issues should be brought forward as a matter of urgency. There is little point in setting up committees if witnesses are able to run for cover every time they are asked to attend a meeting and answer questions.
Provision was made in the Estimates for the appointment of a legal officer to the Houses of the Oireachtas. Will the Minister of State confirm that position will be filled?
Cuireann sé áthas orm deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar seo. Tá sé thar a bheith éasca caint a dhéanamh ar athnuachan agus athraithe a dhéanamh i gcóras na Dála. Ach sílim má dheinimíd a leithéid go gcaithfidh sé a bheith feicthe go bhfuil dul chun cinn á dhéanamh againn agus nach bhfuil athruithe á dhéanamh againn ar mhaithe le athruithe amháin.
Nuair a thosnaíonn daoine ag caint ar athruithe struchtúrdha go minic críochnaíonn siad ag bun an choiste, ag cur uaireannta níos faide agus ag cur moltaí ar aghaidh maidir le tuilleadh reachtaíochta ar mhaithe le reachtaíocht.
Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sin ceart. Sílim go mba cheart go mbeadh athnuachaint cheart á dhéanamh ar an Dáil seo. Sílim gurb é an rud atá ag teastáil ón bpobal ná go mbeadh freagracht ag institiúidí uilig an Stáit don Dáil. Sin mar ba cheart dó a bheith.
When people talk of reform the agenda is normally reduced to one or two matters, namely, more committees, longer hours and more legislation. The general public do not consider that a proper agenda, the people want simple answers to simple questions.
It is important that legislation is brought forward and dealt with speedily, but it is also important that we do not get caught in the trap of introducing legislation for the sake of introducing it. It concerns me when people judge the work of the Dáil by the amount of legislation it passes in a year, as if we were producing shoes in a factory. We should examine the way our legislation is written.I understand the format used in other countries is different. Could legislation not be written in a more intelligible fashion? Both the ordinary punter and legislator would need many reference books to understand the legislation and other Acts to which they are referred. While there are many things in Europe with which I do not agree, its directives appear to be written in a much more intelligible fashion than is our legislation.
I am allergic to committees. I detest rushing in and out of committees or when I can only attend one of two committees of which I am a member. I believe in continuity of attendance at committees and, rather than the plethora of committees proposed under this reform, I would prefer a smaller number of committes with a larger number of members present and more continuity in attendance.
I support calling witnesses before committees and the proposal under which the various quangoes, semi-State bodies and authorities could be called before not only the Committee of Public Accounts but before other committees.
I am sure all Members favour more television coverage and I would welcome greater coverage of Dáil proceedings and speakers. This would avoid questions on how the proceedings to be televised are selected. I would welcome total coverage of Question Time and the Order of Business.
On the question of sitting hours, because a small section of the media based in Dublin believe we do not sit enough hours, we sometimes fall into the trap of believing that if we do not sit day and night, the public will think we do not work. The time broadcasters spend in the studio broadcasting is very small compared with the time they spend working. We must consider not only the legislative role of a Deputy, but his or her total role. The sitting hours of the Dáil must allow us to do our work properly. I live in a constituency more than 100 miles long which includes offshore islands. I live 160 miles from this House. On average, I travel in excess of 50,000 miles per annum and I have no occupation other than as a Member of this House. I am lucky if I can spend four or five hours at home on a Sunday afternoon. It is time we were realistic about Dáil sitting hours.
If the Dáil sits earlier on Tuesdays and committees sit on Fridays, the rural Deputies, who cannot travel home each night, will have four nights at a maximum, if Sunday night is included to attend the plethora of meetings which we must attend in our constituencies. It is pointless comparing ourselves with other parliaments. Many of them operate list systems and I would not support the Oireachtas introducing such a system.The beauty of our democratic system is that the average punter knows his or her public representative.
Rural Deputies have a right to attend all sittings of the Dáil. If the Dáil sits at 11.30 a.m. on Tuesdays I would have to get up at 5.30 a.m. and leave my home at 6.30 a.m. As I frequently travel 40 or 50 miles to a constituency meeting on Monday nights I may not arrive home until 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. on Tuesday. An 11.30 a.m. start on Tuesdays would mean a long day's work for me with perhaps only four or five hours' sleep the previous night. I do not know of any other job in which people would consider that reasonable. Friday sittings will exclude rural Deputies. We know the reality but we do not like to admit it. Rural Deputies will come into the House on a Friday morning and head for the hills or wherever as quickly as possible. We should not cod ourselves, we do not want a scandal over nonattendance during these unrealistic sitting hours. It would be much more acceptable to have realistic sitting hours during which we could give our full attention to the work.
The question of sitting hours must be reviewed taking into account the total workload of Members. We need additional resources and full secretarial services. At present many Members are served by the same secretary. Under this reform package the Government should institute an analysis of the workload of Members to assess the work they do and the resources to do it. Until we do that, talking about extending sitting hours is pie-in-the-sky.
I welcome the opportunity of discussing the question of Dáil Reform. There is general consensus that such reform is long overdue. The purpose of reform must be to make the Executive more accountable and to make Ministers more easily and quickly accountable on issues of the day. Reform should enable all Members to perform better as legislators. People frequently ask how much time Members allocate to legislative work and how much they allocate to constituency work. Of course, in some instances the two overlap. The general view is that Dáil Deputies spend about 80 per cent of their time on constituency work, leaving 20 per cent of their time to deal with legislation. That is not how it should be. When I was first elected I had the idealistic view that I would change the world by bringing in all forms of legislation that would be benefical to my county and country but that is not how things worked out.
It has been suggested that in Great Britain the situation is the opposite; representatives spend 80 per cent of their time legislating and 20 per cent in their constituencies. When we see their equivalent of "Oireachtas Report" on television, the House of Commons is normally full. This Chamber is not full because our colleagues are in their offices snowed under with clinic sheets from last weekend and having to make telephone calls on this, that or the other issue. We have a long way to go and anything the Minister can do to change the situation would benefit the country. We would all welcome not having to run clinics and deal with issues that our constituency colleagues have dealt with before us or, if not, will deal with after us.
In my constituency the same constituent goes to the clinic of all five TDs. That has to be wrong and I do not know how it can be addressed as we are all looking for that constituent's vote. Ironically the person who travels between the five TDs will probably not vote.
In Ireland the only effective body of legislators is the Cabinet. All other Oireachtas Members are common fodder for the voting lobbies. I accept the good intentions of the Government parties on this issue but the proposals before use are not the best way forward. We do not need more committees, but more effective committees. The effectiveness of a committee can be judged on a number of criteria, including the powers vested in it and the time and resources its members have to devote to its business. I welcome the additional powers proposed for committees. Some of the current proposals may need to be fine-tuned. The bottom line, however, is that an effective committee system must have the powers to summon and question witnesses. Above and beyond the theoretical powers that may be vested in committees is their effectiveness. This comes down to the time and resources members have to devote to committees. The present system is not working at its best for lack of both time and resources. More of the same will not help.
Let me refer to what Deputy Ó Cuív said earlier about Friday sittings and the suggestion that there might even be Monday sittings. It is well known by Dáil Deputies from rural areas as far afield as my own — and I am not the furthest from the Dáil, living 110 miles from here — that county councils, residents' associations and politicians meet on Mondays and also on Fridays. I ask that we be practical and not run before the media and allow them to make decisions for us. We have constituencies to run, people to look after, and as long as the system is in its present form, we cannot possibly be here on either Mondays or Fridays.
Getting elected in a multi-seat constituency is time consuming and I assume nobody is saying that is not a priority. It most certainly is, and time is a scarce resource in politics. Deputies must feel that committee particiption is useful and by that I mean that the work done is effective and is recognised. That means that the television camera must be in every room, because where the cameras go increasingly the print media follow, and that ensures as full as possible a House at any given time.
Government is increasingly complex. As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts for the past two years, I felt hampered by the lack of backup research. The Departments appearing before us were expert in their areas. They had a plethora of people who had days to research. Committee members were barely hitting the ground in spots. We can readily say that a committee would be far more effective if its members had research facilities. I ask the Minister to take this on board. Researchers will cost extra but if the committees are to do their jobs properly they are essential and, in the long term, may be cost effective.
An effective committee system is one that has the fewest committees with the minimum number of members. The committee should in turn have powers to enable it to reach across the length and breath of its mandate. Its members must have the research facilities to enable them to come to meetings briefed on the issues they are to deal with. By these criteria much is lacking in the present proposals. Committee chairpersons are to be paid. The responsibility of the chairman, if properly exercised, is undoubtedly time consuming. I have no objection in principle to the payment of an allowance for the position of chairperson.However, giving a chairperson £8,000 per annum while not appointing extra research staff is putting the cart before the horse. Effective committees must have a politically appointed staff to research and develop a committee agenda. As it is, civil servants and Government Ministers can literally run rings around the committees when they are so minded.
There is a strong majority in favour of major reforms. Goodwill exists on all sides. I hope the Minister will accept my comments in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
I have no hesitation in acknowledging the Government's good intentions in restructuring the committees, forming additional committees, making the Houses more open and accountable and giving Members plenty of work to do. The last Government, under Deputy Noel Dempsey, then Government Chief Whip, made massive strides in the area of Dáil reform. For a number of years prior to that, successive Governments and parties tried to make the Dáil more relevant and to have good committees.
I recognise that the Government has political problems in accommodating three parties in Government. Not everybody can be in the Cabinet or in the second level. Such considerations are not confined to Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left in Government. They would also exist if the Progressive Democrats, Fianna Fáil and Labour were in Government. A certain amount of politics has to be played and people have to be accommodated. I have no compunction about saying that, as long as we all recognise it. What I object to is that prople are dressing it up and saying it is being done for a certain reason when that is not the case.
I may be a minority in this House in the views I am expressing but it is worth making a number of points. I recognise that there is a need for greater participation by Senators and Deputies, that there should be more committees and they should have more power — I am sure the Government will introduce the privilege and compellability of witnesses Bill — but at this stage I can nearly pick the day prior to the Christmas or summer recess when a cerain newspaper will include an article indicating how long the Dáil will be in recess and where Deputies are going to on their holidays. I always refused as a matter of principle to indicate where I was going. Like the Minister of State, Deputy Barrett, each year in the middle of March I visit the middle of England where we have enjoyed ourselves on occasion. I hope the Minister of State will be able to follow me this year also.
It does not make any difference to a backbencher, regardless of whether he or she is a member of a Government party, whether the Dáil is sitting. When I was a backbencher the best times of the year were those when the Dáil was sitting because one could get away from one's constituents. Ninety-nine per cent of Deputies are up to their oxters in constituency paperwork. Some are better at this than others; I do not regard myself as being in the first division of constituency workers. That is not a secret.
I am tired of the newspapers every few months carrying cheap headlines denigrating all Deputies, few of whom stand up for themselves regardless of which side of the House they are on. There is a "feel good" factor in increasing the number of committees because the media are demanding that we should be seen to be busy. It has become more important in Irish life to be seen to be doing something; in politics one would probably be better off doing nothing and not making decisions. One should give the impression that one will do something and never do it because then one would never be blamed for anything. Another principle is that one should not speak too much either because there is a danger that one will get into trouble.
While I welcome the proposed reforms which are necessary they are based on a false premise. Deputy Byrne outlined what backbenchers in all parties do. They work a colossal number of hours each week. We should not be doing much of this work but there is a snag for most Deputies in that the brightest fellows in Wexford, Dún Laoghaire, Tipperary or Kildare think they should be representing their constituents but if they do not vote for them at election time they will not be here.
Fifteen years ago I was invited to speak by an organisation on any topic I liked — it was not a political function — in an obscure part of Ireland, County Cavan. I wrote a script, something I did not often do this at the time, about our electoral system. I have come to the view that the best thing would be to change it. I recognise the merits of the multi-seat, proportional representation system. The public and the media who criticise us like it because lobby and constituency groups have an input and the elected representative is made accountable to the people.
There was accountability long before the Government started talking about it. We have the most accountable system in Europe. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get elected because if a Deputy is not doing the work their colleague, more often than not in the same party, is. Deputies spend less time at election time worrying about what other parties are doing; usually they worry about what their own colleagues are doing. Until now the Labour Party has had a single candidate in constituencies; when it has two or more candidates it will learn, as the Minister of State, Deputy Barrett, and I have learned, that it is not so nice. Therefore we spend much time doing unnecessary work but if we fail to do it we will not be elected. While proportional representation is the best method, the multi-seat electoral system gives us much grief.
The only people who will benefit from the new committee system are Government Ministers because they will not be subjected to the same glare of publicity in a committee room as they would in Dáil Éireann. On the other hand Deputies from all parties will be running to committees all over the place with the result that their constituency paperwork will mount up. They will neglect one at the expense of the other. If they fail to attend the committees the media will ask why did the Labour Party Deputies not attend and if they fail to look after the interests of their constituents in Tipperary South or Cork South Central they will be abused. If they fail to turn up for the local council meeting on Mondays they will also be abused.
We could avoid this if we change the electoral system. My party tried to do this on two occasions. It made a mistake on the second occasion by trying to replace it with a first past the post system, which I would not favour. When I advocated change in the electoral system I never put forward that alternative. The debate on the first past the post system concentrated on the number of seats Fianna Fáil would win and the argument was that every other party would be wiped out. There is cross-party support for the abolition of the multi-seat system, particularly among members of the Minister of State's party. A former Leader of that party, Liam Cosgrave, felt so strongly about it that he would even have opted for the first past the post system.
We should consider establishing an ad hoc all-party committee comprised of like-minded people to see if it could come up with a better electoral system. There are people in my own party and on the other benches, particularly in the Fine Gael Party, who would agree with me. Their number has increased during the years.
Apart from the multi-seat electoral system debilitating Deputies and giving them coronaries because they have to do much unnecessary work, the media is demanding that this should be a legislative Chamber. It is not; the only place where legislation can be changed is the Cabinet room. A certain procedure is adopted. Legislation is drafted by civil servants and presented to the Government and then to the Dáil. In theory we can change it but how many times has legislation of substance been changed in this House? The answer is very seldom because people do not have the expertise or the time to devote to it.
We will now have more committees. This is a move in the right direction but we have this albatross of the multi-seat electoral system on our back. I have no quarrel with the Government parties because we would have done the same or something similar. Everybody is trying to participate in the legislative process but they are unable to do so. A single seat proportional representation system or a combination of both systems has been suggested. I will avoid indicating my preference because I do not want the next debate on it to get bogged down like debates we had in the 1950s and 1960s. If we had such a system we could reform local government also because it could be made a condition that one could not be a member of a local authority while a Member of Dáil Éireann.
TDs are right to demand better backup services and research facilities and if they were provided this House and the committees would become proper legislative assemblies. We must come up with a system that will provide the accountability the Irish people want from their public representatives within the proportional representation system. When I spoke on this subject in the past I did not argue that the system should be changed because it was difficult for TDs. I said the multi-seat electoral system has led to more bad decision-making in this House than anything else because when it comes close to the time of an election, a Government will make decisions to get the last seats in some constituencies. Regardless of what Government is in power, be it a single party or multi-party arrangement, its eye will not be on the ball and it will make bad decisions. There is a great temptation in parties who run a number of candidates to run additional candidates who do not pose a threat to the main candidate. Candidates for the Dáil will always hope that their party will win the majority of seats, but not want at their expense. A person who says anything else is not telling the truth.
The multi-seat system had led to ridiculous economic decisions being take over the years. It is resulting in Governments being led by opinion polls which is the way the system operates in the United States. Our system is increasingly going down that road and that is regrettable. Deputy Byrne was correct when he said that, apart from the Government Ministers, Members of this House are lobby fodder because we do not have the time or the resources to devote ourselves to legislation. Regardless of how many new committees of this House are set up that will always be the case while we have a multi-seat electoral system.
I had not intended contributing to this debate but I have not spoken for some time about the electoral system. My party in Government would have gone forward with Oireachtas reform but all this reform is built on a bad foundation. I hope that in the coming years we will set up an informal ad hoc committee to examine the possibility of having a better electoral system. When that happens I will fully support proposals to have more committees with real powers. Members will then feel that they are really part of the legislative process.
I support Deputy McCreevy in his view of our multi-seat proportional representation electoral system and the degree to which it militates against good legislative performance in this House. Since becoming a TD I have proposed an alternative electoral system, namely, a single seat PR system which would be infinitely better than our electoral system. Electoral reform is inextricably bound up with Dáil reform and if we do not deal with the issue of electoral reform we will only make slow progress in this area.
There was a suggestion at one time that the House would establish a commission of people involved in political science, electoral politics and so on to do research in this area and put a number of options before the House in terms of alternative electoral systems. The Government should establish such a commission which would lay a report before the House on alternative electoral systems to be debated by Members. I am a realist and I acknowledge that people are afraid of change and would be concerned about the impact on them of a change in the electoral system.
I believe passionately in the need for a change in our electoral system. I am a member of a five seat constituency and the provision of a public light on a roadway can cause 11 public representatives to attend a public meeting on the issue. There may be five TDs, one or two Senators who are aspiring to become TDs and three to four local councillors from the ward who might also have a eye on a Dáil seat in the future. Those public representatives will agree to write to the city manager or the engineer urging them to make the requisite change. There will be 11 replies to those letters. There is then a contest to see how quickly those public representatives can get the replies to their constituencies.I used the example of a public light but there is a plethora of such genuine local issues. One must ask whether they demand the attention of 11 public representatives. A multi-seat electoral systems leads to massive duplication and a great waste of energy and time, particularly in four and five seat urban constituencies where there is not the same geographical demarcation as there may be in some rural constituencies.
The proposals before the House have more to do with bonding the Government parties together than a genuine attempt at Dáil reform. There is an element of "jobs for the boys" in the proposals before us. The chairmanships and the convenor positions will be eagerly sought — some weeks ago Deputy Ned O'Keeffe referred to them as "little jobeens" on offer. People are becoming a little cynical of this type of exercise and there is a danger that few Government backbenchers will feel they can criticise the Government in relation to various issues because they will be seeking such "jobeens".
I took the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, at his word when I listened to his first speech as Taoiseach. During the trauma of last November I listened intently to his reference to the lack of accountability, the need for greater transparency and so forth. As a newcomer to the Fianna Fáil Front Bench I engaged in a Question Time debate with the Ministers for Education and Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, and I have raised a number of issues on the Adjournment and in Private Members' time.
The Taoiseach's protestation and his oft stated objective that accountability is the number one item on his agenda is nothing more than a sham. I tabled seven questions yesterday and the cumulative length of the answers from the Department of Education to the seven questions was six lines. I asked such simple questions as what it would cost to bring mature students within the scope of the higher education grants scheme; what it would cost to bring part-time students within the scope of the higher education grants scheme and specifically what it would cost to raise maintenance grants at third level from their present level to £2,400. The one line reply to those three questions was that data was not readily available.
I had tabled the questions originally to the Department of Finance because they involved a cost to the Exchequer and I had used the phrase "cost to the Exchequer" in the question but they were transferred to the Minister for Education. Is that accountability, or endeavouring to give the fullest information possible to Members?
During priority questions Ministers tend to read out very long speeches. Of the 20 minutes available for priority questions, 16 or 17 minutes are taken up by the Minister's deliberately evasive replies. I accept that might have applied to previous Administrations but——
It was 15 minutes when I was in Opposition.
——the present Taoiseach in this House specifically condemned the evasive answers at Question Time. There has been no change, if anything it has got worse. The Minister for Education believes she does not have to respond to education matters on the Adjourment. Recently we raised two major items on the Adjourment including the proposed teachers' strike which everybody would agree is an important issue. Deputy Keogh from the Progressive Democrats Party was successful in raising it on the Adjournment and was generous enough to share time with me but it was the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare who responded on behalf of the Minister for Education. I mean no offence to that Minister but he was not the appropriate person to respond to a debate on the Adjournment on an important matter such as threatened industrial action on the issue of early retirement.
When I tabled questions about the respective responsibilities of the Ministers of State at the Department of Education I received a reply which indicated that Deputy Allen was "the Minister for Adjournment debates and Private Members' debates, except major issues". If that is accountability by Ministers who are statutorily responsible for the issues that are raised on the Adjournment and during Private Members' time, it is a far cry from what we were led to believe would be a change in the way the House does its business.
I spoke to Deputy O'Rourke on this issue. She took great pride in the fact that it was part and parcel of her modus operandi to attend all Adjournment debates relating to her Department because she felt that this was an instrument for Members to articulate issues of vital concern in their constituency. If the Government has respect for the House, a Minister at the very least should be disposed to attending Adjournment debates. I got figures detailing the Minister for Education's performance on Adjournment debates and out of a possible 114 we could count her attendance at 14 in the past two to three years.
The matters raised did not all concern her Department.
That is not good enough. If Ministers do not have respect for this House, the public certainly will not.
The Minister cannot be every place.
The first priority of Government should be the House, it is not a question of people being everywhere but of ordering priorities. Deputy Ferris's intervention probably conveys the mind set that is informing Ministers who feel they do not have to turn up for the Adjournment. It will make this House irrelevant. We are elected by the people to articulate their views in this House and if we do not get the respect of Ministers who will attend to hear what we say on behalf of our constituents, it is a sad look out. It makes a mockery of all the protestations about Dáil reform. That was why I used strong language when I declared that in my view all the rhetoric about accountability and transparency is nothing more than an empty sham.
Did the Deputy read the motions?
I did. With all due respects it would be a start if Ministers would attend the Adjournment. If a major topical issue is taken on the Adjournment, such as potential industrial chaos, the Minister responsible should be there to respond to it.
I do not need lectures from the Deputy.
Other Ministers are better but that practice should be stamped out and, where possible, Ministers should attend Adjournment debates. If we are to have the practice where Ministers will decide whether the matter taken in Private Members' time is important enough for them to attend that is a serious erosion of the status of this House. Deputy Allen has been listed in a written reply as the Minister responsible for Adjournments and Private Members Business, except major items.
Has the Deputy anything to contribute to the debate on Dáil reform?
The roles are now reversed.
I regarded my opening remarks as very positive in terms of the need for elected reform. Furthermore, the points made by Deputy Hugh Byrne on the need for research facilities is critical, particularly if we are to improve the capacity of Members to contribute at committees. I hope the forthcoming electoral Bill will address this issue as it will deal with party political funding. It should be part and parcel of that Bill that such funding should be targeted to research and development particularly towards establishing proper research in political parties generally.
For far too long we have been dominated by one type of expertise and very often we see Government Ministers handing out contracts to consultants. Irrespective of whether a party is in Government it needs to be building up an independent bank of expertise that produces alternative viewpoints and perspectives to the official line that one may get from Government Departments.That is not to critise the information that emanates from the public service as very often it is of excellent quality. The fact that we lack an independent capacity for research and that political parties have not had the resources to develop such a capacity is an indictment of our political system. As Deputy McCreevy said, legislation comes before us as a fait accompli and rarely are Bills substantially amended as they go through the House. Before Bills are drafted greater use should be made of the committee system.
There is a list of legislation.
The Deputy has obviously not read the motion.
There are a number of Bills on the Order Paper. Perhaps we should go back to the drawing board and give Members an opportunity to put forward their views. Too often there is a diktat from the centre.
We need to change the electoral system.A commission should be formed to set out the various options. Research assistance should be given to Opposition Members and to members of local authorities. As regards the length of time the Dáil and committees will sit, Deputy McCreevy made valid points regarding the demands of Members vis-á-vis local government. Proposals for reform often do not take into account the fact that many Members travel long distances to attend the Dáil. With our electoral system it is not possible for many people to give up their local authority seat and concentrate fully on the Dáil. To do so could mean electoral suicide for many Deputies. In the present context, membership of local authorities is essential for political survival.We must take that into account.
I understand chairpersons of Dáil committees must retire from local authorities.That is not in the best interests of some Members, particularly if there is a change of Government after two years. For example, if an election is called a Minister of State could lose his seat having already lost a local authority seat. These are the issues we must take on board when dealing with Dáil reform.
As regards the appointment of chairpersons, the previous Government made statutory provision to enable any Government to make an appropriate order. That matter has not been considered at Government yet. I presume chairmanships will be paid positions. I would expect them to be so if we are to have committees which operate properly.I do not see anything wrong with that. It is only reasonable that people who take on additional responsibility and work should be paid and should be seen to be earning what they are paid.
The draft Bill on privilege and compellability has been in existence for four or five years. As soon as I came into office I made inquiries about it because I accept the point that many of the provisions in the new terms of reference cannot be used unless we have this legislation.I accept that the legislation is urgent and I intend to pursue the matter on a weekly basis until the Bill is published.
It has been established that the Opposition will hold the chairmanship of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Committee on Women's Rights and I propose to allocate one of the chairs of the new committees to the Opposition. I reject the criticism that the additional committees are designed to facilitate some kind of patronage. I stand over the case I made for a committee on European affairs. It is legitimate that we should have such a committee given that our lives are controlled more and more by what is happening in Europe. It would afford a forum for MEPs, including those elected for Northern Ireland, to attend if they so wished and give us the benefit of their experience and take part in debates. As regards the committee on the family I make no apology for having a group of elected representatives look at the family and the role the State plays — perhaps even the damage it does. As regards the committee on sustainable development, that is a reality we must face coming into the 21st century. Anyone who knows about business will recognise that growth in job opportunities is in the area of small business and to have a committee examine reports, bring forward ideas, question Minister and have Ministers address it on improving the environment for small business can only do good.
We are not asking every Member of the Dáil to serve on these committees. We are talking about 15 Deputies and four Senators and for the committee on European affairs it will be 11 Deputies and six Senators. It will involve a small number of Deputies from each party, on a proportional basis. We are not talking about giving Deputies huge workloads. Let us not fool ourselves or project a different image. Three or four committees have been given tasks to perform within a time limit of two years. At the end of two years, if they have not completed their work, they can come back here, have their request for an extension examined and, if they do not prove to be worthwhile, they can be replaced. I served on a committee on crime during the life of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Government, a very good committee which produced some reports. It was overtaken by the Select Committee on Legislation and Security. I do not believe in having committees constitute a handy way of providing positions for Members. Of course, some such positions will arise; nobody would expect the position to be otherwise.
A further ten minutes have been allowed for questions but the Minister of State must be called on not later than 6.40 p.m. to reply.
The Minister has not specified the precise amount that will be paid to the proposed chairmen of these new committees. Can he indicate to the House what is the actual rate? Will he confirm whether these committees would ever see the light of day if it transpired there was no payment to those who would chair them? Furthermore, will he agree that, in terms of resourcing the committee system, it would be better if funds were targeted at staffing and research facilities rather than paying chairmen?
Has the Minister of State any proposals to address the concerns I raised about how such committees would disburse moneys allocated to them, or on how they would be rendered more accountable?
Will he respond to my query about the long-promised Freedom of Information Bill on which the Minister of State, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, has been working since being appointed? What on earth is causing the delay in introducing that vital Bill to allow information be made more widely available publicly, rather than concentrating on the Minister's emphasis on frequently reviewing the Official Secrets Act?
In addition, will he respond to the concern expressed by rural Members that committee sittings, primarily on Fridays, will exclude their participation and that there will be an unhelpful/unnecessary bias in policy-making in favour of urban Members. Is that not something which should be taken into account?
What is the present position of the very comprehensive, excellent report on a library service in this House, whose recommendations await implementation?
I will ask Deputies Martin, Ferris, Dempsey and Dermot Ahern to put their questions to the Minister of State in that order.
Does the Minister of State welcome the concept of establishing an electoral commission to propose options or alternative electoral systems, given contributions in this debate so far on this matter and that it is the view of a number of Members that such reform is inextricably wound up with Dáil reform?
In regard to the operation of Question Time — I was not endeavouring to be negative in my contribution but to be frank and honest — irrespective of who may be in Government, the manner in which questions are answered leaves much to be desired. It certainly has very little to do with accountability and with furnishing Members with the fullest possible information. It has been my experience that, since this Government assumed office, the position has deteriorated.Has the Minister any proposals to facilitate Members at Question Time, particularly in the type of answers furnished and, more importantly, in laying down clear, independent guidelines on the manner in which questions are ruled out of order, on which there would appear to be some tick-tacking between Departments and the relevant office here?
If we could reach agreement on streamlining voting procedures would the Minister of State have electronic voting implemented?
The terms of reference of each of the committees specify that all appointees to high office in the State shall attend meetings of joint committees, as appropriate, and subject to the legal constraints on their office, discuss issues relevant to the matters comprehended by paragraph (1). Will the Minister consider introducing legislation to ensure that all holders of high office including for instance the Director of Public Prosecutions, are amenable to committees of this House? There was much talk about accountability immediately before and after the fall of the previous Government. While generally welcoming the provision that Ministers would appear before committees, or be requested to consider certain matters, will the Minister of State confirm that that facility will not be used to pre-empt issues being discussed in this House, that a Minister will not bat them off, saying he will discuss it with the committee, or request their consideration of the matter?
As I understand it, the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies will be constituted in a manner which will not permit the Progressive Democrats to have a member. It would appear to me to be unfair to any parliamentary group, that it would not be represented in a committee of that kind. Will the Minister agree to re-examine the proposed membership of that committee in order to at least guarantee every group in this House the right to participate? It is not as if we are endeavouring to collect committee memberships like children at the Spring Show, we merely want to ensure that at least we are members of everything, as of right, whether or not we shall have the requisite resources.
I referred earlier to the overall question of the payment of chairpersons of these committees. Could the Minister give the House some indication in that regard, in addition to some indication of their staffing arrangements and of the research grant to be made available to Opposition parties?Given that a grant was made available by the previous Government to the Opposition parties it would be grossly unfair were that research grant not increased by the present Government.
Will the Government consider the establishment of a standing committee on secondary legislation whose membership might examine all ministerial regulations, a proposal in the Dáil reform package of Democratic Left, who appeared to make great play of the fact that regulation, after regulation was being passed without discussion?
As the House will be aware, the present allowance to chairpersons of committees, in respect of the legislative committees, the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies and the Committee of Public Accounts, is £10,000. The allowance to the chairpersons of other committees, such as the Joint Committee on the Irish Language and Joint Committee on Women's Rghts is £6,630. I cannot give Members a straight answer about the category into which the new committees will fall but it will be one of those two categories.
Are the allowances tax free?
I understand the allowances are taxable and that is provided in legislation.
Is the Deputy concerned about it?
I am sure the public will be interested.
The manner in which money is spent is a matter for individual committees. I will not dictate that a committee should spend its allowance in a certain way because it is important they retain their independence.
The freedom of information Bill is currently in the course of preparation. Two Government parties had not been involved previously in dealing with draft legislation and much of it has had to be reviewed in the context of the new Government. I hope the freedom of information Bill will be published soon and will pass through the Dáil and the Seanad this year, but I cannot give a guarantee on that.
Regarding Friday's sittings, people have complained that there may be a lack of television coverage of committees.The proposal I put forward was not to change Dáil sitting times but to allow committees to sit from 12 noon to 2.30 p.m. on Tuesdays and on Fridays. There are not very many people involved in committees but they will have to sit on those days if they are to secure television coverage to enable the people see the work being done. The committees can advertise what matters will be discussed the following week. Hopefully, in time, there will be live coverage of committees by Telefís na Gaeilge. We have heard complaints today about 80 per cent of Deputies' time being spent on constituency work and 20 per cent dealing with legislation. The reality is that a great deal of work is done here about which the public are not aware and for which credit is not given. I would like credit to be given for it.
I do not have an answer for Deputy O'Donnell regarding the Library service, but I will check the position.
Regarding the electoral commission, that matter could be discussed by one of the committee. I do not have a proposal with regard to it but the ideal committee to consider it would be the one dealing with the Department of the Environment.
Committee meetings can serve as a substitute for Question Time, as it were, in that Ministers can be called and made answerable for various matters in committee where long discussions can take place and they are not confined, as in Question Time, to a given time slot. I believe that provision will ensure greater openness than has been the case up until now.
On electronic voting, I am aware that my predecessor did some work on this and I will have to take it from there. I am aware that if we streamline voting, Members fear it will suit the Government, but Governments change. We must be prepared to be more reasonable in the manner in which we use our time and Members should not have to traipse in here four or five times a day for a vote which can take 20 minutes. If Members are not prepared to change the voting system on the basis that if they agree to do so they will be assisting the present Government, the present system will never change. It is up to us to decide whether we wish to change and perhaps have group votes. If the voting system were changed, it would not make much difference. The chance of a snap vote and defeat for the Government is unlikely and I cannot remember one in the last 15 years.
I was nearly caught out once.
All Whips are nearly caught. If we want to be more professional in the manner in which we do our work, we must consider this matter. I will continue discussions with Opposition parties.
On Deputy Dempsey's point regarding holders of high office——
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State but the time has come to put the question.
I will endeavour to answer other Deputies' questions when I meet them after this debate.
As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil this day: "That motions Nos. 4 to 12, inclusive, on today's Order Paper in relation to certain joint and select committees are hereby agreed to."
Question put and declared carried.
Message to be sent to the Seanad requesting its concurrence in the appropriate Resolutions.
