Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)

The success or otherwise of this debate will depend on whether the Minister of State and the Government as a whole are prepared to recognise that the time has come for a clear separation of powers between the Executive and this Chamber. Their terms of reference immediately indicate the thinking behind the formation of committees. There is a fear on the part of Government of losing control. I do not refer to backbenchers on the Government side because we are all Members of the Dáil but the Executive has a job to do and this Parliament has a job to do. For example, one of the conditions of committees is that a joint committee shall refrain from inquiring into, in public session, or publishing confidential information regarding any such matter if so requested by the body concerned or by the Minister. This means a Minister can tell a committee of Parliament it cannot debate a matter in public. He can tell it not to publish information. If ever there was an example of the control of Government and the Executive over committees it is reflected in that condition, which applies to the terms of reference of all committees. I object to that.

The first thing we should do is review the terms of reference of all committees but it will depend on whether the Executive is prepared to release control over committees and leave it to the Dáil and Seanad to act in a responsible fashion to assist the Executive in the formation of legislation. The original intention was for heads of Bills to be sent to committees by Cabinet for consideration and that was a very good idea. The object of the exercise was to invite witnesses to debate those heads. The results would then be returned, via the Dáil, to the Executive. I see nothing wrong with that system but, as things stand, we empty this Chamber of real work by sending off Bills on Committee Stage to committees when, in many instances, they should be debated in the House.

If we let the committee system operate in a correct fashion we would not need to be concerned about there being a majority on all Stages in committee. Committee meetings should not be about votes. The only reason for a Government majority on a committee is the fear of losing a vote on Committee Stage of a Bill. Why should a finance Bill be buried in a committee, with nobody knowing what is happening? It is not reported, which is also the case with social welfare Bills. I spent five years outside this House and I was appalled not to have a clue what was in finance Bills.

This is a real problem, which is why, with Deputy Kenny, leader of Fine Gael, and Deputy Higgins, I have advocated for a long time that proceedings of both Houses and committees should be aired live on our broadcasting station. Television is a feature of the present generation and if we want to communicate with people we should have our own channel to broadcast on a daily basis, with its schedule published in newspapers so that people will know what time certain debates take place and what is happening in a committee. One can flick a button to watch and listen and one does not even need a commentary. I watch BBC Parliament on occasions and during the summer months, when the Parliament is in recess, much of the committee work is replayed, in which there are some very interesting debates. One gets the advantage of hearing outside experts advise parliamentarians on various issues, and there is no reason it cannot happen here. It is simply a question of the will to do it.

I believe we are creating committees for the sake of creating committees. There is a real fear that they will be seen as more jobs for the boys. I want real committees and do not see why we need another three. I accept that many of the proposals in the Chief Whip's speech this morning relate to important matters but we do not necessarily need a separate committee to discuss them. The present committee structure could achieve that. Mention has been made of insufficient space and staff but if we increase the number of committees to 21 or 22 there will be less space for the existing committees and more staff will be required. It will also add to the potential for talking shops.

There is no reason for the Government to feel it has to chair every committee. If one accepts the separation of powers between the Executive and Parliament, the chairs of committees should be allocated on the basis of proportionality, depending on the strength of each party in the Dáil. I agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin's point that every party should have the opportunity to be represented on a committee. We live in a democracy and many countries would give their right arm for the freedoms we have. We rightly fight the cause of people such as those in Burma who are trying to rid themselves of dictatorship, but we are going in the opposite direction by allowing Government to take over more and more in respect of the operation of our democracy. Government has a job to do and so does Parliament. It is time all of us, irrespective of our party, thought this way.

On the subject of Dáil reform, one of the most important instruments in any parliamentary democracy is the power to ask a parliamentary question and receive a comprehensive reply. Question Time in this Parliament is now an utter joke. There are 50 or 60 questions to a particular Minister on the Order Paper every day but everybody knows that, after Priority Questions, we are lucky if more than five are answered and that is utterly wrong. I know from my time as a Minister, as will other Members who have served in government, that if a Department sees a question at No. 20 on the Order Paper it knows the quality of the reply can be lower than if it were at No. 1, given the fact that it will not be reached. The Minister does not even have to brief himself, or herself, on the topic.

We have a lottery system but I suggest that, instead of that lottery taking place a few days before the questions are to be asked, they be given to the Ceann Comhairle to deal with. In the morning, before he comes into the Chamber, he would draw the questions and the order in which they are to be asked, but he would not tell any Member. If I had submitted a question, I would come into the House because there was a chance it would have been drawn as No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3. Most important, the quality of the reply would be the same for each question because nobody would know whether it was to be selected for answer. The system would be very simple and would attract more Deputies into the Chamber at Question Time.

We should also restrict the time allocated to each question. A Minister should not be allowed to spend five minutes replying while the person asking the question only has 30 seconds. This is a vital change which would not adversely affect any of us. It will only benefit those of us who ask a parliamentary question. I ask the Minister of State to give the suggestion serious consideration as it is a disgrace that people turn on their television to see only two or three people in the Chamber at Question Time, because we know our question will not be reached. He must find a way of attracting people to the House because this is a theatre and it is where the action takes place. This is where the public forms its impression of how we are doing our jobs. People do not realise that we slave in committees. As we run from one committee to another, we ask ourselves why we are doing it. Do we need 21 committees?

See this speech in context