Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I welcome today's debate. It is important, before the committees are established, to have an opportunity at plenary session to raise some of these issues. I welcome what the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, had to say in his opening remarks, which I read in detail. I wish to take up the issue Deputy Ardagh referred to in the course of his contribution. It is fair to say that the high point of the Oireachtas committee system since it was introduced in a comprehensive way in the 1990s was the DIRT inquiry report, commissioned by the then chairperson, former Deputy Jim Mitchell, and his colleagues. Deputy Ardagh was also a member of that committee. The reason it was a high point was that it managed to capture the public's imagination. For the first time in a long time politicians were able to take direct responsibility for something that had gone wrong away from the tribunals and the senior counsels, and without the grotesque sums of money that we are pouring into the inquiry system. It was possible because the issue of public concern effectively did not involve a direct clash between Government and Opposition.

That model had limitations placed on it by the Abbeylara ruling. Sooner rather than later we will need to return to the Supreme Court decision on the Abbeylara inquiry. If we are serious about instituting inquiries within the House which are of public concern, we must ensure that our powers are such that we can draw specific conclusions either on individuals or on facts. The limitations caused by the Abbeylara ruling have never really been revisited by this House or the other House in terms in how we might change the way in which the committee system operates. That model of instituting inquiries of public concern by experienced parliamentarians is the most successful model and is one we need to replicate.

I wish to make a number of proposals which would greatly help the proceedings in this House. On becoming British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown instituted a number of reforms in the House of Commons as a means of trying to get over what was seen to be a very restrictive ten years under the former Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, whose presidential style did not lend itself to ensuring the Parliament was given all the powers it should have had. The Government could introduce one reform tomorrow. If the Government wants to make any major statement of public importance on an issue or a policy initiative, it makes that policy announcement at a press conference in Government Buildings. No parliament in the world would accept that position.

I suggest to the Chief Whip that when the Government or individual Ministers choose to make major public policy announcements, they should do so here on the floor of the House. Thursday afternoon could be given over to specific announcements by the Government on a new policy area. The media would be invited and they would attend. We should allow an opportunity for the Opposition to make a statement on the policy announcement. I do not even object to the notion that some contents of the announcement might be leaked the night before provided that the announcement is made in the House rather than at a press conference in Government Buildings with none of us present.

It completely demeans Parliament to have a Minister make major policy announcement outside the House. Ministers would not get away with that in the House of Commons or in many other parliaments in the world. If we are really serious about doing something about parliamentary accountability, let those statements be made in the House. The Minister, the Opposition and the media should be here. The only reason for the media not to attend here is that the statement has already been made at a press conference. It is completely demeaning to the notion of parliamentary accountability and is a matter to which we need to return.

Another reform would be to give additional power to our Speaker. At the moment at Question Time, probably the most important time in the week in terms of grilling the Minister, making sure he or she knows his or her brief and making sure that issues are raised, the Ceann Comhairle does not have the power to direct the Minister to answer a question with the result that we get these Gettysburg-type addresses by Ministers following the format of two minutes, three minutes and two minutes again, which do not answer the questions posed. At no stage can the Ceann Comhairle intervene to tell the Minister he or she is not answering the question the Deputy has raised. Let us institute that reform rather than letting the Ceann Comhairle be more than happy to allow this game to continue as the mini speeches that are all written by civil servants are read into the record of the House.

Another reform should be introduced to address the issue of the many quangos established in recent years. Deputy Burton has stated 400 different agencies have been given various powers, thus providing another opportunity for Ministers to avoid answering a straight question. Had many of the relevant questions been posed and answered honestly 15 years ago, the beef tribunal would never have happened. Many of the tribunals currently sitting may not have been established if Parliament had demanded straight answers from the relevant Ministers, who were accountable to this House. That reform could be made at relatively small pain to the Executive.

If one ever wanted to see jobbery in action, one need look no further than our committee system, which ensures the Government backbenches are kept quiet. It is the greatest scandal in the House that in excess of 50 Members are put on the payroll to serve on a committee. They do so as a means of keeping in with the Government and the Government is happy because it keeps these Members on side. However, someone must cry "halt" to this. The winner takes all principle whereby all these positions are given to the Government parties is unacceptable.

With regard to the number of committees, I am totally opposed to the establishment of a joint committee on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. That is a plenary matter for the House and it should not be hived off to a committee. This is an international agreement between two sovereign states and the political parties in Northern Ireland. For what purpose is the Government suggesting the committee should sit? If the Government was serious, I would have no difficulty supporting a North-South parliamentary tier, as provided for in the Agreement. It would be good if parliamentarians in the Assembly and the Oireachtas could put Ministers through hoops. Currently, there is no parliamentary accountability for the decisions taken by the North-South Ministerial Council and the actions that follow. A North-South parliamentary tier is needed, which would at least ensure the Executive would have to reply to questions about actions taken in our name on a North-South basis.

Will the Chief Whip consider the establishment of a committee that would review Government appointments to major public posts? A committee should be set up where Members of both Houses could put appointees through their paces before they take up a position. A hearing should take place to ensure the person is suitable rather than being plucked from obscurity to take up these highly paid posts. In America, individuals who take up significant government jobs must go through a hearing system. It would be good for the person to account for whether he or she is qualified for the post at a public session of a committee of the House and to take questions from Members of both Houses. That would be useful and it would provide added value to the committee system.

See this speech in context