Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to statements on the committees in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I thank the Government Chief Whip for facilitating this debate. This is my third term in the Dáil and it is the first occasion on which we have had a wide ranging discussion on the role of committees. This is very useful. The committees have become more active and it is time to look at the overall role, the number of committees and their functions. This debate contributes to that, for which I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

I have been sitting for the past 20 minutes listening to the contributions from the Fine Gael bench. I am bemused by what I have heard from the Opposition benches. I am disappointed that Deputies Leo Varadkar and James Reilly have left the House because I wish to address the comments they made a few short moments ago.The gist of Deputy Varadkar's complaint is that there are too many quangos. Last night, the same Deputy and his party voted for the establishment of a new national fire authority. Last night, they wanted a new quango to be established, but today they say there are too many quangos. That was bad enough, but he continued by stating that we want to have real democracy and give more power back to local authorities. Last night, the Deputy and his party colleagues voted to take the power for fire services away from local authorities and to give it to a new national quango. I cannot understand how these Members contradict themselves in a 24 hour period.

Deputy Varadkar was sitting beside Deputy James Reilly and saying we have too many committees, but before Deputy Reilly sat down he proposed to establish a new committee to deal with people in prisons who are on drugs. Within a speaking slot of ten minutes, they contradict themselves in everything they say about committees. The same Deputies are fundamentally contradicting themselves in how they voted last night and on their first opportunity to speak in the Dáil today. I hope that when they become involved in the committees they will show some consistency in thought because it will make a farce of the committees, the Dáil and democracy in general if Members say one thing on a day, having done the precise opposite the day before. Empty vessels make a great deal of noise. New Deputies should consider the noise they are making and be more consistent in their remarks.

I have been a member of a number of committees since I was first elected to the House in 1997. The work of the committees can be improved. Most Opposition spokespersons take their role very seriously, senior Government members also take their role very seriously and we have very good debates in the committees. I would divide the work of the committees into two halves — the work select committees do on legislation directed to them from the Dáil with regard to Committee Stages of Bills or Estimates debates and the work the committees do within their respective remits on a range of activities on which they issue reports they lay before the Dáil. They have tremendous scope if they want to use their power. They do not always wish to do so.

The quality of information provided by public servants to committees can vary enormously. I have seen public officials give full and complete answers to the questions they are asked by committee members. I have seen others who, whether they attend for two minutes or 22 hours, will give no information which is not already in the public arena. I would like to see public officials more confident and open with committees in discussing matters for consideration within their Departments. Some are afraid to say what is being talked about within a Department if the Minister has not made a final decision. As a result, committees do not derive the full value from questioning public officials.

As chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, I was the only chairman who conducted every aspect of committee business in public session. Committees often meet in private session when they wish to discuss certain items, usually matters concerning travel. I was elected to the Dáil and I do not carry out the business of the Dáil in private session. I see no reason, therefore, to conduct committee business in private, unless certain information must be given. There is a tendency among all Members to hide some of their activity from the public glare. However, the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service did its job satisfactorily in public. Confidential information and letters can be discussed without disclosing the name of the person concerned. Members may be nervous about doing all business in public but it can and does work. It simply requires a change of culture. I would like to see an end to private committee sessions.

I have been a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, which frequently meets in private for an hour and a half before the public session begins. This baffles me. As much as 80% of correspondence deals with routine matters which have come before the committee previously or will do so again. There is a tradition that all correspondence is discussed in private session. One must be careful occasionally with certain items of correspondence but the blanket rule that all correspondence must be dealt with in private session makes no sense. I have tried unsuccessfully to change procedure in the Committee of Public Accounts. I hope it will change in the future.

I would like to see improved research facilities for committees. I understand improvements have been made and I look forward to the establishment of new committees with improved research facilities provided on a non-party basis. In joint committees, which do not deal with legislation and where a strict party line is taken, open and frank debate leading to a consensus of opinion is not unusual. Additional research facilities would help. Sometimes the best way to research an issue is to table a parliamentary question but one is not always given the information one wants.

I thank the Chief Whip for the changes he is making in the Estimates procedure. We will no longer see Estimates in November and the budget in December. The new approach is correct and sensible. The old idea of discussing in one month without reference to income what one will spend next year, and in the following month discussing the income one must raise to finance expenditure which is already approved is nonsense. No organisation does its business that way. I am delighted the Oireachtas and Departments are now coming into line, facilitated by the Chief Whip. The new finance committee will have an oversight role in the Estimates for all Departments.

I ask each committee to take its Estimates debate seriously. Many committees spend less than one hour discussing billions of euro. The same Members who will spend the rest of the year whingeing about what is not being done in a Department will fail to question the Minister, the Accounting Officer and senior officials when they attend the Estimates meeting. Perhaps the information is presented in a cumbersome manner. The new procedure will involve output statements, projections of work to be done and priorities for the Department and people will see where the money is being spent. This will improve public accountability in the Estimates procedure. I ask that Estimates be cleared prior to the commencement of the financial year. We have often discussed Estimates in May, June or July when half the year has passed, half the money has been spent and the rest is fully committed. I hope new committees will take the debates on the Estimates seriously.

See this speech in context