Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I thank the Minister of State and Deputy Flanagan for sharing time with me.

There can be no doubt or no question in anybody's mind but that the position of this House vis-a-vis the Executive has been consistently eroded in recent years. The agenda, timetable and decisions of this House are the prerogative of the Executive. As someone who has served on a number of committees and who served longer than anybody else in this House on the Committee of Public Accounts, I acknowledge that committees can do good work. The Committee of Public Accounts and its DIRT inquiry under the chairmanship of the late Jim Mitchell, on which I was proud to serve, was an outstanding example of Parliament at work — Parliament as distinct from the Executive — pursuing a matter of public interest, scrutinising and examining the evidence, reaching conclusions and making findings and recommendations. It is an excellent example. It was the work of six Members of this House with no public or civil servant involvement in the writing of the report. It was purely the work of parliamentarians and it brought credit to this House.

Since then, we have shut down inquiries by parliamentary committees. Doing so merely because of a court decision in respect of Abbeylara is no argument. I can understand in the particular circumstances of Abbeylara why it would be wrong to have Members of this House draw conclusions that would or might adversely reflect on the reputation of another citizen, regardless of whether he or she is a member of the Garda Síochána. I can understand that, but in terms of the use of public money and matters of public interest, inquiry by parliamentary committee would make this House more relevant and would give the committees a function.

I agree entirely with Deputy Charles Flanagan that these committees are effectively run by the Executive. That is what happens. A House comprising 166 Members cannot productively support 21 committees. There are 650 Members in Westminster. This House comprises 166 Members and we now have more people in ministerial office than ever before, certainly a great deal more than when I came into the House. Why is it proposed that 21 committees be created. Some of them do not perform and others cannot perform because they do not have the required resources or the commitment on the part of Members who are pressed to maintain their membership of other committees and duties in the House.

The Minister of State is stoking public cynicism by allowing this to continue. The inference the press will draw from the establishment of 21 committees is that it facilitates the Taoiseach being able to give a chocolate sweet to those backbench members of the Government parties who failed to attain junior office in government. We will be facilitating people by enabling them to get a stipend. I will never forget the day I met a colleague, a member of the Fianna Fáil benches, rushing out of the Committee of Public Accounts saying: "Will you go in there quickly and vote?" When I asked what it had to do with him he told me he was the Whip of the committee. I had never heard of a Whip of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is supposed to be an audit committee, a non-party committee and, by and large, it has functioned that way and has done its job. Why must we create all these positions for disappointed office aspirants and pretend this constitutes Dáil reform? It does not.

The size of this House does not warrant the establishment of 21 committees. We need only establish half that number of committees, ensure they are properly resourced and that members who hold down positions on them have the required interest, skills and expertise to do the job. Just as the Committee of Public Accounts carved out a reputation for itself in recent years, there is no reason the chairman of the foreign affairs or finance committees should not be a person of some stature with some clout when offering an opinion, even if it is not always the opinion of the Executive, on matters of foreign affairs, finance and so on. The notion that we should do this for the reasons that will be inferred by the press diminishes this House and does it no credit. It is time we had a serious debate on Dáil reform.

See this speech in context