Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome that we are having this debate which allows us to make a contribution and intervention on the subject of parliamentary reform in the context of committees. I will comment on a general feature of public debate that I have noticed in much recent commentary and media presentation of politics, where it is suggested that the function of politicians in Dáil and Seanad Éireann is to legislate. A programme recently suggested that our only function is legislation, which is wrong. I accept it is a very important function of this House to enact legislation and it is a power we share with Seanad Éireann, but the Government is elected by Dáil Éireann and is responsible to Dáil Éireann under the Constitution.

As well as the obligation on the Dáil to share with Seanad Éireann the function of acting as a Legislature, it has a separate and equally important function of supervising the work of the Government, which is not acknowledged in much of the commentary on Dáil Éireann taking place at present. That function of the supervision of the work of the Government is especially important in a country like ours, where so much of the business of the State is centralised in the Government. Unlike, for example, in the United Kingdom, our educational services, with the exception of the VECs, are not administered at a local level. The upgrading of a primary school is a central government responsibility as are many other educational responsibilities. We have centralised the management of the health service through the Health Service Executive. We have had a national police force since 1924 in the Free State era. We have never had the tradition of strong county government that exists in the United Kingdom and very false comparisons have been made on the issue.

False conclusions have been reached, some of which are reflected in the programme for Government, firstly in the possible functions of the Seanad. If we are sharing the function of legislation with another House and we also need to supervise a Government that is highly centralised, we need some assistance in the legislative role. I agree that Seanad Éireann as constituted does not do that in an effective way and we need a reformed senate, but whether we need to abolish it I do not believe has been properly considered in the light of the legislative responsibilities that both Houses have at present.

Regarding the supervision of the Government, we have the constant demand to reduce the number of Deputies, which has also been uncritically accepted in the programme for Government. If we do not have a strong tradition of local government service delivery and do not have health, education and justice being delivered at the local level — we certainly see no appetite among local councillors to raise the money to fund these services — and given that we take the responsibility for funding these services when we do our budget here, we therefore should have an adequate number of representatives here to ensure that those services are properly supervised. While this may go against some of the current orthodoxy in the programme for Government, Members in this House will need to reflect very carefully on these changes when we receive the report from a constitutional convention which is not elected by anybody.

Regarding the issue of Oireachtas committees, it is important that we establish the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission as rapidly as possible. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and the late Jim Mitchell were very involved in the committee that recommended its establishment, a recommendation accepted by the then Fianna Fáil-led Government. The purpose of that recommendation was to bring these Houses under an administration of their own separate from the Department of Finance. Were the commission not established, the Department of Finance would have direct control over all matters relating to the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas, which is not desirable. The commission is important and should be reconstituted.

I accept that there are too many committees given the size of the Houses, a point that is well made. There are committees for administration, which clearly should be part of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. We should have a committee for each Department. If the Taoiseach decides to organise the business of the Government among 14 Ministers, then we should have 14 committees if we are to make the Government accountable to these Houses. My inclination would be that even the scrutiny of European legislation should be done on an individual departmental basis with the relevant committee building up an expertise on the European dimension of that Department. Regarding the Committee of Public Accounts, I would even consider whether the public accounts should be considered in each committee. At present the procedure is that the Estimate is considered by the relevant committee. To complete the circle of financial supervision, as well as the Estimate, the appropriation, the final account and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be considered by the relevant committee.

The one big advantage noticed in the committee system since it expanded in the early 1990s, is that it has given Deputies the capacity and ability to absorb information about individual Departments, which fits in very well for office in the event of them being appointed Ministers in particular Departments. That is a valuable aspect of committees that has not received much comment in this debate. There is a case for a committee to shadow each Minister in a highly specialised way. The committee would deal with that Department's legislation on Committee Stage, and would deal with the financial administration of the Department through the Estimate and the accounts. It would also have general powers of investigation of the State enterprises and the non-commercial semi-State bodies that might operate under the aegis of a particular Department, as well as calling the Minister to account as I was called to account as Minister for Finance on many occasions before the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. It is appropriate that Ministers should make themselves available to these committees. If the Government is doing its business through 14 separate Ministers and that is the priority the Taoiseach has attached to the business of Government and if this House is to hold the Government to account and make it responsible, the ideal arrangement is to have a committee shadowing each Minister.

We need to have chairmen of committees and various comments have been made as to who should be chairs and who should not be. There should be a proportionate share out of chairs among the Members of the House. If the chair is of the Government interest, the vice chair should come from an Opposition interest and vice versa. That should be agreed at this stage. As long as the chairs are seen as patronage belonging to the Government of the day with a few crumbs for the Opposition parties, I do not believe the committees will be treated with respect. We need to agree a basic rule if we are having this democratic revolution — although I object to the use of the word "revolution". The people voted at the ballot box not for a revolution but for a profound change. In any event if we are to have this profound change, we need to have a rule that these chairs be rotated or divided in strict proportionality to party strength around the Chamber and that the vice chairs come from the other side of the argument. It has always been said that one of the problems of making an effective committee system work in this House is that the Government has many Members pre-empted in executive office as Ministers and Ministers of State.

Clearly that disadvantage does not apply to this House as the Government has a large majority. Perhaps that will give an opportunity to the Houses to establish a committee system that will have a rational basis, hold the Government to account, allow Deputies to deepen their experience and knowledge of the business of government, provide an effective financial administration and conduct inquiries into the responsibilities of the Government.

I would like to touch on one other matter, that is, the proposal that the Abbeylara decision be reversed. I may be on my own on this issue, even in my own party, and I am expressing a view that may not necessarily be a party view. We have to be careful about it. The reason tribunals of inquiry were established in the first place is because parliamentary inquiries were found to be too biased, prejudiced and partial to conduct an impartial investigation into a matter of historic controversy. There seems to be in some quarters of this House a wish that we resume archaeological digs into various historical matters and equip ourselves with all the legal powers to conduct ourselves as a court of law. We are not a court of law.

This week Deputy Lowry made a strong plea in his defence. We set up a tribunal of inquiry that made findings of fact, which we are bound by. It seems that the passions of politics are not conducive to producing a tribunal of inquiry among its own membership because clearly it will divide along party lines in the finding of fact. One has to find somebody outside the system to determine facts. If we start determining facts we will move very fast to the position that the committee of public safety had in the French Revolution. We cannot have Deputies sitting in judgment on themselves or others when they may have very particular party opinions and passions about the matter under investigation.

It may have worked in the context of an investigation into DIRT and the banks a decade ago. I can testify, as a former Minister for Finance, that banks are most unloved entities and there can be all-party agreement on that. If there is a matter of current political controversy and immediate public interest which a committee of this House should investigate, it would be very difficult to conduct a satisfactory investigation. That said, it is something we could tease out in the months ahead.

See this speech in context