But the Cathaoirleach will take me.

I will try.

The appearance of FAI officials before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport yesterday raises some issues, mainly those to do with procedure, that we should also consider in this House. I have not been a fan in the past of Oireachtas committees going too far and I certainly opposed the referendum that would have given Oireachtas committees the power to make findings and judgments that were adverse to people's reputations. At the same time, I do not like to see Oireachtas committees and elected representatives effectively treated with contempt by people with no respect for what they stand for, who they are supposed to represent and the process under which they are supposed to work

Hear, hear.

I must intervene at this juncture. First, we have no role in how Oireachtas committees work. Second, if there is an issue, the Chairman is the Chairman of that particular committee. I am not the Chairman of the committee. I have no function. I am not going to comment. Other avenues are open to anyone who feels harshly treated. It is very difficult. The committee system is independent of both Houses, and so it should be. If that were not the case, perhaps the Seanad or the Dáil would be able to put fetters on how the committees do their work. All I am saying to the Senator is to be very cúramach.

Beidh mé cúramach. I am getting to the point I want to make. I want to demonstrate how we can have an input into procedures. If a committee has a mandate to look into the governance of an organisation, it has to be able to ask questions that are pertinent to making judgments or bringing to light issues that may exist in relation to such governance.

Hear, hear.

That is the first point. If a person wishes to claim that he or she, on legal advice, cannot answer certain questions, it would be far better if that issue were teased out beforehand. For example, the specific questions to be asked could be disclosed, as far as possible, to the person being invited to come before the committee. There should be an onus on the witness to disclose in advance whether he or she believes certain questions go beyond the remit of a committee. We need to get to a situation where some kind of judgment can be made on that. We have seen it here in terms of how the Executive deals with the Legislature. It is too easy for people to rely on the idea that legal advice means they do not have to deal with a pertinent issue that is being put before them. I have no problem with compelling people to come before a committee to answer certain questions. The committee or the public can then judge how those questions are answered. There needs to be a way to deal with this situation in order that some kind of judgment can be made in advance to empower the committee to ask certain questions. The second issue was brought out in the comments made by the president of the FAI.

The Senator's time is running out.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. He moved to reassure people that the funding which was received from Sport Ireland - from the State, in effect - had nothing to do with the employment and appointment decisions which the FAI made in respect of Mr. Delaney recently. That was both very unhelpful and very helpful. It was helpful in the sense that it revealed a certain mindset which considers that there is no need for the Oireachtas to worry about how an organisation is being governed as long as the money it provides to that organisation is being spent properly. That mindset ignores the obvious reality that money is fungible. If the Cathaoirleach gives me €50,000 to do a particular job, I can spend that €50,000 doing the job for him, but it also frees up other resources that I have from other sources to do whatever job I want. If the State is giving money directly or indirectly to an organisation, there has to be much more accountability than we saw at the committee yesterday. Having said that, people are within their rights to complain if politicians are grandstanding in the media one minute and asking questions at committees as representatives of the public the next minute. While the committee has to do its job of asking questions on behalf of the public, as Deputy Coppinger and others said, it is obvious that this situation calls for a very specific inquiry to be established by legislation. Somebody trustworthy should be able to ask any questions that need to be asked, get whatever answers he or she considers appropriate and put a report before these Houses.

I thank the Senator.

I am calling for an inquiry to be established. It is the only way to get at the truth of these matters. People are worried. They have a fear of corruption. They do not know what is true and what is not true. Yesterday's committee meeting did very little to help people to get a better understanding of the situation. Obviously, this points to an inquiry.

I gave the Senator a lot of latitude. He should be aware that I was involved in the Abbeylara inquiry and I was the Chair of the Judge Curtin committee. Since then, the courts have put certain fetters on the workings and rights of committees and so on. That is still a live issue. This matter should be brought before the Dáil Committee on Procedure and the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I am not sure what avenues are open to those committees. I will certainly not pass judgment on what happened yesterday, other than to say that certain court decisions in some instances have poured scorn on and put serious roadblocks and fetters on the workings of committees in the direction suggested by the Senator.