asked the Taoiseach whether any proposals to reform the method of conducting business in the Dáil are contemplated by the Government.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Conduct of Dáil Business.
1.
It will be recalled that the conduct of business of this House was the subject of debate in December, 1965, when, as Minister for Finance, I introduced the Central Fund (Permanent Provisions) Bill, 1965, with the aim of securing a more rational and effective use of the time devoted to parliamentary financial business. Since the enactment of that measure, there has been no general complaint about the conduct of business in Dáil Éireann, and the Government are not, at present, contemplating any proposals in the matter.
Does the Taoiseach not think the time has come when this House should up-date its procedures, which, in the main, were borrowed from those of the British House of Commons? Does he not think there is a danger of this place becoming an isolated club in its procedures and traditions unless we make proceedings in this House more relevant to the affairs of the country? Does the Taoiseach suggest there is no need for change at present in the conduct of business here? Is he not aware that, even in the British House of Commons, there are people attempting to up-date procedures there and does he see no need for change here in that respect?
There is always reason for change so long as it is change for the better. I do not know what the Deputy has in mind by the expression "up-date". If it is to be modern just for the sake of being modern, then that is not a valid reason.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that a lot of time is wasted in this House, particularly on the Committee Stage of Bills?
That is a specific point.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that we should adopt a system whereby several Committees would be running at the same time in order to have practically all the House engaged in these Committees? Also, does the Taoiseach not recall that—as far as I remember—one of the terms of reference of the famous Constitution Committee, established by his predecessor, Deputy S. Lemass, included a reference to an examination of all our institutions, including Parliament, to see how much more effectively they could work?
That Committee has, I believe, terms of reference to that effect, namely, that they review the political, legislative and constitutional institutions of Government—that was the term used. With regard to the suggestion that more Committee business might be done outside the House, when that question was put to me, shortly after I became Taoiseach, I said I felt the Irish people wanted their parliamentary business done in the open, as much as possible.
Hear, hear.
There is in other Parliaments—in the British Parliament and in the United States Parliament— this system of Committee work. However, in the United States, there is much more work to be done than could possibly be done in the open forum. Similarly, with the British Parliament. There is this distinction in the United States and in European Parliaments that Ministers and members of Government are not members of Parliament and do not come into the House to debate matters. Until it can be seen that we cannot do our business effectively on the floor of this House, I do not see why our method of conducting our business should be changed.
Hear, hear.
We do not want work done in secret Committees but as it is done in Britain and in the United States where press, radio, television and the public are allowed to sit in at the proceedings.
If that situation is reached, certainly I will contemplate change. I would welcome the change if we found we could not do our Committee work in the House. We have several instances of Committee work being done outside the House—the Companies Bill, which I handled myself, and the Income Tax (Consolidation) Bill, which I also handled. On Bills like these it is much more expeditious and satisfactory. On the other hand, we are a limited House in so far as we have 144 Members. If we had sufficient Committees going at the same time, it would be difficult for the remaining Deputies to keep the business of the House going. It is a fact that in some of the Parliaments to which Deputies have referred members are torn between Committees and the House and between one Committee and another. It is not always easy to adopt a system.
It would seem that after 46 years wherein we have had no change there should be an immediate review.
But there was a change which was effected with the consent of the House when I was Minister for Finance.
Is it not a fact that Deputy Corish accompanied me to a discussion with the previous Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, when we agreed on substantial changes after very careful deliberations regarding the transaction of financial business in the House with a view to its expedition? Is there now any reason to believe that if the Taoiseach, or the Leader of the Labour Party or the Leader of my Party feel that any further reform is called for and if they request a meeting with the Taoiseach, the Taoiseach would not be glad to meet them, discuss the reform, have it considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which is representative of all the House, Parties and individual Deputies included, all of whose voices are entitled to be heard?
There is no reason why that should not be done.
May I, as a member of the Constitution Committee which has been mentioned here, ask the Taoiseach if he is aware that in spite of a request to the Chairman, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to convene a meeting to deal with this matter which it is so necessary to deal with, we have not had a meeting for six months and it would appear that the whole purpose of this Committee now is really a manoeuvre to get this business which is so dear to the Government before the House——
(Interruptions.)
——whereas the terms of reference call for a review of parliamentary procedure. Would the Taoiseach not direct that this Committee should be convened right away and get down to this most important job of looking at our methods of procedure, many of which are completely out of date, and only exist by reason of the fact that they were originally created by the British?
My information is that the Labour Party have abandoned it and would not attend a meeting if it were convened.
That is totally and absolutely false because in fact I have requested a meeting of that Committee and the Taoiseach must be aware of that. I was assured there would be a meeting but there has not been a meeting for six months.
(Interruptions.)
This Committee was greatly abused by Fianna Fáil. Would the Taoiseach not take the initiative now in convening a meeting of this Committee to see how best parliamentary procedure can be amended?
If the Deputy wishes to follow that line, I should be quite prepared to do what Deputy Dillon has suggested.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach finally does he not regard it as a tragedy that there are so many Members who, fortunately or unfortunately, do not happen to be Members of the Executive and whose suggestions and ideas cannot be incorporated in legislation at present no matter what their legislative ability may be?
Why not?
The procedure of the House does not allow them full freedom to participate in framing legislation.
The Deputy is making a speech.
(Interruptions.)
It may annoy certain Members of the House to say that the methods of conducting its business are in need of review and the Government should wake up to that fact.