Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jul 1974

Vol. 274 No. 11

Standing Orders: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the amendments and additions to the Standing Orders of the Dáil relative to Public Business recommended in the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Reform of Dáil Procedure (T.235) dated 31st January, 1974 be adopted with effect from the first day on which the Dáil sits subsequent to the adjournment for the Summer Recess."
—(Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach).

A new standing Order should be introduced to set up a new Joint All-Party Standing Committee of the Oireachtas to review the role of State-sponsored bodies in the Irish economy. State-sponsored bodies play a vital role in our national life and economic development. Dáil Éireann established these bodies and allotted clearly defined functions to them. Despite this, the extent to which the Dáil subjects the activities of these bodies to public scrutiny is extremely restricted.

By and large, Ministers take advantage of the present ambiguity as to the role of these bodies by maintaining that they are not wholly responsible for the various policy decisions of these bodies. If Dáil Éireann is to play any real role in the planned development and efficiency of our State-sponsored bodies, it is vital that we should have a joint All-Party Standing Committee of the Oireachtas to undertake this work.

In the future we will see the further establishment of such bodies in the fields of energy and the environment. The field of natural resources is an obvious area for the extension of State-sponsored activities. If we are to bring this about there will have to be a major joint Standing Committee of the Oireachtas to propose this development and ensure that these bodies contribute towards full employment and full economic development of the country.

Five or six years ago the Labour Party proposed in the Dáil that a permanent Dáil committee, representative of all parties, should be created for the purpose of examining and reporting on the activities of these bodies. It is time the House established such a permanent Standing Committee and I urge that we give consideration to it. It is not enough that we should have established such bodies in areas of power, transport, export promotion and tourism. These bodies account for very substantial employment and a major share of the public capital programme. Yet we have nothing in the Dáil which would be the equivalent to the House of Commons Select Committee on Nationalised Industry which was set up in 1955 and expanded in 1967. For that reason I am disappointed that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges did not forward Standing Orders for the provision of such committees in specific areas of Government policy. Naturally there was no great pressure on the committee to do so.

I am pleased to note that in recent months serious consideration was given by the Minister for the Public Service to these approaches. We hope to see, certainly in the lifetime of this Dáil, the Opposition and the Government agree to the setting up of a joint committee to deal with State-sponsored bodies. As Opposition Members know, informal discussions have taken place on this matter between the Opposition and the Government. At that level the matter is now developing. I am hopeful that a very firm Government proposal on the structure and functions of such committees will emerge in the near future.

I am pleased to note the proposed amendment to Standing Orders which provides for Ministerial statements. I welcome this innovation. There was always an appalling inhibition on any Minister that if he stood up in the Dáil to make a statement only one Deputy would need to object and automatically the statement could not be made. That, of course, was quite ridiculous. Now a Minister can, as of right, stand up in the Dáil and make a statement on a matter of urgent public importance and nobody can challenge him. We have a general understanding and agreement that there will be provision for the shadow spokesman to answer. This will update the procedures of the Dáil which, in relation to Ministerial statements, have been found to be entirely inadequate.

I should hope that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries will avail of the opportunity to make important statements of policy or to convey Government decisions direct to the Dáil when it is in session, and, of course, giving the Opposition an opportunity to reply. They can then get rid of the criticism which was made from time to time that Government Ministers of all parties made major pronouncements outside the House. I think this is a useful change in Standing Orders and I welcome the change contained in this report.

I would suggest that we also need another form of Standing Order. I know it has been mooted by many people, notably by the current Attorney-General when he was in opposition—that there should be a Standing Order making provision for a list system of speakers. I favour this and have seen it in many of the Western European Parliaments. I think it would be a useful innovation to streamline procedure in the Dáil. This system has been in operation for many years now in the Council of Europe whereby the names of those who desire to take part in Dáil debates—excluding, say, Committee discussions such as we have just had on the Finance Bill—on perhaps the Second Stage of a Bill or on an Estimate debate would table their names to the Speaker of the House, the Ceann Comhairle, and this would help Deputies enormously in knowing when they would be likely to be called upon to speak. It would obviate those very ridiculous occasions when there are half a dozen Deputies queueing up waiting to speak; waiting to catch the eye of the Ceann Comhairle. It would also get rid of some pre-occupation which some Deputies seem to have about making contributions. Had we a list system of speakers, it would mean that no Deputy would be denied the opportunity of speaking. It would mean that Deputies would be able to prepare their contributions in a considered manner knowing at a given time, when they would be most likely to be called upon to speak rather than queueing up for hours on end in the Dáil chamber, not being quite sure if in fact they are going to be given an opportunity of speaking at all. Unfortunately, this recommendation was not contained in the amended Standing Orders. Of course, it should apply only to Second Stage speeches and to Estimates debates. I think it is a waste of any Deputy's time and certainly not conducive to his concentration, that he should have to wait for hours upon end to catch the eye of the Ceann Comhairle in order to speak. Surely Irish parliamentarians are mature enough not to emulate this kind of schoolboy/teacher relationship.

Another provision which I would welcome in terms of amendment of the Standing Orders which is not contained in this report but which I feel should be included is, of course, a substantial change in the daily time table of Dáil Éireann, which I consider to be utterly outmoded. As we now know, the Dáil meets from 3 p.m. until 10.30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, while the practice of adjournment debates up to 11 o'clock on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings and 5.30 p.m. on Thursdays has continued to grow. In my opinion these hours should be amended, by a Standing Order, to 2.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Tuesday; from 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday with the additional half hour being available each day for an adjournment debate. Those hours—with provision for one late evening only in the week— I would suggest would be more conducive to, first of all, a higher standard of parliamentary performance and a higher standard of public debate.

It would also, in my opinion, ensure far better coverage by the outside media, particularly by newspapers and television, which tend to go to press earlier than the closing of the Dáil on the late evenings that we sit. It would enable half of the Deputies of this House to return home to their constituents and families at least on the Wednesday evening and I have no doubt it would prove —which I think is not a small consideration, seeing that we are supposed to be sympathetic to trade union aspirations—more suitable to the staff of both Houses of the Oireachtas. For these reasons I would urge that the House should amend Standing Orders to provide for sitting hours as I have already outlined. It would not interfere with the normal Cabinet meetings on Tuesday and Friday mornings but would rationalise the situation.

Certainly I would hope—and here I would disagree completely with Deputy O'Malley—that those Deputies who are pre-occupied with their other business and professional employments would give some consideration to the reform of the ossified hours of work of Dáil Éireann. The suggested change in timetable I have outlined would not extend the total number of hours working each week of Dáil Éireann but would mean that we would have a more effective Parliament. I think it ridiculous that, for example, we are now discussing a Finance Bill, a discussion which may well extend into the small hours of the morning. It is preposterous to suggest that Deputies can be at their best at 9, 10, 11, or 12 o'clock midnight arguing the small print of parliamentary business when we could have a much more effective system of working hours in Dáil Éireann. I have no time for those Deputies who are more worried about the law courts than being in Dáil Éireann, or who are more worried about attending to their businesses. They are paid to be in Dáil Éireann when the House is sitting and I think that consideration should be paramount in the overall position.

I want to deal briefly with a few other points. I do not want to delay the House unduly. I dealt with the question of Dáil recesses. I consider them to be completely outmoded and a throw-back to nineteenth century tempo of government when the Houses adjourned for lengthy Christmas and Summer holiday periods.

I would suggest that there should be a couple of other amendments to Standing Orders. I feel we should have taken our courage in our hands on this occasion and made a specific provision for the introduction of radio and television into Dáil Éireann. Each evening when the Dáil is sitting I think there should be a screening on radio and television by means of "Today in the Dáil". It is ridiculous that we should ignore this vitally important system of communication. The technical difficulties are not insurmountable, and indeed I might point out that there have been very few complaints of partiality in relation to the news programmes emanating in relation to Dáil Éireann on RTE and the objectivity of presenters is generally respected even if they have to do it at second hand. I do not think the problems of editing a taped radio programme and video taped television programme are insurmountable.

In this regard, I regret that the current Committee on Procedure and Privileges is hostile to the idea. I am confident that in the years ahead the viewpoint I have expressed will come to be accepted; we will not become excessively Americanised or anything like that in the coverage of proceedings in the Dáil by way of direct television and radio. It is ridiculous that Deputies should have such conservative reaction to this proposition. While I know that many Deputies may feel that some of their number might be tempted to speak just for the benefit of the cameras, I would suggest that Deputies are mature enough; and get used to that aspect of their work quite quickly. I am sure that this futile distaste which many Deputies have for a common-sense communications reform will be overcome and the innovation brought in.

The Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann should make specific provision for minimum standards of accommodation and secretarial assistance for Deputies. It is not enough that Deputies should be dependent on the goodwill of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Elected parliamentarians should be entitled by virtue of Standing Orders to minimum standards of accommodation and secretarial facilities in the House. The standard of accommodation should be sufficient to enable Deputies to perform their parliamentary duties, to meet constituents and deputations and to deal with correspondence. By western European standards, the accommodation is absolutely abysmal.

I have little sympathy for those Deputies who have tolerated such a dreadful state of affairs for decades. They deserve what they get; Fianna Fáil never made an effort to improve the situation and they richly deserve the discomfort and lack of facilities they now suffer in Opposition. However, that is no excuse. The facilities for Deputies are among the worst in Europe and there should be provision in Standing Orders for better facilities.

Standing Orders should include references in connection with allowances for Deputies, income tax and pension provisions and similar matters. They are enshrined by regulation but I think they could more effectively be included in Standing Orders. Here I might add that the Minister for Finance has done excellent work in this matter in the last 15 months and he deserves the thanks of the House.

Unless the Government and Opposition implement the rather conventional reforms I have mentioned, the electorate will have increasing recourse to outside community pressure groups. I put to the House the question: do we want to find that we have the same kind of irrelevance as a parliament as Stormont? There is need to arouse a more concerned public opinion and we must ensure we have a more responsive parliamentary system.

I would ask the three party leaders to take a continuing initiative in the area of Parliamentary democracy. Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Lynch and Deputy Corish have spent almost half of their lifetimes in Dáil Éireann but apart from an occasional foray in relation to Parliamentary reform very little has been done with the problem. It is only now that we are tending to come to grips with the matter.

I would ask the three party leaders to treat seriously the suggestion of Deputy O'Malley for the establishment of a more broadly based committee. We should have an ongoing continuing committee and we should ensure that the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann are but the beginning of the reform of Parliamentary procedures. The Government and the House can be sure of the full support of the Labour Party in this matter.

Much passion has been expended in the Dáil and outside it about the need to defend and preserve the institutions of the State. If we are not careful the Oireachtas may ossify into a permanent state of preservation unless we reform the system as rapidly and democratically as possible.

The resumption of this motion after the interruption at 6.30 p.m. was entirely in accord with the Order of Business settled at 10.30 a.m. today. I wish to apologise to the Chair, to the House and to any Deputy who may have been inconvenienced for having omitted to convey an agreement reached not long ago between the Opposition Whip, Deputy Browne, and myself whereby the motion will not be resumed until after Questions tomorrow. Nobody wished to interrupt Deputy Desmond's contribution, which he was entirely in order in making. I hope the House will allow us by agreement to defer this motion until after Questions tomorrow and to give place now to the Minister for Education who wishes to move a Supplementary Estimate.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share