Vol. 337 No. 10
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £564,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1982, for the salaries and expenses of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including certain grants-in-aid, and for certain expenses in connection with the European Assembly.
I take this occasion to ask the Minister to give his attention to the need to reform this House at the earliest possible opportunity. We are spending a substantial sum of money here in the administration of our own affairs, yet we are carrying out those in accordance with procedures which we inherited from the Houses of Commons and of Lords at Westminister in the early twenties. Indeed, both of those institutions have reformed themselves in the meantime, but we are still, broadly speaking, following procedures inherited from them, unreformed, in the early twenties.
Clearly, expenditure of additional sums of money to enable Deputies to do their work more effectively — with which this Supplementary Estimate is concerned — is justifiable but only really justifiable if that is accompanied by an increased constructive output from the Members of this House. Unfortunately the procedures of this House render such an output very difficult. We need to have established here substantially more committees to investigate not just legislation but also the administration of public funds. I raised an example a few moments ago in the Minister's presence in regard to a committee on non-commercial semi-State bodies.
We also need committees in regard to legislation which would enable outside bodies, many of whom write long and detailed letters to each of us as Members of the House, to present that evidence orally in regard to individual pieces of legislation before a select committee of the House. We need to show the public at large that they can have an input into the doings of this House. Unfortunately, there are insufficient mechanisms for taking evidence from outside bodies. I would hope, in respect of all major legislation, that a committee could be established with a very limited period of operation, perhaps three weeks, whose responsibility it would be to take evidence from outside members of the public on a particular item of legislation coming before the House, so that those who have something to say about legislation are not forced into simply writing cyclostyle letters to all 160 Members — some of whom reply, some of whom do not, but most of whom do not read the representations received for understandable reasons, because they have a large number of other things to read. If a select committee could be established to receive these representations orally and cross-question the people on the case they are making, the legislative process would be much more relevant to the nation as a whole. Unless we succeed in doing that, people will question, in increasing numbers, the relevance of this House to the government of the country. They will see that, in fact, many of the decisions are taken outside the country, or are certainly taken outside this House by the Government who come in, under normal circumstances, and present their wishes to the House and have them passed without a change of a line or a comma, simply by exercise of the Whip. That process certainly has a debilitating influence on our democracy and forces the Opposition — whichever opposition it happens to be — into a purely negative oppositional role because it has no constructive opportunity to contribute, apart from the limited opportunity afforded by Committee Stage debate on Bills, to the better government of the country.
If we want our economic problems to be solved they must be solved ultimately with a broad measure of agreement (a) about the facts of the problems on both sides of the House and (b) by a measure of agreement between most or all of the parties on the measures to be taken to solve them. We must recognise that the problems facing us at the moment are so deep and severe that the measures to be taken to solve them will put our democracy to the test. We must reform this House to enable those decisions to be taken in an open fashion, whereby people will see why they are necessary and they will not be seen just as the evil machinations of the Government of the day — whoever they happen to be — acting irrationally to damage people's living standards, as seems to be the way in which issues are presented to the public, not because governments are a necessary evil, but because of the unreformed character of this House which does not afford an opportunity for issues wherein possible areas of agreement could be reached to be teased out in a rational fashion between all the Members of the House.
I must congratulate the Minister on having reacted positively to the proposals made by the previous Government in regard to the financial business transactions of this House, but would hope that he would also take an interest, as he is now moving this motion, in the issue of Oireachtas reform to reform the entire way in which this House does its business.
We must also reflect on the fact that speeches here — and perhaps my own is an example in this instance — can be too long. This is so because there is not an opportunity in this case for a to and fro discussion. If a Member speaks once, he or she cannot speak again on far too many items of business. The assumption is that by allowing people to speak only once this will shorten the debate. In fact, the opposite is the case. If people are told they can speak once for an hour, they make absolutely sure to speak for an hour, the debate will take far longer and be far less constructive.
We should try to do our business by the system which applies in New Zealand where people are allowed to speak a number of times but at no time for more than about five minutes on a particular item of business. This allows for a type of Committee Stage discussion, with people speaking on a point, getting an answer on that point, moving later to another point and so on. They have what is a normal dialogue situation in regard to the different issues. Our present system sends everyone to sleep and everyone out of the Chamber, because there is no chance of another Member getting in on the debate. I speak for an hour and there is a Member over there waiting to speak for an hour and another, in his turn, waiting to speak for an hour. That takes up three hours, so the remainder of the 160 Members can go to their rooms because they know they will not have an opportunity to speak for those three hours. It is no wonder that people in the public gallery are disillusioned when they see that the House is almost empty. Much tighter restriction on the limit of speeches, but the capacity of speaking more frequently on particular items, would lead to a much more natural and normal debate in the House, which would be to the advantage of the Government as well as to the Opposition, would not slow up business but would make the House more relevant.
We must also look hard at our system of voting. Every time we vote we waste 20 minutes ringing bells and going through the lobbies. I know that the Committee on Procedures and Privileges is anxious to do this — we should seek a way of voting, possibly electronic, but obviously tamper-proof, because one could not have a system with which one could be enabled to vote in another person's name or steal other Members' keys and so forth. This would not consume such vast quantities of valuable and expensive parliamentary time. I hope that will be given some priority.
I should like to see at the earliest possible opportunity radio and television broadcasting of all the proceedings of the House. Up to now I was hesitant to favour this because I was anxious that we should start by broadcasting committees. Committees get insufficient press publicity, and one way of rectifying this would be to bring radio and television into committees first so that they would get an enhanced profile. However, the danger of the House becoming irrelevant to the nation has become so acute that we will have to go the whole way if we are to restore public confidence in and understanding of what we are doing. Experiments in Britain show that the public perception of the value of the House of Commons has been enhanced by the fact that the House is broadcast. We should learn from that experience.
In regard to committees, I should like to see hearings by committees held outside of Dublin. We need to bring the Legislature to the people. One way would be to have committees hold hearings on subjects which are relevant to particular areas in those areas. If, for example, we had an agricultural committee there is no reason why it should not hold hearings in the West when dealing with problems which relate to the West. If, for example, it was dealing with industries in Cork there is no reason why a committee sitting should not be held in Cork. That would get away from the them and us situation which people have who live outside the capital. They feel the capital expresses an undue influence. If we brought the Oireachtas into the country we would do a lot to bridge that gap and it would help Members to do their work more effectively. It would stop us from seeing problems solely through the eyes of our own constituencies. One opportunity we have to visit other constituencies in a serious way is during by-elections. Although this is a valuable way of finding out about problems in other areas it should not be the only one. The other way is by going to dances late at night where, as we all know, we learn very little and sometimes we can even make mistakes, as has happened in the recent past. I do not believe that the House when in plenary session should move, but if committees moved to other parts of the country it would be invaluable.
The Labour Party agree to this Estimate. I should like to make a few brief comments about the operation of the House. I say this with no disrespect to my colleagues, but since we came back on 9 March there has been a sharp dimunition in the general operations of the House. For some reason or other, perhaps because of the post-election situation, there has been a great deal of unproductive cross comment on a wide variety of issues virtually every morning we meet, right through Question Time and through a great deal of the ordinary political debate of the House, so much so that if one goes through the debates one can mark off whole pages which can be classified as an absolute total waste of time on the part of the assembled Deputies.
If additional facilities are to be provided in the House it behoves the political parties and the Independent Deputies — although I no way regard them as political offenders — to internally set our houses in order during the summer recess. Respect for the Chair, the extent to which the rulings of the Chair are given any regard, has sharply diminished in the House for a variety of reasons. If we are to conduct our affairs and if the nation is to vote moneys for us there is need to discharge our legislative, debating, voting obligations with efficiency, the maximum of normal human courtesy between ourselves, and the least possible amount of general bickering.
This is the last opportunity I will have to comment on this matter before the recess. There is urgent need for all parties to examine the internal disciplines of their Members about the way in which they participate in the House. The structures of the House, as Deputy Bruton said, are archaic, outdated, and wholly inefficient. We now have a situation where Deputies are returned to the Dáil not on the basis of their contributions here but rather on the extent to which they look after the day-to-day ordinary needs of their constituents. One's return is more likely to be derived from the extent to which one completes correspondence rather than to the extent to which one contributes to the debates.
The system whereby the contribution of Deputies, particularly in Opposition, is confined to intermittent Estimate debates, to contentious Private Members' Motions, largely designed to see if the Government can be trapped in a particular way, and to Dáil Questions which, for the most part, cost about £90 to £100 each to reply to in terms of taxpayers' money, should be examined. The vast majority of questions can be readily answered from Departmental sources without any need to exercise one's parliamentary rights. Special Notice Questions are frequently matters more akin to publicity than to the issues of the day. The parties should get together during the recess. We should not confine committees of the Dáil to the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, which has not met for 18 months. It is a tragedy and travesty that it has not been meeting. Apart from that committee, the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities and the Committee on Public Accounts which has not met at all — we should meet during the recess to discuss urgently a wide range of matters — Members of the House have no opportunity to contribute. There is a more questionable aspect: many Members do not seem to be preoccupied about contributing because they regard the question of constituency work as taking precedence. We should have a public expenditure committee which should meet on a very regular basis. We should have a budgetary or finance committee which should meet regularly. We should have an agricultural committee. There is absolute need for this. We should have committees relating to international affairs, EEC affairs and education. The parties should nominate their members to these committees. If members do not participate that should be widely publicised by the media, and if they do not discharge their obligations in relations to the Estimates of the House then the electorate should judge, particularly at election time. The results of that election should be the criterion of how those who sit in this House perform their duties rather than the criterion of how many thousands of letters and circulars a Member issues on matter which should really be resolved at local level rather than by parliamentarians at national level.
I share Deputy Bruton's view about broadcasting the proceedings. When I raised this originally I did not get the agreement of the Fine Gael Party on it. Indeed, I was literally beaten about the head for suggesting it. The Fianna Fáil Party agreed to broadcasting when they were in Opposition but, on resuming office, they promptly disagreed. The parties must come to agreement on this. There has been a deterioration in the conduct of debates, and if Members had the opportunity of seeing themselves on television or hearing themselves broadcast ——
There would be a magical improvement.
—— the kind of situations which so frequently arise now would sharply diminish. With modern technology there is no reason why the Dáil and Seanad should not avail of this facility. In present circumstances one is interviewed in a garret upstairs where one is almost asphixiated because it is so small and so utterly inadequate. It is quite impossible to do a satisfactory interview.
I support what Deputy Bruton said. There is urgent need for the Leaders of the parties and the Whips to get together with the Ceann Comhairle during the recess in order to take a sharp hard look at the way Members discharge their obligations and the way in which Parliament functions. The divergences between parties must be sorted out. It is time parties made up their minds on the fundamental issues in regard to both the national parliament and the European Assembly. We should know exactly where we stand in these areas. The quicker this is achieved at both national and European level the quicker will the operations of the Houses of the Oireachtas and of the Assembly be enhanced and we shall see the elimination of the cynicism which has developed particularly over the last six months.
(Dún Laoghaire): Deputy Desmond, Deputy Bruton and I had a discussion about this yesterday. During the summer months we should review the activities of the Dáil. Basically the problem seems to arise on the Order of Business. There is a feeling of frustration because Deputies cannot come in here and raise matters of national importance without going through a long rigmarole about procedure and everything else. Deputies try to avail of an opportunity to air a matter to which time should be accorded for a proper debate. At the moment time is taken up on argument, time which should really be used for proper debating purposes. Restructuring is very urgent and very necessary, because frustration inhibits people from doing their job properly. As Deputy Desmond said, there is now competition as to who sends out the most circulars. The result is Parliament is falling into disrepute. People are actually getting circulars about dogs crossing streets whereas, in actual fact, we should be doing the job we were elected to do. I welcome the proposal put forward that we should look at the structure of the Dáil. I would be delighted to discuss this in detail between now and the time the House re-assembles in the autumn.
I would like briefly to endorse what has been said. The matter should be discussed in a non-partisan spirit. There is bound to be a certain degree of uncertainty over the next few years and it is important that the Opposition should know how the Government propose to approach the matter. We should look rationally now at the whole system, which should be made to operate better. Quite radical reforms are necessary, reforms designed to speed up the work of the House and make it more effective. We should engender confidence in our structures. Some of the present weaknesses in the system derive from our failure to tackle fundamental problems. In the past there has been a tendency to adopt positions governed by where Deputies sat, whether in Government or in Opposition. We should get away from that approach and adopt a more mature attitude with a view to achieving the best result possible. I believe we can do that. A great deal can be done during the recess, and we can come back in the autumn and consider the recommendations that emerge from any discussions that take place.
The Whips have been discussing this issue, as Deputy Desmond said. Problems have arisen possibly because of the closeness of the voting position. The Order of Business has deteriorated, through nobody's fault probably but simply because there is no other way of raising issues. Some system should be devised to enable back-benchers to raise matters on a certain day every week, thereby giving them an opportunity of airing their views instead of Deputies always finding themselves being disorderly when they want to discuss some matter of importance. Every day we have at least 15 questions sought to be raised on the Adjournment and it is most unlikely any of them will be called. Even if a question is called, because of the present unsatisfactory situation the protagonists are not likely to be ready to proceed.
With regard to Deputy Desmond's point about committees that Members have to be whipped in, I have spent time on a number of committees and it seems to me there is a sort of feeling that only a certain type of Deputy should serve on committees and, if one does not happen to be that particular type, then one does not serve. Again, there is no compulsion to attend and one finds unfortunate officials running around trying to form a quorum. More committees would not be a solution unless the parties whip the Members into attendance. It is a fact, and everybody here realises it, that the way to stay in office is to do constituency work. I agree this has gone to ridiculous lengths. Everybody wants to do constituency work and nobody wants to do parliamentary work.
We discussed the Finance Bill here for six weeks and we had tremendous performances from Deputy Desmond, Deputy Bruton and the Minister for Finance. The rest of the Members were merrily doing constituency work when they should have been in room 114 dealing with the sections. The sections which were not agreed should have been debated in a full House. The public must be very disillusioned at our performance. I am prepared to spend part of the summer working with the Whips to try to bring in rules which will get us away from the present archaic laws. Everyone is concerned with divisions and how long they can speak and, in the interests of the House, the Government should participate fully in trying to reform these laws before we return in the autumn.
As a relatively new Deputy, I support the move and the leadership given by the spokespersons of the various parties and the Whips towards reforming the operation of the Dáil. I enthusiastically support the development of a committee system. I feel that whipping people into a committee structure must mean you are up against a basic problem from the beginning. We operate a committee system on councils and local authorities and there is no need to force people to do that because the work they are doing on those committees is directly related to the administration of services, systems and of legislation perhaps that is being decided at one level. It is important that Dáil Éireann should have a relationship, not only with the Legislature but with the administration. One of the keys to making committees relevant and interesting for Deputies, so that they would get involved and as a result be much more informed should they move from Opposition to Government, or vice versa, is to have a connection with the administration of various Departments. Deputies should not be detached from Departments who administer the law. Senior civil servants should meet individual Deputies who serve on committees. At present the only people who ever meet the civil servants who administer the laws which are brought in are Members of the Government and, of that party, only the Ministers meet them. There is tremendous frustration for back bench Deputies who are removed from any real say. If senior civil servants were present at any future devolved committee stage, this would bring a much closer relationship and give greater involvement to Deputies. The average Deputy has no connection with the various Departments who administer the law and there is a natural gap which leads to frustration in Opposition and unnecessary lack of experience and continuity when a new Government is formed and links have to be established from scratch. There is no need for that, it is inefficient and wasteful and is not practised in other European countries where there is a developed committee system.
I am delighted to hear all this discussion about reform of the Dáil. As one of the newer Deputies, the procedure has been something of a disillusionment. I have drawn attention to it on a number of occasions but, not having the experience of Members who have already spoken, I have not been in a position to suggest ways in which it could be improved. While I deplore rows and disorder which take place on trivial matters, I would not like to see a situation where we all become tame TDs agreeing to everything. It is good at times to have a row on important political issues.
I am glad the House has agreed to the Supplementary Estimate. I am also glad it has taken this opportunity to discuss what are very important matters in relation to procedure in the House.
In recent months, it will be accepted and agreed by all sides of the House, through the Whips and the Party leaders, that the facilities for Deputies and staff have been improved enormously. I am glad to see that development, and we must carry it forward on the basis of the various suggestions made by a number of Deputies in relation to procedures of the House. I was interested to hear that we consistently talked about this House. We must take procedures in the other House into account in relation to any discussion we have in relation to changing procedures. We talk about transferring business from here to committees. Yesterday at Question Time when questions were being directed to the Minister for Finance he was criticised and abused for not being here. At that time he was speaking in the Seanad ——
The Minister was not criticised yesterday.
I was. It is mentioned in the papers today if the Deputy wants to read it. I do not want to make a big point about it because it does not make that much difference to me, but everyone should have known I was there. If a Minister is involved in public business in the Seanad, committees or otherwise, the understanding and co-operation of other Members should be given to him because of his unavoidable absence.
After spending over 13 years here I have worked on almost all committees and participated to the best of my ability in debates in the House, both in Government and in Opposition. We all accept that there is enormous room for improvement in the procedures of the House. I do not think the last four months have done the House any good. It is important that everybody, between now and October, reflect on why that was the case and whoever is to blame should contribute to easing the situation towards reform of procedures that will restore full dignity to the operations of this House. Having sat here for some weeks with Deputy Bruton, Deputy B. Desmond, Deputy De Rossa and others, debating the Finance Bill, some days for 10 hours, it struck me many times that much of that work could have been carried out in committee rooms. A few years ago, when I was Minister of State, I remember being associated with the harmonisation of VAT levels and that was done very successfully in committees.
Hear hear.
I happened to be the Minister of State who did it on behalf of the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley. Being responsible for the operation of the committee was a great help to me as Minister of State at the time but it also was of tremendous advantage to all of the members because not only had we the rapport between ourselves but we had the opportunity of involving the experts in discussion in relation to the very complex matter of VAT on both the national and international scene. Therefore, a lot can be said for certain items of Government and Dáil business being transferred to committee work.
However, one must look at the totality of the operation, taking into account all of the operations of this House, the other committees of this House and the other House to see if anything can be done — I am sure much can be done — to improve the procedures and also the facilities of all those who have to operate within those procedures. I am glad to hear the Fine Gael and Labour Whips are accepting all suggestions that have been made by our Whip, Deputy Ahern, in relation to discussions that can and should take place during the summer recess regarding this matter. I hope that we can have, and I am sure we will, through the Whips and eventually through the Committee on Procedures and Privileges, the leaders of the parties in the kind of discussions we have had here this morning with the kind of consensus we seem to have arising on this subject, and that we can come to some suitable arrangement.
Other points were raised by Deputy Bruton which may be considered as part of the procedures of the House, although I do not think that they are. One is whether we should have radio or television in the House. Let us get the procedures right by agreement first and then ask the question of whether it be broadcast live on radio or TV. The proceedings of the House have been fairly widely covered by the various representatives of the press here, but one of the areas that has probably led to difficulties in the maintenance of the rules of order of the House has been that at certain times there are very good opportunities for getting publicity. If the Order of Business was between 7.30 and 8.30, or as in the old times when we sat until 10.30, between 9.30 and 10.30 ——
At night.
—— at night — not too many people would be there and there would not be too much publicity about it. We must be realistic about these things. If we had the Order of Business in the morning and matters arising from it at 9.30 at night it would be a different story on both sides from Members in Government and Opposition. We can talk about procedures and so on but we are all to blame whether we like it or not, on all sides of the House at all times, in my 13 years' experience here. If we want seriously to review procedures we must adapt ourselves, especially in relation to the activities of this House, into the role of legislators and out of the role of politicians. While there has been certain criticism of the role of Deputies and the amount of literature and the quantity of representations they have to make, that is a very necessary part of democracy which I as a Deputy will protect as long as I am here. While this House may not be able to relate to the people, the representatives of this House have, generally speaking, down the years related very much to their constituents. That is a very necessary part of democracy which I would not like to see interfered with in any way, and I know that it is not the intention of anyone who has spoken here this morning to interfere with it. However, you cannot marry the two and look for procedures and facilities that would take care of both. They might be the same but they are in a way two separate and distinct areas. Unfortunately, we are inclined to bring the political, representative, emotive type of thing forward into the legislative arena.
I will not delay the House. I am sorry for having gone on so long, but it is an important subject. As it was raised I wish the best to our Whips and the other Whips and I am sure they will take into account the views of the small parties and Independents in relation to any suggestions they may have regarding reform of procedures in the House, and that some arrangement can be made whereby these discussions will lead to concrete proposals being put forward to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which I hope will be agreed.
Would the Minister agree, and perhaps through him also the Minister of State, that one of the problems in committees is the lack of publicity members get for the work they do there? After all, we live by publicity as a profession. Would he consider, as far as the Government are considering this issue, how the public profile and the public appreciation of the work of the committees of this House could be enhanced?
I do not see any reason why that should not be done. The present Leader of the Opposition and myself were on a committee at one time which had publicity all of the time during their operations in 1970 and 1971.
The House will recall that the committee dealt with very delicate matters in a very non-partisan way, which showed the Deputies of the House the capacity of Deputies working together in committee to do so in the general interest without becoming involved in the party political infighting which occurs on the floor of the House.
And there are facilities for the press, as Deputy Bruton has raised also.
