Ba mhaith liom ar dtús comhgháirdeas a ghabháil leat, a Cheann Comhairle, as ucht tusa a thoghadh mar Cheann Comhairle agus táim cinnte go dtabharfaidh tú cothrom na féinne do gach Comhalta sa Teach.
On my first opportunity to address the House in this new session, I wish to congratulate the Chair on his election. I am confident that he will show fairness to all Members of the House.
Although I do not often see fit to agree with my colleagues on the other side of the House, I must commend the initiative of throwing open an area such as Dáil reform for discussion. Judging by the opinions of various speakers on all sides of the House, this is an area which was under scrutiny prior to the introduction of this debate and which has caused much frustration and disillusionment, particularly among new Deputies. During my previous seven months here, I found the workings of the House cumbersome and that on many occasions issues which came to the fore as matters of serious public concern could not be moved speedily to the floor of the House. Since this was the only way in which legislation could be formulated or existing legislation amended frustration developed and Deputies sometimes very quickly became disillusioned and failed to bring before the House those issues which had been brought to their attention.
On the question of Dáil reform, the various mechanisms by which Members can approach community, national and international problems should be scrutinised very seriously by the Joint Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to enable people who, like myself, are not acquainted with mechanisms and procedures by which we can get around various Standing Orders, to air our views and bring our concerns before the House in an effective manner and at a time of most relevance. I was interested to hear previous speakers refer to the frustration of individual Deputies with no allegiance to political parties who from time to time try to raise matters and are frustrated by the procedures and unable to make their input because the Whips of the main parties, Government and Opposition — perhaps in the interests of efficiency or out of concern for the processing of legislation — had to make arrangements which, by their nature, seemed to eliminate the viewpoints and contributions of Deputies who do not have Whips to represent them.
I sympathise with the viewpoints expressed by a number of previous speakers on their frustration at being presented with Standing Orders five minutes before the business of the Dáil commences. I was particularly taken by a suggestion by the last speaker on this topic before Question Time that this should be done on the previous evening. That would give an opportunity to Deputies who are not too well acquainted with the process to make a more relevant contribution and in a manner which takes up the minimum amount of Dáil time. I came into the Chamber about three-quarters of an hour before Question Time with the intention of addressing myself to a few areas and voicing concern in relation to these and I will be very brief.
One area which is the cause of on-going frustration and disillusionment — an area which is currently treated with cynicism and a sense of hopelessness by the public generally — is that of law and order. This comes within the ambit of the Department of Justice. Amendments to legislation in the field of law and order — some of which come within the ambit of the Department of Health in the context of juveniles — cannot be constructively and effectively dealt with on an on-going basis under the existing departmental system.
The Dáil recognises ministerial responsibility for the introduction of legislation and the Minister, in turn, depends upon consultations with senior civil servants within his Department. With regard to law reform and the Department of Justice, it would be far preferable for Deputies to have an on-going input into this area. There is now great concern that the legislators are unable to come to grips with the very serious problems of vandalism and burglary, a general feeling that lawlessness is pervasive, that the Garda who, with the best will in the world attempt to bring thugs, vandals, indeed rapists to justice, are frustrated by an extremely complex system and by the process and procedures of this House for whatever reason — and I am not well enough acquainted with these to identify the areas causing difficulties. There is a conviction, particularly in urban areas, that successive Governments have fallen down in this respect and that whatever overall reform is needed, it is most urgently needed in this contect. This community concern should be brought quickly and effectively to this House, whether by way of committees with a direct input into legislation or by way of an extension of Dáil time. Problems, as they are seen to arise, can be dealt with effectively and quickly. In that way also public concern, frustration and a sense of hopelessness can be quickly allayed.
Another matter of growing significance is that of economic management. In referring to economic management one identifies immediately a number of variables which can be very volatile and change just as the circumstances relating to them change. I have heard Deputies on many occasions express concern about their awareness of changes in some of these variables, about their inability to effect any changes themselves in the course or direction of our economy. One suggestion emanating from the opposite side of the House meriting my attention is that of the earlier publication of the Book of Estimates. The Book of Estimates should be published well in advance of the budget, with opportunity being afforded in the House to have them debated thoroughly before any definite formulations are made by the Minister for Finance or his Department. This would generate growing confidence among Members of the House generally, the feeling that they would have an input, that they would be motivated to take an interest in this area. They could also feel, justifiably, that they had the facility to influence, perhaps even in the slightest way, the general direction of the economy.
It was always my belief that in being elected to this House one was being elected to be a legislator in some form or other. I have wondered since coming in here if that is the case. I find my position as a Deputy very remote from legislation or from any positive, practical input into legislation. In this regard I should like to refer to some of the opinions expressed by the Minister for the Public Service. I should say that when that Minister occupied his previous Ministry I did not have many opportunities to agree with him in many of the views he expressed then. But certainly in relation to the conflict of roles to which he referred today I find myself in agreement with him in a number of areas. There is a kind of mystique which public representatives have woven around themselves over the years. They have, I feel deliberately, set out to create a mystique as to their powers, their influence, their ability to effect changes in decisions taken within Departments or local authorities. I might refer the House to an interview I gave The Irish Press in February 1982, an interview which, if you like, created somewhat of a panic among my constituents in Dublin North-East. When asked by the journalist what I felt I could do for constituents, what changes I felt I could bring about with regard to Government decisions and local authority decisions on individual and community bases, I stressed that public representatives, when elected, could influence, by way of discussion, by way of strengthening a case, by way of highlighting the advantages or disadvantages of particular issues. But I said I felt that one could do no more than that. In summary I said at the time that by and large people get what they are entitled to and no more. Therefore I blame Deputies themselves for having created this mystique. I blame them for quite deliberately in the past creating the impression among the public that anything is possible, that it only took the scribble of the pen of a Deputy to have the magic wand waved. I object very strongly to this kind of misleading impression being given. I am very concerned about it. I am stating my concern for a number of reasons. One is the costs that have been incurred by the State, by different Departments, different local authorities over the years arising from the conviction felt among the electorate in any constituency that all they had to do was go to their public representatives and the magic wand would be waved immediately; that if it was not it was because somebody held in greater favour than him or her had had the magic wand waved some short time previously and that therefore this constituent was being neglected deliberately.
Many public representatives must examine this area. It might be a good idea that an initiative mentioned by the Minister today could be discussed by the joint committee. I am prepared to abide by the views of the joint committee in this respect. I am prepared to abide by the views of my own party in relation to issues such as the termination of representations by Ministers. But it is my view that in many instances what a Deputy is doing is merely writing a letter for the sake of a reply and of being in a position to convince his or her constituent that he has put pen to paper because there is no other purpose being served. In order to enable the facility of representation to continue I would be very anxious that senior civil servants within Departments and senior officials in local authorities be seen to be more readily available to Deputies, on deputations or on representation, so that the full facts of cases could be ascertained at a more personal level and that constituents who would be concerned about approaching their public representatives would not be frustrated by being prohibited from so doing.
I would not agree with the Minister for the Public Service when he decries clinics as directly creating the mystique to which I have referred. By and large I feel constituents like to feel their public representatives are available to them, that they can speak with them, can voice their concerns on community, individual and family problems to them. Indeed, there are many amendments to legislation which arise directly out of such clinic discussions. Therefore the whole idea of clinics, while not necessarily subject to a decision by this House, should not be knocked out of hand.
There are other aspects of our procedures warranting our consideration also. One such is Question Time. My colleague, Deputy Ahern, voiced some of the concern I feel. Question Time should be devoted to dealing effectively with the main national and community issues. This is not the case primarily because many of the questions submitted for oral reply are individual questions. There is a facility for written reply and there are many categories of questions, such as those in relation to telephone service and the payment of grants, which do not merit Dáil time in terms of an oral reply. We should look at what kind of questions are put down for oral reply. In many cases a comprehensive written reply would be satisfactory. That way we would have more time to raise community and national problems at Question Time. At present there is an hour per day allocated to Question Time. This is inadequate. We should give consideration to extending Question Time by at least another half-an-hour.
The question of broadcasting Dáil debates has been raised here many times. I am not in agreement with many of the views expressed on this. The Dáil is where the people have their views, opinions and apprehensions expressed through the medium of their respective Deputies. It is where national and international issues can be thrashed out in a logical, comprehensive way and it is where all the measures to introduce legislation and amend existing legislation in accordance with the needs of the day are undertaken. When one brings visitors into the Public Gallery they have a sense of awe. There is an aura of mystique about the House. They expect the essence of debate and constructive argument but what they see at best is four or five Deputies in the House. As a result they are disillusioned. When students leave the House and discuss their visit with their teachers they are very disappointed that there is not greater pressure on public representatives to play a more effective role on an ongoing basis.
New Deputies are not familiar with Standing Orders and so on. I suffer from a lack of familiarity with Standing Orders and the methods and mechanisms which might or might not be available to Deputies to legitimately circumvent procedures or bring urgent issues before the House. New Deputies should be able to acquaint themselves with the various means by which they can bring problems to the House. They would then have a greater motivation to participate in legislation and deal with the various issues raised. These are some ideas to which the joint committee should address itself and I hope they will be taken into account by it.
