Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1983

Vol. 339 No. 8

Dáil Reform: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann resolves that its procedures should be reformed to improve efficiency and its control over the public finances.

—(Minister for Industry and Energy.)

Mr. Skelly

Before the Adjournment yesterday I was expressing my thanks and satisfaction to the Minister for allowing this debate to take place. It is a very important debate for this House, as indicated by the fact that so many people have spoken and that many more wish to contribute. It gives an opportunity to new Deputies like myself to outline the experiences we have had so far in the House and how beneficial reform could be introduced. I worry, as a new Deputy, about Deputies who are satisfied with the running and the performance of the Dáil. Some Deputies seem perfectly happy at their elevation to the status of TD. Others are happy to toil away at insignificant tasks in substandard accommodation and only enter this Chamber at voting time.

I am happy to say I detect among my colleagues a new breed of Deputy who is not overcome by his new-found status, who is not on an ego trip, who has entered this House with serious intent, who wishes to make a contribution to improve the quality of life and who is not satisfied merely to attend and become lobby fodder for those few who see their role as holding down ministries and positions of responsibility. However, if Deputies are not given the chance and if they are not invited and encouraged to participate, they will try to change the system and, if they are unsuccessful and beaten by it, they cannot in honour continue to be a member of this assembly.

I refrain from describing it as an august assembly, although I am sure it is that, because I must admit I am less than impressed by what I have seen of the workings of the Oireachtas since I came here. Like previous speakers, I discovered the loneliness and frustration of wandering aimlessly around this House having been chaired into it and then dropped to fend for myself. The first task was to find a desk and a quite corner but this is not to be found because the accommodation is primitive, as other speakers have pointed out. It resembles a slum, with conditions that would not be tolerated in private industry.

This leaves me to question the work rate that can be achieved by Deputies who have to work under these conditions. I have had some experience in the industrial engineering field. It is my belief that our work rate will be affected when one has to share a room with ten people and with the noise of five or six typewriters banging around one's ears. The rooms in question are suitable for two people. It is obvious that the work rate must decrease in such conditions. It also gives rise to unnecessary tension in the people who have to work in such conditions.

I should have thought it essential for a legislator to have a quiet place to study and to think about what we are trying to do here. Instead of that the day is filled with frenetic activity and much of the time is spent in trying to tackle hundreds of menial tasks that are not relevant to this Assembly. My good cheer falters at the lifts when I contemplate the rabbit-warren conditions that await me on the third floor. The offices are so overcrowded one cannot have a private conversation or interview a constituent privately. There are junior people in industry and in the civil service who have offices for themselves. When one has occasion to visit them one is shown into an ante-room and then into the private office of the official concerned. Some comparison must be made with the position of a Deputy and that of a professional person in industry or in the professions and one must come to the conclusion that a Deputy ranks at least in the position of a bank executive or a middle line manager in industry who would have private quarters in which to work. I hope that the Deputies on both sides of the House who have complained about this will continue to do so until we get proper accommodation. I do not know how we can work efficiently in present conditions. It is a reflection on all of us that we put up with such conditions which we know would not be tolerated outside. How can efficiency prevail when one is working in such conditions?

The fact that we are politicians probably goes some way towards explaining the lack of assistance one receives in the beginning from one's colleagues and competitors and the subsequent stand-offishness. This compels one to become an achiever and it demands that we be given the opportunity to achieve. I am glad this debate is taking place because it is a new beginning, as it were. It is throwing down the gauntlet and there are many Deputies willing to pick it up. If the economy is in a mess, is it not our duty to apply all our energy, talent and time to putting it right? Is that not the reason for which we were elected? Are we not legislators? Why then are 90 per cent of Members of this Parliament beavering away in atrocious conditions at menial tasks that could be handled more effectively had we the courage and imagination to do so, instead of being over-protective with regard to our seats. I am talking about tasks such as fixing street lights, contacting corporation and county council officials, dealing with all kinds of applications from licences to social welfare applications, removing abandoned cars and having roads swept. We are doing these jobs instead of dealing with the most vital task facing the country, finding a solution of our economic ills. It would be fruitless for me to call on Deputies in the offices upstairs and ask them to come into this Chamber to tackle this task because the Dáil is so badly in need of reform.

I agree with a previous speaker, Deputy O'Malley, who said there would have to be a radical change in the system of election to release Deputies from doing so much mundane constituency work. None of us objects to doing this work and to helping out our fellow men but we must remember why we were elected to the House and what we have been asked to do. To me it more resembles a county council but without the power of a council. That task is left to 10 per cent of Members who work exclusively on it to the exclusion of the rest of us except when we walk through the lobbies when directed to do so.

This debate is about the total involvement of the elected representatives of the people, each one selected by his or her constituency and capable of doing the job. If not he or she should be voted out — and I include myself in that — except in certain cases when a person is voted in on party lines and the Deputy does not measure up to the standards. The county councillors and corporation members should remain as such but Members of the national Parliament should spend the bulk of their time as legislators. The standards of county councillors and corporation members — I can speak only for Dublin in this instance — is not high enough for this House. In fact, on reading of the decisions that have been made by Dublin County Council in the last few years one could not be happy with the results. They have destroyed the county from Ballycullen to Baldoyle and from Cooldrinagh to Swords. This message in regard to the involvement of a Deputy at county council, corporation and national level must be put across to the people and explanation given as to what exactly our time is devoted to. There would be a general acceptance of the proper role of the TD were it so explained, and the assurance that we wish to devote our time to doing the task for which we are elected would be received well.

There are Deputies who devote their time exclusively to county council and corporation problems and come into this Chamber only to vote. Democracy of its nature produces mediocre parliamentarians. I have noticed however that in recent elections the people have been more selective in their choice of Deputies — not necessarily in their selection of me. They have given a message to us in this selection. They recognise the role and the problems and they are telling us to apply ourselves more seriously to our work.

If one's objective is not to become a Minister, is it one's fate as a backbencher to fade away? Shortly after I came into the House a very large stride had been taken which I was not able to appreciate because I had not been here before then. They appointed one secretary per Deputy. As the secretaries were being selected I was handed a few applications and at the bottom of one of them was a note which said "Secretary suitable for BB". When I inquired about that I was told the person was selected on the basis that all a backbencher would require would be a typist. Therefore, it was a commentary on one's future as a backbencher. That little incident speaks volumes for me because it is the role that is accepted for the backbenchers. I will say more about that later, but I believe that it is necessary to involve the backbencher more in the workings of the Dáil and not just to take him for granted to be called in when the gong goes to walk through the lobbies.

In the selection of a Cabinet many considerations must be taken into account, not the least of which — understandable nevertheless if the people react to it — is the geographical spread. Consequently, many able persons are excluded from Cabinet and Minister of State rank. It is possible, therefore, to have a person in a particular position who is not exactly the right choice, and I am not referring to the make-up of any Cabinet present or past. In addition, the experience brought to such a post may not be adequate. Sometimes what in effect is the equivalent of a multinational organisation with a multi-million pounds budget is handed to a Deputy with little or no experience in that field so that he becomes either a captive of the civil service or ineffective in his position and certainly no innovator, being unable to stamp his role on the position. Therefore, should other able backbenchers be excluded from participation, responsibility and involvement? If the talent is there, for heaven's sake use it. We are not all on ego trips and the title of Minister or Minister of State is not an essential prerequisite for us to want to do that for which we were elected. I could not help noticing on the recent appointments of Ministers of State that most of those selected were of a high standard and, delighted as I was at that, I was reminded of the examination results board at the university. There would be a crowd around it and you would see some people jumping for joy and whooping it up but not sparing a thought for other people around the board who probably had failed their examinations. I am pointing out the importance of not taking people for granted. We know that the system is not perfect, and it is essential that we be given an opportunity to contribute and become involved. By proper reform it is possible to make fuller and more effective use of the time and talents of elected representatives.

Perhaps consideration should be given to the use of backbenchers in Ministerial Departments which could be subdivided and under the control of a Minister. Essentially we want to contribute. I want to contribute and I will not be happy if I cannot do so. Let me contribute. By reforming this archaic, lack-lustre and inefficient Dáil we would be able to achieve that. Most of all, communication between Ministers and Deputies needs improvement.

Reference has also been made to the means of improvement in this House. Some people have suggested that the time limit for speaking should be examined. We know and it has been admitted that Deputies sometimes are asked to go in to a debate and speak for 30 or 40 minutes or an hour to keep it going. At times they have to waffle in order to do that. We should reach the point where one can stand up, say what is to be said and sit down. In that way more Deputies would participate and more would be present during debates.

There is no reason why the Dáil could not be more businesslike. We have objectives and the sooner they are reached the sooner the problems of our beleaguered people can be solved. We have a duty to improve efficiency so that we can more easily help the unemployed, the poor, the sick, our youth, the old and the lonely. Deputies should speak out more freely. We have already seen that during this Dáil.

There are other aspects of the Dáil and its environs that need to be changed. Take, for example, school visits to Leinster House. It is bad enough when children from Dublin schools visit Leinster House but I often see buses outside the House with children from country schools who possibly expect great things from the House and expect to be impressed by it. Possibly they expect to go away having learned from what goes on here, having learned something of the history of the House and those who worked here before us. I am sure they all go away with a bad impression because there are no visual or audio aids to describe the Dáil and its history.

The tour for schoolchildren is very restricted. They usually visit the Seanad which has a roomful of chairs with standing microphones inviting all the Senators to the use of backbenchers in ministerial through the picture gallery with its line of small out-of-proportion cheap prints. There is not a painting in sight of living artists who are on the breadline. They then go through this botched and very ordinary Leinster House to this almost empty Chamber or pit as it has been described in the press. Visitors can neither see nor hear properly. This is an embarrassing impression to give schoolchildren although it is probably a true impression at the moment. I hope with the reforms that will be introduced, we will also look at that aspect of the Dáil.

The House is full of Malton prints, busts and paintings of dead men. If some of them do not haunt you their executioners by the brush will. The Dáil Chamber and the environs of Leinster House have many corridors, the so-called corridors of power, where most of the plotting, scheming, knifing, chatting and congratulating takes place. There must be about 100 yards of corridors. The gallery adjoining this Chamber is devoted to former Taoisigh. There are approximately five there at the moment. If this trend continues I reckon that with one portrait per Taoiseach if each lasts the full term of five years and if each portrait is one yard wide it will take 100 to fill the corridors. It will take about 500 years to complete. What a dull place we would have then. It might be called "Teach na ndaoine marbh", or something like that. Who would dare walk its corridors then with all those accusing eyes watching?

What is wrong with the living? The kind of set-up we have, with all the people in the portraits in their dull grey or blue suits, along the walls of the corridors, could be enlivened with a sprinkling of colourful art such as that from the current Project Arts Centre travelling exhibition with a Brian Burke "Self-portrait with Crown", a Michael Mulcahy or a Charlie Cullen landscape, a Mick Cullen or Patrick Graham. How interesting to relate in such a situation how you plotted to overthrow your leader under the watchful eye of Paul Funge gazing out of his landscape in disguise with cap and glasses over the title "What do you spy, Mr. Funge?" loaned for the occasion by CJH or under a Michael Kane lino-cut of the "Butchers" or it could be "How I installed the Leader" under his wall-hanging of "The Dove".

Why do we not have hanging in the offices and corridors works of living artists to relieve the dreariness of the long hours spent in this House, works which could instil reflective thoughts on the commentry of our existence by those whose life and work are devoted to maintaining our culture and who are best able to comment on our society. Instead of saying, for example, that your room is number 352 it could be described as the door beside Nano Reid's "The Haggard", or a Nora McGuinness, a Gerard Dillon or beside Michael Kane's "Head of Koposchka". Why is not every school a rotating exhibition? Why do we not have works of our living artists hanging in the corridors so that our young people can learn to appreciate works of art while they are still young? When they grew up they would then be able to follow the careers of our living artists. It would be a good thing to be able to recognise a living artist on the streets of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway or even in Connemara and then later on to seek out that person's exhibition and see what progress he or she has made. We might then end up with works of art in our houses. Very few houses have any original works of art. Why should we leave all the adulattion to the rock stars? Our youth have not been shown the way to do that.

How many architects, for example, work in the Office of Public Works? I believe approximately 150. At a conservative salary of £15,000 each that amounts to approximately £2,500,000 a year. How many artists work in the Board of Works? The answer is none. How much do they earn out of it? The answer is nothing. We might ask what justifies 150 architects working in the Board of Works. What buildings have they produced in the last year or two? What do they do all day? In courts in days gone by artists were appointed, but there are no artists appointed to the court of Leinster House. There is not expended the equivalent of one year's wages on works of art or on the works of any of our living artists. This House could well do with decoration.

Another aspect of reform of the Dáil is that of by-elections in the context of the effective use of the time of the House. I am referring to the conduct in the holding of by-elections. Sadly, we are facing yet another by-election as a result of the untimely death of Deputy Coughlan. As one in the same age bracket as Deputy Coughlan was, I was greatly shocked by his death. Deputy Coughlan was very kind to me when I came into this House, as indeed were Deputies on all sides. However, to get back to the question of by-elections, it is the practice of the party whips to order the entire party into the constituency concerned at such a time. They remain encamped there for three to four weeks. Even worse, the Government send the entire Cabinet to the constituency with the full entourage of State cars leaving the House to continue its deliberations with the help of just a few speakers. This practice is a betrayal of the trust so far as the electorate are concerned. When we are seeking election we go before the electorate and assure them that if successful in our attempts to be elected we will work diligently and full time on their behalf and will endeavour to sort out the country's problems, but then when a by-election is called we desert this House for three or four weeks.

I came into this House first as a result of a by-election and I welcomed wholeheartedly every Member who came out to the constituency to help me in my bid for election. I welcomed them a thousand times. During a by-election the advantage is said to lie with the party in power in that ministerial authority, in the sense of making things happen for the electorate, is considered to be an advantage. I was elected on 25 May 1982 and I took my seat on 6 June 1982. Shortly afterwards there was a by-election in east Galway. This meant that we were ordered to go to that constituency where we remained encamped for the duration of the campaign. There were few Deputies left in the Dáil to speak at length about nothing. Then the House adjourned for the Summer Recess and did not re-assemble until 27 October. A general election was called in November and the Dáil reassembled for merely two days before adjourning for the Christmas Recess until 26 January. Therefore, during the period from June 1982 to February 1983, a period of eight months, the House sat for 20 to 25 days. That sort of situation, coupled with the laborious and outdated procedure of the House and the little opportunity one has to speak, is not good enough. When one considers that there are 166 Deputies here and that backbenchers must give way to Ministers, one realises how difficult it is for a backbencher to get the opportunity of speaking. Before the last election I recall Magill magazine making what I considered to be an unkind reference to me. This was to the effect that I had not spoken in the Dáil up to then and that I was unlikely ever to get the opportunity again of speaking here. I am glad that Magill, who should have known better, were proved wrong. The people who write for that magazine should know more about the workings of this Chamber and, consequently, of the difficulties experienced by backbenchers in even getting the opportunity to speak here.

One way of dealing with the by-election situation I have referred to would be to hold by-elections when the House is in recess but if, as has been suggested by the Minister, the recesses are shortened, this could be unfair to Deputies in terms of their free time. But one might ask if anything is fair where politicians are concerned. Anything seems to be good enough for them — bad accommodation, low wages, long hours and constant and universal abuse. These are all reasons why it is imperative that the Dáil be reformed. For a start I should like the by-election abuse that I have referred to to be discontinued. However, I realise that if by-elections were to be confined to one of the recesses there could be difficulties in the event of the party in power losing their majority but the limiting of speakers' time would help to stem the exodus of Deputies from the House during a by-election campaign. If they were allowed to speak for not more than 15 or 20 minutes, many more of them would need to be here.

In summing up, one might ask how much of a legislator is a Deputy. Is he merely a rubber stamp? This is a question that we should examine. There is not enough input by Deputies so far as Bills are concerned. The drafting is left to Government Departments. It has been suggested that better and more fruitful use be made of committees. There is not much point in extending the committee system if the civil servants finish up doing the work. Committees should not be used as a substitute for action and responsibility.

I agree totally with the Minister that the Dáil needs to improve its control of public finances. I suggest that there be no decisions taken by the State sector before the Dáil makes its decision.

Regarding the two means by which a Deputy can raise an issue, that is, by way of parliamentary question or the Adjournment Debate, it is ridiculous having to join the cumbersome parliamentary question queue. While in many cases Deputies are serious in tabling questions, some of the questions asked and discussed are of such a minor nature as to be a waste of the time of the House. Because of the restrictions on backbenchers to participate in the proceedings of the House the parliamentary question is used by them in order to gain publicity and attention. For that reason alone this is an area that should be looked at. It is for us to reform the system and to ensure that each of the Members is given a fair opportunity of contributing. That is why this debate is very important. There is much talent on both sides of the House. There are many young Deputies who are anxious to do a good job here. This debate heralds what we all hope will be the beginning of an eventful Dáil. I look forward to many of the reforms that have been suggested being put into practice.

Apart from the parliamentary question the backbencher is left with only the Adjournment Debate to raise an important topic. These facilities should be improved and procedures changed to allow backbenchers to raise important matters. The discussion of the Estimates should take place before the moneys are committed or spent and so erase the rubber stamp tag of the Deputy and we should not be used merely to walk through the lobbies.

I agree with the Fine Gael policy document on the reform of the Dáil of November 1979, compiled by the Minister for Industry and Energy, and look forward to its implementation.

Mrs. Barnes

May I congratulate the Ceann Comhairle and wish him a long and not too demanding or exciting time in the Chair, depending on the behaviour of Deputies? I welcome this opportunity to speak as a new TD on this very important debate.

Most of the practical details have been covered by more experienced Deputies and I will learn from what they said when I read the debate. One of the big problems facing new TDs is Dáil procedure and precedents, which are almost a new language, and place Deputies in very difficult situations. New Members often feel depressed, disillusioned, useless and ignorant when they first join the Dáil. That can be a great let down after the feeling of euphoria of having been elected after what was in my case and for many other Deputies a long hard struggle to get here. I agree with Deputy Skelly and others who said that this feeling of disillusionment and uselessness will continue unless we bring this Dáil into the eighties.

It is with great enthusiasm that I welcome the first major debate in this Dáil which is on Dáil reform, but we must all ensure that we do not just stand around, make speeches and then forget about it. We have a responsibility to act on the suggestions being made in this House. To me Government and democracy are about leadership and authority and people recognising and exercising that role. There is no sense talking about power being taken from us. We allow power to be taken from us, and it is up to us to get it back. We do that by recognising our authority while giving people their freedom.

Our greatest problem is one of dependence, in economic terms. Because of the structure of our society we have a large dependency with regard to the old, the young and a small working population. But there is a much more serious dependency. We have denied people the right to make their own choices and the right to get their own information. Instead we have given them an intermediary, the TD. What do we get? We get rights. We struggle and give people social welfare payments when they do not have the necessary earning power, but we deny them access to that information and they have to approach their TD. This takes up a great deal of the TD's time. What is more damaging is that we do not allow the TD to concentrate on legislation, which is the reason he was elected, and we allow people to believe that rights are privileges.

If we are to reform the Dáil we must also reform some of our outside establishments. Knowledge is power. Deny knowledge and people become dependent. Why do we not provide advisory bureaux? Why do we not allow people to act independently and get the information they are entitled to, whether it be about social welfare, health or education? We do not have a network of health education clinics and there is a total denial of what I see as a right to family planning. Yet — and I do not think it is coincidence — TDs set up clinics enhancing the idea of dependency, of not being in good health psychologically. The TD finds himself or herself submerged or overwhelmed by queries which should be dealt with by citizens' advice bureaux and by media advertising. This is one area on which I would like the Dáil to concentrate and allocate a certain sum each year. It would be the responsibility of the Government to make changes in legislation, social welfare and so on, and the people should not have to depend on their TDs to learn about them.

In Britain, when radical changes occur in the health or social welfare areas, advertisements are televised — television being the greatest communicator of all. People are encouraged to find out their entitlements at their local advice bureau, health or DHSS centres. I am open to correction, but I have never seen anything as frank and communicative here. There is almost a conspiracy of silence, in the hope that if people do not know about it, they will not claim it. There is not much point in this House allocating funds to the disadvantaged, disabled and unemployed if they are denied information about their entitlements unless they ask their TDs.

Our dependency rate is frightening and reform must start here. If we are elected to lead, to give authority to the decisions made in this House, it is up to us to show that leadership and authority. This brings me to a point repeatedly made by Members: the psychological damage done to ourselves and to the country in not allowing freedom of choice of voting in the House. I accept that in established areas of policy such as the budget or where deadlines may be attempted, we need to ask members of the party, in loyalty and agreement, to support a vote. I cannot understand why it is seen as a great act of disloyalty, disunity, divisiveness, or even threatening the fall of a Government, if Members use intelligence, assessment, judgement and choice in voting daily on issues of legislative changes. People will not have a feeling of authority as long as they are denied the choice of voting as they think fit, in conscience and in such a way as to reflect the needs of the electorate or their own vision of society. People opt out and the greatest opting out is not having to examine the issues or act according to one's conscience, by saying "There is a Whip on". One has just to go into the right lobby.

Our Deputies have worked hard and long to be elected and have enough vision and idealism to wish to become elected to this most demanding job. As well as working hard within the House and outside it, people have to put themselves in the vulnerable and exposed position of campaigning for election every three to four years, or more frequently. There must be a drive and enthusiasm in politicians which urge them to accept this burden. They could find an easier, better paid, safer way of living. I appeal to the Minister, in reviewing the report of this debate, to give urgent attention to the heartfelt cries from most Deputies who spoke on this area of freedom of choice. As I have explained, my knowledge of the rules and procedures of the House is scanty and I cannot comment on how they should be reformed. However, in this area, even on an informal basis, there could be a briefing session for new TDs, perhaps in an all-party way. They should be introduced to the complexities of Question Time, Standing Orders, and the time needed to put down a question. I have been told by many older and more experienced TDs that it has taken them years to get to know the rules and procedures, mostly learning from their mistakes and embarrassment. If you enter an organisation or a firm, the first thing someone in personnel does is introduce you to the staff and brief you on procedures, so as to avoid the feeling of foolishness and ineffectiveness. The more you know about procedures the more effective you become.

I entirely applaud the use of broadcasting. This would bring a sense of openness and communication to the public about what happens in this House and a great deal of what happens is good and constructive. Usually, the public only hear about divisions, the in-fighting, the sensational, or the Order of Business at the beginning of the day. Not only would I welcome radio coverage of the business of the Dáil and Seanad but also of portions of committee business. The setting up of proposed committees is welcomed by everybody. The report being presented by a committee could be televised, so that it is being presented not only to the House, but to the electorate who have brought us into the House in the first place. Certain issues and legislative decisions should also be broadcast or televised. Television is immediate and visual and people can identify with it more quickly than with the radio.

With regard to getting on with the task for which we have been elected, some days might be set aside on the Order of Business to bring the House together for a report and review of the work started at the beginning of the Dáil session and of what has and has not been achieved since. This would mark our progress, highlight what is coming from each working party or committee and, more importantly, remind us of how much remains yet to be achieved and how much more progress has to be made.

I look forward to working in this House. It is a privilege to have been elected to it. The House deserves the respect and pride of the country and it is up to the Deputies to work towards that. We do this by communicating with people, making them feel a part of its procedures and decision making, by removing dependency and giving people access to information regarding their entitlements, without involving TD's. More than anything else we should inspire the young electorate for whom we have to plan and about whom we worry, so that they, in turn, will be encouraged and inspired to want to come into this House. This need was brought home to me in a startling fashion when a couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a transition class of fifth and sixth year pupils in a comprehensive school about politics, about how vital they were and how important their reform was, so that our youth could feel a part of them. I told them at the conclusion that I hoped that along the rows of seats I was looking at future TD's and Senators. I was dismayed to be told quite involuntarily and with no personal hostility "Not in this country, we won't". That is not just sad, but serious. We have the opportunity now, as never before, to redress this situation because we are addressing ourselves as interested and enthusiastic Members to the changes needed. Let us get down to the business of making these changes and getting this House working for the eighties and nineties of the twentieth century, not the nineteenth century as heretofore.

Mr. M. Barrett

Firstly, I wish to congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on being appointed to his very high office and also the Minister on his appointment. I wish you both well in your offices and hope that you will enjoy happiness and honour there for a long time. I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. I too am a fairly new Deputy and have experienced great difficulty in extracting information. I agree fully with Deputy Barnes when she says there should be some briefing sessions for new Deputies. After all, when one goes into any business or place of employment one is usually shown around and familiarised with their procedures. But it seems that one comes in here absolutely raw and one feels lost for a considerable time. I would hope that such briefing sessions could be included in the reforms we hope to effect.

One of the matters that concerns me about procedures in this House is Question Time, to which we devote one hour of our business on each sitting day, which is a very expensive exercise. I am told that it costs over £100 to have a Deputy's question answered in this House. It is not good enough when one thinks that if that same Deputy wanted to save the taxpayer that amount he could simply instead write to a Minister or Department to extract that information. But it seems that this Question Time procedure is engaged in by Deputies in this House in order to get publicity. On many occasions the same Deputy may have twenty or thirty questions on the Order Paper. One can readily see the cost to the taxpayer of having those answered whereas that Deputy could easily use the alternative method to which I have referred already.

Accommodation facilities in this complex of buildings was mentioned here this morning. I am pleased to say that I belong to a party that went a long way in the past year in alleviating that situation. I do not complain about accommodation because if there is accommodation in one room in which four or five Deputies can work that is adequate and such is provided. Also the fact that each Deputy has been provided with a secretary is an enormous advantage because I remember that when I first came here I had to share a secretary with three other Deputies. We experienced great difficulty at that time getting letters typed or our other work attended to. Therefore, our secretarial facilities have been much improved in that respect.

Much has been said here about Deputies helping constituents. Irrespective of the criticism laid in that respect I feel that is part and parcel of a Deputy's work. Perhaps if there were greater efficiency in Government Departments Deputies would not be involved in so much of that type of work. But I would be surprised to hear of any Deputy who would say he was not going to help his constituents in that way. Indeed if an election was called I should be very interested to see what response such a Deputy would receive from those same constituents. Some people have contended that Deputies should not be involved in writing to local authorities about abandoned cars on roadsides, about public lighting and so on. It has been said even we should not help people, particularly the old. Let us take the case of a woman who loses her husband. She will be in great distress at the time of his death, does not know where to turn or to get the information she may require in many respects. If her local Deputy is unable to assist her or is not prepared to do so, to whom does she turn then? I know it has been the practice of many Deputies to flood certain areas with letters. This is a practice engaged in continually. Perhaps it is a practice that should be discontinued.

I believe also that backbench Deputies should be involved in the workings of the Dáil. Many of us do not seem to have any role in this respect. There has been criticism levelled also at the selection of a Cabinet. I am sure that every Taoiseach appointed does his best to select the best people available to him in this respect. However, in some cases it appears that that does not happen. For example, geographically a Deputy may be situated in an area that may afford him or her a better chance of being appointed a Cabinet Minister. In other cases where a Taoiseach may think a certain Deputy would favour him if there was ever a challenge to his leadership, that factor may well enter in also.

I am very concerned about the use of State cars. I understand that the cost of the provision of a State car is over £60,000 per annum. How many of them do we have? For example, all ex-Taoisigh have State cars with two drivers attached to each. We have established also that the Attorney-General has the facility of a State car, as has the Chief Justice and many other notaries public. There seems to be no concern expressed here about such cost to the taxpayer. It may be that we should follow the practice engaged in in England in this respect, where there is a pool of cars which could be used by Ministers and their Ministers of State alike. Indeed it has not been unheard of for a Minister to cycle to the House of Commons. But here we continue this practice of providing State cars for individual Ministers while talking about effecting cutbacks. Very bad example has been shown in this respect by all Governments. The sooner some Government decide to have a pool of State cars, thereby effecting considerable economy, the better. In saying that I am not advocating that Ministers be paid equivalent expense in the event of the State car being taken from them because I am talking here about the saving of money.

Many Deputies complain about communication between a Minister and a Deputy. Even within our own parties, when in Government, we experience great difficulty in this respect. I contend that no matter what Government are in power Ministers should be prepared to communicate with Deputies on all sides of the House; that is what they are there for.

I fully agree also with the contention that a time limit be placed on Deputies' speeches. It is ridiculous that a Deputy is asked to come in and continue to speak, sometimes about nothing, just to keep a debate going. In this respect greater efficiency of our proceedings would be much welcomed.

I might mention also the length of time involved in the preparation of legislation. We should endeavour to shorten considerably that preparatory stage. In this respect I might say that for many years now we have encountered the serious problems of crime, vandalism, bank robberies, house robberies, people being mugged and beaten up until we have reached the situation in which it is hardly safe to walk our roads. There appears to be no urgency about the preparation of proper legislation to deal with these criminals and thugs. It is a free-for-all for them now. I call on the present Government to speed up the introduction of such legislation so that it may be implemented and act as some deterrent. The same case might be made in regard to the rules of the road. For example, there are motor vehicles travelling on our roads that would not be allowed on any road in any other country. I spoke before in this House, at Question Time, about the difficulty we in Dublin experience in having our motor vehicles taxed, when one may have to queue for two to three hours. I have raised this matter also with Dublin Corporation but the problem seems to be passed from one to the other without any effective solution emerging. We should do it through the post office as is done in other countries.

Deputy Skelly said that by-elections should be held during the summer recess. We all have experience of elections and by-elections. When we moved a writ for a by-election last November the present Taoiseach objected to it and said we could not devote the time of the House to it when we had important matters to discuss. Yet less than a week later he called a general election. We were canvassing at a time when the House is normally sitting. We sat for one day on 14 December and after that did not meet until this year. The shorter by-elections are the better. It would be a good idea if they were held at a time when the House was in recess.

Government Departments at present draft Bills but if Deputies had an input into drafting them and various forms, they might be simplified. Some forms issued by various Departments are difficult to understand. I welcome the updating of the rules of the House and hope this Government will not hesitate to bring in reform as soon as possible.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Welfare (Mr. F. O'Brien)

I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your position as Leas-Cheann Comhairle. From the time you came to the House you were a great person for setting the highest standard and I have no doubt you will bring dignity and honour to the office you hold.

It is important to have a debate on Dáil reform. Nothing remains static and that is why we are having this debate. Deputy Woods was critical of having the debate at this time because of the country's economic problems but if we had debated this topic some years ago we might not have these problems now. The Minister is deeply committed to Dáil reform and is to be congratulated and complimented on his energy and drive. We need to look at the procedures and see what changes are necessary. Some people believe that the Parliament should be streamlined and engaged in churning out Bills. Reform is not about speeding things up. Passing legislation is a very responsible task and we must give an opportunity to as many people as possible to contribute to it. If it takes longer to get Bills through under the new system I would not be unduly worried as long as there was a greater input by Deputies, particularly backbenchers. Sometimes they do not feel part of the legislative system but merely see their role as going through the voting lobbies and then going back to their rooms and getting on with constituency work.

All Deputies want to play a greater role. Government backbench Deputies always feel isolated because Ministers and Ministers of State take over the role of projecting the Government. Backbench Deputies feel that if they are too vocal they may seem to be disloyal.

I was a member of some committees which dealt with legislation, for example, the Misuse of Drugs Bill. There was great understanding and unanimity among the people on the committees. Very often this House tends to become political. People get edgy and touchy about their political affiliations and will often disagree for the sake of disagreeing when they know in their heart of hearts that what is being done is correct. In a committee that attitude does not prevail. That is one advantage of the committee system. All Deputies are sincere and want to see reform and play their part. If we have a series of committees in which Deputies have a role to play and a sense of responsibility they will be keener and more aware and this House will be the better for that.

I am sure a number of Deputies are not aware of the facilities that are available in the House. They should be briefed thoroughly, particularly backbenchers, on all legislation and if they are involved in committees there should be briefing sessions on the Bill, the terminology used and the purpose of the Bill. Armed with that knowledge they would have a greater interest and ensure that at the end of the day we had good solid legislation which would stand up. As a result it would not be the Government who would put through legislation but rather the House and it would be done in the overall interest of the country rather than in the interest of one or other side of the House. Greater facilities are required for backbench Deputies for research on Bills, Questions and so on. Researchers should be able to come to party rooms and explain to interested Deputies the fundamentals of a particular Bill.

I should also like to see experts in various fields or interested people attending committee meetings and taking part in discussions. They would not have any part to play in the voting procedure but the committee would benefit from their expertise. This would be preferable to the present system whereby written submissions are made and it would be good for democracy. Let us involve people in the democratic process because the more dialogue there is the more protection there will be for democracy. Committees should not exclude people who could play a major part simply because they have not been elected to this House. That would be a very narrow view.

Opposition front bench spokesmen should have a far better back-up service. A Deputy who becomes a Minister has a Department to advise him but when he finds himself on the Opposition side he is without any back-up facilities. This is not good for the working of the House because often a Government are as good as the Opposition. A hard-working Opposition can keep a Government on their toes and ensure that poor legislation is not pushed through. It behoves this House to ensure that front bench spokesmen have the back-up service they require. There is no point in having a one-sided operation. Obviously it might suit the Government of the day to make things slightly easier for themselves but if we are serious about Dáil reform we must ensure that all Deputies participate to the full.

Question Time represents a great safety value in the democratic system but it should be used to elicit information on policy rather than to find out when a person will receive benefit or when someone will have a telephone installed. I am not objecting to these kinds of questions but they should be a last resort when the information cannot be obtained from a Department. The whole purpose of Question Time should be to keep the Government on their toes and to find out about areas of policy. We should discourage the use of Question Time as a means of obtaining mundane information from Departments.

Perhaps we should examine the information service provided by Departments to the general public. If people have a problem there should be a means of getting the information they require. Of course, if the information they get does not suit them they tend to have recourse to the Deputy, who will get the same basic answer. People should be able to go to offices of Departments where the information sought would be readily obtainable by electronic means. Easier access to information by the public generally would help to reform this House. People should also be aware of their entitlements and the more knowledge we can pass on the more the Deputy will be relieved of the need to deal with queries. We should look at that area.

On the suggestion that we should appoint an ombudsman I should like to remind the House that I put forward that proposal in Private Members' Business in 1975. I accept that at present the economic climate is not good for establishing such an office but in my view the appointment of an ombudsman is a necessary arm of democracy and is long overdue. Similar appointments have been made in other countries and proved successful. I do not contend that such a person would solve all our problems but at least those who feel they have an axe to grind would be able to refer their case to such an appointee. An ombudsman would have access to all files in Government Departments and would be qualified to make a judgment on complaints. That person would also be in a position to identify many of the problems that have grown up in Departments over the years and could refer to them in the course of an annual report. An ombudsman could also suggest change in various areas of Departments. The appointment of such a person should be considered in conjunction with any proposal for Dáil reform because it relates to the getting of information by Deputies.

I am in favour of broadcasting the proceeding of the House and with the number of pirate radio stations operating throughout the country it should not be difficult to obtain a special frequency for parliamentary broadcasts. Broadcasting could be done on an experimental basis and in this regard Question Time affords us an ideal opportunity. People would listen to Question Time. We should not be afraid of opening up the proceedings of this House to radio because it is important that the public get an opportunity to follow our debates. Parliament is often under threat from cynics but the broadcasting of our proceedings would kill them off. The televising of our proceedings might mean that we would have an Abbey Theatre performance, but at least we should experiment. Major debates or statements should be televised on an experimental basis.

Private Members' Business works well but it tends to become an occasion for Government-bashing. Opposition tend to table motions for the purpose of embarrassing the Government and that defeats the purpose of Private Members' Business. I am not saying that the Government should not be attacked and, if necessary, exposed; but Members should be given an opportunity of introducing reforming legislation, particularly in regard to our social code, on one day of each week. That would be good for Parliament and would lead to debate on a wide range of topics. Such a system operates reasonably well in the British Parliament. If we introduced it we would stem some of the frustrations of minority groups. The Government should bear in mind the views of all Members. We must do what we can to ensure that the House is made more meaningful and opened to the public. The public must be made aware of what is happening here. From time to time we are told that parliamentary democracy is under threat, but that would not happen if we opened up our proceedings by way of broadcasting. A proper committee system would also give backbench Deputies an opportunity to play a greater role in introducing legislation.

I wish the Leader of the House every success in his efforts to introduce Dáil reform. I accept that this will not happen overnight, but we must change. I hope Members are not afraid to change the procedures. One area that is in need of reform is the Constitution. There is a great fear about reforming the Constitution and I do not know why. After a thorough investigation we should make found necessary. It is time we tackled this matter because there is no doubt that change is necessary. We cannot hold on to old views because they were found to be good 30 or 40 years ago or because they were held by a certain person. They are not sacrosanct. If changes are found necessary we must grasp the nettle and make them. We can only bring people with us if we reform.

Minister of State at the Department of Labour (Mr. G. Birmingham)

I understand that throughout the debate, with some pressure from the Whips relieved, the Whips themselves have been coming in for some criticism. I gather there has been a form of public confession whereby various Deputies have wandered in and explained that from, time to time, they have been buttoned-holed by the Whips and chased into the Chamber to speak for 40 minutes or whatever time was required to keep going to the next division. I want to assure the House that no such instruction has been issued and, in part for that reason, I propose to be brief. In doing so I am conscious that a number of Deputies have made the point in this debate that the whole structure of our debates, with long set piece contributions, tends to inhibit debate and any genuine exchange of views. For that reason I propose to put forward some suggestions and in many cases to leave the answers to others.

It would be inappropriate to make any contribution without commending the enthusiasm of the person who initiated this debate, the Minister for Industry and Energy, whose enthusiasm in this area will serve us well, I hope, during his period of leadership of the House. Lest that be seen in any way as being partisan, there is at least one other person who deserves tribute in this area, that is, the Leader of the Opposition, whose performance in this area has been admirable. In my 18 or 20 months in this House I have had a number of roles. I started as a Government backbencher and then I was an Opposition backbencher. Then I was on the Opposition front bench and I am now a Minister of State on the Government side of the House. I have to say that during the eight months we were on the Opposition benches and Deputy Haughey was Taoiseach he showed himself to be open and generous to the Opposition when they requested time for debates on issues such as Poland and the Lebanon. He facilitated us in making Government time available. It is fair to say that during that time his Ministers were more open than has always been the case to accepting the validity of Opposition suggestions and amendments to legislation. At a time when perhaps things are not so easy for them, it is not inappropriate that some words of praise and commendation should be put on the record.

All of us who come into this House find that there are two roles available to us. One is as a constitutency representa tive and the other is to participate in a meaningful way in a legislative, deliberative and consultative assembly. We have to face the fact that in many instances, there is a conflict between those two roles. Those who apply themselves most assiduously to their legislative role may well find that their performance as a constituency representative suffers. That conflict is very close to the roots of our problem.

If that is so, we have to ask ourselves: from whence does that conflict derive? I suggest that at least part of our problem may stem from our electoral system. Over the years this House has debated the electoral system on more than one occasion. On more than one occasion the public have been invited to pass judgment. On each occasion the party of which I am a member supported enthusiastically the retention of our present system of proportional representation. It has to be said that, with all its virtues, that system has contributed in no small measure to the problems we face as a Parliament.

In our more honest moments all of us admit that at any election there are two contests going on. There is the contest between the Government and the Opposition and in every party in almost every constituency there are contests, sometimes just as keen, between candidates of the same party. Every Deputy knows that when he next goes before the electorate, apart from being standard bearer of his party, he will be joined on the ticket by other candidates from his own party. He knows his seat is as much at risk to them as to anyone from the Opposition benches. It is that pressure which causes Deputies to get involved in the paper chase which has been so criticised in the course of this debate.

In other jurisdictions a candidate knows he will be his party's standard bearer and thus his prospect of retaining his seat or losing his seat will depend on the esteem in which his party is held at the time. For that reason, self-interest dictates that his primary involvement over the lifetime of the Government or the Opposition is to contribute to his party's development and to see to it that his party are held in high regard. That means that, if he is on the Opposition benches, his role is to see that the Opposition party are regarded by the public as playing a constructive and effective role.

A Deputy here enjoys no such luxury. Inevitably he is distracted from wider considerations by the harsh reality that when the election comes around others will be standing with him who may be in a position to offer a more immediate track record of service. If we intend to shift the balance in favour of people acting as effective legislators, we will have to look seriously at the implications of our electoral system and we will have to consider the possibility, however unthinkable, of the single transferable vote or, perhaps, the list system which applies in much of Continental Europe.

For Deputies who see themselves playing a role as legislators, what options are open to them? Throughout the debate those who are even remotely happy with the status quo have trotted out the importance of Question Time, this invaluable weapon in the individual Deputy's armoury. Just how effective is that weapon? Whole areas of our life are excluded from consideration at Question Time. For example, it is not possible to raise the day-to-day activities of our semi-State institutions. Subordinate bodies like the VECs and health boards, which have an enormus impact on our daily lives, do not come under scrutiny at Question Time.

There is also the fact that the apparent ability to raise issues quickly and while they are still topical is frustrated by the sheer volume of questions appearing on the Order Paper. I recall that in the immediate aftermath of the February election it seemed to me that it would be appropriate to obtain the views of the Government on the whole question of personation. I tabled a question for what would have been the first sitting day after the change of Government. I tabled it to the Taoiseach and the Government of the day transferred that question to the Minister for Justice. From a situation in which it would have been answered on the first day, it would then have been some months before the Minister for Justice would have been required to answer that question. Clearly the whole point of putting it down was lost.

I remember when we were last in Government, for days on end the then Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare came into this House and occupied the entire duration of Question Time answering questions about individual applicants for benefits. As a result, Question Time was closed to any Deputy wanting to raise issues of importance.

There has been justification of the manner in which Private Members' time operates. But let us be honest about this — there is no such thing as Private Members' time in this House. The three hours in our week that are so described in Standing Orders are not in fact Private Members' time, they are the property of the main Opposition party or, when Fianna Fáil are in Government, the joint property of the Fine Gael and Labour parties, to be allocated between them. There is no opportunity available to any one Deputy in this House to consider an area that is of particular interest to him and to try to bring forward legislative proposals for reform. If you take it a step further, the likelihood is that the Government of the day would be less than enthusiastic about any such measures and would regard legislation as being very much their prerogative. At the moment he never gets that far because there is no opportunity whatever for him to publish his legislation and no time afforded within the weekly business for individual Deputies as distinct from the parties in Opposition.

It is ludicrous that, at present, The Workers' Party do not fit into the schedule and do not have an opportunity to present their proposals to be considered so that the Dáil can decide whether to enact those proposals into legislation. We must look at that position again. The first thing we must do is to accept that the parties in Opposition are entitled to time within the time table as of right and that the time made available to them should not impinge on the time that was intended to be the property of individual Deputies. What happens at present is that the Opposition parties know they have three hours. Clearly during that period, or two such periods, they are not going to pass any legislation so they do not even try and the three hours is used simply for a motion condemning some aspect of Government policy. That is a ludicrous position. The suggestion that only the Government are in a position to put forward legislation which would be of benefit to the community, inherent in present Standing Orders, is nonsensical and cannot be justified. If we are to be serious about Dáil reform we must give the Opposition parties time as of right and we must give individual Deputies an opportunity to advance their proposals in the form of legislation.

We wonder sometimes why the Dáil is critised by the public and seen as being irrelevant and why the balance of public attention has shifted towards pressure groups. Let us consider what the track record is of those who have sought to use this House and the other House to implement reform. On a whole range of issues that have been debated in every drawing room and discussed in every public house over a decade, as matters of public concern, this House has failed to respond.

On the hoary chestnut of family planning and contraception, how many years ago is it since the then Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, spoke about the obligations of this House to grasp nettles? From where did change actually emerge? This House never even got around to discussing the issue until the Supreme Court took on its responsibilities and struck down the legislation in the 1937 Act. There are other matters in the area of adoption where for years it was known that the inhibition on couples of so-called mixed marriages from adopting was a cause of national scandal. This House failed to respond and, again, it was left to the courts to intervene.

Every Member of this House knew that the rent restrictions legislation was operating to create injustice, that the failure to amend it was causing absurd anomalies, but because of the political sensitivity of the issue, nothing was done. Successive Governments were happy to let the issue slide and those who had in the first instance come into this House saying that here was a problem that must be acted upon went instead to the courts. If we are serious about our role we must re-assert that it is to this House that those who seek reform and change must come and that they should look to us as legislators to respond to their needs rather than finding it necessary to create some sort of test case to bring to the courts. It is interesting that, in so many areas, the first thought of any group seeking reform is not to sponsor a Private Member's Bill or to interest the Government in bringing forward legislation but to see if they can find a suitable applicant who will serve as a plaintiff in a test case. They will then bring it to the Supreme Court or to the court in Europe. I have mentioned three or four areas in which that has happened and I could mention another half dozen just as easily, so is it any wonder that the relevance of this House is being called into question?

If we reform the Dáil, life will be substantially less comfortable for the Government and all Governments must recognise that. That is the price we pay for making the institutions of democracy relevant and vibrant once more. There should be no more enthusiastic proponents of reform than those who sit on the Government backbenches and whose role in the legislative system is so peripheral. I recall with some misery the few months we were in Government, between June and February. On that occasion whenever there was a debate of importance the Government were anxious to get their legislation through and time for debate was naturally limited and curtailed and time for contributions from Government backbenches was the area that was the most available to squeeze. In contrast, if there was a debate in which there was very little interest, the opportunities for contributions were endless. Any effective Dáil reform is of greater benefit to Government backbenchers than to almost anybody else because an involvement with the committee system provides them with an opportunity to participate and to contribute to Government policy of legislation.

I want to respond to a specific invitation that was put forward by the last speaker, Deputy Fergus O'Brien. He made the point that if we were to evolve a committee system it should not simply be a committee of parliamentarians and that it was important that those with expertise should have access to those committees. I want to refer specifically to the Government's commitment to establish an Oireachtas youth affairs consultative committee. It is the Government's view that all parties in the House would benefit by having direct access to the organised views of young people. Young people and their youth organisations would benefit from hearing at first hand what our concerns are and what factors inhibit us from responding as promptly as they would wish. With that in mind it is the intention of the Government to establish a joint Oireachtas committee, drawn from the Dáil and the Seanad, and having substantial youth representation.

In the course of a speech shortly after my appointment I suggested that youth representation might consist of a number of nominees of the National Youth Council, representatives of USI, young farmer interests and young trade unionists. The speech raised the hackles of Senator Eames who, I understand, is the youth officer of Fianna Fáil. I think he took that speech as representing the last word on the composition of the committee. I wish to state quite clearly it did nothing of the kind. If that committee is to function effectively it must have not just the acquiescence but the enthusiastic support of the party opposite. For my part I would be delighted to consult with the Opposition spokesman in this area on the most appropriate composition of the committee in terms of Oireachtas Members and on what youth interests should be represented and how they should be selected. This is an area where we see movement taking place as a result of consultation, discussion and agreement rather than on the basis of the Government coming in with a blueprint, saying "take it or leave it." If any part of my speech appeared to give the impression that we pre-designed the composition without reference to the Opposition, I want to correct that.

We govern at a time of economic difficulty, when the options available for grandiose schemes involving extra public expenditure are limited in so far as they exist at all. That imposes a special responsibility on us to reform in those areas. They do not cost money; in fact, savings can be achieved. The fact that this Dáil is beginning its life by seeing how its own institutions work and how value for money can be obtained and by seeing to what extent we control public expenditure is appropriate and is a happy omen. I congratulate the Minister on his initiative.

Miss Flaherty

For once I am glad that the complaint we level against so many Dáil debates is one that we can level against this debate, namely, that it seems to be quite interminable. I am glad so many Deputies have taken the opportunity to express their views on an area that is of vital concern to backbench Deputies such as myself.

I have been in Dáil Éireann for 18 months but very little of that time has been spent in the House. Much of the time has been spent canvassing for the several elections that have taken place. It is clear to me that Dáil Éireann as it is organised at present is wasting a good deal of its potential. There are 166 Deputies but approximately only 30 are involved in decision-making and in legislation to a significant degree. Opposition spokespersons have a certain amount of involvement, generally directed at harrying the Government, but the average backbencher, particularly on the Government side, experiences considerable frustration because of his or her lack of involvement in what is going on. It is an extraordinary waste of talent. In every party there is very considerable talent, experience and knowledge but this is not being drawn upon to a significant degree.

This waste is inexcusable. It has risen because we have failed to reorganise ourselves and to accept the fact that many politicians are full-time professional politicians. We must also face the fact that we have a much more complex system of government. We have talked about reforming many areas of public administration and I am very glad we are starting here.

The nation pays the salaries of the people who serve in Dáil Éireann. It is important for the nation that public representatives here be allowed to work and it is also important for the satisfaction of the individuals who have sought election to Dáil Éireann. As long as the role of Deputy is frustrating we will have more exhibitions of the type we have had in Dáil Éireann over the past months. In the past years there has been development in the growth of client politics. The role of a representative is an important one but the situation has developed that Deputies spend 95 per cent of their time in this role with very little time left over.

This has happened because there was no demand and no opportunity to do otherwise. If they are to find time for any other worthwhile contribution they must fight against the system. The average Deputy has very limited influence on serious policy matters or in the administration of the various services. Consequently, there is a tendency for people who have talent and who have something to contribute to become involved in the kind of destructive activities we have seen around the House where people become unsettled and dissatisfied and spend their time putting down 40 or 50 questions to a Minister. For many reasons it is important that we tackle the matter of Dáil reform.

The kind of reform I should like to see is touched on in the document on Dáil reform put forward by the Minister. It is a very good starting point. The essential element is the reform of the committee system. I should like the committee system to shadow all major areas of Government action and policy. I should like to see Deputies being obliged statutorily to belong to one or two, at the most, committees and I should like the committees to be given power, subject to the authorisation of the Minister, to influence policy formulation and the administration of schemes.

A matter I consider important is the authority to have civil servants of all ranks attend at those meetings and they should also have access to the full range of semi-State bodies. The Minister's document refers to the right to call members of the public, but the biggest difficulty between the backbencher and the Minister, as I know from my experience in both positions, is the lack of access by the Deputy to information about the Department and about schemes on which information is readily available to the Minister or junior Minister. At present the only form of access is the slow process of letter-writing or the parliamentary question. This opportunity of having senior civil servants responsible for all major areas of administration and of government in attendance at these meetings as well as Ministers would be an important break-through. This would not necessarily involve any clash with the overall authority and responsibility of the Minister but the committee would represent a very important sounding board for the development of policy as a support to the Minister. Such committees could interest themselves in many areas of work. Obviously the preparation of legislation is the primary function of a legislature, but we also have responsibility for overseeing the general administration of laws that have been passed in the past, of the various systems of education, social welfare, agricultural grants and the full range of Government activities. There is a great deal of scope for the individual Deputies to be involved in an overseeing role in the administration of these schemes.

The Department I know best is the Department of Social Welfare. When one attends an ard fheis of a political party or a conference of a social services organisation and then listens to the debates on the Estimates here in the Dáil one hears reiterated the desire to see a great humanising in the whole operation of our social services and their modification and reform, but that task never seems to be done. People often comment on the atmosphere in unemployment exchanges. Why are they so bleak, desolate and unappealing, making the already difficult situation of having to receive unemployment benefit doubly difficult by the circumstances in which they operate? That sort of problem has been with us for a very long time but somehow with the pressure of urgent business, major legislative changes, Government meetings and involvement in the full range of Government decisions Ministers very often do not get round to handling this detail. This sort of detailed reform would be particularly suitable for committees, and it would obviously be vital that civil servants of the OPW and the Department of Social Welfare should be involved also.

I refer again to the recent problems we have had in the dispute in the courts. It is extraordinary and regrettable that this dispute has continued without a major initiative or change over so many months with all the consequent hardship and difficulty it has caused for many people. I would envisage that a committee operating in the area of justice and law reform would be able to maintain a regular and constant pressure to ensure that policy proposals emerge and constant initiatives are taken in an attempt to break a deadlock such as that. We know the kind of crises that emerge in the Department of Justice, especially in recent times, and it is obvious that the time a Minister can give to them is limited. This level of involvement could easily be transferred to a committee and thus be of value to the system, the Minister and the individual Deputies involved.

The value of all of these types of development would be extensive. The first benefit would be that the country would get better value for the Deputies it has in the House and those Deputies would have a more satisfying role. I have had experience of the committee system on Dublin Corporation and, while Dublin Corporation may be a much maligned body as are many other county councils, for the individual member of that corporation there is, through the committee system and the more limited time spent in general sessions, a genuine opportunity to influence the schemes, to change policy. Here in this House it is extremely important that such opportunity be given to Deputies and that the influence, talents, energy and knowledge that they have be brought to bear on the various schemes affecting the lives of people in so many ways.

The experience at the clinic work which is so much a part of a Deputy's life now and which has become the subject of some debate as to whether it is good or bad — bad perhaps because it develops dependence on politicians — has something to be said for it, although as far as possible people should be able to get the services they seek at these clinics without coming to politicians. However, politicians develop from this a type of expertise in a variety of areas. They become mini-social workers and mini-legal experts. This talent in a county council can be translated into policy or into modification of existing policies and schemes. That linking up of experience on the ground, knowledge of individual problems and translating that into modification of existing policies, laws and schemes, does not exist for the person as a Deputy. If it existed we would have much more constant and rigorous examination of the various schemes that affect the people so much. I have mentioned social welfare as a suitable example. I could talk also about education schemes, about the legal system, the whole system of grants and the need for a system of grants in the agricultural area. All of these could benefit from the individual experience and knowledge of the Deputies and we would have better laws if that experience was being used to modify and develop schemes.

We would also have the benefit that here in this House when an emergency or difficulty would crop up in an area, instead of the whole House having to stop whatever business would be in progress to discuss the problems of, say, the fuel voucher scheme or because a dispute has arisen in one Department or another, this could be dealt with effectively and with less loss of time to this House if it were dealt with in committee. Another benefit would be that the Ministers would be less isolated. They would have an all-party committee on whom to sound out their ideas initially and, because many of the ideas would be tested by and perhaps even come from that body, fruitless bickering and party political wrangling would be reduced, and that could only redound to the benefit of every Member of this House. Over the past months our public image has suffered a good deal in the public view that that is what we engage in in Leinster House. Largely it has become a correct view because of the frustration of the way in which we organise our business. With more continuity at changeover of Ministers and a greater pool of expertise in the parliamentary body here, all Deputies, through an exchange of ideas with Ministers and civil servants, would have a complete idea of the demands of Government and of administration. There would be greater coherence, balance and generally a more constructive attitude.

I would like to refer briefly to the general points that have been made by many people, the little frustrations, although these may be quite large from time to time. These arise from the lack of a proper structure that four months after a budget we can still be discussing it. It is law by then. One of the greatest shocks of my political arrival here was to find four months after the event we were still discussing it. Everybody day in and day out made the same points. There were long-winded speeches repeating what had already been said many times. It is extraordinary that we have allowed this situation to go on for so long. We have the typical picture at the moment of the Chamber empty for 90 per cent of the day apart from one or two representatives from each side. At the moment there are representatives from only one side of the House.

These sorts of annoyances would be radically altered if we developed a proper committee system. I envisage in that committee system an important role for the press. It is important that they are present and that those committees are open to them. Part of politicians' work is to be seen to be doing the work for the people they are serving. There would be great benefit in terms of performance and sharpness and by the feeling that they are the only link with the outside world for much of what we do in the House. If we develop a new area of significant activity in the committee system it is important that the press are present. While there are many other areas that have been well covered in the Minister's document on Dáil reform this particular area of the committee system for Deputies, the Minister and the country as a whole, is the most important element as far as I am concerned in relation to Dáil reform. I wish to see it become a central part of the new reform proposals.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I feel it is particularly appropriate that I make my contribution to this debate because I am the first Cabinet Minister assigned sole responsibility for the public service. The reason for this is because the Government felt that the question of reform within the public service based on the report headed by Liam Devlin in 1969 had not received as full attention as it should have over the years. The question of reform of the public service is inextricably linked with reform of the Dáil and its institutions. That is why I feel it is particularly appropriate that at this stage the Dáil should discuss its own reforms so that, in conjunction with whatever new methods of procedure are introduced for the Dáil, we can begin to invite the public service to examine ways in which it also can become more streamlined and efficient.

I have been impressed since this debate began at the number of Deputies who have taken the time to come in here to make contributions. I have been particularly impressed by the number of new Deputies who have used the occasion to vent their frustration at the lack of facilities and the conduct of Dáil debates and procedures. I believe that all Deputies, whenever they became Members, were taken aback at the structures and method of operation. We have heard those who were elected during the last 18 months express their frustrations. Those are frustrations which all of us who are longer in this House or the other House have felt at various stages. It is good, however belatedly, that the Dáil has at long last faced up to the question of its procedures and operations. We operate a system here, like many other parliaments, based on the Westminster model. It is interesting to reflect, when one looks now at how that parliament has been operating in recent years, that it has introduced many reforms of its own which have not been copied here. We are basically operating in the eighties a system which was devised for Victoria's Westminster and which has not received the attention of this parliament or an examination as to how appropriate it is to the Ireland of the eighties.

I believe nobody realises better than the Ceann Comhairle how out of date the Standing Orders under which we operate are. The House has only to look at the small number of occasions and the relatively small number of areas in which amendments have been made to Standing Orders over the last 20 years to realise that a House, which has to undertake the review of legislation, and the very complex rapidly changing nature of our society and our work, could hardly be expected to operate efficiently when the basic guidelines under which it operates should have been allowed to become so completely out of date. I believe this is accepted by Deputies of all parties.

I was heartened during the lifetime of the last Dáil when, through my membership of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I found a great willingness by all the members of that committee, representing all the parties in the House, to set about the task of revising Standing Orders and reforming Dáil procedures. The election last November meant that the work done in relation to that by the committee was very small. However, the discussion in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has been a useful contributor to bringing about this debate.

It is untenable that matters of really urgent public importance—I use those words in their real context rather than in the context which the Ceann Comhairle is obliged to apply to them—which are the issues of the day for the man-in-the-street, issues of concern to large sections of the community, can be talked about at every crossroads, every work place, in the homes and wherever people gather throughout the country but this parliament is usually the one place where discussion of the matter is prohibited. If a Deputy puts down a parliamentary question relating to an issue of the day to a Minister who has just finished his turn at answering questions and consequently finds himself back at the end of the list, that precludes all other discussion on the matter until that question is answered. If it is answered tomorrow or if in the sequence of questions it is not answered for three or four months this House, this Parliament, through its rules, precludes itself from having that matter discussed. That is ludicrous. There will be many who will say that under Standing Orders there are devices by which matters of urgent public importance may be raised, but previous occupants of the Chair have found themselves spancelled by Standing Orders and, perhaps, more importantly, by the book of rules or precedents as to what constitutes urgent public importance.

One of the best examples of this predicament that I can recall in recent years was the time of the bitter and protracted dispute involving the postal services. There was much frustration then on the part of all of us because of our inability to raise the matter here. In the various radio and television programmes when the difficulties being caused by the dispute to the various sectors were being reported, that was sometimes the first item on the news but invariably the second item was that Deputy X or Deputy Y had endeavoured to raise the matter in the Dáil that morning but had been ruled out of order by the Chair on the basis that it was not a matter of urgent public importance. Could anything have been designed to bring the institution of Parliament and of its members into more disrepute in the eyes of the public than for that situation to have continued for several months? There must be devised a method whereby matters of that nature can be discussed fully here, the place where they should be discussed. In that way the public can be confident that when they return Members to the Dáil those Members have the opportunity to discuss the real problems within the community.

In relation also to the question of the Order of Business we have seen, in recent years especially, attempts made by Deputies regularly to use the Order of Business in an attempt to raise matters which they cannot raise otherwise. Clearly, that is wrong within the terms of Standing Orders which should be for the purpose of announcing what the business of the Dáil is to be for the day. However, when there is no other method open to them people will resort to such devices in an effort to make their point. Consequently, for some time past, the Order of Business, which some years ago was an item dealt with in one or two minutes, has disintegrated in chaos and a shambles and where very often up to an hour after the Order of Business is announced Members leave the Chamber discontented and with the thought that once again the House has made a show of itself. That situation must change. Without intending any disrespect to my colleagues I suspect that the uncertainty of the situation in the last two Dálaí by reason of the constant sword of the possibility of yet another general election hanging over the heads of Members invited them, perhaps even in a subconscious way to get the best possible publicity at what was the best time of day so far as that was concerned. Undoubtedly whenever there is to be a row or some other excitement in the House, there are most people on the Press Gallery.

In fairness to Members, very often the row on the Order of Business or the quick sharp exchange is not a reflection of what goes on during the long tough hours of committee work. It does not reflect the real work that is done in the House during the day. To some extent also the general public—I refer to the 99 per cent who do not visit the House regularly—have a distorted picture of what happens in Parliament. It would not be unfair to suggest that many people think that Members spend the first half of the day arguing about what is to be discussed for that day and the remainder dreaming up sharp questions in an effort to trip Ministers in a series of supplementary questions.

We all know that a lot more than that goes on here but it might be fair to suggest that that is the way in which the business of yesterday is presented in today's media. In the past year or two I have suspected that the morning radio programme, What it Says in The Papers, is a large contributor to the length of time taken on the Order of Business. I say this because many Members on their way to Parliament and listening to that programme get the idea that if they could in some way be associated with the items mentioned on the programme for that morning, they would have a chance of mention on the 1.30 news bulletin. That may be all very well from the point of view of the individual Member but it is no way to run a railroad. It is certainly no way to run a parliament.

It was an interesting reflection on the whole question of the Order of Business that during the course of a short debate here some months ago it was suggested that the Order of Business for each day should take place at the cessation of business on the preceding day. In other words, the business for today would have been ordered at 8.30 p.m. yesterday. That suggestion was put forward, I think, in the belief that at that time of day Deputies might be less acrimonious and less likely to be seeking the full glare and attention of the media than if they were to use the Order of Business in the manner that we have been experiencing. It would be unfortunate if the House had to resort to that device in order to have its business laid out properly but at the same time I would not rule out such a possibility because Standing Orders for any institution ought to be drawn up on realistic and workable lines, on a pragmatic basis. If there is no way of dealing with the Order of Business other than having it ordered at the conclusion of the preceding day's business, then let us use that device.

The few words I have said on this matter are really a reflection on a much deeper problem, that is, the belief Deputies have of having no other method whereby they can raise certain items with which they are genuinely concerned. Consequently, whatever changes we may make in relation to the Order of Business must be accompanied by changes which allow a forum for Members who have genuine complaints to make those complaints in an orderly way at the appropriate time and to allow sufficient time to discuss them. This is something that we need to give urgent attention to. In the course of each week there will have to be a time set aside for non-office holders in which they can raise matters which are of genuine concern to the public or in the case of an individual Member matters that are of particular importance to his constituents.

From time to time in the last number of years it has been suggested that the system of parliamentary questions is both cumbersome and expensive and ought to be either modified radically or eliminated. That is not a suggestion to which I would lend any support. The system of the parliamentary question constitutes one of the most important and fundamental rights available to a Member of this House, especially for those who are non-office holders. It is a system that should be safeguarded.

However, if we look at the Order Paper for any day for the past number of years we find a substantial number of questions being tabled for written reply. Without naming them, there are several Departments which feature more prominently than others in relation to these written questions. There is only one reason why Members table written questions to certain Departments, and it is a reflection on the administrative efficiency of those Departments. Over the years Deputies have discovered that in relation to certain items on which they get large volumes of representation, they do not get an adequate service and reply. In substitution of the system where they write to Department X and receive a reply three to nine months later, they table a written question to the same Department who are obliged under the rules of this House to reply within three sitting days of the Dáil. That works perfectly — and I confess to having used that device myself — but only for as long as the House is sitting. Once we are into the recess Members are forced to write to the Departments who are specialists in non-replies.

When we talk about Dáil reform we ought also to talk about reforming the system whereby Departments provide a service to Deputies. The reason why the Departments' administrative machinery has apparently come to the point of a virtual breakdown or where they are not in a position to supply the services they are charged by law to provide reflects on Government. It is better that I do not mention the Departments, but Members know the two Departments which stand out because of the length of time they take to reply and whose list of questions always feature prominently on Dáil Order Papers.

The suggestion made by the Minister for Industry and Energy some time ago of allowing Members to table questions for written reply during the recess is worthwhile and should be explored. I am not suggesting it should be introduced merely to allow Deputies to get a reasonably quick reply to their representations on behalf of individuals, but during long recesses when matters of importance and general interest arise, Members should be able to put a question to the Minister responsible and receive a reply from him. It does not appear to present any great administrative difficulty for the House to decide to make that important and small reform. There may be some resistance to it by the Government of the day but that ought not be a reason why the Dáil should not institute reforms of its own. The Dáil is the forum whereby elected Members, on behalf of their parties and constituents lay down the rules under which they work, and the rules should be written to facilitate the Members rather than the Government or the civil service.

I wholeheartedly support the suggestions that there should be much more use made of the committee system. It has been very interesting to note the limited use made of that system in the past few years. The Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies have had spectacular success in reviewing the operations of a number of State-sponsored bodies. I recall talking to the chief executive of a body which had been examined by the Oireachtas committee and he spoke about the report they produced. That State-sponsored body had had a number of reports published on every aspect of its operations over a number of years — some of them published at enormous expense to the taxpayer by international consultants. The chief executive said the report published by the Oireachtas committee was the first to show an understanding of the role and function of that organisation and of their difficulties and it was the first report which had made serious, worthwhile and constructive suggestions about how they might operate more efficiently. In itself that was total justification for the establishment of that committee.

There is need for a greater number of such committees and they should be allowed to examine specific areas, such as health, education and major Government spending. The committees should not be used by Members to vent their annoyance because those bodies are not providing a particular service but, more importantly, they should be given the opportunity to sit down and examine the programmes in each service area to decide on the validity or continuation of particular programmes or to decide whether it might be better if the service were scrapped and the resources diverted to another area. If that happened Members of the Dáil who are not office-holders would get a greater insight into the rationale for having particular services continue in existence and from their local knowledge they would be able to make worthwhile contributions about how these services could be provided most efficiently and with the greatest benefit to their constituents. This, in turn, would contribute greatly to the adoption of Estimates and the operation of Government in any one year.

In relation to major legislation in certain areas, I believe there is also great justification for the employment of the committee system to which specialised Bills can be referred. That has happened to a very limited extent over the last number of years. You, Sir, were involved in several of those committees and you will appreciate the worthwhile work that can be done by Members from all sides when they sit down together in committee to constructively examine a Bill. The committee system would also help the operation of this House because a large part of the time of this Chamber is taken up by Committee Stage debates. These are also the times when there are fewest Members in the House. The Minister responsible, the chief Opposition spokesman and maybe one other Member, may be the only people here, painstakingly going through the Bill section by section, line by line, and sometimes comma by comma.

This is the area which receives least public attention and reporting in the media. I do not blame the media for that because reporting the Committee Stage of a Bill must be very difficult. Assuming the Opposition spokesman and the Minister have done their homework and are going through the Bill in detail, the people in the Press Gallery would have great difficulty following the detailed debate and presenting in the following day's newspapers an interesting report of the proceedings. For that reason, it is appropriate that the Committee Stage of complex Bills be examined through the committee system rather than a committee of the whole House as at present. If that concept were accepted, some attempt should be made to have a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad rather than have both Houses separately examining a Bill on Committee Stage and in detail. In any Seanad a large body of expertise is available which would be useful in considering complex legislation under a joint committee system. This could be examined by the body undertaking reform and the implementation thereof of the procedures of the House.

Many amendments put forward by Members are rejected by the sponsoring Minister, not always on the basis of their not improving the Bill, or not having substance or validity, but on the basis that the Bill is the Minister's and he will pass it without accepting amendments from anyone since the acceptance of amendments seems to infer that the Bill was faulty at its introduction or that the item incorporated in the amendment should have been included by the Minister or the civil servants involved. Nothing is further from the truth. In many instances, a Bill adequately fulfils the purpose for which it is introduced by the Minister. However, amendments put forward by Members have the effect either of improving the Bill or in some small way of widening its scope. It should not be taken as a reflection on a Minister or his Department if amendments from the Opposition are included in the Bill. I urge on Government and Opposition to accept the principle of amendments being included in Bills where those amendments can clearly be shown to improve the situation.

On the matter of reform, there has been some talk of extending the sitting hours of the House and operating on the basis of a four-day sitting week. That may be necessary and ought to be one of the options open. However, I would be concerned if, in a presentational attempt to introduce reform, the Dáil decided to extend the sitting hours without examining how it spent those hours. I am not at all convinced that the Dáil needs to sit an extra day a week in order to reform and improve its procedures and get more work done. It would be regrettable to decide on a permanent four-day week in the belief that this will convince the public that we are working more diligently. We need to examine how we work and how to employ ourselves as effectively as possible.

If a large part of committee time were taken out of the House and referred to special committees of the House, clearly that would leave a considerable amount of additional time for other business more appropriate to the Chamber. I have already said that a certain amount of time must be set aside each week for the presentation by Private Members of matters of public concern. Time is needed for this. There is also need for a specific amount of Private Members' time and by that I do not mean the present system operating for an hour-and-a-half on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, usually followed by the ritual vote at 8.30 p.m. which is almost always on the ritual Government amendment to the original motion. When I say "Government" I am talking about Governments in general and not one Government in particular. Wednesday night ends with the adoption of the bland Government amendment to the almost inevitable implicit criticism in the Private Members' Motion. We are going through a charade during Private Members' time. It could not be further from Private Members' time. The time given that title traditionally over the years is the time allocated by the Government for the main Opposition party to have its weekly attack upon Government policies. The main Opposition party spend a fair amount of their time working out the areas of maximum political embarrassment to the Government and devising an appropriate motion, so that, as a political party, they can air their grievance, have a vote and hope to embarrass the Government on the Wednesday evening. That is time allocated, not to Private Members but to political parties. I am not saying that that time should be done away with or that political parties do not need to have time allocated to them to present their point of view, but individual Private Members of the House should have time allocated to them during which they can table motions or enter legislation in which they have a particular interest. This system operates in Westminster, basically on the principle that most of Fridays is allocated to any Member of the House who wishes to table and sponsor legislation in which he or she has a particular interest and which is not a matter of pressing concern to the Government who do not undertake to include it in their legislative programme.

Many Members of this House who spend a considerable length of time here leave the House never having had the opportunity of bringing influence to bear in order to have a Bill covering a particular area in which they have an interest actually sponsored by the Government. Such interests and demands have not been allocated time in the House. One hesitates to give personal examples but I shall give one to illustrate my point. For some reason best known to the author of the legislation, two harbours in my constituency — Balbriggan and Skerries — were assigned by legislation to the responsibility of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. Whether that board did or did not want control of those two ports, and Bullock Harbour as well at that time, I cannot say. However, there is nothing surer now than that the Dublin Port and Docks Board want nothing to do with Balbriggan and Skerries harbours. Also, the fishermen using those harbours will have nothing to do with the Dublin Port and Docks Board. This is quite understandable because that legislation had enshrined in it — although one should never include figures in legislation — that the maximum amount which the board could charge for the use of the harbour was ten shillings per year, which now amounts to 50p per year. With a fleet of 25 fishing boats operating from Skerries harbour, that does not produce anything like a realistic income from which the Dublin Port and Docks Board can maintain the harbour.

Some years ago the suggestion was made that the local authority involved might take over responsibility, negotiate proper landing charges and maintain the harbour properly. Everybody concerned was in agreement, but this could not be done because in law the Dublin Port and Docks Board are responsible for the harbour. The result is that that board do nothing about Skerries harbour, which is falling into disrepair. The local authority are prepared to take it over and the fishermen are prepared to pay realistic landing charges in return for a service. There is goodwill on all sides, but nothing has happened, or is likely to happen, because the Department responsible do not consider it an urgent matter in the context of all the other things for which they are responsible. They do not see how to fit it into the legislative programme and use the well known cliche, "We will include an appropriate section the next time we are introducing general legislation". Mind you, general legislation is never introduced. The Department in reply to a query say, "We have prepared many Bills. However, they were not general legislation, but were about specific problems with which we had to deal, so were not appropriate to your case." It is a daft state of affairs that after all my years in this House I cannot introduce a single section Bill at some stage, getting the House to agree to assign to the local authority the responsibility now resting with the Dublin Port and Docks Board.

I am not giving that example to advance my case. There are numerous such cases throughout the country where legislation has become outmoded through the passage of time and events and where individual Deputies could well serve their constituents by being allowed to sponsor small Bills which would update the law, which would not be objected to by the Departments concerned, and which are not matters of great party political moment. There should be time allocated to those Members to allow them do so.

Contained within that time there should also be an opportunity afforded Deputies to sponsor legislation that does not impose a charge on the public purse and which, in their view, represents an improvement in the social fabric of our society, which could be voted on on a non-party basis. Whether they were accepted or rejected they would not be seen as a reflection on or criticism of the Government of the day. That is essentially what happens at Westminster every Friday. And there are many votes on various issues. Very often, in the context of the size of the membership at Westminster, there are small numbers of people voting, perhaps 30 for and 20 against out of a total membership of 600-odd. But nobody is concerned about it. If the 34 happened to be a mixture of Conservatives, Labour, SDP and Liberals, and the 30 against happened to be a similar mixture nobody thinks it strange, reflects on it or even comments on it in the media. Yet this is the Parliament on which we based our Standing Orders, on which we modelled ourselves. When it had the good sense to update its method of operation we did not follow suit. Whether it was appropriate for us to have based our system of operation on it in the first place is another matter; the fact is that we did.

What we need to do now is devise Standing Orders appropriate to the Ireland of today and to the needs of Deputies and their constituents. If we are going to sit on Fridays — and I do not accept necessarily that there is a need to sit on Fridays — then we must first reform our procedures on the days on which we sit at present. But if we do sit on Friday, then a large part of that day should be devoted to business entered by private Members, voted on by private Members and on which the vote would not be taken as casting a reflection on the Government or any particular political party in the House. That is something that would be welcomed by people on all sides of the House and would afford opportunity to private Members who do not have such opportunity at present. Contained within that proposal is the idea that we will all have to grow up sufficiently to realise that the concept of a free vote does not contain within it an implicit criticism of whoever may be in Government at the time. Over the years we have allowed ourselves become too hide-bound, too tunnel-visioned into the idea that all votes must be under the aegis of the party whips.

That is not the first time I have made that appeal in this House. Certainly, especially in relation to social areas and areas that normally would be called matters of private morality I would tend to feel that there are many matters of private morality upon which it is not correct that the State should be seen to interfere. I suppose to a large extent that is dependent on our respective definitions of what is public and private morality. There is always perhaps difficulty in getting a consensus as to where the dividing line lies. But, in relation to matters which are clearly ones of private morality, then clearly this House should have a free vote in relation to all of those matters. It does not redound to the credit of the political parties, and certainly not to the credit of Parliament, that areas of private morality generally have been used as political footballs, sometimes used by political parties in endeavouring to cause maximum political embarrassment for other parties by the adoption of particular public stances, with party endorsements, in relation to certain of those areas about which I speak. It is long time that we grew up in this House and accepted the principle of the free vote. Contained within that we should allow realistic time every week to private Members to sponsor either small matters of administrative concern — such as the example I have outlined — or, alternatively, to sponsor legislation which, in their opinion, helps to improve the social fabric of society.

There have been quite a number of comments on the charade we go through annually in relation to Estimates, where the Estimates are published in such a form as to make it extremely difficult for the average Deputy to understand the services for which they are providing money. Certain Estimates will be discussed at a particular time of the year interminably to such an extent that the majority of Estimates, containing hundreds of millions of pounds, are then nodded through without any discussion on the last day set down by law for so doing. In that regard I am very pleased that the Minister for Finance has announced the concept of having his Department publish a programme presentation aimed at highlighting the important areas of public expenditure, that these 20 programmes will contain, for each programme, a summary of all attributable costs, a description of the activity in question, an indication of policy direction, where appropriate, and details of activities and appropriate assessments of performance where feasible.

That is the way Estimates ought to be published, so that they explain to people what they are all about. I was for many years a member of a large local authority. Quite frankly the manner in which they discuss their Estimates every year, the manner in which their Estimates are presented and the services described is light years better than the manner in which the government produce their Estimates on an annual basis at present. And the discussion on the estimates for the provision of services at local authority level is a far more realistic and constructive one than the discussion on the Estimates for the operation of Government Departments at national level. I have participated in both of those discussions and know which is the more realistic. It is time for us to become, not any more, but just as realistic as are local authorities, health boards and other bodies in relation to the discussion of the operation of the spending of Government finances. There was an improvement effected by the outgoing Government last year by the earlier publication of the Book of Estimates and they deserve commendation for that. That was subsequent to a commitment given by the present Minister for Industry and Energy, when Minister for Finance, to have the Book of Estimates published, if possible, by September in every year so as to allow a realistic discussion of them before their actual adoption and implementation. I hope it will be possible for such changes to be introduced. But equally important is the concept announced by the Minister for Finance yesterday of a description of what services the Estimates actually cover. That would be vitally important so as to allow realistic and worthwhile debate.

I have some embarrassment in making my final point. I came in here with thoughts I have expressed at various times over the years to various people. I too firmly believe there should be a time limit placed on all contributors in all debates here because, in debates in respect of which there is not a time limit placed on Members, there is not placed on one the same constraint to get one's thoughts in order, present them cogently and use the time available to make the maximum number of points and the most constructive speech. In that context I should apologise to the House for the fact that I have spent exactly twice the length of time in speaking here today. I am quite sure I could have made the points I did in at least half the time had the constraint been placed on me at the start. That is the kernel of what we are all about. Our Standing Orders should be designed to make us operate effectively and efficiently. They must be fair to all Members, especially to the non-office holder, and in turn be seen to be fair to the general public whom they endeavour to serve.

Many Members of the House rarely speak in debates because of pressure of constituency work. They put aside the idea of speaking until tomorrow and tomorrow they have more representations to make. Then they decide to speak next week but next week they have more work to get through and they do not speak that week either. Over the years I have seen many fine young men and women who believed they had an eminent parliamentary career ahead of them and they left either never having spoken or contributing an odd interjection during Question Time. They worked hard but the point is whether they worked hard as Members of Parliament or as social workers. I am not saying Deputies should not make representations or look after their constituents, but if we reform the Dáil we must also reform the public's attitude towards the role of the public representative.

I do not subscribe to all the views expressed by Deputies regarding what a Deputy ought to be allowed to do in regard to constituents. The concept that a Deputy can get something to which a person may or may not be entitled is wrong. In relation to appointments made by the Civil Service Commission it is wrong for people to think that if they visit their local Deputy they will get preferential treatment. There are many people who believe that. They would prefer not to go to a Deputy but they are afraid that if they do not another applicant for the job will do so and will get the job. We all take part in a charade. A Deputy writes to a Minister, a Minister writes to the commission, the commission say they decide on the issue and will announce the decision in due course, the Minister writes back to the Deputy, the Deputy writes back to the constituent, and if the constituent gets the job he is never sure whether he got it on merit or because of the Deputy's intervention. If he does not get the job he blames the Deputy and decides that he must not be as influential a person within his party as he thought he was and so will not vote for him again. On the law of averages there are more people who do not get jobs.

To what extent are we the authors of our own misfortune? The first day the first person decided to run five clinics — he is still a Member — he placed inexorable pressure upon his constituency opponent who was chided by his party organisation. His opponent decided to go one better and ran six clinics. The third Deputy within three weeks had ten clinics going and within a year the three had 20 clinics each a week. Are we really providing a service to our constituents if we send out thousands of letters saying we will be at point A or B or at Mary Mac's front room or the back snug of a pub at a certain hour at a certain day so that they can visit us and ask us to get them something to which they may not be entitled in the first place? We have participated in conditioning the people into the mentality that they must go to a Deputy to fill up a form for them never mind getting the item concerned. How much of a kick do we get out of attending to the lady who comes in and asks if we can get the local authority to send a foreman and plumber in a van 20 miles from the depot to replace a washer on the ball cock of her toilet? Is that what we were elected to Parliament for? If we are to reform the Dáil perhaps we ought to think about our duties as public representatives and whether we ought to be trying to reform the mentality of the public and their perception of the role of a Deputy and what he ought to do on their behalf.

If we are to bring this Parliament and country into the twentieth century it is time, not only in relation to the economy but in relation to life generally, we grew up. If people have a real problem they will get in touch with us. To clarify a point in relation to the example I gave of a Deputy writing to a Minister and a Minister writing to the commission, I have instructed my Department not to write to the commission or to go through the charade because technically if I write to the commission the person involved is disqualified. I am giving that information free of charge to the few people who are in the House. There is no point in any Deputy writing to me asking me to do something which I cannot or will not do. That is a start. Perhaps we should all examine our conscience and see if there is not a better way of being Members of Parliament as well as making Parliament a better place.

Mr. Dowling

I extend good wishes to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and hope he will remain in office for many years to come. The previous speaker spoke very eloquently for almost an hour. He covered almost every area of parliamentary procedure. There is very little left for anyone to say.

I avail of this oportunity to express my disenchantment at the way in which matters are debated. The length of time assigned to each Member in a debate of this kind is far in excess of what it should be. I served in the Seanad for a short while. There was a limited amount of time given to different motions. A person should be able to say all he wants to in a short and concise fashion as is appropriate to debate.

Much has been said about the frustrations of being a backbencher on the Government side and the lack of opportunity to speak on various issues. I will confine my remarks to the motion that the procedures of this House should be reformed and that control of public finances should again be in the hands of politicians.

If businesses were run at the same level of efficiency as this House, they would go to the wall. Many businesses have collapsed in spite of being far more efficient than the House. There has been talk about Friday sittings but if this means simply an extension of existing procedures it will be even more frustrating for Members. I congratulate the Minister on having the foresight to introduce this motion. Only by involving people in this debate can we ascertain their views. The previous speaker referred to ambitious new Members coming here and going away after a period having achieved little or nothing. He spoke also about the burden of constituency work but in order to achieve the honour of being a Member of the Oireachtas one must prove oneself at local level. Many a good legislator has forgotten this fact and suffered for it in an election.

When I entered this House there was nobody to explain the intricacies and complexities of Bills or to tell me how to use this Parliament to advance the views of my constituents. When I became a Senator I did not know the various stages through which a Bill must pass. I had to feel my way as best I could. I have seen legislation being passed which subsequently needed amendment and politicians are castigated for this. A recent example was the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Bill. The purpose of this Bill was to clarify the social welfare code but shortly after the passage of the Bill the Oirerachtas had to rush through amending legislation. There was clear evidence that there had not been a significant input by Members when the original legislation was going through and the amount of information available to rank and file Members was insufficient.

I know that it would be almost impossible for every Member to stay in the House for the duration of a debate. I am learning that Deputies usually leave after the Order of Business and their presence here then is due to the fact that there might be a division on the Order of Business. A Deputy who raises something contentious will be ruled out of order but the press will report assiduously the raising of any such issues. The Chair is powerless to prevent this. I was for a time chairman of a local authority and even at that level it is extremely difficult to contain members who try to bring in extraneous issues.

The Minister should consider some form of advisory service related to the Bills going through the House so that Members could participate fully in debate. At present this can only be done by those who have legal training but it would be a sad day if such training were a prerequisite for entry to this House. The people are best served by Deputies from various walks of life and we cannot all be experts in every field. I strongly advocate an information service for Deputies and there should be no attempt by any Government to steamroll legislation through the House. The Telecommunications Bill is now listed on the Order Paper. It is a very important Bill containing over 700 sections. There are many other areas of the public service in need of reform and there is a lot of legislation that should be updated.

Since I was elected to this House I have discovered that Deputies do not get much opportunity to propose changes in legislation. The House has passed many non-contentious pieces of legislation, but when a Dáil is dissolved and one looks back at its achievements one cannot be impressed. I can recall that Members from my constituency introduced a motion last summer concerning the closure of an important factory. A lot of time was devoted to the debate on that motion but the only people interested were Members from the constituency and those who came to support them and were listening in the Public Gallery. The debate lasted for three hours and, when the Minister had replied, people in my constituency felt that Parliament had decided to keep the factory open. We knew that that was not the case and it was found later that the Minister did not have the power to put into effect the direction he was given by Parliament. Our procedure should be reviewed and reformed.

Very few Members have the expertise to deal with legal documents or frame amendments. That is an intricate matter and one must be trained in that aspect of Dáil procedure. I accept that the Leader of the House is anxious to ensure procedures are reformed to meet the needs of the twentieth century and he should be given the co-operation of all Members in his efforts. Although there has been a great advancement in technology in recent years we are still adopting the same methods as those used 200 years ago in the British Parliament.

There is a need to restrict Members in the amount of time allocated to them to make a contribution. I accept that the mover of a motion should be given sufficient time but for reasons of political expediency debates are often dragged out in order to ensure that there are sufficient Members present should a division be called. If there are not sufficient Members present the House should be adjourned so that the public are aware that there was a lack of interest in the legislation being debated. There are many demands on the time of Members in their constituencies and in the House with the result that very few debates attract a full attendance in the Chamber. Visitor in the Public Gallery must find it hard to understand how there is so little interest in debates. The report of the debates is made available to Members on a regular basis, but they take up so much space that after a short time one must get rid of them. I accept that a facility to check on past speeches is available in the Library.

The Committee Stage of Bills could be dealt with in a more expeditious manner at a meeting of a special committee. However, I believe it would still be difficult to get people involved. For example, there are only five Members present now. We do not have a quorum but I do not know if it is necessary to have one because I am not conversant with the procedures of the House. If we agreed to deal with Committee Stages of Bills at a special committee Members would have more time to raise issues of public importance in the Chamber. Few people realise the amount of time a Member must devote to the preparation of speeches, research and so on and that must be done in conjunction with answering letters from constituents and meeting deputations. While Deputy Boland may be correct in what he said about clinics it must be remembered that Members must make themselves available to meet constituents on a regular basis.

Looking through the record of recent Dáil sessions I have noticed that some of the questions tabled in the middle of last year have not been answered. That is a terrible reflection on the way work is done here. It happens on occasions that by the time a Minister replies to a question the problem complained of has been rectified. Loans and grants have often been paid out a long time before a Minister even acknowledges receipt of a question from a Member and I have often found that work has been carried out before a Minister has replied to the query. Members, since they were given private secretaries, feel obliged to keep those people tapping away on their typewriters with the result that the offices of Ministers are overloaded with letters. Obviously, Ministers will have to be given additional staff to deal with such matters, although a lot of those queries could be dealt with at local level. I agree with Deputy Boland that Members concentrate on that type of activity with the result that they do not have a lot of time to deal with legislation.

The Order of Business, I believe, should be fixed at the end of each day for the following day. If Deputies were sufficiently up to date with what was happening, and if they were in touch with the clár, they would be in the House to make sure that if they wanted to raise something on the Order of Business for the following day they could do so. People may not agree with that. If a Deputy wanted to raise something important, perhaps he could submit it in writing to the Chair an hour before the proceedings started and then it could be raised by the Ceann Comhairle. There are many ways in which the whole matter could be looked at. At the moment there is an atmosphere of friendship between both sides of the House, but that could change and there could be great conflict on extraneous issues. Sometimes several Deputies jump up at the same time as if they were schoolchildren, and nothing is achieved other than a few headlines in the newspapers.

I would recommend the use of the radio during important debates, but people can make use of that medium to their own advantage. Some people are expert at getting newspaper headlines. I know that the press have a job to do. I congratulate the national and local press on the coverage they give to politicians. It is vitally important that politicians should be seen to be operating in the best interest of the country at large and of their own communities. The press provide an excellent service for that purpose. Sometimes they lend themselves to reporting matters which are not as important as others, and which are not of great national importance in the long term while they may be of short-term benefit for the selling of a newspaper.

When the Opposition Whip replied to the Minister's introductory speech it became obvious that there is a widespread feeling in his party that there is a great need for reform. Yesterday Members of The Worker's Party tried to raise a point on the Adjournment and there was a certain measure of frustration. Perhaps there was a way around it of which they were not aware and therefore they lost out. They are elected like the rest of us to represent the views and feelings of their constituents. I may not agree with a great deal of their political philosophy, but I believe we should facilitate anybody who wants to raise an important matter.

Another matter raised was control over the public finances. I have had experience of finance at local authority level over a considerable period of time. When we are presented with estimates we have the opportunity of suggesting certain amendments. To some extent we are constrained because we must stay within the budget. The same is true of public finances vis-á-vis Government expenditure. To present Estimates after the money has been spent is a useless exercise and is a repudiation of what this House should be all about. There has been an improvement in that respect. The Estimates were presented at a difficult time. The election took place and the House did not have time to go into them in any great detail.

I have noticed that when estimates are produced at local level, that is it. That is your programme for the year. We cannot find out how the programme is working out, how effective it is, or whether it is achieving the desired results. We should have some type of committee, a watchdog committee, to preside over Government expenditure programmes and to see whether they are achieving their purpose. The annual budget has been referred to as a cosmetic exercise in attempting to balance books at the end of the year. There may be developments we would like to see in education or in our roads system. In 1979 there was talk about £1,000 million for road improvements. The local elections were coming up at that time and this was a great figure to see written across the papers. Travelling from Waterford to Dublin I cannot see where any of that money has been spent on that section of the roadway.

We cannot find out what happens to what we get from EEC sources. We should be able to pursue this in the House to see whether our programmes are on target. A committee set up to deal with this would be more than valuable. They could try to find out where there is waste of our resources in the public service. An amount of money is being poured into various areas, but the real return in road improvements or elsewhere is very small.

I would not support an extension of the sitting time of this House if we are to have a continuation of what I have seen so far. We should make better use of the time we have. All sides of the House should get together and make the necessary recommendations to update and improve our methods of dealing with legislation and matters of crucial importance. Because the Government lose a vote they should not necessarily have to go to the country. We should be allowed a measure of freedom to debate important issues. Deputies on all sides of the House agree on how certain things should be pursued when we want to achieve a certain political advantage. I am glad to have the opportunity of making these points and I hope that, before this session is over, this House will be a more efficient instrument of legislation.

Debate adjourned.