I wish to share some of my time with my colleague, Deputy Charles Flanagan.
Private Members' Business - Televising of Dáil Proceedings and Reform of Dáil Procedures.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
"That Dáil Éireann requests the Committee of Procedure and Privileges to report to it within three months with
(a) proposals, with necessary safeguards, for the televising of Dáil proceedings, and
(b) proposals for a more general programme of reforms to Dáil procedure, covering limitations on the length of speeches, procedures for dealing with urgent matters and the relevancy and admissibility of Parliamentary Questions."
The Dáil must be seen to be in touch with the reality of the late 20th century if it is to maintain a respected position in the way our national affairs are conducted. When the Constitution was framed it was envisaged that the public would have access to its proceedings. People have the right to attend the Dáil when it is in session and the full proceedings of the Dáil are published and available to the public. This is the way it should be and it operates well. Of course, the newspapers present its proceedings fairly widely as well, so from the point of view of the written word it has fairly good coverage.
In more recent times provision for radio broadcasting was allowed, and I might add that this happened only quite recently. When one reflects that this is 1988 and that it was only in 1986 that it came into being, no one can accuse us of being over hasty in bringing the media into the Chamber. I think all of us would admit that it has not changed the face of this House in any way. It has improved the general tenure of it and people are more aware of what is happening within the Chamber.
This motion is a logical extension of widening access to the proceedings of Parliament by means of televising the Dáil. Television is the most powerful and popular means of mass communication of the late 20th century and it is one the Dáil should be able to avail of in its attempt to inform the public of the measures being debated and issues being discussed by it. We should no longer have to rely on secondhand television reports of the Dáil proceedings. Instead we should permit the public to see the Dáil as it is. We in this institution have nothing to be ashamed of and no need to be defensive. When some of the harshest of critics of the way the Dáil operates have seen it operating for some time their harshness tends to mellow because they understand how this House and Parliament generally operates.
However, this is not to say that legitimate fears may not be aroused by this issue. For example some people fear that television, because it is such a powerful communicator, may be used to denigrate the workings of the Dáil and its Deputies. Others feel that the role of the TD may be misunderstood if it is presented by TV in a vacuum. Others feel that some Deputies may attempt to act differently merely because cameras are allowed inside the Dáil Chamber. These fears cannot be dismissed lightly but nevertheless they can be catered for by the proper and controlled introduction of the televising of this House. Issues on the extent and manner of coverage, the means of editing debates, Question Time, the scope to which the camera would focus on Deputies who are not speaking and other issues can and should be resolved before cameras are admitted into the Chamber. These are issues which can be tackled when a decision has been taken in principle and when the Committee on Procedures and Privileges bring forward a report to the House for formal approval.
I am aware that a major change such as televising the Dáil is not one which everyone is equally enthusiastic about, and for that reason any attempt to introduce television should be on the basis of sensitivity to the concerns of the Members after full discussion on the manner of the coverage. Some Deputies might argue that there will be a move towards sensationalism and away from serious debate if TV cameras are allowed to cover the Dáil proceedings. There is no doubt that even now some Deputies focus on the sensational to gain headlines rather than focusing on the less exciting substance of argument which has stood the test of time. Undoubtedly such behaviour will continue, but the fact that some Deputies might abuse the televising of the Dáil is not a reason for not introducing it. We are aware that that is going to happen; it is part of the cut and thrust of political life both inside and outside the House, but I have no doubt that those people can be seen through. The vast majority of Deputies are not sensationalist in their approach. They are hard working, dedicated and responsible and they rely on the quality of their contributions in this Chamber and their work on behalf of their constituents. While a Deputy who sensationalises issues might attempt at first to get a lot of coverage, time will take care of that and we should not unduly worry or over-emphasise that situation.
With regard to whether the role of Deputies would be misunderstood, if the cameras focus on empty benches during debates, I do not worry about that because that is the way the Chamber works. On the Committee Stage of a Bill a Minister and perhaps one or two Deputies from this side or any other side who are involved are present and I think that system works well and effectively. I do not see how it could work any better if all the benches were full. The televising of the Dáil will educate the public on what Parliament is all about and we should have no fears about this. I know from constituents of mine who have visited the Dáil when it is in session that they were initially surprised that there were not more Deputies in the Chamber, but the lasting memory is not of the sight but of the quality of the discussion and the various views and complex issues put forward by all sides of the House. That is what stands out ultimately and that is what matters.
I firmly believe that we should not seek to overcontrol the cameras in what they pick out. We need Parliament to be shown as it is, as any member of the public can see it from the public gallery. Of course provisions have to be made for fair and not selective editing of material. When I use the word "fair" I mean fair to the working of the Dáil. I do not hold with the argument that the cameras should be forced to show the Dáil as something it is not, and that is important.
Radio coverage of the Dáil has been a success. Television could be an even more resounding success in that it will enable people to see what is going on rather than merely hearing voices which at times it may be difficult to identify. All of us here subscribe to open government, meaning that it is open to the public. Television already plays a role in this regard through the debates between politicians in television studios, through interviews with interest groups, representatives and so on. The time is now ripe for television to play a bigger role in making the process of national decision-making more open by televising the affairs of the Chamber. Otherwise television studio debates and interviews will begin to usurp the role of Parliament as ordinary people feel that Parliament is both remote and irrelevant. The public should have the opportunity of seeing politicians debate across the House with each other without a television interviewer. In this way the role and functions of the Dáil Deputy will be enhanced.
Some may say that the nature of the Dáil will be changed by television. I agree that television will not leave the Dáil unchanged. However, I believe it will change for the better. More important, I believe the Dáil must change and evolve as society outside changes and evolves. We cannot expect the Dáil to operate in a 19th century manner as we approach the 21st century. The Dáil is an institution which is well able to sustain changes in the way it operates. We have seen this before when procedures of the House were changed. We have seen changes in the way Question Time is conducted and in the way in which committees now operate to supplement the work of the Dáil Chamber. There have been many other changes as well in the area of the Estimates.
Reform must always be on-going. We must never fear change because it can bring good. One example of that is that we are having a debate here on Thursday with short speeches from selected Deputies. If that sort of debate was televised it would heighten interest in our entry into the single European market in 1992. That is the kind of thing television could do, particularly with that type of debate on very important issues such as the Cecchini report. If this were done on television there would be tremendous interest in it. That is what people would like to see.
Hopefully, when we get around to this change the general public will have more interest and will see that this Chamber is much more relevant to them than they thought it was. That is what we all want to see because we sense, from time to time, a cynicism out there about our institutions, particularly about parliament. It is easy to knock us and cynics tend to knock us because they themselves are prepared to do nothing anyway. I believe that the general public, by looking in, seeing what really happens, the hard work that goes on here, particularly on Committee Stage, will change their views and attitudes and the work that Dáil Deputies do will be highlighted.
Televising parliamentary proceedings is not new. Many parliaments have had television in their chambers for many years. The European Parliament is televised and none of our MEPs seem to have been upset by this, nor would they say that people behave mildly differently in front of the cameras. That may happen initially but it is not par for the course.
In debating this issue we should be concerned about the impact television will have on the workings of this House. We should be careful to list the good points as well as the bad. More important is the benefit television will bring by making the public more aware. This is all the more necessary at a time when people are becoming cynical. Television will be a vital tool in diluting this cynicism by making people aware. We say there should be greater use of technology and encourage it in schools and in industry but when it comes to introducing technology in the House, for some strange reason, we are rather slow. We want to keep our little cloister tightly held; we do not want to let too much light in because it might be bad. That is not what we really want. For that reason I ask this House to fully support this motion.
I suppose when one reflects that this is 1988 and television has been in this country since 1960 one wonders why it has taken us so long to get to the stage of talking about this here tonight, but parliament by its nature is slow. That is no bad thing because we are making laws for people and we should not make them with undue haste but reflect and think hard and then make them in the best interests of society. What we are doing here this evening is being done in the best interests of society because we want to open this to everybody so that they can see that this House has a real relevance and debates real issues. There are people in this House who are very concerned about what happens outside and who try to change the rules and change society to make it a better place. Why should we be afraid to put that on view? I suppose that as a people we sometimes fear change, I do not know why, but this is now a means to a greater awareness of this House. What we particularly want is that our young people would take an interest in politics because they will be the ones who will come after us. If more people take an active interest in politics, there will be a breath of fresh air through our political system.
Our political system has become a little incestuous in the sense that one is in a political party which has long traditions, and which tends to feed off itself and its families. That is how it works. People have a great knowledge now, particularly a visual knowledge, of what is happening. What is being proposed should encourage people to say, "I like what I see, I think I can make a career in politics, there is important work to be done and I believe I can dedicate myself to doing it." There is a spin off there. That can only be good for all political parties and indeed for all our institutions. Basically, that is all I want to say about televising proceedings of the House.
In our motion we are asking the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to report within three months but I would not object to extending that period to six months, given that we are now moving towards the summer recess because July and August, during which many people may be away, would be two-thirds of that time. We must have a time limit though and we must bring this matter forward for final approval as quickly as possible. We must be seen to be serious and to act on it and I am prepared to accept additional time for the reasonably logical reasons given.
In that motion we talk about questions but I think that is a matter we can deal with in the format of the committee. We need not debate the general line of questions as Question Time would seem to have lost some of its relevance, we should look at it again to see how we can make it a more worthwhile exercise. The whole question of the Order of Business should be examined to see if there could be some format for dealing with matters of urgency which arise. I know we can seek to raise questions on the Adjournment or by means of a Private Notice Question but it might be helpful if we had a more structured arrangement, possibly late in the evening, where there would be a kind of grouser's corner as it were, when people could raise genuine gripes relating to their constituencies and Ministers would respond. Such an arrangement for, say, the last half hour might engender a little aggro but that is often not a bad thing.
I think the Deputy has plenty of opportunity to raise such matters.
Yes, but we have it too tightly structured. There is a need for something like that to be arranged. We should not debate national issues in the sense that I stand up and say something and somebody says something else as if we were competing against one another. What we need is a general talk on real issues, perhaps spending a day teasing them out. I have no doubt that both sides of the House have wisdom and knowledge and if the whole House can benefit from that in a reasonable and ordered way, that can only be good. My colleague, Deputy John Bruton, has pioneered Dáil reform and he is always anxious to bring about changes. May we continue to have people like him who want to see change, not for the sake of change, but to improve the general structures of this House so that it will benefit the general community.
In conclusion I ask the House to support this motion. Our proposal is not earth shattering, it would not change the whole way of life, it would not change Parliament but, I believe, it would improve Parliament and would improve the attitude and vision which people have of Parliament. They will see Parliament as it really is, as it works, with some of its lumps and bumps. Like any human assembly it has that imperfection and we should not be afraid of it. It would be appropriate if we got all-party agreement on this motion so that we could put the matter before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, not in the sense of wanting to see how we can stop something but working together to get back into this House the reality of good clean legislation that will allay fears and will ensure that this House becomes more relevant.
I would like to join with the previous speaker in welcoming this motion which I hope will not be opposed by any section of the House. It is no easy task to reform the Dáil to such an extent as envisaged by the motion. We are talking about updating the mechanics of the Dáil and bringing the deliberations of this Chamber into the homes of the people throughout the country. That is why the motion is somewhat open-ended in so far as it is enabling the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to tease out the various pros and cons — and there are many — of televising the Dáil and moving towards a greater reform of Dáil procedures that we have at present. I think everybody in the House is in agreement that it is very important that we in the Legislature move with technology and use the most modern and up to date technology available. In this regard one must compliment the offices of the Government Departments, particularly the offices of Ministers of State who have become expert in the use of word processors. Because of that we should have no inhibitions and there should be no bar in extending the modern technology to introduce television cameras into the Dáil Chamber. The cost factor is a matter which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will consider in great detail. I do not envisage any physical barriers in terms of lighting, noise or large microphones, which would inhibit the speakers in the course of their deliberations.
The public perception of politicians is not good but we can do a great deal to resolve that difficulty. In many ways it can be resolved by public relations and there is no better PR exercise than to allow the people an opportunity of seeing how the debates are carried on. We are distanced from the people, nobody can deny that. One has only to take a random survey of those people who enter the public gallery. In the main they are school tours, many interested women's groups from throughout the country who take an opportunity of seeing the proceedings at first hand, on occasion the political activist passing through on his way to or from a party headquarters who does not spend much time in the public gallery, or the deputation from a rural area who are here not to hear the proceedings in the House but trying to get some money from their favourite Minister of the day. We have this problem with the public gallery; tonight there are one, two or three people there. If TV cameras were portraying the Dáil proceedings people would see the type of activity the politician is engaged in throughout the day and if the quality of the debate is heard we could enhance our role in the community.
The major criticism I have is the second-hand nature of the TV coverage. For example, today we have the TV news of the Dáil sitting exemplified as a cheap publicity gimmick of a suspension of a Member from the House which took up almost 30 minutes of Dáil time; I would go as far as to say it was timed deliberately for TV coverage and had the result it was designed to achieve. The point was brought home to me when I was in the restaurant with a 16-year old schoolboy who said that Deputy could enjoy the rest of the week in a boat on Lough Corrib. It is regrettable that this is the type of publicity coming from the House. Were the TV cameras in the Chamber, were the debates shown for half an hour in the evening, we would not as a House have to resort to such cheap political gimmickry. I have no doubt that the TV cameras would address such occurrences.
The motion goes further than just allowing the TV cameras into these hallowed Chambers; it goes on to deal with Dáil reform in which we have made some strides over a number of years and perhaps we have not given ourselves sufficient kudos when it comes to the written reply to the PQ. I would like to see the Adjournment debate given some sparkle. Perhaps we could double the time for it and it would be not so much an individual Deputy raising the matter of his choice, but, four, five or six Deputies could have a common motion to put forward in the evening and discuss the matter for about an hour. I would like to see an increase in Private Members' time, although I suppose one could not expect the Government to forego some of their time. However, perhaps this sitting could be extended for an hour some time in the evening.
I see a far greater role for the committees. We have seven at the moment and there is need for perhaps 17. I see the record of legislation in the past 12 to 13 months not being good and next year when the Official Report is published in bound volume 1987 will appear in rather thin volumes. There are a number of reasons for that. The Seanad has the unfortunate knack of being seen to hold up quite an amount of legislation. Half a dozen important Bills are in the Seanad at the moment eagerly awaited by this House. There is urgent need to reform the length of time in which a speaker can be on his feet. I see no reason for anybody other than a Minister or principal Opposition spokesperson to speak for more than 30 minutes. Other than that one is moving into the realms of repetition and ad libbing of a spoofing nature. If somebody cannot say in 20 minutes what he or she is about then that person has a serious difficulty. I would like the CPP to address these issues now while they have the opportunity when this motion goes before them. I hope the motion will get due acknowledgment by all sides of the House.
It is good that we have this opportunity of looking at ourselves and at the manner in which we engage in our day-to-day duties. Cynicism is abroad as we must accept, but we can go a long way ourselves towards improving the public perception and if we can get across to the people we will be seen in a far better light than we are. With the advent of TV cameras into the Dáil Chamber the public perception of politicians will be enhanced and will increase. My colleague, Deputy John Bruton, has had some reforms carried through the Dáil in the early eighties and I hope these further reforms will be implemented. I support the motion and I hope it gets similar support from all sides of the House.
I move amendment No. 1:
In the second line to delete "within three months" and substitute "within six months".
In welcoming this motion on behalf of the Government, I would like to say how pleased I am to have the opportunity, which this debate will afford, to hear the views of Members of all sides of the House on the introduction of televised broadcasting of Dáil proceedings. This is a subject on which I am sure there will be wide-ranging and diverse opinion and as a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I particularly look forward to hearing Deputies' views in advance of consideration of the matter by that committee.
Following the recent decision by the House of Commons to proceed to televise its debates, we will shortly be the only member state of the European Community whose Parliament does not allow television cameras into its Chamber. While it is appropriate that we should look at this matter with some urgency, it is equally important that in advance of making any final decisions, we have a full and considered examination of all the issues involved so as to ensure that we adopt an approach that best suits our own particular needs. It is with this in mind that the Government are moving an amendment, in my name, to change the time limit within which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges must report from three months to six months.
I would now like to formally move this amendment. In doing so, I would like to ask the Deputies to bear in mind that radio broadcasting of Parliament is a relatively recent development in this country: in fact, it was introduced only in November 1986. While other parliaments have had many years experience of broadcasting their proceedings both on radio and television, it is still a somewhat new experience for our parliamentarians. It is important, therefore, that we do not rush matters along too quickly and that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have the opportunity to consider proposals in some depth before submitting them to the Dáil for approval.
At this point, I would like to thank Deputy John Bruton for publishing his discussion document in advance of this debate. That document recognises the implications which the proposals have not only for the rights and privileges of Members but for the proceedings of and conduct of business in the House itself. It is clearly evident from reading it that the issues involved are complex and that before televised broadcasting can be introduced, substantial revision of Standing Orders may be required. This, I think, further strengthens the case that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be given every opportunity to study the matter in a much more detailed manner.
At this point, I would like to let the House have some of my own personal observations on the televising of the Dáil. Firstly, I have to say that I am not altogether sure that there is such a great demand, or indeed interest, on the part of the general public for the televised broadcasting of debates. Naturally, this is a subject which arouses a great deal of interest in the House itself and in the media, but I can see no overwhelming evidence that it is perceived by the electorate as being a priority item. I suspect RTE realise that even the very best debates might not attract the size of audiences which they themselves would like to attract. I would, however, accept that a proportion of the population would like to see the televising of debates — particularly on important issues — and these people have the right to such a service.
I am also somewhat concerned by the popular perception that the Dáil must radically adapt and adjust its procedures to suit the advent of television. This seems strange to me. After all, the institution of Parliament has been around considerably longer than the relatively new medium of television. It seems strange, therefore, that we should have to change procedures which have served us well down the years in order to meet the demands of television. I would be very concerned indeed by any development which would interfere with the dignity of the House and its proceedings.
There is no doubt that television is the most powerful medium of our time. However, it must be remembered that it was primarily conceived as a source of entertainment and while it has, over the years, made very many significant attempts to provide a public service — through educational, documentary and other such programmes — entertainment still remains its basic purpose.
Television is, by its nature, a trivialising medium whose impact is based on the image rather than the substance of debate. In an era when there is such intense competition among television companies to capture higher audiences — especially since the arrival of satellite television — it tends to look for sensational eyecatching events which will grab the immediate attention of its audience. In such an atmosphere I fear that even the institution of Parliament would not be sacrosanct. I recall two fairly recent incidents which bear this out.
The first concerned the United States Senate Committee hearings on the Irangate affair. I wonder how many members of the public remember the findings of that committee, or for that matter who its chairman was. Yet, even people who have not the remotest interest in politics have heard of Colonel Oliver North. Having been called before the committee as a witness — albeit a central witness — through the power of television, he became an overnight celebrity. It was the personalities who appeared before the committee and not the committee itself — or its work — which grabbed the public's attention. The other example of television's tendency of search for the sensational concerns an event which happened much nearer home. I am sure Deputies will remember that when President Hillery recently addressed the European Parliament, the lead story in the main evening news that night concerned the fact that he was heckled by a Northern MEP as he was trying to deliver his address. The substance and content of the address itself was relegated to second place on this occasion, even by our own national station.
It is this tendency by television to sensationalise events in Parliament which is one of the greatest concerns to me. In a sense, you can understand the dilemma of the television companies, who themselves have their own demands to meet. Yet, I cannot help but feel that even if RTE were to devote a substantial amount of time to the broadcasting of our proceedings in a "Today in the Dáil" type programme, it would still be incidents such as the one to which I have just referred which would make the headlines on the 9 o'clock news.
It could, or course, be argued that, in this particular instance, the MEP was to blame for the incident and that the television companies were not in any way responsible. However, it was the very fact that cameras were in the Chamber and the MEP was of the knowledge that his outburst would attract immediate and extensive television coverage which prompted him to misbehave in the first instance.
There is a general acceptance that — as in other parliaments — certain Members in this House might not be able to resist the temptation to misbehave spectacularly in the presence of television cameras, particularly when issues of high emotional content are being debated. While some Members might consider it beneficial to play to the gallery in the presence of television cameras, I sincerely hope and I am reasonably confident that the vast majority of Deputies will recognise that, as legislators, our primary responsibility is to the electorate and not to make good television.
Deputy Bruton suggests in his document that the problem of misbehaviour might be overcome by making the penalties more severe — including for example the automatic loss of salary for more than the number of days for which the Deputy is barred from the service of the House. While I realise that the Deputy was only quoting this as an example of what might be done, I nevertheless have some reservations as to whether this would, in fact, be an effective deterrent. It is obviously a matter which the CPP will have to consider in some depth and in the light of Members' rights and privileges.
Despite the reservations which I have just outlined, nevertheless I recognise that there are considerable benefits to be derived from television. As Deputy Bruton pointed out in his discussion document, the televising of the Dáil is in line with the spirit of the Constitution which provides for public sittings of each House of the Oireachtas. We already have radio broadcasting of our proceedings and I am sure that television will give those people who have been listening to the radio debates a more comprehensive picture of what is actually happening in the House.
In his discussion document, Deputy Bruton also made a valid point about the disadvantage which we have at present in that the Taoiseach cannot be seen on television from the floor of the House stating the Irish viewpoint on matters of international controversy, while other Prime Ministers have this facility. It would certainly present a more progressive image of this country if this could be done and I am sure would enhance our case in the eyes of an international audience.
I also agree with Deputy Bruton that the televising of proceedings could be beneficial for archival and educational purposes. However, I would not like to see educational films replacing the present system of school groups visiting the Oireachtas. As Deputies are well aware, nearly every day a group from some school visits the Dáil where they can view at first hand not only the proceedings in the House itself but the workings of the Dáil as a whole. They can see their local TD in his real working environment, in his office as well as in the Chamber and in his interaction with Ministers and other Deputies around the House. This could not be achieved through the medium of television.
That is true.
(Interruptions.)
In larger countries, like the United States or Canada, I can understand the extensive use of television to bring Parliament to the people — particularly school children. In countries of that size it is not always possible, or indeed practical, for individuals or school groups to visit Parliament. However, this problem does not exist here where it is possible for practically anyone who wishes to visit Parliament to do so and view its proceedings at first hand.
Of all the issues which will have to be addressed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I think that the question of privilege will perhaps be the most important. This issue was the subject of much heated discussion in the recent House of Commons debate. Because the impact of television is immediate, there could be a much greater temptation on Members to abuse privilege, particularly in live broadcasts. If this were to become a regular occurrence, I believe that sooner or later it could lead to pressure for the House to lose that privilege. This would be a very major development indeed and could have very serious repercussions for our system of parliamentary democracy.
Another matter, which no doubt will be of great concern to some Deputies is the possible curtailment of speeches by tighter time limits, in order to improve television presentation. I am not altogether certain that the proposal contained in Deputy Bruton's document would necessarily improve the quality of debate. In fact, some of the best speeches I have heard in this House have exceeded the time limits which are proposed. I realise, of course, that the Deputy only quoted these time limits as an example of what might be adopted. However, I know Deputies already feel that they have insufficient time to raise matters which are of local conceren and the imposition of time limits would further retard their opportunities to raise these matters. The whole purpose of time limits is to assist in the orderly and efficient despatch of business.
The existing practice of party Whips reaching agreement on time limits for certain debates has worked out quite successfully. I believe it is important that flexibility in this particular area should be exercised by the agreement of the party Whips. It would not only be a disservice to the Members of this House but to the country as a whole, if time limits were to be imposed simply to make the Dáil more presentable on television. As Government Chief Whip, I would have no objection to the introduction of any measure which will improve the proceedings and conduct of business. However, I would need to be assured that these measures are being introduced more for the purpose of improving the proceedings themselves and not merely to enhance television presentation.
I was glad to see that in his document, Deputy Bruton devoted an entire section to the practicalities of television broadcasting, covering such items as the possible obtrusiveness of the cameras, their ability to pick out quickly the Deputy in possession, the lighting requirements and, naturally enough, the cost of such a service. In addition to these, there are other practicalities which will need to be considered such as the amount of space RTE will require for their technical staff, studio facilities and such like.
Deputy Gay Mitchell was quoted some time back as saying that he would like to see the establishment of an Oireachtas broadcasting station, which would be controlled from within the House. This raises the question of whether RTE would be involved at all in the provision of this service and, no doubt, RTE who already provide radio broadcasts of both Dáil and Seanad proceedings, will have views on this. Obviously, all these matters can be fully and carefully considered at CPP.
A concern I know which is very real to many Deputies is that television might portray the Dáil in an unfair light, not because it is deserving of this, but because it may not be able to adapt to the needs of television. There is also an awareness that some Deputies will perform very well on television while others who, although they may be splendid parliamentarians, may not come across quite so well. These are very real and genuine concerns and I feel it is only proper that they be fully explored by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and that the views of all Members in the House be obtained before proposals are developed and brought before the Dáil.
While all these questions are undoubtedly complex, I do not see them as presenting an insurmountable barrier to the introduction of television into the House. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges will, I am sure, consider the advantages and disadvantages and will balance them against each other in order to ensure that the best interests of all our Members are served.
The second part of the motion, put down by Deputies Bruton and O'Brien, relates to proposals for a more general programme of reforms to Dáil procedures. The proposal to limit the length of speeches, on which I have already given my views, is obviously a matter which will be fully discussed at CPP in the context of televising proceedings.
With regard to the procedures for dealing with urgent matters, and the relevancy and admissibility of parliamentary questions, the Government are prepared to engage in discussions at CPP to see if ways of improving these procedures and making them more relevant can be found.
At this point, I should mention that a package for reform of Dáil procedures was discussed at a recent meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. At that meeting, it was agreed that in future the Committee of Public Accounts should be constituted as a standing committee to which the appropriation accounts would automatically stand referred. A motion to give effect to this is being prepared and it is hoped that it will come before the Dáil for approval before too long. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges also has under active consideration proposals to change the procedures for the debating of Public Service Estimates.
In conclusion, I would like to assure the House that the Government will participate fully in the consideration of all the matters at CPP; we will ensure that they are examined in depth and that the interests of all Members are taken into account.
The change will be an historic one which will, undoubtedly, alter the public image of the Dáil. It is vitally important that CPP consider all aspects of this. They should study the proposal in a detailed and serious manner. All Deputies will agree that we should aim to maintain the dignity of the House above all else. I am sure that Deputies Bruton and O'Brien in putting forward this motion gave serious consideration to this aspect. The work of the committee may take longer than we would wish and for that reason we must be flexible. I accept that the committee should report back within six months but, if necessary, we should give them more time to consider this important matter. Their proposal should maintain the dignity of the House and portray the House in a way we would all wish to see.
At the outset I should like to say that it is my intention to comply with the suggestion made by Deputy Bruton in his excellent report, that speeches by and large should be confined to 15 minutes. In my view that is usually more than adequate for a Member to say what he or she has to say on this or any other matter. I agree with his suggestion. The Progressive Democrats will be supporting this motion. I should like to compliment Deputies Bruton and O'Brien on preparing this report and circulating it to Members. They have set out clearly the arguments for and against televising the proceedings of the House. To some extent discussing the televising of the proceedings is like putting the cart before the horse because in the context of televising our proceedings we must consider the procedures of the House. In response to Deputy Flanagan, I must say that it is not so much what Deputy Molloy did today as the archaic procedures under which we operate that has brought the House into disrepute. I will deal with that matter later.
If the televising of the Dáil will bring onstream procedural changes and so on, it will be a good thing but I would have preferred if we had brought about such changes now because they are long overdue. If we were starting from scratch, having obtained our independence in the last couple of weeks, I do not think we would have adopted the parliamentary structure under which we operate. We have taken on board, almost verbatim, the parliamentary structure that operates in the United Kingdom. I do not think it is the ideal system for this country. We are a smaller nation and our needs are different. To some extent we are suffering from legislative congestion because we have too many representatives. I do not think it is necessary for us to have two Houses but I will not deal with that tonight. It did not do New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark any harm to get rid of their second Chamber. They recognised that the second Chamber was unnecessary, and it is unnecessary in Ireland.
The second Chamber did not do the Deputy any harm when she was a Member of it.
In that regard the former Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, once said that it was a place for people on the way up and people on the way out. I do not know if I was on the way up or on the way out. It is the case that people move from that House to this House and vice versa. I do not believe we need two Chambers. It causes unnecessary delays and complicates our parliamentary system. It can cause great difficulties, particularly in the context of bringing in legislation. Because of the fact that the second Chamber is elected by politicians we get the same type of people in the Seanad as in this House, with the exception of those elected as independents. The vocational interest which was supposed to be the reason for the second Chamber does not exist to the extent it should or to the extent desired by the framers of the Constitution.
We do not conduct our affairs in this House in the most effective or most efficent way. Many of the real debates in the country on matters relating to health, education, social issues and even Northern Ireland take place outside this House. This is to some extent because we are a little afraid of opening up debate. To a large degree debates in this House centre on legislative proposals put forward by the Government of the day. Because the Government is composed of Members of this House elected by the House, the Government govern the affairs of the House and our parliamentary structure suffers as a result. Even if we wished, we could never have a five-day week parliament because of the enormous pressures it would put on the activities of Government. It would not be possible as matters stand.
Given the limitations imposed upon us by the Constitution, we can do much to improve our own affairs. Improving our procedures cannot be done in isolation. We must update the whole system of local government. The enormous pressures on Deputies result from their combined roles as legislators and local politicians. We must have a different system of local government with more power to people at local level and a more clearly defined separation of functions. I am a member of a local authority and it is virtually impossible to combine the roles of Deputy, spokesperson, representative of a busy constituency and local authority member.
We must review the facilities available to Members. I thoroughly agree with everything Deputy Bruton has said on this topic. The kind of research that Members need in order to prepare themselves adequately for debate and for drawing up amendments to Bills is not available to Opposition Deputies except on a voluntary basis by their friends and associates or other people who give freely of their time to help. It is very difficult for Deputies who do not have a legal training to draft amendments. There is something to be said for making the Law Reform Commission more available to this House. We could work closely together to the betterment of legislation and hence to the betterment of the people.
Here, hear.
It would also ensure that such a body would be more responsive to the needs of the people. Sometimes bodies which are separate from the parliamentary institutions take on board whatever they believe should be looked at and do not have the same sense of priorities. The ESRI could provide a valuable research unit in the economic and social area. There can be no doubt that Opposition Deputies require additional research facilities if they are to do the work demanded of them now and in the future, particularly after 1992.
The arguments on the difficulties of bringing television into this House have been well outlined. Undoubtedly there would be practical difficulties but it would be wrong to allow the negative aspects to dominate the discussion. If it is decided that it is a good idea, as I believe it is, to have the main House of Parliament accessible and as visible as possible to as many as possible, it will be good for the country, good for parliamentary democracy and good for this House. If we decide to work towards this objective, I do not believe the practical difficulties need stand in our way. Improvements in equipment have made it less cumbersome and it would not take up as much room as would have been the case some years ago.
Reference has been made to empty seats and how one would control the showing of this on television. Perhaps we should proceed by thinking in terms of how to fill the empty seats rather than protecting them. Possibly that is a little too idealistic.
It is wrong that Committee Stage debates take place on the floor of the House. These discussions should be conducted as far as possible in a non-partisan way. The technical difficulties involved in Committee Stage debates could be dealt with more appropriately by a small committee of ten or 20 Members. It would be to the benefit of the House and of the legislation if we had more time to tease it out. It might also eliminate some of the difficulties that can arise in legislation. At present the Bill initiated by Deputy Shatter is being dealt with by a special committee which is working well. If we had more committees discussing the finer details of legislation it would lead to a better and more progressive legislative programme.
Speaking as a former party Whip, we seem to have a certain paranoia about the Whip system which we adopted from the British, although they have to some extent moved away from it. There are philosophical differences between the parties in this House. That is why people belong to one group rather than another. That is why Deputy Howlin belongs to the Labour Party and I am in a different kind of party. Within parties people can have difficulties with the official party line, particularly in relation to moral questions. It is a pity we still have such a rigid system. If a Deputy does not vote with his party the consequence is that he or she is out of that party, with all the difficulties that brings. We must develop a sense of maturity and accept that if a person has a conscientious difference of opinion on a moral question or on any other question, he or she should have the right to vote according to conscience and should not have to suffer the consequences of being outside the Party.
Our Whip system is governed by the need of the Government to have a majority in the House and the consequences which follow when the Government are beaten. There is a notion that if the Government are beaten there is something terribly wrong. I do not agree. If legislation voted through by a majority of the Dáil, regardless of the wishes of the Government, were taken on board as the view of the Dáil that would be progress. That is how most people would like to see business being conducted. In that way we will get a healthier parliamentary system. That we are forced to negotiate everything to make sure that the Government are not beaten puts pressures on a minority Government and is wrong. It clogs up our system and leads to many difficulties. We do not need to continue under that regime in this day rand age.
With regard to Friday sittings, Deputy Bruton, when Leader of the House, referred to it as being a good idea to meet on Fridays to discuss Private Members' Bills but that votes should take place during, for example, the following week. That is a very good suggestion that we need to re-examine. Many Deputies are coming forward with good ideas, wanting to bring forward Bills but because of the rigid system under which the House operates, if one brings forward a Bill nobody in that party can bring forward a Bill, or their Bill is never discussed. I find it very infuriating that debates take place on radio programmes, through the newspapers and on television on major issues but we never have an opportunity to discuss such matters on the floor of this House. It is a great pity and the country suffers as a result. It was that kind of incident which led to the difficulties today for Deputy Molloy. It is crazy that this morning on a radio programme two people could discuss rod licences and that this could have been discussed yesterday or every other day, up and down this country and yet the main House of Parliament cannot have a discussion or response to the situation that has developed. If we continue to apply such rigid rules to ourselves, is it any wonder that people are cynical and tell us that we are not being responsive, are not copping on to the developing situation and are becoming irrelevant? It is we who are making ourselves irrelevant by allowing almost everybody else to discuss important matters and failing to discuss them ourselves. I am getting very near the limit that I imposed on myself at the beginning of my contribution.
The Deputy has gone beyond it.
I shall not exceed the 15 minutes to which I committed myself. If we are to open up our proceedings to television we will have to take on board all the consequences of that. It is not television that will make this House irrelevant, or make people cynical about Deputies, it is Deputies themselves. We, as a group of all parties, must respond to the demands and pressures that will come from televising the procedures of the House, update our procedures, change our ways, have real and meaningful debates and more committees of the House to discuss issues such as health and education. If the people have problems and see us failing to respond to those problems, not even discussing them, they will become cynical and will say that our parliamentary institutes are becoming irrelevant. We will then give a weapon to those who want to destroy parliamentary democracy as we know it.
The Progressive Democrats support this motion. I look forward to the debate that it will open up with regard to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. As the Minister of State has already said, that committee have engaged themselves in discussing many of these procedures. Most of the debate has been initiated by Deputy Bruton. I congratulate him on his efforts, particularly to change Question Time. Question Time may have changed but we still receive letters telling us that questions are disallowed because they are argumentative, or anticipated a debate, or whatever. Many questions are still ruled out of order for what I would regard as farcical, ridiculous reasons.
We have control over our own affairs here. It is lucky that we do. Members complain about not having the necessary facilities. We have neither proper offices nor proper research facilities. If one cannot get in the Library of this Parliament a copy of a report which is to be discussed in this House that is our fault. It is because of the way in which we run our affairs. We should change that. This discussion will lead to many procedural changes. It will make us think about our own affairs and that is a good thing.
There were some interesting views on Government in the last contribution. I share the view that it would be a tragedy if anybody in this House voted against the Government at this time.
The sponsors of this proposal are aiming at making a major change which will affect the workings of the House. It is incumbent on the sponsors of that motion that they produce fresh and persuasive arguments in favour of change. I have great sympathy with the motion and congratulate those who put the document together. This is a worthwhile debate, as the Minister of State has said. We will shortly be the only parliament of the member states of the EC that does not televise its proceedings. The decision, effectively, is being made by history.
Basically, six arguments have been adduced in the document in favour of change. The first, and to my mind the most persuasive, argument produced is the concept that televising the Dáil is in line with the spirit of the Constitution. This is an argument which cannot be dismissed. Article 15.8.1º of the Constitution provides that the operating and sitting of the Houses of the Oireachtas should be in public and what better way to make them available to all members of the public, or at least to those who are sufficiently masochistic to look in on our proceedings, than to have them televised?
The second argument adduced is that television is the main means of conveying politicial information and that therefore the Dáil should have access to it. The inverse of that argument is that television, as the main medium, should have access to the Dáil. The print media have a long tradition of access to the proceedings of this House and its predecessors. Radio in more recent times has gained access. There was some novelty in the idea of radio coming into the Dáil not too many years ago but the sky did not fall, there was not a major upheaval in the homes of the land. I suspect that the same would be the case, after the initial stir, if and when television becomes part of the operations of this House.
I am not sure that I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument put forward that in some way television would enhance the procedures of the Dáil or its reputation in a democratic sense. I very seldom find compelling the argument that we should do something because others have done it before. The fourth argument put forward in the document is the view that videos and films would provide an interesting and important historical record. One of the novel facts is that proceedings in this House at this time on this issue are not being recorded in the visual sense. That is interesting because, if nothing else, it would illustrate the paucity of interest of some Deputies in this issue if the cameras were here. I find it odd, when one is lecturing on parliamentary procedures and wants to illustrate some fact of parliamentary life that at present one must depend on videos and film clips from other institutions. I accept that that is a valid argument in favour of change.
The suggestion is also made that televising the Dáil would heighten public awareness of the debates here and that this would allow a more balanced assessment of the work of Deputies to be made by the general public. I am one of those people who believe that a more balanced assessment of Deputies work urgently needs to be made by the general public.
I wonder if allowing television in here will produce a more balanced view of what the Dáil Deputy is about. We all spend the bulk of our time out of this Chamber involved in servicing our constituents' needs. I do not disagree with that. I take issue with the common view that we service the constituents' needs to an excessive extent. However, I accept the argument that there is something wrong with the balance in the way we spend our time. I do not accept the view that putting television in here would change that, or would change the imperative that means we spend much of our time on one pursuit and not enough on the legislative process. That is a wider issue. Certainly, televised debates of the Dáil would highlight those parts of the debates which could do with highlighting. I suspect that would be a danger in that there would be a temptation for those who would edit the debates to focus on specific high points.
The authors of the document suggest that the introduction of television should improve the quality of debates. If that were to be the case I would welcome it. I accept the argument made in the document that there is need for shorter debates and that there is need for us to utilise the time of the House in a better way. The thesis that the introduction of television would have this beneficial effect needs to be supported. If this were to be the effect it would be a potent argument in favour of televising the Dáil.
The authors of the document also set out to deal with the arguments against the case. The most serious argument is that it would lead to a trivialisation of the Dáil. One of the great things about the Dáil at the moment is that absent benches sometimes mean that those who could come in here and be involved in trivialisation are elsewhere doing something they consider to be more important so there is a degree of self-editing there. There would be a temptation to trivialise the proceedings of this House. Some years ago I visited the Canadian Parliament and there was a discussion about the impact of television. There was undoubtedly a degree of playing to the gallery and some individuals were hogging the camera. Some procedure would need to be adopted to discourage that type of activity.
Another argument against televising the Dáil is that the empty seats would be misunderstood or misrepresented. The empty seats in this House, just as the empty seats in other parliamentary assemblies, are a fact of life. It would be no harm if, from time to time, they were explained to the public and also the small proportion of time that can be spent by Members of this House on their parliamentary duties, on their legislative responsibilities. If that enhanced understanding of the weight of business that presses on a Deputy, it would be a beneficial rather than a negative effect.
It is also argued that it may restrict full freedom of expression. That is an argument about which we need not worry. There are very few shrinking violets here. Not too many Deputies are easily perturbed by the media and far from it restricting full freedom of expression the existence of cameras would encourage Deputies to express themselves perhaps more freely and probably at greater length.
The most serious potential disadvantage would be the temptation to abuse the privilege of the Dáil. This can happen at the moment and when privilege is abused the abuse can be reported. In arguing that there could be an abuse of the Dáil we are simply arguing that there would be an additional media through which the Dáil privilege could be abused. It is an issue that will need the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because from time to time there will be a temptation for people in the full glare of television cameras to name others who are not present and who cannot defend themsleves.
The document circulated also deals with the concept of presenting the Dáil at its best. It is an important thing for us to consider not just in the context of televising the Dáil. In the general context of how the Dáil operates it is important for us to consider how we can enhance and improve the operations of the Dáil. In this regard I acknowledge the work of Deputy Bruton. There is no doubt that speeches are unduly long and that we could limit the time available. There is no doubt that we need the other improvements Deputy Harney mentioned.
The argument that we need better research facilities for Members of the House is one that cannot be answered. The facilities for research here are minimal in the extreme and are a disgrace. Anyone who takes any legislative issues seriously must look for private briefing and for assistance outside. That is not good enough. One of the things that may happen from allowing television into this House is that it would put pressure on the powers that be to provide that basic requirement. In that regard it is astonishing when one reads articles on the role of the TD that it is suggested that the provision of secretarial assistance to the TD is a waste of public funds. In fact, the non-provision of research facilities is a criminal waste of the capacity of Members of this House.
Deputy Harney mentioned more businesslike hours. I would cetainly like to see more businesslike hours operated in this House. The present arrangements are archaic and the lengthy recesses leave us open to the charge that we do not take the business of the House seriously. The fact that we may be absent from television may help to highlight that and to force change. More flexible work practices were mentioned as well as the stifling effect of the rules and procedures of this House. They are archaic. We inherited them from Britain at a time when they were designed for a Parliament that served an empire when the empire was already at an end and that Parliament was already in transition. Yet, we never made that transition. We need more flexible arrangements. We need to respond immediately, without being found out of order, to the issues and the pressures of the day.
A point was made about more committees. the work of the committees in the House is praised by people interested in parliamentary reform. Every paper produced on parliamentary reform makes arguments for the committee system. The argument is continuously trotted out that we could do our work in a more businesslike way if we had more committees. The argument is made that there would be less controversy and that this would be less like a gladiatorial arena if we had more committees. I am committed to the concept of expanding the committee system but I wonder if televising the House would assist in the activities of the committees? One of the complaints that Members who serve on committees have is that their work gains minimal public acceptance and support. The committees are not well covered by the media at present. Because of pressure on reporters' time the work of committees is not recognised although Members give many valuable hours to their work on committees. Unless the committees were to be televised that problem would be exacerbated by introducing television into this Chamber. This is a problem that will have to be addressed.
The paper which has been produced and circulated is very welcome. One of the welcome aspects is that it deals with the practicalities of television broadcasting of the Dáil, and as the potential intrusiveness of television personnel on the floor but we need not worry or concern ourselves unduly in that regard. The argument has been made that lighting could be obtrusive but I think that problem could be overcome. The points which have been made about the practicalities have been accepted. Let me conclude by referring to something that was said by a Canadian parliamentarian. He said that shedding the light of public scrutiny into the dark recesses of parliamentary life and public life is always welcome. I welcome this proposal.