Deputy Roche was in possession and he has some 15 minutes left of the time allotted to him.
Private Members' Business. - Televising of Dáil Proceedings and Reform of Dáil Procedures: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Brien on 17 May 1988:
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.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In the second line to delete "within three months" and substitute "within six months".
—(Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach).
Last night I welcomed this proposal. There were as I suggested potential drawbacks in televising Dáil proceedings. It could, as is suggested in the booklet circulated by the Deputies putting forward the motion, trivialise the work of the House, although, occasionally we would not need the assistance of television cameras to do that. Members of the House can, as we saw yesterday, quite adequately trivialise the work of this House without any outside help or hindrance. The appearance of empty seats could, it is suggested, be misconstrued by the voting public, and the most important drawback, the privilege of the House could be abused. On the positive side I accepted the suggestion made by the promoters of the motion that television coverage would be in line with the spirit of the Constitution. It would allow in the last information or news medium which is denied access to the House and it would provide a valuable and useful historical record.
I questioned the suggestion that television cameras in Dáil Éireann would either heighten public awareness of the Dáil or of the work of the Members or increase the respect of the general public for Dáil Éireann. It seemed to me that these were somewhat inflated claims. I also queried the belief that television coverage could improve the sometimes dreadful level of debate which takes place in this House. That is far too much to hope for. It would take a whole host of Bunny Carrs, years of patience and a more selective electoral system to achieve that end but I give marks to the Deputies opposite for trying.
The case for television coverage of the House lies not with inflated claims as to the benefits but with the simple fact that it is inconceivable that there should be a permanent exclusion of television cameras from the Dáil. Accepting, as all speakers have accepted, that television coverage is inevitable and it is something to be welcomed, we should turn our minds during this debate to how the potentially negative impact of coverage can be minimised. In the document circulated by Deputy Bruton a number of the practicalities of television broadcasting are addressed. The point is made that there is no need to have television personnel on the floor of the House. This, as Deputies know, is the practice in other parliamentary assemblies. It is not a good practice. Roving camera crews and sound persons would be an unacceptable intrusion. The point is made that modern equipment would not need strong lighting and there is little fear therefore that Deputies could be parboiled, at least not by the equipment.
Having rejected the idea of a mobile television crew in the House, it is suggested that the House could be covered by static and remotely controlled cameras. This could give rise to problems as the jockeying for seats during the visits of President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Hawke illustrated recently. Members of this House and Members of the Upper House have an innate and even unnerving capacity to recognise a good seat and once the prime location is identified they are willing to employ such measures as are necessary to acquire the good seat. It may, to avoid a degree of undignified jockeying at the beginning of each day's business, be necessary as part of this arrangement to ensure some sort of pre-assignment of seats.
There is a more serious issue that should receive the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges where they come to examine the proposal, and this is the question of editorial control. Of practical necessity the amount of air time that can be given on television to parliamentary debates will be limited. It is likely that left to its own devices the television station will inevitably focus on specific items or parts of Dáil coverage that will provide a degree of televisual opportunities. Question Time would be an obvious focus and this is mentioned in the document which has been circulated. It has obvious attractions for procedures. It is most economical in terms of staff and it offers a relatively brief period during which action can almost inevitably be guaranteed.
The introduction of legislation, in particular the Second Stage speeches, would again afford an attractive focus for the cameras and for the producers. In both cases there are potential problems so far as offering a balanced representation of the operations of the Dáil is concerned. Both occasions tend to focus heavily on Ministers and on senior party spokespersons and only occasionally would backbenchers become involved in this procedure. The most obvious focus from the backbenchers, given this need to edit, would be the troublesome member — the Deputy who is anxious to absent himself or herself from the House for a mini-break or perhaps to do some fishing in Galway — who could clearly create an incident, getting excluded from the House and get the benefit of his or her theatrical performance in the constituency. A protest such as this may be electorally helpful at election time but it is not helpful in the context of how this House is perceived. This happens at the moment.
What about the Enniskerry Newsletter.
And the lottery grants.
(Interruptions.)
The Kilcoole Newsletter and the Wolfe Tone and District Youth Club Newsletter and the other 43. I am proud of what I achieve for my constituents. The Deputy mentioned only the lottery grants. In fact there was a good deal more than that in the way of achievements mentioned in the Enniskerry Newsletter.
We have it on record that the Deputy claimed responsibility for the lottery grants.
I claim responsibility for arguing but I will debate the lottery grants on another day.
Let us hear the Deputy without interruption, please.
Jealousy will get the Deputies nowhere. The facts are that a prima donna performance, as we had yesterday, when somebody who changes from time to time his opinions on issues such as fishery licences would inevitably be highlighted by television coverage, by the necessity to be selective, to edit. It would not do much for the dignity of this House if that were the type of matter to be highlighted by the inclusion of television in the House. It is clear that these problems would need to get the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in their deliberations. It is clear, as suggested by the Deputies who have sponsored the motion, that a strict code of practice would be necessary and should be established.
On the other side of the scales a code of practice will need to establish that the less sensational work of the House should also be covered. Last night I referred in particular to committees. One of the sad facts of life is that while the proceedings of this House and the parliamentary reporting in Ireland are generally far better than elsewhere, the work of parliamentary committees, such as exist at the moment, does not receive due attention and does not receive the degree of focus that committee work should receive. Committees do not receive the attention they need. I would not wish that the committee would become the media circus which is the case in congressional committees in the US. It strikes me that when the code of practice is set up — I am presuming that there will be a code of practice because I am presuming that we will progress in that direction — it will be necessary to incorporate a balance of all activities whether committee work, work on the ordinary parts of legislation or on the non-sensational parts of legislation. In the code of practice it would be very important and in the case of committees it would be vital that the committees be covered. That would be doubly beneficial. It would highlight not just the work of the committee but would give some incentive to Members to be active on these committees.
The committee in their deliberations might consider the question of public demand. The TV station undoubtedly wants access in order to feed newsworthy films into its news and current affairs programmes. That is reasonable. Members of the House are not unconscious of the publicity value of TV cameras in the House, but the one thing we have not established to date is whether there is any public demand for this. If we are to allow TV cameras in here it might be worth while establishing what degree of interest there would be in this change. We could try to establish the degree of coverage and the output at the end of the day. For a number of years I have supported the view that this House should be open to TV and I congratulate Deputies Bruton and O'Brien for bringing forward this motion. There is no way we can stop this change, whether it comes about in six months or a year. I am certain that within the next 12 months we will see TV cameras in here.
I hope the points I put forward — I do not mean them to be in any way political because I am a fan of this proposal — can be taken on board. In particular I hope we will have a fruitful discussion on this project in the CPP. We are coming to the concept of televising this House very late in the day. Sometimes it is a considerable advantage to come to an innovation late in the day because there is a wealth of experience in other parliamentary assemblies, on the positive and negative sides. Deputy O'Brien mentioned that we have the experience in the Canadian Parliament to go on. That was not a particularly happy experiment. I know from my contacts with parliamentarians there that they were very unhappy with the focus, particularly the focus on the gladiatorial cross tennis matches that went on there at Question Time every day. As the Deputies have pointed out in their document, there is a distinct difference in the way we handle Question Time here and that should ameliorate or modify the potentially negative impact there. The Canadian Parliament itself and some of its committees have given a good deal of consideration particularly on the issue of editorial control. We can look at their experience, hear what they have to say and learn and benefit from it.
I welcome this debate on behalf of the Labour Party and compliment Deputy Bruton in particular for initiating a discussion and going to the bother and trouble of preparing a discussion document. Too often we can be totally preoccupied with tackling the daily business of this House and not stand back to examine with any degree of impartiality the methodology with which we go about our daily business.
The motion before us calls for two things (1) to examine the televising of proceedings in the Dáil (2) to ask the CPP to examine in a general way how we conduct our business with regard to length of speeches, procedures for dealing with urgent matters and the relevancy and admissibility of Parliamentary Questions. All these things deserve careful consideration and tonight is an appropriate time to do that. Like Deputy Harney, I will try to confine myself tightly to time with the contribution I make and impose on myself that discipline we would exhort others in every debate to apply.
In relation to the first issue, televising the proceedings of the House, in the discussion document Deputies Bruton and O'Brien comment about the constitutional provision which requires that sittings of this House and of the other House shall be in public. We must pay attention to that. The almost empty galleries for most of our discussions do not fit in with the spirit of open debate. Therefore, the way in which the procedures and debates of these Houses normally reach the public at large is through the print medium. Because of limited space and the demands of journalism that medium obviously has to make judgments, and its value judgments on what is newsworthy often confound the Members of the House who have taken on an issue, researched it and worked on a speech. Indeed, a colleague of mine this day who felt he had made a very worthy contribution to the Forestry Bill last night, a very experienced Deputy who did an amount of research and once held the Minister's portfolio, commented that there was not a line in the press today about his contribution. Yet, any Member of this House can contrive to grab the headlines in any of the newspapers by being unruly.
We need to see how we can conform to the constitutional exhortation to have public meetings of these Houses. On the information the public get through the media their perception of this House and of the Members of this House is formed. It is not overstating the case — it is almost a truism — to state that the stock of politicians is particularly low and that many members of the general public have a very low regard for them. Many politicians themselves denigrate one another and compound the low regard in which politicians are held by the general public. I refer to a measure in this House today to move out of the political sphere of influence the issuing of the national lottery moneys because it was felt that politicians could not be trusted. These are fundamental questions. If we, as politicians, give the impression that politicians cannot be trusted and that some body appointed by politicians is a safer group to dispense moneys or to monitor any situation, that puts a certain threat on democracy.
The fundamental thing is public accountability, and the only people who are really accountable are the elected Members of this House who on a regular basis have to face the electorate. They are accountable every weekend or every day when they return to their constituencies and have to face the general public and periodic elections.
Impartiality is sometimes useful.
The issue of democracy itself is raised. If we fail as a House and as individual politicians to maintain the confidence of the public we are undermining and eroding democracy itself.
I want to state the Labour Party's position with regard to broadcasting the procedures of this House. We support fully the concept of public access to all activities of the House and all the subcommittees of the House. We will give full encouragement and endorsement to this motion and to the speedy implementation of any recommendations which will eventually come from the CPP that will bring in visual broadcasting as well as sound broadcasting of our proceedings here.
What is our experience to date? It has been in the area of radio and I remember some of the fears expressed when the pilot scheme was introduced. I compliment RTE on their magnificent, competent and professional handling of reporting the procedures of this House. Despite all the fears and barriers that some Members felt and tried to put in the way of sound broadcasting, it has been a complete and total success. I am quite surprised at the number of people who listen regularly to the reports of the proceedings of the Dáil and Seanad broadcast by RTE. It brings the Members of this House directly to the people, makes us more relevant and keeps us on our toes. The general public know the names of those whose voices are never heard because they do not contribute often, if ever, to the proceedings of the House.
What were the fears originally voiced in relation to sound broadcasting? The first which — is obviously even more relevant in terms of television — is the unruly Member, the individual who will play to the gallery. There have been gimmicks and outrageous acts in this House and indeed in every other Parliament in the world. The symbol of authority in the Parliament of our neighbouring island, the mace, was thrown to the ground. That brought condemnation from all sides but acts which bring notoriety to individual Members are the exception and not the rule.
Contrary to the viewpoint put forward that televising this House would encourage such gimmickry, it would have the opposite effect as people would be very loath to be seen as clowns and fools on the national media because the short-term notoriety would be damaging politically in the long term.
Hear, hear.
The electorate are very sensible and they are respectful and mindful of the competent work of Members of the House. They pay more attention to that than they do to outrageous antics by individuals or headline grabbers.
I understand the frustrations that Members of this House feel occasionally when they try to raise a matter that is urgent, immediate and of national concern and which the procedures of this House debar them from raising. Unfortunately, it is no great comfort to be told that there are other ways of raising the matter. If they put down a parliamentary question it takes at least four sitting days to get an answer. They may have to go to the CPP or explore some other avenue when they feel passionately about an issue that affects their constituency, the electorate and — often — the country. We need to make this House relevant to the ordinary needs of its Members and to the electorate as a whole.
The other point raised was that television would damage the image of the House by showing the empty seats. Other speakers commenting on this issue last night said that the solution is to bring everybody into the House. I always get a little bit annoyed when I read reports of debates attended by only six or eight Members of the House. My position is no different from that of any other Member. From the time we come in here at 9 a.m. or so until we leave—it will be 11 o'clock tonight—every minute is occupied either in committees, dealing with visitors or the procedures of the House. It is not physically possible to work competently as a Member of this House and be physically sitting in the Chamber all day. We each have monitors in our offices, we follow proceedings on the monitor and we each have an area of responsibility. Our parliamentary position is taken within the parliamentary party and enunciated by the spokesperson of that party. It is not desirable or attainable that all 166 Deputies should constantly be seated in the Chamber. It is an expectation which we should not encourage because it is unreal. There is a myriad of other aspects to the work of a Deputy apart from sitting in the Chamber listening to debates. That should be recognised and stated.
In terms of giving the wrong image, many of those fears could be overcome by merely looking up a report and seeing the technicalities involved. I had the privilege of seeing the very elaborate communications and television system in the American Congress. They have a procedure whereby only the speaker addressing the floor of Congress and the chairperson of the session are focused on by automatic cameras. There is a studio below the floor of Congress and there are no sound men or camera men working on the floor. It is all done by remote control from the studio below the floor of the Congress Chamber. They have their own cable network and they provide this broadcast directly to the public or to news stations which pay a fee to take the proceedings of the Houses. All these fears in relation to giving the image of the House a bad name can be overcome. They are merely technical difficulties which can be solved without any great difficulty.
Members have a great responsibility to make this House not only relevant but seen to be relevant. In recent weeks and months, every time we turn on our radio or television sets, there are news, current affairs or general chat programmes dealing with the issues which are of concern to the people. It is an appalling frustration for us and incomprehensible to the general public to know that these matters can be discussed on radio and television, and indeed at every bar counter in the country, but are often precluded from being debated in this House. We must address that fundamental difficulty. If the procedures of the House are not seen to be relevant they must be changed because the very essence of democracy is having the support and the confidence If the general public that the national Parliament can respond to their everyday needs and wishes in a quick and efficient manner.
Private Members' Business is a very important part of the procedure of the House. Because of the division of time, the Labour Party get roughly one slot of Private Members' Business per Dáil session and the same is true of the Progressive Democrats. I suppose the retort from the Government benches and Fine Gael would be that we should get more Members elected. However, the problem goes deeper than that. Often, crucial issues could be debated in Private Members' time. They would not be contentious or politically damaging, they would be relevant and Private Members' time, even if it means extended sittings of the House, should be considered. The voice and the role of Opposition parties needs to be strengthened. The Government control everything. They order business and often business is ordered which is not crucial and urgent while Private Members' Business which is crucial and urgent is sidestepped by the procedures.
There was much comment last night on the inadequacy of support facilities for Members of this House. Back-up support for Members is practically non-existent. The drafting amendments to legislation or the preparing of questions is left to each Member. In parties the size of the Labour Party or the Progressive Democrats each elected Member is a spokesperson for a particular area and we must find support groups to help us draft technical amendments to legislation. That procedure is not adequate and it does not help the processing of legislation in the House or improve its quality. It is wrong that in our areas of responsibility we do not get adequate support or briefing so as to be able to debate effectively all legislation that is put through the House.
Last night Deputy Harney suggested that there might be a useful role for the Law Reform Commission to play in this area. Many useful reports of that body were adopted by committees of the House. We all have had the experience when discussing such reports at committee meetings of receiving reports from Government Departments that do not bear any relationship to them or consider the deep research that has gone into their preparation. Obviously, we are not utilising the Law Reform Commission fully and we should give serious consideration to Deputy Harney's suggestion in regard to it.
One aspect of the area of inadequate research that I have become aware of is the strength of lobby groups outside the House. Any lobby group that is organised can use very professional research facilities to put forward a case that coincides with their economic or political objectives. Members faced with a very impressive and professionally prepared lobby paper have their position undermined. They often have to accept the lobbyist's research at its face value because they do not have any counter-position to put forward or the resources to check the facts. That often results in undue influence being put on Members and parties here. Often we do not have the objective view because of the weight of research that is available to lobby groups to push a particular case. Unbalanced legislation has been enacted in these Houses because of the lack of resources available to Members.
In relation to facilities in the House generally, the short statement is that they are inadequate and appalling at every level but we do not have the courage to address that. We are cramped in a building that is grossly inadequate for the number of people who work in it. The Labour Party offices must accommodate five TDs. Over the centuries there was a lot of effort put into providing an independent Parliament for the Irish people and that Parliament, and this democracy, has a price and a pride. As elected Members we must have that pride in these Houses and be willing to pay the price for an efficient democracy that serves our people. We must fund our own business in a way that we have never been willing to do in the past.
It is interesting to note that in all the cost-cutting exercises that took place in our neighbouring island under Prime Minister Thatcher the one area of operation that she specifically exempted from cuts was the Houses of Parliament. She recognised Parliament as being a crucial and important institution.
There may have been other reasons for that.
It is important that we, who have undermined our position by not insisting on proper and adequate facilities, should recognise that. This is not the first initiative taken by Deputy Bruton. As Leader of the House in 1983 he commissioned a report on new technology for Leinster House. A huge amount of work went into the preparation of that report and it is worth looking at it to see if any of the recommendations have been implemented. The answer is that we have progressed very little. If anything, we may have gone back a few steps. In the last Dáil we had made progress in the area of committees with more and more work being dealt with by more Members in committee. More Deputies were involved in the processing of legislation through the committee system but we have fewer committees in this Dáil. It is a pity that the advances we made in the last Dáil have not been continued.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the following statement in the 1983 report:
The deficiencies are known to the Members. The debate on Dáil reform in January and February 1983 drew a wide range of speakers from all sides of the House. Members criticised the lack of facilities and the time-consuming procedures that are a feature of Leinster House operations. There was expressed a strong resolve to reform the procedures and update the facilities and administrative arrangements.
Have we done anything to improve the facilities since? I fear not. That report went on to state:
The deficiencies are also known to the administrative and support staff of the House. The two hundred staff — transcribing and editing, library and research, translating and interpreting, security, maintenance and general clerical and administrative staff — operate almost entirely without the benefit of modern technical aids.
It would be worth inquiring what technical aids exist and the progress made in that regard. To go through the report, as I did this evening, makes one despair somewhat that all the good effort, positive thought and enthusiasm that went into the preparation of the report went the way of so many other good ideas and intentions, to gather dust on a shelf.
I will not bore the House by going through the report in detail but I recommend it as light reading to Members. Recommendations on such items as computers and the use of, word processing and the use of, videotex and the use of, and databases were made in that report but to most Members they amount to a foreign language. We do not have the resources to provide them and the money has never been provided by vote of the Oireachtas. We must decide for ourselves if we are serious, if we take our business seriously.
It is interesting to note that all that work has been abandoned. I wonder if at 8.30 p.m. when we conclude this debate it will go the way of all others and be forgotten or whether there will be a genuine consensus view, across party lines, to do something about updating and improving the facilities for Members and the procedures of these Houses.
Another area I should like to mention is that of Parliamentary Questions which are often staged managed and lack spontaneity. How can they be spontaneous when four days' notice is required? We receive a prescribed and preset answer, the supplementaries are guessed at and replies to them put into the Minister's brief. That contrasts with other parliaments. I had the privilege of observing Question Time in the Australian Parliament and I noted that the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet, are on daily notice to take spontaneous questions from the Floor of the House at Question Time. We must look at the matter of improving the procedure for Parliamentary Questions to bring them up to date and to make the Ministers respond to the needs of the day instead of being cosseted by Civil Service briefs prepared well in advance.
Deputy Harney challenged the party system and her comments serve as an interesting talking point. The implication is that we should have freedom from the party Whips and should all be individuals.
On certain matters.
I was drawn into this House and into politics by a conviction about fundamental principles. That is why I joined a party that is principled. Those principles and convictions are expressed within a party system. We have a party-based political system. Within my party policy is decided by conference, by vote of the membership of the party. That is passed through the system to the parliamentary party and acted upon in this House. It is inconceivable that each of the 12 members of the Labour Party could ignore the policies and principles of the party of which they are members. The Labour Party is not a party of 12 individuals but of people who have a view of the type of society we want to have.
(Interruptions.)
We have an important duty as legislators to preserve the supremacy of Parliament in the life of the country. We have become somewhat irrelevant to the fundamental daily lives of many people. I hope this debate will act as a stimulus to an examination of the procedures of this House and that we have the courage to update them. I commend the motion and congratulate the Fine Gael Deputies for tabling it.
I compliment Deputy Bruton for formulating the document and putting it before the House. It is not the first occasion on which he has pioneered policy. He is to be complimented on his detailed research and on his attitude to the formulation of policy when in Opposition. I recall reading works he produced on the national finances and other matters, all of which were very well researched.
Everybody seems to be agreed in principle about the televising of the Dáil proceedings. We live in an era of improved communications and television is recognised as the most powerful medium. We should allow people the facility of seeing the workings of the Dáil, but the whole matter will have to be looked at in great detail to see how this policy can be put into effect. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, agreed in principle yesterday that this is the procedure which should be pursued.
I now turn to the practicalities of establishing a balance in the televising of proceedings. There could be an attempt to abuse the fact that television cameras are in the Chamber. Yesterday we had the case of a Member being suspended from the House. This has happened to Members from all sides of the House over a period. I suppose one can be critical of the media for reporting that type of occurrence so widely that it takes on a greater importance than virtually all the other proceedings in the Dáil that day. It is just the kind of thing which could drag this House into disrepute and is very bad publicity in regard to the workings of the Dáil.
In order to allow this matter to be discussed further and to have some form of blueprint drawn up, there is a need for the party Whips and the television producers to discuss the mechanics of procedural arrangements, what would be covered on camera and how the technical aspects would affect the Chamber. All these matters need to be discussed at length. I am not sure whether the Minister of State recommended that the matter be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, of which I am a member, or to some other committee. It is certainly desirable to proceed in that way.
It is very important to strike an equitable balance. RTE have a monitoring arrangement whereby they allocate time to party spokesmen by reference to the percentage support which each party receives from the electorate. That is to be commended. Deputy Bruton's document refers to the fact that, in the absence of direct coverage of the Dáil, television producers attempt to stage shadow Dáil debates on such programmes as "Today Tonight" and "Questions and Answers". There is a need to consult the television producers in formulating a policy on equitable reporting.
There are other technicalities relating to a fixed podium and a fixed camera but it is claimed that it would be necessary to get a complete sweep of the Chamber. There are regular comments on the absence of Deputies from the Chamber, especially by pupils on school outings. We believe we have a credible explanation but it is not very acceptable because it is complicated and not fully understood.
We would probably have to monitor the percentage of time allocated to Question Time and the various debates. Would the Committee Stage of a Bill make good or bad television? It would be very impressive for the public to see how meticulously legislation is discussed. It would improve communications between the Dáil and the general public.
Perhaps we could take the first step in regard to this matter. There have already been requests to televise the proceedings of some of the all-party Oireachtas committees.
As chairman of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies, I have had a request from RTE based on the work we are doing with some of the very important semi-State companies. Such meetings would make pretty good television. It would show the public at large that we are monitoring the investment by the taxpayer in State companies and it would give all sorts of interest groups the opportunity of making representations. That is the art of good communication and good accountability. I strongly suggest that in the investigations that will proceed from this debate, with all-party agreement, which I believe is forthcoming from the House, they are issues which should be addressed and in some detail.
Committees such as the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies have an arm's length contact with virtually the total annual financial Vote of this House. We are probably indirectly in a position to seek answers to and get information on something like £7,000 million to £8,000 million of Government spending annually. That is where accountability is on the top of the needle and where the public should be satisfied that the public representatives, the politicians, are on top of the brief and are getting value for money.
There is a general acceptance that our tax levels are very high. People are interested in how that money is spent, allocated and accounted for. The work of the committees in the last ten years, after the initial attempt to get cheap publicity and over-publication which can happen from time to time, is now proceeding. They have a very major interest for the public and would make good television. I know that Deputy Barnes on the Joint Committee on Women's Rights recently produced a very comprehensive work. That document took much painstaking research, it entailed many submissions and hearings and various interest groups explained their viewpoints. In many ways, that would be excellent television and be of great interest to the public generally.
We should not be over-concerned about popularity. Out of every 100 people questioned, you will get a very wide spread of opinion as to the merits or otherwise of televising the Dáil, the House of Lords, the United States Congress or the Canadian Houses of Parliament as referred to in the policy document. It is hoped we are more concerned with communicating the efficiency and workings of Parliament. The individual type of question as for instance at Question Time, has a broad appeal and interest. It is applicable to many people. There also are the weighty matters of legislation. We would not be over-concerned about it being good, popular confrontational TV programmes. We would be much more interested that it would show a businesslike working efficiency from the Dáil.
As Deputy Bruton comments in his document, it would also help to get across the message to the public that there is this element of research, study and indepth analysis in the contributions and presentations made to the House by other than Ministers or Cabinet office holders backed up by the executive arm of Government. There are many front bench spokespersons who put a lot of detail, time and energy into their work in this House. Such work has to be researched and the back-up and support are not that great. That, coming across on television, would give an impression that the public at present do not get. It would be refreshing and helpful for them to realise that on many occasions there is cross-party support, that the House is united on various issues, that we do not necessarily disagree on everything in this House. It would be a progressive communications achievement with the public that we are at one where issues are critical, perhaps on foreign policy, on social issues, on a matter such as this proposal for the introduction of TV. On very many occasions we end up in agreement on issues that have been fully debated and discussed. That type of consensus would help the public at large to realise that the political system is there for the common good and that the arguments for and against can be debated and a consensus gained on those issues that are agreeable.
The arguments in the document against televising the Dáil when studied in some detail do not stand up. The point about the empty seat I have already referred to. The restrictions on the movement of cameras and personnel on the floor of the House, lighting and so forth can all be dealt with on a technical and management level. One example, perhaps not a great one for the Irish people, is the House of Lords. Very often one can see there interesting debates and a worthwhile presentation. At other times it can be very boring and uninteresting. The experiment, in general, has probably been successful. It is not confrontational, it has not the cut and thrust of politics which would be good television in so far as one could see the differences emerging as in the case of the past 12 months in this House when the Government and some of the Opposition parties were at one and others were opposed to certain difficult decisions we had to take. The public would have a much better understanding of some of those issues if much of the debate which went on had been recorded and presented to them in a balanced and reasoned way.
Deputy Howlin touched on another point to which I would like to refer and no doubt it would be near and dear to the hearts of Deputies Bruton, De Rossa and Barnes — that is, lack of research and support. When the Taoiseach took over as leader of my party, he set about endeavouring to make fairly substantial progress in this area. I was charged with responsibility for endeavouring to computerise or automate the support mechanisms of Dáil Deputies right across party lines. One of the first things was to get extra accommodation, which was obtained in the College of Art. The second matter was the meagre step forward of a secretary per Deputy and then there was the question of automating to the extent of dictaphones, tapes and so forth. We then looked at the possibility of what was then called a Search right programme from one of the computer suppliers, where a particular type of programme could be put in situ that would support the workings of each Dáil Deputy in his or her constituency record-keeping and streamline much laborious, repetitive administrative work. Reasonable progress was made on those fronts, but not enough. However, there was very little progress made on the actual research facilities.
I find a great gap between the third level educational institutions and the parliamentarians, that we cannot establish some form of conduit of research support which could be part of a thesis of study or presentation of eventual work that some third level graduates would have to produce. This is a major gap and one that would want to be looked at alongside the televising of the proceedings of this House.
As the document suggested, televising the proceedings of the Dáil will certainly raise the level of debate. If Deputies knew they were going to be televised when speaking on legislation or other business, their research would be more thorough. They are entitled to support in their research. There are many issues near and dear to the hearts of many Deputies and they would love to have time and the back-up to do indepth research. There are many areas of over-spending, lack of accountability and areas where social legislation is required.
One of the major improvements in this House since I first came in, in 1977, is that Bills on policy issues are being put forward. In years gone by it would be unheard of for Deputy Bruton to use his party's time in Private Members' Business for other than confrontational matters relevant to the day. Instead, we are discussing tonight, a long-term step in the right direction. Last week also the Progressive Democrats put forward a Bill, no doubt adequately researched, but the Minister felt it was not broad enough and he endeavoured to get agreement on tackling the problem. That was a good illustration of the Opposition and the Government taking on an issue that needed to be addressed. That is progressive and it is to be commended. If that attitude came across on TV it would show the consensus which is necessary within the community at large. We all take party stances on specific issues but the broad thrust of what we are trying to achieve is the common goal of equity right across the social divide, although different parties may have different ideas as to how it can be achieved.
I was interested to hear Deputy Howlin talking about the Whip, and Deputy Harney referred to the Whip last night. They would want to be on this side of the House in a minority party to know what it means. In a paper at the weekend I read where a Minister, due to the pressure of business, was trying to be in two or three places at the same time. We have to be here and we have to obey the guidelines of the Whip. The flexibility is on the far side of the House. Yet, although in a minority position this Dáil has worked extremely effectively with great co-operation. I am not sure what timespan is allowed?
If the Deputy insists on the time to which he is entitled he can carry on until 8.10 p.m. but I would advise him that it is hoped two Deputies will get an opportunity to say a few words, before I call on Deputy Bruton. The Deputy might bear that in mind.
I will be delighted to, because that is in the spirit of what I have been saying. I will give every encouragement to making progress in this area. I hope the Committee on Procedure and Privileges can make substantial progress. We should look at the workings of some of the committees with a view to making a trial arrangement. We should get in some TV production experts to tell us the mechanics of televising the Dáil and to tell us how equity could be achieved. Would the media people see television as stifling the complete happenings in the Dáil if the more colourful but less important matters that arise from time to time make more acceptable viewing? Would having to vote to suspend a Member for disorderly behaviour be the sort of television a producer would like but which we do not think conveys the message of the day? Would that stifle what happened in the Dáil on a particular day? All these issues have to be teased out in greater detail. I hope we will get the time necessary in whatever committee we deal with the matter. I commend Deputy Bruton for bringing forward the document.
I thank Deputy Lawlor for his co-operation which is a further indication of the maturity that has been reached here. There are ten minutes left. Do I take it that there is to be an equal division of the ten minutes?
With the agreement of the House I would welcome that very much. We can divide the ten minutes between myself and Deputy De Rossa.
Does the House agree? Agreed.
Sharing the rapport across the House, I will hold to my five minutes and give Deputy De Rossa an opportunity to speak as well. I wanted to be part of this debate, even for a brief time, because I am so positive about it. It is significant for me that the very first speech I made in this House was on Dáil reform. Indeed, Deputy Howlin commented tonight that some of what was said then had not yet been implemented. It is the earnest hope of all of us here tonight that in five years time we will not look back on this debate and feel that nothing had been done with regard to this issue.
Like everybody else in this debate I thank and pay tribute to Deputy Bruton for the work he has done. The energy, enthusiasm and vision he has shown with regard to dragging this 18th century House into the 20th century has been Herculean. The Deputy did this in a most constructive way by getting the support of all parties in the House. I congratulate him on the thorough work he did beforehand, for instance, in relation to the booklet he issued outlining the advantages and disadvantages of televising the Dáil and addressing them. I will not go into those advantages or disadvantages because Deputy Lawlor and others have already done so.
We are elected to give leadership to society and to give society a direction. Our electorate relies on us to give that direction. We would fail totally if we did not take on the new technology and control it rather than be overwhelmed by it, and use it in the most effective way for the people who elected us. I have no fears about how television will be used or abused. Common sense will prevail. The viewers have a considerable amount of practical good sense and they will reject what is superficial or selective. I am aware also that most Irish people have a high level of interest not just in politics and current affairs as evidenced by TAM ratings for our current affairs programmes, but have an incredible curiosity about people and that is really what politics is all about. What is attempted in this House will appeal to the electorate and will make people realise that while we have policy differences and take different political stances, there is very often a common wish across the House to get the best out of the work we are doing.
It is important for people outside of this House to realise what we do. Many people, because of the necessity to curtail reporting of Dáil debates in the media, do not realise the work we do here. The most newsworthy and headline-catching events seem to occur during the Order of Business and during Question Time. I would like people to know there is life after the Order of Business and Question Time. Many of our people are not aware of the Stages a Bill must go through and of the rapport that can be established by people on all sides of the House in their wish that the best legislation will go through. Perhaps television will show the electorate the attempts which most of the Members of this House make to bring about the best possible legislation.
In conclusion, I call for the establishment of a central research unit. Such a unit is essential and is needed if we are to be effective in this House. Staff would need to be trained to operate the technology and to undertake the research that would be required. I think we should also televise the input that our European parliamentarians make in order to show the amount of like work which takes place at European level and at national level. As other speakers have said, one way of introducing television in a prompt manner would be to televise the work of some of our committees particularly at a time when interest groups were making oral submissions or when those committees were making recommendations. Television is a powerful medium and we should not be afraid of it. I commend Deputy Bruton for bringing forward this motion and I thank all of the parties for supporting it and, for Heaven's sake, let us get on with it.
I am glad to have this opportunity of being able to speak on this debate and I thank Deputy Lawlor and Deputy Barnes for giving me some of their time despite the shortness of time available which indicates that there is certainly a need for reform in the area of Private Members' Business.
I support by and large what Deputy Bruton has outlined in his document and I think the televising of Dáil proceedings is long overdue. It took us nearly 50 years to get around to recording and playing back what goes on here in the Dáil over the RTE wavelengths. It also strikes me that we should be considering not just the recording of the Dáil and relaying it after editing but also the establishment of a channel which would broadcast live the proceedings which take place here in this House. After all, this is the assembly which has been elected by the people of this State and they have a right to know what is going on and a right to be informed. It would only lead to a strengthening of democracy in this State if they were better informed. As other Deputies have said, television is one of the most powerful mediums at this time and there are very few homes in this State which do not have a television sitting in the corner of some room. Indeed, some homes have two televisions and some people even have television sets in their bedrooms. Clearly, even late sittings would be an attraction for some.
The Deputy is revealing all about how he spends his weekends.
That is not so. The slowness in reforming our procedures and in letting people know about what we do here is symptomatic with a fear of change on the part of many of us in this House and this is reflected back in the facilities which are available to Deputies and in a feeling, despite the fact that we are elected by the people, that in some may we do not deserve to have the best facilities available to us. Some weeks ago I tried to acquire word processing facilities but I discovered, despite the fact that there was a report published on technology for this House in 1983, that we do not have a systems officer, although we did have one at one stage. I urge the Minister to raise this matter with the Minister concerned. If we are to make this House more efficient, the most efficient and up-to-date technology will have to be provided.
I would have liked to refer to sitting times, the extension of the facility of Private Members' time to individual Deputies, the provision of time for Private Members' Bills and a reduction in the amount of time in which this House is in recess but I do not have sufficient time at my disposal in which to do so. In conclusion, let me make one suggestion. This proposal calls for the recording for television the proceedings of this House. Perhaps, some of the material could be edited into packages for use in schools in civics and politics classes. There is a deplorable lack of understanding among young people about how exactly this House operates and one visit on the part of a school child for a half an hour to this House would not give any indication of the work which is undertaken here.
Tonight's decision to agree in principle to the televising of the proceedings of the Dáil is an historic one. The fact that the Dáil is able to agree to this so soon after the introduction of radio broadcasting is an indication that the pace of reform is speeding up and this is all for the good. I compliment the Government in particular for the positive attitude they have adopted towards this proposal notwithstanding the fact that it is one which emanates from the Fine Gael Party. This shows the constructive approach on their part.
I am particularly appreciative of the kind words which were directed towards Deputy Fergus O'Brien and me in regard to this matter by the Minister of State, Deputy Vincent Brady. There are many issues to be considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, not all of which are covered in the discussion document which was circulated prior to this debate and therefore I can readily agree to the Minister of State's proposal to extend from three months to six months the time wherein the committee are to consider this matter. It is essential, however, that there be a time limit and it is important that the committee would report at the end of that six months period rather than letting the matter drag on.
Some people might criticise the proposal to televise the proceeding of the Dáil on the basis that it is another example of this country following what is happening in Britain but such criticism should not deter us. If the House of Commons is on television and the British side of an issue of controversy between us can be seen on television being expressed on the floor of the House of Commons it is important that the Irish side of the issue also be capable of being seen on television from the Floor of the Dáil. We cannot afford to pass up any opportunity to present our case effectively before the Bar of world opinion.
A number of speakers have expressed concern that television is a medium which trivialises issues, including political issues. There is no doubt that there is some truth in this. Matters must be compressed into a few minutes for television presentation and this often leads to over simplification but that is no argument for not having the proceedings of the Dáil on television. Television is going to present programmes on politics anyway, whether we appear on them or not, and we cannot stop them. The issue before us, therefore, is not whether politics is going to be on television but rather whether part of the coverage of politics should include what actually happens here in this Chamber. Surely, it is better that the actual happenings in this Chamber be directly accessible to the viewer through television rather than being solely mediated through the second-hand report of a journalist however reputable or competent he or she may be.
There will be a need to give a good deal of thought, in co-operation and discussion with television journalists, to the appropriate code of practice to cover the televising of the proceedings of the Dáil. Such a code of practice should require balanced presentation. There should be balance maintained between different types of Dáil work. We do not want to see the happenings here in the Chamber receive undue coverage to the detriment of committee work. We do not want to see arguments on the Order of Business hog the coverage to the detriment of more detailed work on the Committee Stage of a Bill. We do not want to see particular Members receive unbalanced coverage, favourable or unfavourable. These are all desirable objectives. However, they should not be prescribed in a rigid or legalistic way in a code of practice. To my mind the code of practice which I hope the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will agree in due course should be a generally phrased document giving broad guidelines. The interpretation in individual cases should remain a matter of journalistic judgment. But this journalistic judgment should be open to subsequent oversight in the light of complaints and perhaps viewing of actual output by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Minister of State, Deputy Vincent Brady, queried whether we should introduce time limits on speeches, as suggested in the discussion document. He felt that some of the best speeches he had heard had lasted longer than the time suggested in the discussion document. He has a point. However, the time limits are there proposed in order to ensure that a larger number of Deputies than is the case at present be given an opportunity to contribute in the House. If the proceedings are televised, obviously there will be a larger number of Members wishing to contribute. It is my opinion that three Deputies should be given an opportunity to speak rather than one Deputy make an excellent speech.
I have also suggested that there should be a facility for Members to circulate material along with their speech, in written form, with the Official Report. This would allow Members to give supporting documentation, whether tables containing figures or text, to other Members in the course of a debate. This is more like what happens, for instance, at business or trade union meetings where documents are exchanged between the parties to the discussions. There is no reason it should not happen in the Dáil and, in my view, would constitute an improvement in the way in which the Dáil works.
We need to introduce changes in Dáil procedure to render Dáil debates more conversational. We need more exchange of views, perhaps more orderly interruptions and less set piece addresses. We need to give Members an opportunity to reply to things said in the course of a debate rather than come in with prepared contributions — to some extent like the one I am now going through — which are read, in some cases to an empty Chamber, although this is a relatively well attended one. To this end we should provide for a 15 minute period at the end of Estimates debates, and at the end of Second Stage debates on Bills when Members could make supplementary points for a minute or two and have these replied to by the Minister or by other Members. This would lead to a much more lively type of discussion than we have at present. At least it would give an opportunity to Members who might not have got in on the original debate to say something. It would be of greater interest to the public and a useful addition to the suggestion I have made already, of circulating documents with the Official Report because these and their content could be queried in such discussion periods at the end of important debates before the actual vote took place.
In regard to the mechanics of televising the Dáil proceedings, we should aim to have a remote control system. It would be possible to have about three cameras covering the entire Chamber. I would suggest that one be placed on a pillar on this side of the House, another on a pillar on the far side and perhaps a third located on a pillar in the centre which would focus on the entire Chamber. These could be remotely controlled from a studio where all three screens would be shown. There are some highly adaptable methods of selecting particular shots. Given the geography of the Chamber there would not be any great problem in giving reasonably good shots of the entire Chamber and of any Member in any place in the Chamber from one of those three cameras. There would be no need to have any television personnel on the floor of the House and, at any given time, one person could operate the entire system. I have seen these systems demonstrated in Britain. It would be useful for the Members of the Committe on Procedure and Privileges to have an opportunity of looking at these systems before we introduce one here. I can say to Deputy Fergus O'Brien and the Minister of State present, Deputy Leyden, that a number of companies have indicated that they would be prepared to come here and give a demonstration as to how this might operate, perhaps during the summer recess this year.
The decision we are taking this evening, to allow, in principle, for the televising of Dáil proceedings is very much in line with the spirit of the 1937 Constitution. As pointed out in the document circulated earlier, the Constitution envisaged that the proceedings of the Dáil should be in public. Had television been available as a medium at the time the Constitution itself was promulgated it is probable that television would have been allowed into the Dáil Chamber from the very beginning by the late President de Valera and the other promulgators of the Constitution. It is time for us to do so 50 years after the Consititution has come into effect.
In the few moments remaining to me I should like to refer to some of the points made by speakers this evening. I was very struck by a point made by Deputy Barnes, that many people are interested in other people and seeing what they are like. One of the ways of removing the sort of dehumanising attitude of many people towards politics and politicians — in the sense that they see them as abstractions opposed to their interests — would be to actually see them in person doing their work. I was very interested also in the contribution of Deputy Liam Lawlor. I agree with his suggestion that we should allow, as a pilot project, the televising of some of the committees if it is agreed even before the Chamber itself becomes televised. That might be a good indication of what would follow thereafter.
Some Deputies referred to the lack of research facilities. While I agree with those Deputies that there is need for improvement, there is an excellent service available to us in the Library. In fact there is a namesake of the Taoiseach and others who work with extremely good effect in the interests of Members in that institution.
Deputy Roche's fears in regard to some parts of the Chamber, some seats within the Chamber being more televisual, or televised, are not ones about which there should be undue worry. If we allow a reasonable freedom for the cameras to rove around the Chamber it will not matter where anyone sits. As regards Deputy Howlin's contribution about unruly Members, I would heartedly agree with him — Members who are unruly will lose more credit for doing so on television even than they might for doing so in the relative anonymity of our present Chamber.
I agree with Deputy Harney that the work of the Law Reform Commission should be brought closer to the work of the Chamber and perhaps some of the facilities of the commission might be made available to Deputies who are interested in law reform. In the previous Dáil there was a joint committee on legislation who were given a specific mandate to work on the commission's reports. I regret to say that the committee did not do that. They complained about the lack of facilities in other regards but they did not use the facilities they had under their terms of reference to use the Law Reform Commission's reports as a basis for the preparation of reports.
Reference has been made to the introduction of new technology in the House. I should like to draw the attention of the House, the Taoiseach and others to the fact that the position of technology officer in this House — a function which could save substantial funds in the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas by introducing cost-saving technology — has remained vacant for some time. It is a pity and a waste of time to have expensive hardware without the technological advice on how to use it and without that office being filled. I hope the Government will be able to respond to the suggestion made to them today by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that that office be filled at an early date.
I thank the House and Deputies for the positive approach adopted, particularly by the Government, towards this motion.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.