Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1988

Vol. 383 No. 2

Private Members' Motions: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. V. Brady)

I move:

That the following be adopted as an additional Standing Order of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business—

46A. A private member's motion which is not moved within twelve months from the date on which it was first placed on the Order Paper shall be deemed to have lapsed, but without prejudice to the right of members to put down such motion again.

The proposal which is before the House today continues a process, which began in the last Dáil, of improving and updating the Dáil Order Paper in order to make it more relevant to the business which is before the House.

This process began when the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in March, 1986, approved new arrangements for the printing of Private Members' motions so as to reduce the number of such motions appearing daily on the Order Paper. At that time, although only one Private Members' motion was debated by the Dáil each week, as many as 50 motions appeared on every issue of the Order Paper.

The arrangements which the CPP approved in 1986 were a combination of two previous systems which had been in operation. Prior to 1962, a Private Members' motion appeared on the Order Paper only once before it was placed on a special list, which was updated at specified intervals and circulated to Members.

Motions were taken in order of their receipt and when the time came for a motion to be debated in Private Members' time it appeared again on the Order Paper, accompanied by a reference to the list from which it was taken.

In 1962, this system was changed because of the possibility that when motions were debated in order of receipt, a Member could put down any number of them and thereby monopolise Private Members' Business for some considerable time. The new arrangement, under which priority was given to groups — as defined by Standing Orders — was seen as an improvement in the situation which had applied up to then. It resulted however in a large number of Private Members' motions — none of which were likely to be taken in the foreseeable future — appearing daily on the Dáil Order Paper.

In March 1986, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges considered this subject again and approved new arrangements, which combined the best aspects of both the pre-1962 and post-1962 formats. Under these new arrangements, at the beginning of every two months — excluding periods when the Dáil is in recess — a list containing all Private Members' motions, other than those given precedence, is published.

It was felt at the time that some provision should be made for the automatic lapse of motions on the list which are no longer of relevance. In this regard, of the 55 items which are on the current list, only 14 were put down within the last six months.

The proposal before the House today provides a mechanism to remove such motions.

This motion has the approval of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I trust that Deputies will support it.

Mr. J. Bruton

This motion was proposed by my party at the CPP so we have no problem in supporting it. However, it was part of a package of suggested improvements in Dáil procedure. One of the proposals related to provisions for Private Members' Bills to enable individual Members to bring forward Bills. There were also proposals to make proper provision for discussing a huge number of statutory reports that the Dáil receives virtually every day, where these contain important matter. My party suggested that an hour or two each week should be set aside for discussing reports about which individual Members felt strongly. The passing of legislation here frequently involves reference to reports being presented to the Dáil as if that meant something when in fact it means little more than adding bulk to the Order Paper on the day on which the report is presented to the Dáil, because there is no mechanism whereby the Dáil can actually discuss these issues. There should be a mechanism available for discussing reports. While the Minister of State saw his way to accepting the motion under discussion he did not accept the proposal I have just referred to or the one in relation to Private Members' Bills.

It is also worth drawing attention to the fact that in the context of the decision of the Dáil to make provision for the televising of the Dáil, it was agreed by the Dáil that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges be mandated to draw, within six months, a programme of Dáil reforms to accompany the introduction of the television cameras. That six months expires some time in December. I will not be precise about the day but the six months is nearly over. It is important that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges are seen to do their business in this matter with expedition and to bring forward a range of procedures to ensure that the Dáil presents itself to the public and is seen to do its business by the public in the best possible and most efficient light.

There is a need for improvement with regard to the length of speeches and with regard to estimates on expenditure so that they can be discussed in the Dáil in the way that other bodies including local authorities would discuss Estimates. In other words, we should be able to have some dialogue where people can ask questions or raise points about an item of expenditure and have a reply and then, that having been discussed, we could move on to some other aspect of the same Estimate. The procedure at the moment does not allow for repeat interventions or for discussion. It simply allows for a succession of monologues followed by a reply from the Minister which frequently ignores many of the points that have been raised. There is also a case with regard to the discussion of Estimates for opportunities to exist to have individual subheads reduced so that the Dáil could resolve to provide more money for something else where the Dáil feels that the Government's priorities within the Estimate are incorrect and that they are giving too little to one service and too much to another.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy since I appreciate his very keen interest in the area of Dáil reform, but he will appreciate that the motion before us relates to Private Members' motions on the Dáil Order Paper. I have given the Deputy some latitude but I would ask him not to stray too far from the subject matter before the House.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am appreciative as ever of the latitude shown by the Ceann Comhairle and I will not trespass unduly on his forebearance. Reforms of the kind I have been speaking about are very necessary if this Dáil is to be seen as a modern assembly doing its business in a modern way and allowing Members to contribute. I do not see this as threatening the Government in any way. Frequently Governments tend to see Dáil reform as something which might show them in a bad light. The contrary is the case. The sort of reform which would be contemplated would enable the entire House to present itself in a better way and enable the citizens to have a higher respect for politicians. It is fair to say that the public do not have as high a view of us as we would wish. That is partly due to our failure to reform our assembly. I hope this minor proposal will be the first of many emanating from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as a result of the review which the committee must complete within the next month or so.

The Workers' Party have put down an amendment which would require seven days' notice to be given to the Members who had put down a motion that it was to be deleted. I suppose there is some case for that, but I presume that if Members have gone to the trouble of putting down a motion they will know when the 12-month period will expire. If they did not know this, it would be argued that they were not very serious in the first place and were simply putting down a motion to make work for the printing presses. It is not too great a job to have a "bring forward" system in an office which will show all the motions which have been put down and when they are due to expire. It should not require the services of the House to duplicate what a good secretary to any Member would do by way of keeping a record of how much time has expired since a particular motion was put down and when it would need to be renewed, if that was the Member's wish. I am not sure that it would be desirable to incorporate this in a motion.

However, it might be useful if the Minister could indicate informally that in so far as possible the services of the House would be used as Deputy De Rossa indicates, without any formal legal requirement to do so. This might become a matter of practice, but to put it into Standing Orders in such a fashion that the decision would be invalid if an official did not telephone somebody to say a motion was about to lapse would be unduly cumbersome and could lead to all sorts of problems. There is no real record of a telephone call. A message could be given to a secretary and the Member could say he did not receive it. There could then be a dispute in the House about whether a motion was correctly struck off. We could get into difficulty by incorporating such an arrangement into Standing Orders. I take the view that practical politeness would require matters to be dealt with as Deputy De Rossa wishes but that there is no need to incorporate it into the motion.

I am glad this matter has moved forward but I hope the Minister of State will come before us before Christmas with proposals on parliamentary reform which will be a lot more ambitious than on this occasion.

Mr. Howlin

We have no difficulty with this measure and will support it. It supports the view that we are largely irrelevant when we see motions on the Order Paper which have long been overtaken by events. This is a small step towards updating procedures in this House, which are antiquated in so many ways.

The reason many motions remain on the Order Paper for longer than 12 months is the limited access to Private Members' time afforded to the Opposition parties. All the Opposition parties would wish to debate issues every week but obviously parties such as the Labour Party and the Progressive Democrats are afforded that opportunity only once or twice in a session and are denied the opportunity to make a contribution on many urgent and important issues because of lack of time.

I hope this minor progress today will be the start of a far greater process which will involve all Deputies and all parties in a real and active way. Many new Deputies have the impression that they are coming into a place of power but they find that this Chamber has very limited power. Backbench Deputies, even in the Government party, are denied a direct input into legislation and because of party Whips they do not express their true feelings on the floor of the House. A reform of Private Members' time affording to the individual Deputy the opportunity to bring forward legislation or a motion would give every Deputy the feeling of having an important and vital role to play.

I strongly support Deputy Bruton's view about the discussion of reports. The Seanad, perhaps because of the way they order their business, seem to deal with reports much more frequently than this House. It is a pity that reports into which organisations and sub-committees have put so much effort are so seldom debated in this Chamber.

The Labour Party will support this small element of progress but I hope to see a far more sweeping change which will make this House and its Deputies more relevant to the legislative process.

I see great merit in The Workers' Party amendment. I do not think it would have the bureaucratic ramifications which Deputy Bruton suggested. Surely it would be a simple procedure for the bureaucracy of the House to indicate to a party or a Deputy that a particular motion was about to lapse and that it should be resubmitted if they wish it to remain on the Order Paper. That would not be a tedious burden. Perhaps the Minister of State will indicate that it will be done informally and the formal moving of the amendment might not then be necessary.

Proinsias De Rossa

I move:

To add to the motion, the following:

"When a motion becomes due to be lapsed, the member or members in whose name the motion stands shall be notified, not later than 7 days prior to the proposed lapsing, that it is proposed to lapse the motion."

Other speakers have agreed that the motion before us relates to a relatively minor amendment to Standing Orders which will enable the lapsing of motions which have been on the Order Paper for 12 months, not having been moved. We have no problem with that.

This has not been said, but most of us would agree that once you put down a motion there is always a reluctance to have it taken off the Order Paper for fear that it might be seen as a change of mind on the issue and the automatic lapsing of motions can be of assistance to Deputies in this way. Nevertheless, despite what Deputy Bruton has said with regard to the amendment, it is important that Deputies be notified that a motion is to be lapsed. Deputy Bruton says that a good secretary would keep tabs on that situation and that might be true but, as the Deputy knows, Members have dozens of items to keep tabs on and it is not unreasonable to ask, in view of the fact that the staff will have to monitor motions anyway, that a note be put in the box for a Deputy that his or her motion is about to lapse. This would not put an undue strain on the resources of the House. I am asking the Minister of State to accept this amendment.

Also, it should be recognised that to some extent the fact that so many motions remain on the Order Paper for so long masks the fact that many Deputies do not have the opportunity to move their motions. There are 55 motions on the Order Paper at present and, of those, 17 are in the names of Deputies of The Workers' Party. Since we came into this House seven or eight years ago, we have not had the opportunity of moving a single Private Member's motion in Private Members' Time. That derives specifically from the Standing Order which says that a party must have at least seven members in order to move a motion in Private Members' time, or to have access to that time. We have tried on numerous occasions to have that Standing Order changed, unsuccessfully to date. It is unreasonable that a Deputy elected to this House can be here for many years but, because he or she does not belong to a group of seven or more, will never have the opportunity of having his or her views or policies debated in Private Members' time. I urge strongly on the other parties to review their attitude to the use of Private Members' Time and to review, also, the extent of time available for motions of this kind because, as Deputy Howlin has said, it is very limited.

Another aspect to which I wish to refer in relation to motions and which is hidden by this amendment to Standing Orders is the fact that of the 55 motions on the current Order Paper, three seek to annul orders made by a Minister in pursuit of aims, either the abolition of an agency or the making of a regulation. These motions to annul orders of Government have never been debated in this House. They are known as negative orders. They come into effect, unless annulled by the House, within 21 sitting days of the order being annulled.

Again, Standing Orders are not very clear on the matter but the reality, as far as I can find out from the records is that only once in the past 20 years has a motion to annul an order been debated in this House. The Government have steadfastly refused to allocate time to have such motions debated and in the normal course of events parties who have control of Private Members' time are reluctant to allow their time to be used to debate issues which others might want to have debated.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will agree that I have granted him licence of a generous kind.

Proinsias De Rossa

I agree and appreciate that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must ask him to get back to the subject matter of the amendment.

Proinsias De Rossa

I shall conclude by asking the Members and parties to look closely at the regulations, the manner in which this House, on the one hand, gives itself power to annul orders but, on the other, does not permit itself time to debate such motions and to have orders annulled. I ask the Minister of State to accept this fairly simple and straight-forward amendment which I propose.

Miss Kennedy

I welcome this reform proposed by the Minister of State today. It is a great pity it is so minimal, given that the Dáil in the past year has been seen to be incapable of dealing with certain issues which can be discussed on the radio and in the newspapers on the day. There is no point in my wasting time in calling for the reforms that we would like to see happening, but I only hope that this will be the first of many proposed and agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. J. Higgins

I shall be very brief. As Deputy Bruton has already said, this motion is at the behest of the Fine Gael Party in the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. It is a meritorious motion in that there is surely a need for a regular springclean of motions on the Order Paper. It is not that these motions have become obsolete or are in any way being adjudicated upon as being of a vexatious nature, but it is very much in order from time to time to restructure, to reorganise and put in order of priority the various items on the Order Paper itself.

Having said that, I fully support the views echoed on all sides of the House on the need for long overdue Dáil reform. This morning we have had a prime example of a Bill coming out of committee which has a widespread body of public and parliamentary support not being provided with adequate time within the existing framework without trespassing upon the Private Members' Time of other parties on the Opposition benches. Surely, where there is a totally inadequate time allocation and totally disproportionate allocation of time in respect of the merits of particular motions, it is long overdue that we should examine realistically the question of restructuring our business, reorganising procedures within the House and making things more democratic.

It never ceases to amaze me that, although we have such a consensus of opinions as to where we should be going and what we should be doing, we still fail to come up with the necessary guidelines, changes or amendments to structures to enable this to happen. That would be in everybody's interest. There tends, naturally enough, to be a selfish monopoly tendency on the part of the Government to dominate things, but if one looks back at the pattern of governmental changes and changes of office right back to 1977, it has been on an every second turn basis and there is no reason whatsoever why what is here today will be gone tomorrow if the immediate history of the past is repeated.

There would seem to be a certain amount of merit in The Workers' Party amendment, but I take Deputy Bruton's point that by way of a courtesy it should be possible to have something accommodated in this regard. I also take his point that there are not so many motions on the Order Paper that a vigilant and alert secretary cannot watch out for the possible demise of a motion on the expiry of the 12-month period. Would the Minister of State advise the House if it would be of help if, when a motion is put before the House, the date on which that motion is submitted would be put down in order to strengthen one's ability to perceive its possible demise? That might be a way out of the logjam and might be seen as a forewarning or early warning system as to the possible death of a motion. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta. I call on the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Vincent Brady, to reply to the debate.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. V. Brady)

I should like to thank all Deputies for their comments and very constructive proposals. It is true that this motion is a very small and simple one and I hope it will be a forerunner to other changes that may be brought to the House from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

With regard to Deputy De Rossa's amendment, I would be inclined to agree with Deputy Bruton's view that there is no need to incorporate this amendment into the motion. I cannot see any difficulty in some administrative arrangement being made to contact any Deputy where the motion is about to lapse. I want to emphasise that there is provision for Deputies to retable lapsed motions almost immediately should they wish to do so. There should not be any difficulty as far as lapsed motions are concerned.

I want to mention very briefly the question of televising Dáil proceedings. I know this does not really come under this motion but Deputy Bruton raised it. The original motion in the names of Deputy Bruton and Deputy O'Brien asked that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should report back to the House within a three month period. I felt three months was totally inadequate and we compromised and agreed on a period of six months. At that time I said I thought six months was far too short, and that has turned out to be so because the six month period lapses next month and it is my intention to come back to the House, with the agreement of the Whips, with a further motion asking for an extension of a further six months to enable the Committee on Procedures and Privileges to report fully to the House. Televising the proceedings of the House is not something we can do overnight.

Mr. J. Bruton

Six months is hardly overnight.

Mr. V. Brady

Having looked into the televising of the Dáil proceedings——

Mr. J. Bruton

Six months covers plenty of nights and days.

Mr. V. Brady

Deputy Bruton when in Government worked on this for two years and proposals were not brought before the House at that time.

Mr. J. Bruton

Not on televising the proceedings of the Dáil.

Mr. V. Brady

I do not want to score any political points or to be argumentative about this. I simply want to emphasise that if we make a change like this we will need to take a lot of time to examine and investigate the matter thoroughly. The proceedings of the British House of Commons have not yet been televised and they set up a committee to look into this area 18 months ago. The members of that committee were drawn from many interests, even outside Parliament, and they are expected to bring their report to the House very shortly. When we televise the proceedings in this House, we want to do it properly.

Mr. S. Barrett

Get another box like the one we have behind us.

Mr. V. Brady

I wanted to give that point of information to the House and I trust Deputies will be in agreement with those views when they have fully considered them.

I am glad the motion has the support of this House, but I cannot accept Deputy De Rossa's amendment for the reasons I have already given. This is purely an administrative matter and should not raise any difficulty and I cannot see any Deputy being inconvenienced.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I ask Deputy De Rossa and his parliamentary colleagues how stands the amendment? Is the Deputy pressing it?

Proinsias De Rossa

Would the Minister make a statement to the effect that an administrative arrangement will be put in place notifying Deputies?

Mr. V. Brady

I will do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion put and agreed to.