Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1988

Vol. 383 No. 7

Televising of Dáil Proceedings and Reform of Dáil Procedures: Motion.

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

I move:

That the Resolution of the Dáil of 18th May, 1988, in relation to the televising of Dáil proceedings and reform of Dáil procedure is hereby amended by the substitution of "within twelve months" for "within six months".

The purpose of this motion is to extend by a further six months the period by which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges must report back to the House with proposals for the televising of its proceedings, as well as submitting a more general programme of reform of Dáil procedures.

Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats have both tabled an amendment to the motion, which proposed that CPP be allowed only a further three months in which to submit their report. The Government could not see their way to accept this amendment. While all parties are in agreement that more time is needed to examine this important matter, we cannot agree with the other parties that an additional three months provides sufficient time to carry out a thorough examination of all the issues involved and produce a report which will meet our particular needs.

The working group established by CPP have been requested to examine a whole range of matters:

—the televising of Dáil proceedings;

—the permanence of sound broadcasting of the Dáil;

—the question of privilege; in particular, how it should be applied to Committee proceedings; and

—proposals for a more general programme of reform of Dáil procedures, including limitations on the length of speeches, procedures for dealing with urgent matters and the relevance and admissability of parliamentary questions.

Any one of these issues — except possibly sound broadcasting — would in itself be sufficient to require lengthy and considered examination by the working group. However, the group have been asked to prepare a report on all of these issues. It should be borne in mind that if all the proposals which I have just outlined were to be adopted by the House, it would result in substantial amendment to Standing Orders.

The Government believe that 12 months is the minimum period required for a proper examination of this matter and strongly urges Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats to reconsider their stance.

For their part, the working group have already carried out some work in this area. Material on how parliamentary broadcasting operates in other countries has been obtained from our diplomatic missions abroad and this will have to be examined in some depth by the group. In addition, the group have visited both the European Parliament in Strasbourg and the House of Lords in London. As these institutions were in recess until just a few weeks ago, it has only been possible to arrange these visits recently.

I may say that these visits were well worthwhile. Following them, there is a need to evaluate and assess fully the arrangements which both these institutions have in place for the satisfactory televising of their proceedings. These arrangements, in many ways, are different from what we might envisage for our purposes. For example, the procedures of the European Parliament are much less rigid than those of the House of Lords. Nevertheless, there is much to be learned from a careful and thorough study of how these institutions have adapted their workings to the televising of their proceedings. Indeed, there may even be a case for looking at the arrangements in some of our sister parliaments in the European Communities. To properly co-ordinate and assess all of this data will take time.

There is another important aspect of this matter to which I wish to refer. This relates to the broadcasting authority who are to be responsible for providing T.V. coverage. RTE have been asked to submit proposals on how they would provide this coverage. I understand it will be some time before they will be in a position to do so. I fully understand their position in this matter. They wish to submit a report which they can stand over and which will deal fully with all the issues involved. The other side of the coin is that the CPP must have adequate time to assess their proposals and possibly proposals from other interests as well, both technical and programme making.

There are other important matters to be addressed. These include the necessary changes in Standing Orders, the question of privilege, the extent and manner of coverage, the balance to be achieved and, of course, which broadcasting authority is to obtain the franchise to transmit the proceedings. I have already briefly outlined progress in the technical aspect — cameras, lighting, structural alterations to the Chamber. Finally, there is the major question of financing these arrangements in a time of financial stringency.

Let me say that it took some three years from the time it was first mooted to get sound broadcasting of this House on air. In the light of this and in the light of other considerations I have outlined, I commend this motion to the House.

Mr. J. Bruton

Originally it was proposed that we would have a report on this within three months. The Government in the debate when this motion was being put forward suggested that this be extended to six months. The House agreed to six months and now the Government are coming back looking for a further six months. In my view there was a considerable delay in getting the original sub-committee, who have now got into their stride, established and that delay is the main reason we are now being asked for a further extension of time. I feel that the case made by the Minister for an extension is not unreasonable and our party are prepared to go along with the proposal.

However, we would ask that the arrangements that are being made to deal with this very complex range of issues be improved. At the moment the entire list of issues which the Minister mentioned early in his speech are all being dealt with by one committee with one secretary and the committee consists of four Whips of the parties in the House. Those people serving on the committee have many other responsibilities and they have essentially one person acting as a secretariat for them. To my mind we need to have technical committees in support of this body. When the broadcasting of the Dáil was introduced a committee of officials were established who represented RTE, the Department of the Taoiseach's office and the office of the then Leader of the House, and they did a good deal of technical work so that when the politicians came to consider it the work was done and simple political decisions had to be taken.

Unfortunately, now all the work that is essentially being asked to be done, including the work that would normally be the problems of officials, is being done by a committee of politicans. Given the list of matters that have to be considered, I suggest that in regard to the television broadcasting of the Dáil a technical committee be set up consisting of representatives of the Dáil or the services which are the responsibility of the Ceann Comhairle, the Department of Communications from the broadcasting aspect and the Department of the Taoiseach from the governmental aspect. There should be a technical committee who would feed information to and act on requests from the sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Likewise, the issue of privilege on its own is such a major subject that there should be a separate technical committee dealing with that. I suggest that in that case the composition might be the parliamentary draftsman's office, the office of the Department of the Taoiseach and the office of Dáil Éireann, who would prepare a separate report on the privilege issue. Also, the more general issue of Dáil reform needs to be looked at again separately, and I feel that the services of the House should be asked to provide a secretarial service to prepare material on that independently of the work that has to be done by the secretary of the sub-committee dealing with broadcasting, otherwise the work simply will not be done.

I have been told by the Minister of State that it is his intention that we would come to a conclusion on this matter and present arrangements for the permanent televising of the Dáil, that we will not come up with a report which would say there should be an experimental period but with a report which would make definite and final arrangements. That being the case, there obviously is a greater argument for taking enough time to make sure everything is done properly, whereas if you have an experimental period you could afford perhaps to press the speed a bit more because you know you could remedy your mistakes up to the end of the experimental period.

That being the case, our party are prepared to accept the further extension of six months, but I fear that unless arrangements are made to get the work done at official level so that the politicans can have the material upon which to make the decisions, the Minister, or whoever is on that side of the House, will be coming back in six months time looking for a further extension if the work is not done. That means getting officials together, perhaps in the sort of working groups that I suggest, as was done in the case of sound broadcasting. Television broadcasting raises even more complex issues. Therefore there is even a greater case for having a committee of officials supplementing the work that is being done. I hope that this further discussion here in the House will give an impetus to the work that has commenced quite well. It needs such an impetus and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of the suggestions I have made as to how that impetus might be translated into reality.

An Ceann Comhairle

I observe that the Deputy did not move his amendment.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Miss Colley

As one who has not expressed views on the Floor of the House about the televising of Dáil proceedings up to now, I would like first to say that I support wholeheartedly that the Dáil proceedings should be televised, and so do my party, the Progressive Democrats. This Dáil has approved, in principle, such televising. This decision represented an all-party approach and I hope we can maintain that momentum because we who have visited other parliaments have seen the difficulties experienced where there has been division in opinion about whether the proceedings should be televised.

This matter has been around for a number of years and it has caught the public imagination, quite rightly, because many people, are quite ignorant and in a state of wonder about what in fact goes on in the Dáil during the time that we meet. One of the benefits to be got from televising the proceedings is simply giving knowledge to those people in the community who have an interest in politics, and it could be acknowledged that there are many people in Ireland who have that interest.

However, there has been a reluctance to move over the last couple of years even though the proposal has been around for some time. I fully acknowledge that at this stage an initiative has been taken, some visits have been made to two parliaments, and on-the-ground examination of how the procedure works has actually been undertaken. We in the Dáil are one of the last parliaments in western Europe, if not in the world, to remain untelevised, so speed is necessary at this stage in order that we maintain some kind of par with our fellow parliaments.

I am somewhat disappointed at the Minister's statement here today. It certainly sets out the difficulties facing the group who are examining this issue, but nowhere can I find a wholehearted commitment to broadcasting the Dáil proceedings on television, and nowhere can I see a firm commitment to timescale. It is worth nothing that on page 3 of his script the Minister says that the Government believe that 12 months is the minimum period required. The fact that the minimum period is underlined is quite disturbing because our party have put forward an amendment that we should only take another three months before we report to the Dáil. We are willing to reconsider that in the light of a real commitment to moving within six months, but if I and my party felt that the Government were going to renege on that, that they were not fully committed to televising Dáil proceedings, we would have to reconsider, and I would ask the Minister to address that when he replies to the debate. I know that the Minister has certainly been supportive of the idea since the initiative got underway, by visiting other parliaments and examining the evidence and so on, so I would hope that he can give a reassurance on that.

Definitely, technical expertise is needed. We have seen that. It would be foolish of politicians to try to enter into this area without technical expertise. Perhaps we do not need to have a technical committee, but certainly proper advice must be given to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The procedures in the Dáil are, anyway, in need of revamping, in need of reform. The vast majority of us acknowledge that. This is an ideal opportunity to examine that also.

Finally, I would like to say that the shortened debate we have today is quite disturbing and it is something that should be mentioned. We were allocated an hour on the Order of Business that was circulated for this debate. A great many Deputies have an interest in speaking or in hearing a full report on what has happened so far. We now find that five minutes per speaker is allowed up to a maximum of half an hour. That simply is not good enough. Once more it makes me wonder about the commitment of this Government to televising the Dáil proceedings and to having a full and frank discussion about the issues involved.

An Ceann Comhairle

I observe that Deputy Colley did not formally move her amendment.

Miss Colley

I move amendment No. 2:

To substitute "nine" for "twelve".

Mr. Howlin

Some months ago this House made a decision in principle and, rather uniquely in European parliaments or perhaps in parliaments anywhere, it was a unanimous decision to televise our proceedings. That was a very useful initiative and a very important debate. The decision then went to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges who set up a working group consisting of the four Whips to investigate the technicalities of it. There was feeling that the work could be carried out in the six months allocated to the committee for carrying out this task. When the committee began their work I certainly was unaware of the full implications of the procedures we had embarked on.

The fundamental principle of televising is one of crucial importance if we are to maintain any semblance of relevance to the majority of people. I am strongly of the opinion that the issue of democracy itself is included in the issue of televising the proceedings of the Dáil because a lot of people are bewildered by what goes on in these houses. Nothing will improve the archaic procedures here more than putting them under the scrutiny of the general public. The way to do that is to put them under the full glare of the television cameras so that what goes on here can be visible in every home in the land. The Labour Party strongly supported the principle of televising our proceedings because, increasingly, the perception is that this House is irrelevant, that decisions are being made in ivory towers and that we go through the charade of debates and the charade of opposing and the charade of scoring points here, and that none of it has any real relevance to the lives and problems of ordinary people.

The committee have so far had the privilege of looking at two very different parliaments. In Strasbourg there was very easy access but difficulties because there was no fixed parliament in terms of a fixed building as parliament sits in more than one location. The situation in the House of Lords, in contrast, had very rigid rules and traditions to be adhered to. We have learned a lot about the difficulties of introducing television into the Dáil from those two visits. There are important principles to be considered, the principle of control, of impartiality, of who makes the decisions, of who controls the tapes, of the compilation of the archives and the releasing of material from those archives. We must also consider the question of privilege and rebroadcasting. Many of those issues may require separate legislation before we make a final decision.

The attitude of the Labour Party is that we favour televising at the earliest possible date but, in a very measured way. We must not rush into this matter. We must prepare a proper plan. Whether we commence televising in three months or six months time is a point of secondary importance. What is more important is that we do it correctly because it is the intention of the Minister of State, as he indicated to the group, that we will not have an interim period of testing. When a final decision is made the equipment will be installed in the House.

I should like the Minister of State to comment on other aspects related to the televised proceedings of the House. The first relates to technical back-up and support which was raised by Deputy John Bruton. We have been barraged with technical information we are not competent to assess. That information relates to the types of cameras, lighting levels, controls and monitoring but we cannot evaluate it. It is interesting to note that other parliaments have techncial experts from the broadcasting media to support and advise them. Some of them have been working in that area for many years.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Howlin

I look forward to reading the submission from RTE on the matter. They have made a tremendous job of the sound broadcasting of the proceedings. Their role in the television broadcasting of the proceedings will be important. I should like to ask the Minister of State to clarify one crucial aspect of the matter, the question of finance. If we are to try to televise the proceedings on the cheap, as some parliaments have, we will get the worst of all possible worlds. If the Government are committed to televising the proceedings, there must be an equal commitment from them to provide adequate resources to do that job well.

Proinsias De Rossa

Theoretically televising the proceedings of the House should enhance the reputation of the Dáil and the Members who participate in debates. However, it will depend on the quality of the presentation.

Mr. Cooney

And the scripts provided.

Proinsias De Rossa

Of course.

Mr. Boland

And the scriptwriters.

Proinsias De Rossa

Which Members use scriptwriters? All Members speak off the cuff, or is that not so?

Mr. Boland

The Deputy uses scriptwriters from outside the House.

Proinsias De Rossa

While the emphasis in the debate has been on televising the proceedings, the motion passed unanimously by the House also addressed the question of general reform of Standing Orders and the way the procedures of the House operate. The two go together. If we were to televise the proceedings without a reform of Standing Orders bewilderment would grow among the public rather than be reduced. There is a lot of bewilderment among Members about the way procedures operate. We got an example of that last night when Members spent the best part of one hour voting on one issue in Private Members' Time. In my view that was a waste of time and we should try to reduce the amount of time taken for multiple votes. I accept that the CPP have looked at that issue and were unable to come up with a solution. We must address that issue again.

We must also consider the question of access of Members to Private Members' Time and the right of Members to propose and have printed Private Members' Bills. It is deplorable and unacceptable that any Member can be prevented by the Government from having printed and circulated, as we were last night, a Private Members' Bill. We are constantly ridiculed for not taking an active part in the proceedings but when Members who go to the trouble of producing Bills are prevented from having them printed and circulated that is undermining the enthusiasm of those Members for such work.

We must also consider the question of access to debates. There is a growing tendency since the Government took office to restrict access of The Workers' Party Members to specific debates. I am thinking in particular of the debate on the Estimates. That should be stopped. I do not think the subcommittee will be in a position to carry out their work in the six months set down for them. In my view the work will only be done effectively if more than one group is established to work in conjunction with each other. I urge the Minister of State to have another look at this matter. However, Members of the CPP should push for progress and an amending of the procedural arrangements of the House. I hope we will not be back here in six month's time looking for a further extension.

Mr. Boland

On a point of order, can it be clarified if before final decisions are made on this matter those of us who might be involved in participating in the televised proceedings might be given an opportunity of participating in the debate on televising the proceedings?

An Ceann Comhairle

I can only tell the Deputy that in accordance with the decision of the House this morning the debate shall not exceed 30 minutes. I am obliged to call the Minister of State to reply.

Mr. Boland

Was it not indicated that one hour would be allowed for the debate, a time limit that was reduced this morning to 30 minutes?

An Ceann Comhairle

The decision has been made by the House and the Chair must adhere to it.

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

I should like to thank the Members who contributed to the debate on this motion. Deputy John Bruton has put forward all the reasons why the time limit should be extended by at least six months. We all agree that there is a need to extend the time limit to produce a comprehensive report but we differ on the amount of time that should be given. We all accept that it is vitally important that the CPP examine all aspects of this matter thoroughly. There is no point in rushing a report and then finding that some of the more important aspects of the matter have been overlooked, resulting in Members having to go back to the drawing board. That would cause further delay on the introduction of television cameras to the Chamber.

Members will recall that the original motion, submitted by Deputies John Bruton and O'Brien in May, suggested that we should allocate three months for the investigation of this matter. At the time we suggested that this should be 12 months and, following the debate, we reached a compromise and accepted a period of six months. However, six months was too short and I regret that we have had to return to the House to seek a further extension. In order to bring in a proper report for full discussion by the House it is vital that the subcommittee go into all aspects thoroughly. The subcommittee will have to investigate all the problems that exist. During our visits to Strasbourg and the House of Lords we were told of the many difficulties they experienced. We did not envisage such difficulties arising before those visits.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the televising of the proceedings of the House will take place at the earliest possible date. We want to ensure that the rights of Members, and the dignity of the House, are fully respected. When the proceedings are televised we want that done in a proper way. Some questions were raised about the membership of the subcommittee and I am happy to look at that. The subcommittee will be meeting this afternoon and in view of the comments made this morning we will review the issue and return to the CPP with some proposals.

I should like to assure the House that it is our intention to introduce television into our proceedings as quickly as possible. I have indicated that when the report is submitted to the CPP, and subsequently to the House, we should not opt for an experimental period. It is proposed, therefore, that whatever system is introduced, will be introduced on a permanent basis, but of course with the right to review the matter on an ongoing basis by a committee of the House.

Mr. J. Bruton

I asked the Minister specifically about the need for a technical committee — a committee of experts — and not a committee comprised of Members of the House.

Mr. V. Brady

I will look at that matter.

Mr. Boland

In view of the fact that the Minister of State has now said that the eventual report will recommend a permanent arrangement, would he be prepared to consider, prior to the report being prepared, that a debate might be held in the House on this and other matters which were referred to in his opening remarks regarding privilege and the operation of committees? I think this would be helpful in the light of the fact it is now envisaged that the report will recommend a permanent rather than an interim arrangement.

Mr. V. Brady

The original motion passed by the House last May instructed the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to bring a report to the House. Obviously those are the terms of reference and that is what I envisage we will be doing.

Mr. Boland

There is a change.

Mr. V. Brady

There is no change in the terms of reference.

Mr. Boland

There is a change in intent.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment in the names of Deputies Colley and Kennedy must be disposed of.

Miss Colley

In the light of the Minister's assurance, I am not pressing the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.