Dick Spring
Question:6 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he intends to introduce regulations providing for a register of Member's interests in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Dáil Reform.
Dick Spring
Question:7 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he intends to propose the expansion of the committee system in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Dick Spring
Question:8 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the very complex and changing nature of Irish foreign policy, he will propose the establishment of a committee of the Oireachtas to allow Members to have an input into policy making.
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when it is intended to propose the establishment of an all-party Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs.
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans for fundamental reform of Dáil Éireann.
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will introduce an explicit ethics code for serving politicians with an accompanying institution to enforce such a code.
John Bruton
Question:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will propose the establishment of a comprehensive Dáil committee system, covering all Government Departments, which will be able to deal with spending Estimates and Committee Stages of Bills sponsored by these Departments on a line by line basis.
John Bruton
Question:13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will outline his plans for (1) a foreign affairs committee, (2) a European affairs committee, and (3) the existing Committee on EC Secondary Legislation.
Alan Shatter
Question:14 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach whether he will propose the establishment of an all-party committee to review the Constitution.
Alan Shatter
Question:15 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach whether it is intended to propose the establishment of a foreign affairs committee; and, if so, when.
Alan Shatter
Question:16 Mr. Shatter asked the Taoiseach whether he has any proposals for Dáil reform; when such proposals, if any, will be brought before Dáil Éireann; and if he will outline the content of any such proposals.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 16, together.
(Limerick East): Open Government?
May I ask——
For permission to answer Question No. 6?
——if you consider it very unusual that a number of very different questions are being amalgamated in this way so as to prevent individual questioning and that the Taoiseach is already showing a lack of commitment to open Government?
I have to say that it is common practice in this House to take related questions together. The Taoiseach.
(Limerick East): They are unrelated.
What has the question relating to a register of Member's interests got to do with the question relating to the establishment of a committee on foreign affairs?
(Interruptions.)
They are totally unrelated
This is not reasonable, Sir.
The Taoiseach's predecessor never tried this one on.
This is not reasonable.
(Interruptions.)
The Government are preparing——
(Limerick East): They are not related.
This is highly unreasonable.
On a point of order——
No, I am having no point of order. I have called the questions. The Taoiseach is in possession.
On a point of order, Sir——
Deputy Barrett, what is the point of order? There is disorder.
Would the Taoiseach explain how Question No. 6 is related to the intention to establish an all-party Oireachtas committee on foregn affairs? What has that got to do with Question No. 6?
I have no control over the manner in which Ministers or Taoisigh take questions.
A Cheann Comhairle, do you not have to protect the Members of the House?
We have to give it to you, a Cheann Comhairle.
We are entitled to be protected.
The Government are preparing——
On a point of order——
Please, Deputies, I will hear no further points of order. This is obstruction. The Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach's predecessor, Deputy Haughey, never attempted this.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am just raising one point of order.
He was perfectly fair.
Am I not correct, Sir?
I have called the Taoiseach and he shall be heard.
I am seeking to raise a point of order, Sir.
I am sorry, Deputy, let us proceed with questions.
Let us hear the answer first.
I am asking you, as a Member of this House, if I may raise a point of order?
Normally, the Chair would permit a point of order but is this justified?
It is justified.
Let us hear it.
Good, well done.
Let us hear the answer first.
It is my understanding that when questions are combined the Taoiseach or Minister in reply always uses the phraseology "with your consent," referring to you as Ceann Comhairle. In this situation I assume——
The Deputy is asleep. That was dropped years ago.
——that the Taoiseach is also seeking your consent. Does that not imply that you have to consent to the Taoiseach taking this course of action? If so, are you ruling that you are accepting this course of action?
Rip Van Winkle.
Deputy, it is, as I have said earlier, normal practice to take related questions together and I accepted that.
They are not related.
(Interruptions.)
Are you not, as Chairman of this House, entitled to protect all Members of this House? By allowing the Taoiseach to take all these questions together you are not protecting all Members of this House.
I have no control over the Taoiseach's or Ministers questions. The Taoiseach.
With your consent.
The Government are——
A Cheann Comhairle, I am delighted to say that as chairman of Meath County Council I do not run it in the same way this House is run. This is unfair.
Deputy, do not reflect on the Chair. The Deputy knows full well that I have no control over the matter.
Are you giving your consent or not?
The Taoiseach.
A Cheann Comhairle, I wish to raise a point of order.
Oh dear, dear.
The Deputy appreciates your terms of endearment.
I wish to raise a point of order.
Is it a point of order or disorder?
You mentioned in your earlier reply that questions which are related may be taken together. Would you establish for the House the interrelationship which exists between Questions Nos. 6, 9 and 13? They are unrelated.
Patently, none.
They are unrelated.
That is the Deputy's opinion in the matter; others may differ with her.
(Interruptions.)
Members are not being protected.
Are you ruling that they are related?
I am ruling that it is quite normal to hear such questions.
They are unrelated.
Why do you not listen to the answer first?
On a point of order, as someone who has an interest in these questions, Questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8, I have to say there is absolutely no connection between Question No. 6 and Question No. 8, both of which are down in my name.
The Government are preparing comprehensive proposals for Dáil reform and these will be presented to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges as soon as possible. I might add at this stage, a Cheann Comhairle, that many of the questions down on the Order Paper are repeats and, strictly speaking, could be out of order but I am taking the whole lot and saying that those questions will form part of a comprehensive Dáil reform package which the Government will consider shortly and which will then be passed on to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Open Government is off the rails already.
I will be calling the Deputies in the order in which their questions appear before me on the Order Paper. Deputy Spring.
In relation to Question No. 6, is it the Taoiseach's intention to put the register of Members' interests on a statutory basis or merely as a Standing Order of this House?
The Deputy can take it that that question, along with the other questions which have been raised, will all form part of the one package which will be presented to the House in due course. I am amazed that the Deputies opposite expect me, after only four days in Government, to do what they were not able to do in four-and-a-half years.
(Interruptions.)
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach campaigned for four-and-a-half years for this job and he should have answers now.
A new beginning; back to the future.
May I take it, in view of the Taoiseach's unwillingness to answer any detailed questions about Dáil reform, that he has not during the past four-and-a-half years in Government informed himself about this subject at all——
I have.
——and was not in any way collectively responsible for the lack of initiative shown during the past four and a half years in Government by his party in dealing with the matter? In view of the fact that he has answered a question in regard to the committee on foreign affairs, which was promised by his predecessor, may I ask him if, without repeating his predecessor's commitment, there is any question of him going back on his predecessor's commitment?
I made it clear in the House the last day that I had requested a meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in that regard. I have had that meeting. I have a set of proposals on my desk, which arrived yesterday, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and which will be given due consideration in relation to the other wide-ranging reform proposals that we are looking at.
Why did the Taoiseach not give that answer the first time?
In regard to Question No. 11, which relates to an ethics code for politicians, will the Taoiseach indicate how he proposes to deal with that matter in respect of proposals to reform the Dáil in view of the fact that an ethics code for politicians would, presumably, cover Members of the Seanad as well?
There should not be any reference to the other House.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach replied to a question about an ethics code for politicians, which refers to both Houses, by reference to a reply which was confined to the Dáil. I am within my rights in asking if the Government have any proposals in regard to a broader ethics code for politicians——
It is traditional that we do not refer to matters appertaining to the other House.
We will have to reform the office of the Ceann Comhairle.
Deputy Bruton is well aware, as a former Leader of the House, that each House makes its own regulations in regard to its Members.
Is it not the case that the Taoiseach indicated the Government intend to make proposals in this matter? Therefore, the Government should be answerable to this House for the proposals they intend to make. Will the Taoiseach say whether the Government have proposals in regard to the drafting of an ethics code covering both Houses and, if so, what means of enforcement there will be for such an ethics code in view of the great need to restore confidence in public life?
The Government are fully aware of the need to restore confidence in public representatives. I will not anticipate — nor should the Deputy expect me to — what decisions the Government may arrive at when they consider a long list of proposals in relation to Oireachtas reform which will eventually come before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Has the Taoiseach made any proposals to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in relation to the sub judice ruling which applies in this House? I am sure he is aware of the recent court ruling which indicated that public representatives had a right and an obligation to comment on public affairs and should not be unduly restricted by the sub judice issue. The Ceann Comhairle indicated here last week that he was awaiting the Government's views on this matter before he would proceed with it. May I have an assurance from the Taoiseach that he will not wait until the total package of Dáil reform is prepared before he moves on this vital issue?
I wish to inform the Deputy and the House that that matter — and many other subjects which are of interest to Deputies on all sides of the House — are part of the programme for consideration in relation to Oireachtas reform as soon as possible.
How soon?
As soon as possible, I will not delay matters.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the joint Programme for Government concluded with the Progressive Democrats promised that Dáil reform would be implemented approximately one and a half years ago? Is the Taoiseach now telling the House that he has no views of a personal nature about any necessary Dáil reform and that we are starting all over again? Will he indicate when specific proposals will be brought before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and confirm that, if the Government fail to bring such proposals forward, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges are free to bring forward their own proposals because they are a committee of this House and should not be influenced by the lethargy of the Government in bringing forward necessary reform?
The Deputy should be aware that I have personal views in this regard; he need have no fear that the Dáil and Oireachtas reform is being put on the back burner. It will be brought forward as it is in all our interests to do so and to implement changes. However, the proper procedure must be followed in relation to changes.
With reference to the Taoiseach's response in relation to a foreign affairs committee, can I take it that, as a result of his meetings with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, he is in favour of such a committee for this House? In relation to Question No. 7, will the Taoiseach give consideration to establishing an economic and social committee of this House and is he considering some way in which MEPs can participate in its workings?
The latter part of Deputy Spring's question will arise later in a separate set of questions. The question of an economic and social committee will be examined in relation to suggestions from political parties on the opposite side. The options in relation to a foreign affairs committee were laid before me yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and will get immediate attention.
I refer the Taoiseach specifically to Question No. 14, a question which my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, sought to raise as a result of the replies to Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that there is widespread concern that aspects of our Constitution need to be reviewed and changed, that they no longer reflect, in some areas, political and social realities? In that context, has the Taoiseach given any consideration to forming a committee of this House to review the entirety of the Constitution, such as took place in 1967, with a view to obtaining all party agreement on aspects of changes required?
All aspects in relation to reform of the Dáil and the Constitution will be considered and I will report to the House when they have been completed.
That is a pathetic reply.
Having regard to the fact that the Taoiseach saw fit to take 11 questions together, can he give the House an assurance that the implementation of any of the proposals — a foreign affairs committee, a register of Member's interests or any of the other components listed in the 11 questions — are not interconnected and independent, in other words that the implementation of one proposal is not dependent on agreement on the others? Perhaps I have misunderstood his groupings of the 11 questions together.
The Deputy has not misunderstood because we are putting together a list of proposals for consideration in the context of Dáil and Oireachtas reform. I assure the House that it is not a question of fobbing this matter off, it is a question of time. The Deputies expect me, having been four days in the House, to make a full declaration of all reforms which they have been asking for——
We expect honest replies.
Deputies will be surprised at the end of the day because a list of Dáil and Oireachtas reforms will be brought forward sooner than they expect.
Will the Taoiseach assure the House that it is not an integrated package in which agreement on one depends on agreement on all?
They are not mutually exclusive. However, they are part of the overall proposals going to Government and we will not anticipate what they may decide.
This matter should not lead to argument.
The Deputy will be pleasantly surprised when he sees our proposals.
I wish to remind the Taoiseach that he was a member of the group which reviewed the Programme for Government with his colleagues, the Progressive Democrats, and that a number of these matters were discussed at that time, in particular the establishment of a proper European Affairs Committee to deal with EC legislation. Does he intend to allow this committee, through expansion of their terms of reference, look at the proposed White Paper on Maastricht as a matter of urgency? The existing committee are confined, because of their terms of reference. Through the Taoiseach's good offices we could do better work in relation to the EC and the Maastricht agreement.
The Deputy must not have been listening to what I said.
I was.
The proposals for a foreign affairs committee, a European affairs committee and the existing Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities are all the subject of a submission to me by the Minister for Foreign Affairs which I received yesterday evening. I have said that the White Paper will be brought forward as soon as possible.