We now resume on the business of Dáil reform. At this stage I understand it is, shall we call it, question time, a new type of question time, until 5 o'clock and Members may ask the Government spokesperson general questions on Dáil reform.
Dáil Reform: Statements (Resumed).
It is a slightly different type of question time and it will be as flexible as possible from my side. I hope we will have a good interchange of ideas. I do not propose to make another Second Stage type speech. Members opposite made a number of points in relation to the committees and so on and if they would bear with me for no more than five minutes, I will try to address those points. If there are other points or questions that Deputies want to raise I will be delighted to respond to them or take them on board.
As regards the committee system, there is no way that the proposed system can be imposed on present structures. It would be totally unworkable. All Members have to think in terms of changed structures and changed procedures in the House. As I go through this, points may emerge which Deputies would like me to address further. It is important that this would not simply be the imposition of another layer or another system on top of the system we have.
I outlined the aims of the committee system earlier. They are to involve backbenchers in the consideration of legislation and to give them a greater role in the scrutiny of legislation and Estimates. The committee system will do that. The point about Ministers attending commitees has been made and examples were cited from other jurisdictions. We operate under the Irish Constitution, other Parliaments operate under their Constitutions. Our constitution provides for ministerial accountability to the Dáil. Two committee systems were quoted here: one is the committee system in the US. That is not relevant because they have no mechanism for questioning Secretaries of State, as they are called, in the US. Ministers in the UK are not summoned before committees as some Deputies said. A request is made to the Government for a Minister to attend and it is up to the Government to decide whether he or she will.
They dare not refuse.
They are the two examples quoted. Ministers will attend committees on legislation and on Estimates and the actions and policies of Ministers at that stage would be open to intense scrutiny. I do not foresee a situation where a Minister would not be open to that intense scrutiny. It will be a valuable exercise in that respect.
As to those Deputies who adopted a very negative attitude to the committees and said they will not work although in the past they have been vocal in their support for the idea of a committee system, the best way to find out whether they will work is have this debate. I will listen to the points put across and will incorporate them if I feel they are worthwhile. I will be open to changes and a review of the system when it is in place. That is a sensible approach. We could talk forever. If the history of Oireachtas reform proves anything, it is that one can talk oneself into corners and get nothing done. The history of Dáil reform is littered with examples of that. Members opposite should give the committee system a try, a fair chance and if it does not work I will be the first to admit it.
Mention was made of the foreign affairs committee and Deputy O'Hanlon suggested meetings between the British and Irish inter-parliamentary body and the foreign affairs committee. There is nothing in the terms of reference that would prevent this. It is a matter that the committee could certainly take up. In addition, Deputies referred to the exclusion of policy discussions on Northern Ireland and it was suggested that private sessions could be considered for this. That is a reasonable suggestion and I will ask the Minister to consider it. All Members, and I accept the bona fides of every Member, are aware of the sensitive nature of Northern Ireland discussions and this is one way around the possibility of causing problems in that regard.
On the suggestion that we have a separate EC committee, there is an argument for that. I concede that but there is a greater argument for the view that separating a foreign affairs committee and an EC committee would be an artificial division and that the specialised task involved in the examination of EC secondary legislation would be more appropriate to a sub-committee. That is one point of view. There are contrary points of view but I do not think an artificial division would be helpful. It would also mean separate backup and administrative——
An artificial division between what and what?
The EC committee on secondary legislation and the foreign affairs committee. I was disappointed — I will not single out any other Deputy — with the contribution of Deputy O'Keeffe who talked about jackboots and so on. He gave about the best performance of somebody trying to use a jackboot that I have seen in the House for some time. I came to this House with these proposals with an open mind. I am open to suggestions. I want the debate to be constructive and, generally, it has been and I do not think people threatening this and that serves any useful purpose. I ask Members not to do that.
In his contribution Deputy O'Keeffe criticised the Government for trying to push things down people's throats, not discussing things and so on. He then made a point about having x-number of members on the committee. The reason no number was included was we wanted to discuss this. We would like suggestions from the Opposition, whether we should have 21 or 25 members or whether we should have 30 members made up of Dáil and Seanad Members. Up to this we had set proportions and we need to discuss whether we should change that.
In regard to the Committee on Women Affairs, I note that only two Deputies raised this. I take the view that by having a special committee the whole area of women's equality is marginalised. The Government takes the view that the way to get equality is to bring it centre stage. For this reason, included in the terms of reference of each committee — this question was raised by Deputy O'Keeffe also — is the stipulation that the committee must look at all legislation that is brought forward in relation to equality. That is a way of bringing this centre stage rather than compartmentalising it and marginalising it.
Ministers will appear before these committees and matters can be raised with them, particularly during the Estimates debate, in relation to policies not considered right in terms of equality. I would like to hear the view of Deputies opposite on that. We marginalise people when we put them into a special committee. I am prepared, if sufficiently strong arguments are put forward, to reconsider that in relation to the women's committee but the point I made is valid.
Deputies Rabbitte and Enda Kenny raised the question of plenary sessions. We must have plenary sessions of the House. I accept fully the points raised by the Deputies that it is important to have people in the House and that Ministers are accountable to the House. We will still have plenary sessions of the House.
Four days a week?
Every day?
Every day. We will have Questions, debates and Second Stage debates on Bills, Report and Final Stages and Adjournment debates. This is a matter the Whips will have to discuss to see how best it fits in with a committee system. If we have four committees up and running, it will be difficult to try to run plenary sessions all day every day. That has to be discussed.
People have asked about interest groups and submissions to the committees. I am conscious of the need for that. Within the terms of reference of the committees that is possible. The interaction in relation to civil servants is provided for in the terms of reference of the committees, also civil servants will be able to have private briefing sessions with members of the committee prior to the legislation being brought forward and as the legislation is going through committee. It could eliminate much needless discussion on various sections of a Bill and the important sections could be discussed at length.
I accept the point made in relation to resources. Members of this House do not have the resources necessary to do the job. I say that openly and would say it whether I was in Opposition, in Government or on the backbenches. The committees will have a clerk. It is my desire that the clerk of each committee would be a member of the Oireachtas staff who are seen to be neutral and absolutely independent of all sides of the House. That is important. In addition, for legislation, officials in the Department concerned will be specifically assigned to the committees for the period that the legislation is being debated. The terms of reference of each committee allow for engaging the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge. That is another means where information and specialist knowledge can be obtained from outside. Members, particularly spokespersons, should have back-up and that will have to be addressed. Anybody who comes into this House from private industry, trade unions and so on is appalled at the fact that a Deputy has no research back-up and is only given secretarial assistance. I am committed to trying to ensure that is changed.
The Order of Business was originally intended for the order of the House; Deputies were informed what was to happen in the House that day. Deputies could raise questions on that and in relation to promised legislation and one or two other specific and defined areas. At the moment, there is an attempt being made to have a mini-Question Time on topical matters. It does not do the dignity of the House any good to have a brouhaha every morning. I would like Deputies to address that issue tomorrow. Perhaps a case could be made for having 15 or 20 minutes made available to raise topical matters each day rather than doing as on the Order of Business. I would like to hear Deputies' views on that.
By way of clarification, and in response to a query by Deputy Barrett, this session is intended to be a general question and answer session until 5 p.m. Deputies may ask any question relevant to Dáil reform. I call Deputy Dermot Ahern.
What is the order of precedence? We have just had a Government speaker and now we have another.
I understood this was a question and answer session. Am I not as entitled as anyone else to ask questions?
I have called Deputy Dermot Ahern.
As a member of the Dáil reform working committee for the past number of years I welcome the reform package brought before us today. As a member of a number of special committees that sat both in this Chamber and the committee rooms I welcome the fact that we are establishing committees.
I have some reasonable and practical questions about the committees. The first relates to lack of space and the time that Deputies could devote to these committees. Previous committees, like the Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies and the women's committee, had difficulty meeting because there was not any proper accommodation within the confines of Leinster House or in Kildare House. Before we start talking about committees meeting on a regular basis — it is envisaged that they would meet on a regular basis to deal with legislation — we must address the problem of accommodation. There will not be a problem in the summer months when the Dáil and Seanad are not sitting but when they are in session there will be difficulties. The amount of time Deputies have available for committee meetings would be limited, particularly if they wanted to be here. Members cannot be in two places at the one time. Before we run away with ourselves in relation to committees we need to set that out very carefully.
There is a proposal to introduce electronic voting. Given the way the Chamber is set out would Deputies be in a position to vote electronically? Considering the amount of money it would cost to put in place, will it save time? I do not think it will because in any parliament where electronic voting works well there is an open plan Chamber. If we are all required to sit in our seats in order to vote, the electronic system will not work because of the way the seats are set out.
In regard to the foreign affairs committee, I am slightly disappointed — I would not like Northern Ireland to be an issue in the foreign affairs committee for particular ideological reasons — that political and security matters are excluded from that committee. Perhaps it is high time that we had a Northern Ireland affairs committee to deal with the thorny problem on this island. I understand that they have one in the House of Commons and I do not see why we should not have one here. Perhaps that could be looked at.
I have often said that the best Dáil reform would be for Deputies to be less loquacious and to curtail their Second Stage contributions. This is one of the reasons I suggested curtailing Second Stage debate speeches to about 20 minutes. Deputies should be able to say what they want to say within a 20 minute time limit. We have instances where Deputies spoke for two and a half hours which delays the procedures of the Dáil.
On a point of order, the Whips agreed that this session would relate to questions. The points Deputy Ahern is making are relevant. There are Members here who wish to put questions to the Minister and it is an important occasion in the sense that the Minister will get a range of ideas from questions asked.
It is a new format for business and perhaps we could be brief.
I am trying to make a number of points and I am asking the Minister to reply. I understand this was the objective. If we want to get up and ask one question and let the Minister answer it and then ask another question, that is fine.
The Minister referred to the Order of Business every morning. A couple of years ago there used to be a debacle here when on occasions, 40 different issues were raised by Deputies. That is not what the Order of Business was designed for and, therefore, we brought in a changed Adjournment debate on topical matters at the end of each day's business. That did not go down well, particularly with some of the smaller groups who did not like topical matters tagged on to the end of business. They may have had a point. We made an effort to do away with topical matters and to beef up the Adjournment debate so that more detailed responses could be given by Ministers and more detailed questions asked by Members on a daily basis. Unfortunately, Fine Gael, in particular, objected to that and they wanted topical matters retained. I challenge Fine Gael to see how often topical matters have been raised over the past number of months. Unfortunately the system is not used by Deputies and is not working well. We should have a better Adjournment debate at the end of each day's business. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Will the Minister agree that when a period for questions and answers is provided it should not be taken up by Government Deputies making speeches? My second question relates to the terms of reference of the finance and general affairs committee. It says that the Dáil may refer reports to the committee. Would it not be more appropriate to say that the Dáil "shall" refer those reports? It would be rather cumbersome if we must have a special motion each time a report is referred to the committee. The committee should stand permanently referred with all reports relevant to the Department it covers on a standing order basis rather than having a specific motion each time a report is to be referred to the committee.
My next question relates to Estimates. It is not stated clearly in the terms of reference that the Estimates for the Departments concerned will stand referred automatically to the committee. I understand that is the intention but it should be stated in the terms of reference.
Four, if we allow committees to consider Estimates committee members should be allowed to introduce motions to amend Estimates. In most parliaments a procedure exists where Members may introduce an amendment to an Estimate to reduce an item or transfer an item from one subhead to another but not to increase the overall Estimate, which obviously is the Government's prerogative. Will the Minister of State agree that there should be a procedure within the committee style discussion of Estimates to allow motions to amend to be introduced in the same way as motions to amend are allowed to Bills?
My fifth question relates to Ministers being summoned to appear before committees. I take the Minister's point that our Constitution is not the same as every other. Will Ministers appear before these committees on a regular basis regardless of whether they are obliged to do so?
My sixth question concerns publicity for the committees' work. My understanding is that many Members are reluctant to serve on committees because they do not get any publicity for their work. Politicians live, to some extent at least, by publicity. One of the obstacles to televised publicity is, I understand, the failure to introduce legislation to give the same privileges that apply in the House to the proceedings of the committees. That legislation has been promised for years but has not yet been introduced. When will it be introduced? Can we have cast iron assurances on that point?
My seventh question is in respect of the quorum. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the quorum of 11 may be too large. Will he agree to a smaller quorum? I believe that a quorum should always be present and, therefore, it should be a realistic quorum.
My eight question relates to the terms of reference of the foreign affairs committee. A number of Members of this House are appointed as members of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is increasing in importance in international affairs, particularly as it is now taking in the activities of the CSCE — the Conference for Security in Eastern Europe — which is very important from the point of view of the reorganisation of the former Soviet Union and the problems of the minority involved. The Council of Europe is the only body on which Eastern Europe is currently represented. There are now more countries in Eastern and Central Europe than there are in Western Europe in terms of numbers. It should be part of the terms of reference of the committee. Item 6 of the terms of reference states that "the Joint Committee shall in particular consider..." a range of matters about the European Community. I suggest that there should be an additional subhead requiring the committee to consider reports from the members appointed by Dáil Eireann to attend at the Council of Europe on the activities of the Council and on their own activities in particular.
In regard to the activities of committees, one of the most neglected parts of our work in this House is the function of delegated legislation in general. I am not talking about EC delegated legislation but all delegated legislation. Every day on the Order Paper numerous Orders are delegated, they are the law of the land in the same way as if they had been passed after a 20 day debate. The only parliamentary control over those is that a Member may put down a motion to annual them. If a Member puts down a motion to annul, it was originally the case that the Government automatically provided time for a debate on this. Approximately 20 years ago the Government of the day stopped doing that and no Government has done it since. The only way that you can get a motion to annual a regulation——
When will the speech end and the questions begin?
The Deputy should stay quiet.
Please allow the Deputy to continue uninterrupted.
The Deputy is too arrogant for his own good. He should show some respect for a bit of experience. The Deputy is only a wet day in the place. He is only here two years.
The Deputy should get his figures right.
Please allow the Deputy in possession to continue uninterrupted.
Would the Minister agree that it is not realistic for the Government to provide time for every motion to annul but that when we are setting up a committee system it is realistic to have these motions which are discussed in committee? If so, would he agree that any Member of the House who wishes to put down a motion to annul a regulation should be entitled to an audience for his motion whether he is a member of the committee concerned or not? That would provide a means for delegated legislation to be considered here. I suggest that could be done on a time limit basis and the committee would allocate no more than ten or 15 minutes to such a motion. The Member could make a statement on why the motion should be annulled, the Minister would say why it should not and the committee would vote. At least the Member would get a hearing for ten or 15 minutes, something he does not get under the present system. Given that in volume terms at least we actually pass more legislation by delegated orders than we do by principal Bills, there should be some means in the Oireachtas for discussing them.
The Minister to reply.
I would like a response if possible.
This is new ground. It is a Committee Stage format of questions and answers. We are talking about Dáil reform and I thought that the appropriate thing would be for Deputies to put their questions and the Minister would come in at some stage to respond. Would the Minister like to respond to questions put by Deputies thus far or would he prefer to take all the questions? There may be some repetitive questions.
I am in the hands of the Deputies opposite. Whatever they want me to do I will do it.
It would be useful to hear the answers now to avoid repetition.
In relation to the first question asked by Deputy Bruton, the Chair decides who will speak or ask questions. I believe that, since Dáil reform is so important, it is a matter for every Deputy in the House and if they want to take up time I have no problem with that. In relation to the two points the Deputy raised about changing the wording to say that the Government shall refer, or the Dáil shall refer, Estimates and other business to the committees it is the clear understanding that Estimates will be referred; but the wording is there specifically because the supremacy of the Dáil must be recognised. There may come a time when the Dáil may want an Estimate to be kept in the House and it would have the freedom to do that. It is the clear understanding that Estimates etc., will be presented to these committees in line with what we attempted to do last year. The Government decides on Estimates and budgetary policy. I cannot give the Deputy a straight, definite and definitive answer on that, but I imagine that the Government would not want to give up its prerogative in that area.
Ministers will attend the committee meeting for the Estimates and legislation and Deputies will have sufficient opportunity to question the Ministers on both those occasions on general policy and on matters relating to their own ministries at that time. Personally, I do not see any great problem at a later stage with Ministers attending for other reasons; but, if we are to do this right, the primary purpose of these committees is to consider the Estimates and legislation. When they are up and running we should make sure that they work well and should not bog ourselves down with trying to bring in other roles for the committees. I am prepared to review the role of each of these committees within 12 months if Members feel that should be done.
In relation to publicity for Members attending committees, it is to a certain extent outside our control, but it is a valid point. If Deputies spend a lot of time dealing with legislation they should get publicity. We are often criticised in the House for having only two or three Members present when legislation is being presented. If one looks at the Press Gallery only one or two people are present there either. I know as well as Deputies opposite that members of the Press Corps who cover the proceedings of the House are listening to it on monitors, so one does not have to be physically present in the House.
They seldom report committees.
This is one of the problems in relation to committees. The Deputy may have been a member of the Finance Committee——
They are hardly ever covered by the press.
We cannot continue ordering business the way we do in plenary sessions in the House. It will be much easier to cover the House if it is in plenary session and "in competition" with committees. Therefore, a system will have to be worked out to allow for full coverage of committees.
I take the Deputy's point in relation to the quorum for committees. That is a matter we can discuss and I would not have any great problem with it. The Deputy's last three suggestions are worthy of consideration — the quorum, the Foreign Affairs Committee having reports from the Council of Europe members and the regulations. In regard to the regulations, there may be a danger that committees would get bogged down trying to annul regulations. When the Deputy suggests ten or 15 minutes, I think what he has in mind is something like the five minute rule in the House of Commons.
In practice it would not be used but it would be there.
Exactly.
I asked some questions.
In relation to time and space, the question of plenary sittings of the House going on at the same time as committees had to be looked at. I have asked, for inclusion in the Estimates, that two rooms fully equipped for television will be available to the committees on a permanent basis. We can also use the Chamber at various times. We may, with the consent of our friends in the Seanad, use their Chamber. The House does not sit on a Monday so there are various times that committees can meet and have televised proceedings.
As in the case of the French Revolution, we will have to use the tennis courts.
In regard to the other point the Deputy made in relation to being in two places at the one time and trying to co-ordinate the activities of the committees and ensuring there are no unavoidable clashes, that is one of the roles I envisage for the convenors, who would have to organise and liaise with each other and with the staff in the House. It is a practical problem that has to be addressed.
There is no point in introducing a system of electronic voting to the House if we do not change the means by which we vote. If we decide to introduce an electronic voting system and continue voting the way we do the only difference being that we sit on our seats or walk through the lobby and press in a card for every single vote, we will not save time. If it is the view of the Members of the House that we continue the present voting system except that we do something fancy like pressing buttons, that would be a waste of taxpayers' money. The time saving in electronic voting is achieved by bringing votes together and having them, not necessarily on one night but at particular set times so one does not have the bell ring for four minutes plus four minutes, another four minutes in preparing for the vote, with maybe five or six votes.
We respectfully suggest that system is not practical at all.
I am responding to a question I was asked.
The point made in relation to a Northern Ireland affairs committee could be looked at. It was not suggested before. The other points in relation to the Order of Business, Second Stage timings and Adjournment debates are addressed in the reform package before us.
Deputies have indicated they would like to put questions to the Minister. I am anxious to accommodate everybody. I would ask for brevity.
Brevity is the soul of wit. The biggest single frustration experienced by us is getting Ministers to come into the House and answer to us on any element of public policy or spending. Until that is remedied there will not be any real Dáil reform. That is the essence of accountability and is something we have been seeking for a long time. My fear is that the position will worsen under the proposed committee system and that Ministers will spend less time answering to us. That would not constitute Dáil reform but would make a bad situation infinitely worse.
With regard to Question Time, Ministers now come in wheeling wheelbarrows of files with long tracts that have been written out for them by civil servants. In response to already tabled questions they stand up and read these long tracts, leaving as little time as possible for people who have tabled questions to ask supplementary questions or sometimes to get an answer to the question tabled. It has become a kind of a game where the Minister, wittingly or otherwise, sets out to outwit the Deputy and at the end of the day no real information is given in response to Deputies' questions. That has turned Question Time into a meaningless exercise. Since this new Dáil convened it has become worse. Yesterday, Deputies who tabled Priority Questions had scarcely any time left to ask supplementaries. That is a negation of what Question Time was set out to achieve.
I am asking the Minister to concede that there will be no real Dáil reform until there is a reform of Question Time. If we want to pick a starting point, it is Question Time. I suggest that what ought to happen is that the Minister of the day ought to come in here and stand up for 20 minutes and answer questions that are put to her or him on the floor of the House. If that concession were given to Members there might be a real Question Time as opposed to the charade that has been developed here recently and now passes for Question Time. It does not succeed in eliciting any kind of basic information. I suggest that the Minister take that on board. The Taoiseach and his Ministers should answer questions from the floor of the House and let the Ceann Comhairle decide whether the question is in order. The temptation might be there to stand up and ask spurious questions but we have a Ceann Comhairle and let him decide on that issue. That would make a major difference to Deputies and would be a beginning in Dáil reform.
Will the Minister tell us if there are any proposals for the Houses of the Oireachtas to have their own Vote with their own accounting officer such as the Clerk of the Dáil, so that there is complete independence of this House? Would he assure us that the staffing of committees would be from the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas and that we will not be dictated to by officials from various Departments who want to keep things away from Members? I would like confirmation from the Minister as to whether there are any proposals to deal with the practical problems of running committees. Having served as Government Whip, I am aware of the action of various Departments when it comes to dealing with committees. If we are to have a real committee system I would like the Minister to confirm that the Houses of the Oireachtas would have real independence.
How does the Minister propose to deal with the requirements of the Maastricht Treaty which obliges national parliaments to have their own committee to deal with the role of national parliaments in the context of European union? If European affairs are to be a sub-committee of the foreign affairs committee I suggest that the role of national parliaments will become less and less important. I ask the Minister to ask the Department of Foreign Affairs to confirm to us how they propose to deal with the obligations imposed on national parliaments in relation to the Maastricht Treaty.
I say this as an ex-chairman of the European affairs committee for a short time. The frustrating part of being a committee chairperson is that one spends a lot of time dealing with reports and producing them but they gather dust in various corners of this House and in various Departments. They are never debated.
That is true.
Are there proposals to have such reports debated with Ministers present? This is vitally important in order to give support to those who spend a lot of time and effort producing reports. How will the Minister deal with the statutory right of any Member to attend any debate particularly in relation to Estimates? If these committees are to debate the Estimates, if one is not a member of the committee how can one exercise one's right of attendance to ask questions and take part in that committee? That is a problem and was evident when the Finance Bill was debated last year. Those who were not selected as members of that committee did not partake in the Committee Stage. I ask the Minister to tell us how he intends overcoming that difficulty.
As Government Chief Whip I investigated the possibility of raising grievance points — items that used to come up on the Order of Business. Some Deputies say that the dignity of this House is disappearing because of what goes on at the Order of Business. The one complaint that I get from the electorate is that every time they watch Dáil Report on television nobody is in the Chamber and there is no atmosphere. They are always comparing it with the House of Commons. What we are doing is reducing the opportunity for real debate across the floor. Sometimes it might get heated but we are professional politicians and at the end of the day we know that there is nothing personal in what is said. But at least there is debate whereas this charade of six or seven of us in the Chamber, with nobody in the press gallery, discussing Dáil reform is bad television. This will happen to committees.
Grievance time became too formalised and one forgot what Minister was involved on a particular evening. I had in mind that for 20 minutes or half an hour every day, time would be set aside for Members to seek the permission of the Chair and raise a particular issue for a maximum of two or three minutes. There would be no need for a Minister to be present but the issue would be conveyed to the relevant Department, and the following day the Minister would have the right to answer. There should be less formality and it should be left to the Chair to decide who would be called. This is done in other parliaments. If I were called yesterday, I would not be called today if others in the Chamber wished to raise a point. It would mean that Deputies could say they raised a particular matter in the Houses of Parliament.
Deputy Quill mentioned Question Time. We should not throw away the last opportunity for a new format of grievance time whereby Deputies can come into the House at a given time and say what they wish for a maximum of two minutes. Up to 15 Members could be accommodated. That is done very successfully in the Australian Parliament.
Do I see a slight possibility of Ministers appearing before committees? We might look more closely at the aspect of having more accountability from Ministers and having them come before committees.
The Minister said the women's rights committee had only been mentioned by a couple of Members. It was not an oversight on my part; I intended to bring it up at this stage. I served on the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights and I found it an excellent committee. It was very well regarded internationally. Because it was a cross-party committee, it was very well attended and there was a very good atmosphere and a spirit of co-operation. I do not think that such a committee marginalises women. Even with 20 women Members of the Dáil, it is essential that such a committee remains in place. It was very effective and it underscored the need for much of the legislation which is to come before us, for instance legislation on the ownership of the family home. The Minister should look again at the various committees aside from the four new committees and the foreign affairs committee.
The representation of Opposition parties on all committees should be considered. If strict proportionality is being taken into account, it may be a little unfair to include Ministers who are not available to serve on committees anyway. Where a committee would have more of a co-operative role than a contentious one we might have wider representation from Opposition parties. Will there be a right of audience for MEPs at the foreign affairs committee? There should be some reporting back mechanism between committees and the Dáil.
We need to look more carefully at our voting procedure because I am very concerned about amendments. An amendment may fall because it has been rejected at an earlier stage.
I accept the point made earlier by Deputy Barrett about genuine debate in the Chamber. That is the point Deputy Quill was making also. Can we devise a method of having a better flow of debate? Even though there has been an attempt to have a flow of questions and answers, it is still stultified.
Some of the most memorable occasions in this House were when the Chamber was packed. It is natural that a crowd attracts a crowd. We are talking about a fundamental issue today with an empty press gallery, an empty public gallery and practically an empty House. This must not make for riveting listenership.
This morning I raised the question of Members with special interests being elected. If one of these members is not appointed to a committee dealing with their special interest, will that Member have the right to attend at the committee and have the right to contribute on the Committee Stage of legislation relevant to his or her area?
There are 166 Members in this House and we have spoken about four special committees with 30 Members on each. That is 120 Members. There will be another eight or nine committees of the House. This could turn out to be a Whip's nightmare unless there is a specific well-defined rota as to when, where and in what circumstances the committee will meet. There will be situations where Members will attend a committee meeting. They will be present for two minutes when they will either be requested to attend at another committee meeting or a quorum bell will ring or a vote will take place. Obviously that will stretch the resources of the House immensely. I hope the Minister's remarks about resources and facilities mean something.
My final point is in regard to printed records of the committee meetings. With the resources we have at the moment, without forming any of these special committees, it is not possible to have a printed record of committee meetings ready for the next meeting. Often they do not appear for many months. That is not the fault of the staff — they have not been given adequate resources to do the work. I note that in the rulings of the Chair it states:
The Chair agrees that debates should be available for Members at the next meeting of a committee.
If we are to have special committees it is very important that at the next meeting of that committee the Members attending should have the printed record of what happened at the previous committee meeting, so that they can refer back and raise relevant issues. Can the Minister ensure that the ruling of the Chair is observed and is not broken as happens all the time and can he also ensure that at each committee meeting there will be a printed record of the previous meeting of the committee available to Members?
It is difficult to judge exactly how these reforms will change the way we operate. As a new Member, my impression is of coming in fresh from the outside world into a system that is quite strange and bewildering, an experience many long serving Members may not remember. The overriding impression one gets is of a rather hide-bound secretive operation and that there is an imbalance built into the system in favour of the Government and against the Opposition. Obviously, this time around there is probably more evidence of that because of the large number on the Government's side. In relation to the chairman of these committees, is it the intention that they will be drawn from the Opposition as well as from the Government? If it is the case that the chairman will simply be, let us say, non-runners in the contest for ministerial positions that would be damaging to Dáil reform. Drawing a number of chairman from the Opposition would be a healthy development.
In relation to how we are perceived by the media the question has not been asked where Members are when the Chamber is practically empty. It might be an idea for the Minister to invite Gay Byrne and Joe Duffy to come into the Dáil and find out what we do.
Where is the media?
That is something they can discover for themselves. We must invite people in, explain what we are doing and listen to their comments in that regard.
I was rather taken aback when I read section 6 of the document relating to committees. It referred to a private preliminary briefing. I do not understand why any briefing should be in private and the reasons for any such private briefings should be clearly stated. There is enough secrecy in relation to making decisions in Government at both local and national level without further secrecy. The Minister stated that he does not favour the idea of a women's committee. I disagree with him. Does he not consider there is an onus on him now to create a gender balance in any new structures? If the idea of women's rights and equality is to be perceived through the system, the system must be structured in such a way as to enable that to happen. The Minister has added a certain onus on himself by disregarding the importance of having women's committees.
I question how he will gender-proof the structure. I would be interested to hear his reply to this.
In relation to Deputy Quill's point regarding responsiveness, very often Question Time only becomes interesting when the Ceann Comhairle has to intervene to stop the debate. Surely we can bypass the flimflam at the beginning and get down to the meat. It would make life more interesting for Deputies and it would also mean that the information the public desire would be available. They are paying for it and they should get good value. I would be interested also to hear the Minister's reply in that regard.
I am conscious that Deputy Fitzgerald wants to get information on a number of matters so I will reply to her questions as soon as possible.
In regard to the points raised by Deputies Quill and McManus when I came to this House, I remember hearing that one should never ask a question here unless one knew the answer in advance. The supplementary questions are the interesting part where Opposition Deputies pursue Ministers for answers. There are two types. On the one hand people criticise Ministers for not giving full answers and, on the other, when they give full answers they are criticised again for giving long answers thereby delaying the proceedings.
Answers are answers and waffle is waffle.
If a Deputy asks a question he or she should receive a straight answer; I have no difficulty with that. If they ask a question about policy then a Minister should have a right to elucidate a particular policy. I am not averse to reviewing Question Time again. Deputy Barrett mentioned priority questions and asked about allocating more time for them. I am not averse to that; it is something the Whips can discuss further. Some Members seek full replies and then accuse Ministers of not giving full answers if they are brief and this is something we should consider. Deputy Barrett raised a number of interesting points.
The Oireachtas has its own Vote but that area is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle and it is under his direct control. I understand the Deputy's point that there should be somebody at the Cabinet table who would take on the responsibility and speak for the Houses of the Oireachtas and that is something I would like to pursue. In addition, I will pursue the question the Deputy raised with the Department of Foreign Affairs and I will ask it to communicate directly with the Deputy on how it proposes, under the current structure, to meet the requirements of the Maastricht Treaty. I will ask the Department to communicate with the Deputy on that matter. With regard to the reports the Deputy mentioned, the Whips have been trying to bring any reports received before the House on Fridays and that has worked reasonably well. I understand the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women will be brought before the House next Friday. On the following Friday we will have the report on juvenile justice in which Deputy Quill is interested. We have been trying to bring reports before the House on Fridays and that practice has worked reasonably well.
In relation to the general question about special interest Deputies, I do not think there are any special interest Deputies. If Deputies have a particular interest in a subject and they are not members of the committee dealing with it, there is provision under the terms of reference to nominate substitutes. If a Deputy has a particular interest in a Bill and is not a member of the committee dealing with it they can substitute for other members on the committee.
On the point made by Deputy Barrett and others about grievance time and my earlier point regarding the Order of Business, I do not think that is the time for a question and answer session. I accept the point made by Opposition Deputies that there should be some time and that is something I will discuss with the other Whips. We will try to bring something forward on that, perhaps a 15 or 20 minute session. I would not go along with the idea that a Deputy could raise questions that would be answered the following day because that would give the Deputy an advantage. He could raise all sorts of issues and the Minister would not have a right to reply until the following day. The Opposition Deputy would have the chance to raise all sorts of hares and the Minister would not have an opportunity to respond but this a matter that is worth considering.
Is the Minister against hare coursing?
I will look at the range of committees. The Whips may discuss that again. I would be interested in getting the views of the women Deputies and others in regard to the women's committee. I am open to suggestions. There has been a suggestion that we should change the system by which people are appointed to committees. When one moves away from the system of proportionality one gets into serious trouble because many people will have many different ideas. We must devise a system that will meet everybody's requirements. In relation to gender balance on committees, I regard all Deputies as equal. I do not see them as female Deputies or male Deputies, they are all Deputies and I am sure they will serve the committees well.
The Minister can be certain they will.
I have no doubt they will. With regard to a rota, I am conscious that I am not going to be able to address the point fully because I want to allow Deputy Fitzgerald in. The rota and timetable for committees relate to what I said about chairmen and convenors and having people involved. I want to talk to the Opposition Whips about this.
I wish to raise a number of points. On the attendance of MEPs, the Minister should investigate what other channels of communication or links could be built with our MEPs. There has been quite a deficit in relation to that issue, and it became evident during the Maastricht campaign. Their attendance at the Foreign Affairs Committee will be helpful but this matter should be considered further.
Second, I would like to refer to the reports from the Council of Europe. It is an important area and I hope the Minister of State will be able to consider that. Would the Minister of State give further information in relation to Ministers attending and how that might happen? Would it be at the request of the committee, or when new legislation is being considered, or would there be any particular criteria that would determine the Minister's attendance?
I would like to make a final point in relation to mainstream equality issues. For example, in the European Parliament there is a Women's Rights Committee which operates effectively and efficiently. While I agree with the Minister about mainstreaming — of course we have to mainstream equality issues — we are still at a point in the development of equal rights where the alternative structure of positive action is needed. I would argue strongly for the retention of the women's rights committee on that basis, at least in the interim.
I take the Deputy's points in relation to the retention of the women's rights committee and the reports from the Council of Europe. I did not address the question of MEPs. They are entitled to attend the Foreign Affairs Committee. People are asking us to consider involving them in other committees and more in the workings of the House. That is something we can discuss. I want to make it clear that initially these committees will be legislative committees. The Minister will be in attendance for legislation and debates on Estimates. I will be open to further discussions in regard to Ministers attending when I see how these committees will work. Initially, the role of the Minister will be in regard to those two areas.
I hope the Minister of State is not closing the window now.
May I ask a question?
Very briefly.
I wish to ask you a question.
There is a number of disappointed Deputies already.
I do not wish to ask the Minister of State a question but I would like to ask you a question, Sir. I am not as familiar with the Standing Orders of the House as you would be. Is it within the powers of the House, as now constituted, to extend this very useful session? A number of Deputies would appreciate the opportunity to continue. Is that possible, given that the Government Chief Whip is present? Is that within the remit of the House?
It is rather unorthodox business we are dealing with here today and there is much merit in the Deputy's suggestion. I, as chairman, have something in front of me by which I am bound. At this point the order of the House is to proceed with statements on the sub judice rule.
It might be in order if I move an amendment now to the order of the House and if you are prepared to accept it?
Well done.
In so doing I will have to consult with Deputies opposite. Do the Deputies wish the sitting to continue until 6 p.m. or do they wish to finish at 5.30 p.m. and deal with the statements on the sub judice rule?
5.30 p.m. will be reasonable.
I so move.
This is unorthodox. I am happy to be able to accommodate some people.
I will be brief. If we have no daily plenary sessions of the Dáil, what happens to the daily Dáil questions which are supposed to be the great defence of democracy? If we have no daily plenary sessions of the Dáil, what happens to the Order of Business? Are we going to have a block Order of Business over two, three or four days or maybe a week? What happens when urgent matters arise subsequently? In regard to the Order of Business for the committees, there may be competing influences and who will do the ordering of business? Are we going to lose control of the whole position here in the Dáil Chamber? Why abolish grievance time? The Minister of State said it was not used. I did not count the number of times I used it, but The Sunday Tribune did. I apparently used it 87 times during the last Dáil. By abolishing it we will be simply pandering to the Dáil Deputies who wish to say in ten minutes what could be said in two minutes.
I would warn the Minister of State that if he thinks there will be television coverage of the committee sessions which will enhance the reputation of this House, he is making a big mistake. A relatively small number of people sitting in a small room having a committee form of debate is not conducive to television and, therefore, the committees will not be televised. The media are interested in entertainment and not in us.
Carlow-Kilkenny): May I clarify which other Deputies wish to contribute? Deputies Cox and Durkan are listed here.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State for using his discretion. That is commendable. If there is to be Dáil reform, from time to time some discretion might be the better part of our valour.
I do not want to make a speech so I will confine myself to questions. I heard some points earlier in relation to electronic voting. I have the experience of voting with such a system in the European Parliament and when Members of this House attended the Assizes between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments of members states in the Chamber of Deputies in Rome. On all occasions Deputies were given a small plastic card like a credit card which has some encoding on it to identify the named Deputies. Even if the seating arrangements from time to time are flexible, your flexible friend is inflexible with regard to the identity of Deputies. It allows Deputies to move around the Chamber and not necessarily have to sit in the one spot everyday and yet still be able to vote. In general, however, one sat in the same place. Electronic voting is not an insurmountable problem. I am not sure whether we need to block all the votes together to have electronic voting, because it allows for a fairly instantaneous replay of results and does not require counting. I take the point that if Deputies are in their offices they still have to be given time to get to the Chamber.
I am interested in the definition of the terms of reference of the Finance and Economics Committee. I know it will deal with Committee Stage of Bills and Estimates and to that extent it is useful; but it seems to omit some vital elements. I talk now not of the Estimates cycle or Committee Stage of a Bill but the actual policy process itself. I would instance the recent devaluation as an example, though one could pick many examples. There is some use and merit in a specialist body of this House being able to question relevant agencies. Those relevant agencies and persons should include the Minister. I note the point made earlier about Ministers attending in other jurisdictions at their own will. There is a certain moral suasion when a committee summons a Minister and the Minister stays away. It would be useful if one had that power at a minimum. In regard to agencies such as the National Treasury Management Agency, one should be entitled in public policy terms to hear why it did certain things the way it did and to see if collectively we can share in the learning experience from the type of national crisis created through the monetary problems.
While allowing that the Central Bank is in statutory terms independent, it seems a very relevant body to call in. Many of the Central Banks of the European Community are independent of the political system. Notwithstanding that, Karl Otto Pohl, while he was President of the Bundesbank, came before that specialist committee of Parliament. Mr Tietmeyer also came before that parliamentary committee. Other people of substance in policy formation, people from defined independent areas, have made themselves available in camera to that committee. As a member of the Economic and Monetary Committee of the European Parliament, I always found that such people have been enormously helpful in elucidating ideas about public policy. It would be a grave disservice to set up committees without bringing in the policy focus as distinct from the purely political legislative process of committees and so on. I would like the Minister's comments on that matter.
Acting Chairman
I remind the Deputy that Deputies Durkan, McDowell, Keogh and Ferris wish to speak and the Minister has to reply.
I will limit myself to questions. Does the Minister have a view on open parliamentary questions that is, which the Minister has not received in writing in advance? That system works well in other jurisdictions. I recommend that an advance timetable be set for committees. Has the Minister been asked about the interruption of debate? Deputy McManus talked about inviting media people in here. In contemplating Dáil reform, we should consider this matter in terms of accountability as public representatives and not be cowed by prejudicial, biased and at times grossly ill-informed comment that caters to the lowest common denomination that should not be the driving force behind our efforts to bring about reform in this House.
One of the things I felt has rendered this House and its proceedings boring in recent years is the growing tradition of reading speeches. In this debate Deputies are speaking for themselves, not from scripts, thereby making the debate more interesting. One thing that has made this House boring and resulted in disinterest by the media and the public is the practice where scriptwriters outside of this Chamber prepare speeches and Deputies simply read them. The Minister of State should seriously take into account this practice which is in breach of Standing Orders.
In relation to Question Time, the Minister said that the Members opposite complain when they get comprehensive answers. We get replies; we do not get answers. I am not lecturing anybody in this regard, but where there is a big Government majority it is important that the Opposition does not become disenchanted or cynical — I ask the Minister opposite to pass this information to his colleagues. Some of the replies to genuine questions are a disgrace, they do nothing for parliamentary procedure, for democracy or for the good name of this House. I implore the Minister to use his influence to change that. There was a time when a Deputy had to drag out supplementary information. It was up to the Opposition spokesperson to get that information and they did so but they do not get a chance to ask supplementaries now. They get long, woolly, hazy, replies that probably refer to world affairs, national affairs, parish pump affairs and so on, not answers to specific questions. That is very boring, disconcerting, annoying and frustrating to the Opposition and does not make for good parliamentary behaviour.
I wish to refer to the procedure. I agree with my colleague, Deputy Nealon, about the need for the plenary session to reign supreme at all times and to be a major feature on the political calendar. I am concerned about voting at a specified time, electronically or otherwise. Political life should not be predictable because it becomes boring, Members lose interest as do the public, the media and the critics and there is a grave danger that we will go down that road. There should be a certain amount of unpredictability about parliamentary life. There should always be the possibility that the Opposition can spring a vote. That is the practice in all parliaments. If you set a game plan and have the answer to every conceivable event the Opposition become bored. When a Government has a big majority, as is the case at present, it would be in the interests of the parties in Government to ensure that the Opposition — and in turn the public — do not become bored, frustrated or annoyed.
I echo what Deputy Durkan said about implementing Standing Orders. One requirement that could be implemented is that a Member must move his question by referring to the number on the Order Paper — Members are not entitled, in theory, to an answer unless they are here when the question is called. That would cut down on the excessive number of questions appearing on the Order Paper. If Deputies want a reply they would hear it in the Chamber. Spokesmen would refrain from putting down questions in various Deputies' names because they would be embarassed if the Deputies were not here. That would be a first stage in reducing the number of questions the vast majority of which are never answered in the Chamber.
There is a great deal of repetition in the House. For example the Taoiseach reads the Order of Business and the Ceann Comhairle then repeats it. That takes about ten minutes every day, and time is precious. Similarly it takes the Ceann Comhairle ten minutes to recite all the items on the Adjournment — from the sublime to the less sublime. We have to listen to all of them even though we know he is going to reject the majority of them. These are minor matters which should be considered.
I am very interested in the terms of reference of the foreign affairs committee. I understand the Minister of State has indicated that in relation to Northern Ireland, he is open to persuasion. It is more important that he considers the restriction that prevents discussion by a foreign affairs committee of matters on which Ireland takes issue at EC level or internationally. The restriction renders such a committee a farce. If an issue on which Ireland takes a stance internationally cannot be discussed because the committee might embarrass Iveagh House, I despair of the whole process.
I remind the Minister of State in that context that the Government will have an overwhelming majority on the committee. It is not as if the committee will make a headstrong decision on any issue. The only thing being guarded against is somebody opening their mouth on the issue. With respect, Iveagh House has it all its own way. I suggest that the foreign affairs committee should be empowered to discuss any matter on which Ireland takes a stand internationally. If it cannot do that, it makes a mockery of this House.
In relation to the question of ministerial accountability to committees, I said earlier that perhaps the Minister was opening a window of opportunity but he backed off a little. I would ask him to consider that point for the future. In relation to chairpersons of committees, I ask him to ensure that the various chairpersons of existing and new committees come from the Opposition and Government parties. It would be unfair if committees were dominated by Members from the parties in Government. Was a reply given to the question of Members attending committee meetings?
I answered that question earlier.
I am sorry, I seem to have missed it.
I seek clarification on a number of matters. I attended the Whips' meeting on this subject. There seems to be confusion in Deputy Rabbitte's mind about ordering votes at a particular time. He said this would make a mockery of the legislation because one would not be aware if an amendment was passed or voted on. As I understand it, the plenary session will deal with Second Stage legislation and votes will take place at the end of Second Stage. Will the Minister confirm that? Votes on Committee Stage will take place in the special legislative committees, on each section or amendment. Is that correct? Will electronic voting be used in the committee or will the vote be simply recorded since there will be fewer Members in attendance?
In the past when Bills, including Private Members' Bills, were referred to a Special Committee it was decided that the person in the Chair would be from the Government side because the Government has primary reponsibility for passing legislation. I take it that Government and the Dáil as the House of supremacy in the area of legislation has primary responsibility for passing legislation referred to it because only the Government can create funding to implement the provisions in a Bill.
I would like clarification on the questions raised about quorums and voting. I take it that Members on the legislative committees dealing with the Committee Stage of Bills will be paired for votes in the plenary session. If not, Members will have to leave that work to come back to vote on the Second Stage of a Bill. As I understand from the Whips' meetings agreement was reached in principle in that regard. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that matter.
Would the Minister agree that almost all rulings of the Chair — and this applies to all occupants of the Chair — protect the Government of the day, whoever it may be, against the Opposition of the day? Would he also agree that increasingly the House is being dominated by the concerns and needs of the Government? Would he agree that that in some measures may have something to do with the fact that the Ceann Comhairle inevitably is elected, if not by total agreement, by a majority vote by the Government parties? Would he agree that in order to enhance the independence of the Ceann Comhairle, thereby enhancing the independence of the House, it would be worth considering a change in the way the Ceann Comhairle is elected?
In the British Parliament election of Speaker is a cross-party matter and the Government of the day usually does not get its way in such an election. For example, a Labour Member, Betty Boothroyd, is the current Speaker because the Tory Members could not agree on the Government nominee. Would the Minister agree that in the next Dáil it might be worthwhile considering, for that one item of business, a secret ballot of all Members of the House? In that way the Ceann Comhairle would be truly independent of any side of the House.
Would the Minister agree that a problem arises in that even though the House has certain rights under the Constitution, it has no means of vindicating those rights because the legal guardian of the rights of the House and of the Constitution is the Attorney General who, in practice, is a servant of the Executive and not of the House? Would the Minister agree that it would be useful for the House to have some means of taking legal action to protect its rights as a House? Would he consider the possibility of giving that power to the House?
I will give one example of where the interests of the House under the Constitution are not being protected. The Constitution provides that the Government must present for consideration to the House the Estimates of expenditure as soon as possible after they are published. Is the Minister aware that successive Governments, including Governments of which I have been a member, have in practice presented the Estimates for consideration as late as is allowed under the Central Fund Act? This is the direct opposite of the intention of the Constitution in terms of presentation of the Estimates — they are presented not as soon, but as late as possible. Would the Minister agree that the reason the House cannot compel the Government to abide by the Constitution is that the House has no means of vindicating its constitutional rights other than at the discretion of the Executive and that the House, therefore, should have some means of initiating legal action, if necessary, to get the Executive to abide by the Constitution, so far as privileges of the House are concerned?
I do not intend to be discourteous to Deputy Nealon who raised a number of points — he is not present at the moment — but I think I covered these points earlier when referring to plenary sessions and so on. The Deputy disagreed particularly with the abolition of the grievance procedures. This matter was agreed because Whips felt the Adjournment Debate is a better way of dealing with these questions. Therefore instead of having three questions on the Adjournment it is proposed to increase that number to four and to get rid of the grievance procedures altogether because it is generally perceived that that system is not working. We have talked about debates on topical matters at various stages and I think the grievance procedure/topical matters debate will have to be considered again.
In relation to Deputy Cox's points about voting, it is proposed to introduce an electronic voting system. However, there is not much point in introducing such a system without changing the method and means by which we vote. If we continue the present procedure whereby the bells ring and Members come in here for every vote we will save only about three minutes per vote. It would not be worth spending £100,000 on that.
Deputy Ferris made the point very well that as the Second Stage of Bills will be dealt with in plenary sessions, votes could be taken on them directly after the vote on Private Members' Business. Committee Stage of Bills and votes thereon will be dealt with in committees and it will be up to the committees to organise these votes. We want to ensure that committees spend as much time as possible discussing legislation and amendments rather than voting. Perhaps system akin to that operated for the finance committee last year could be put in place. That system seemed to work very well and I think all Members were satisfied with it.
Deputy Cox mentioned open parliamentary questions, advance timetables for committees and provisions for interrupting debates. I have no great difficulty with these matters. We will have to discuss the mechanisms and difficulties which might arise for the Chair. I agree with Deputy Cox about advance timetables for committees in particular. That is something which will have to be addressed. In relation to inviting the media in, that is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and I have no objection to it. We spoke earlier today about the contributions of various Deputies who were active in the last Dáil but were not returned, one of whom was former Deputy McCartan. One Deputy present in the Chamber was very active in the last Dáil, namely Deputy Durkan, and he was returned, there is a lesson to be learned there.
I will take up with Ministers, on an informal basis, the matter of questions and answers to see if a reasonable solution can be reached. The instructions to Ministers — maybe I should not say this — are to provide as much information as possible. Perhaps the mistake being made is that too much information is being provided and Deputies do not need to ask supplementary questions.
Not too much.
The old British principle, keep them ignorant but happy.
Deputy Kenny asked a question about printed records of committees. It is my intention that those records will be available. When this matter was raised towards the end of last year by Deputy Kenny and others, including Deputy Quinn who was in Opposition at the time, extra staff was appointed to meet that need and I hope that will be satisfactory. If not, the matter will have to be examined again because the records are important.
Perhaps we should get away from tried and traditional ways of doing business. At the moment the live recording of Dáil sessions is regarded as a record of the House. Perhaps we should move to the advanced stage of electronics and regard that as the legitimate record, particularly for committees. This is a matter I would like to discuss further with the Whips.
It would be rather difficult to read that.
I presume Deputies would check records in advance and would not wait until the committee meets again.
Deputy McDowell made a number of points which I will take on board. He spoke about calling questions by number from the Order Paper. This is covered by a Standing Order of which I was not aware, and it is worth considering. In relation to the Order of Business, it is laid down that the Ceann Comhairle must put the Order of Business by way of motion to the House. Whether it is necessary to repeat the Order of Business, I do not know, but if there is a better way of dealing with this matter it should be addressed.
In relation to allowing discussion of the negotiating position adopted by the Government, in reality it would be difficult for anybody to prevent a member of a committee from raising matters that obviously impinge on a position the Government may or may not take on the EC or other matters. The Deputy should realise that it would not be in the interests of this country for the Government to adopt a particular line if a committee of the House was perceived to take a different line. Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned the system that operates in Denmark. In the circumstances, I do not think that was a very good example.
It could be drafted differently.
That is a matter that could be examined. I think Deputy Ferris answered the point raised about committee chairpersons. On the question of Ministers attending committees, I have addressed that matter on a couple of occasions. I do not want to get into an argument at this stage but in so far as there may have been — and I am choosing my words very carefully — an implied criticism of the Ceann Comhairle by Deputy Bruton, I do not propose to respond in view of earlier exchanges. The current Ceann Comhairle is and has been an Independent Member of this House and has been appointed unanimously for the last——
I was not talking about the present Ceann Comhairle; I was talking about the Office of Ceann Comhairle in the years since 1919. The general point I was making related to the trend of decisions made by all Ceann Comhairle, not just to the present incumbent. Will the Minister answer my point?
I cannot agree that down the years the Ceann Comhairle has been operating for the protection of the Government.
Acting Chariman
We have an hour's work to do in less than 25 minutes. Could we have agreement as to how six slots of ten minutes each are to be catered for? Would everybody agree to take less than five minutes?
I propose to listen to Members' contributions in relation to the sub judice rule, so I will not be taking five minutes.
Acting Chairman
We are still in trouble because we have less than 25 minutes.
Four minutes each.
Acting Chairman
We are going on to the sub judice rule and Deputies have less than five minutes each.
In relation to the sub judice rule there are two sides to this argument. I have mixed views on this matter.
I thought it was the turn of a Fianna Fáil speaker.
Acting Chariman
It is a free-for-all in present circumstances.
The sub judice rule frustrates and annoys Members and impedes them in gaining access to information which would be beneficial to the public generally. Such information, if available, could eliminate the need for tortuous long drawn out debates at a later stage, sometimes involving great cost to the nation. It would be great if we were able to overcome the sub judice rule to get information in the House relative to issues of national or local importance, and to get it quickly. I emphasise that a lot depends on the answers we get. One can raise an issue and end up in a maze, so the answers are important.
This House affords Members certain privileges but they should not have the right to make groundless accusations whether in breach of the sub judice rule or otherwise, that may be damaging to a person inside or outside the House. The body, person or agency concerned may not be able to redress the situation in the House and may have to seek redress outside it.
I want to emphasise that Members of this House, Government or Opposition, should be responsible in what we do and say. If we have a frivolous grievance we can be frivolous in dealing with it but if it is a serious issue obviously we must be serious in the we deal with it. We must be objective and consistent. If an accusation is made in the House, the Deputy should be able to substantiate it. If not we will bring ourselves and the House into disrepute. Nobody in this House should make an accusation against another Member, an agency or organisation outside the House which is personally or materially damaging unless he is prepared to substantiate it and there are serious grounds for making such an accusation. These are important issues. You cannot throw dirt and not expect mud to be thrown back at a later stage.
I understand that Deputy Hughes and Deputy de Valera wish to contribute, therefore I will be brief. I welcome the relaxation of the sub judice rule. As the previous speaker said, it has caused a great deal of contention here, votes on the Order of Business, hassle during debates, etc. Deputies from all parties endeavour to side step rules and issues and the one who suffers most is the Chair. Valuable time is wasted in this way. The Chair has to tread a very narrow line and in the public interest he allows Deputies an opportunity to raise as many issues as possible. The Minister said that the guidelines endeavour to strike a balance, but at the end of the day Deputies should adopt a responsible attitude in the matters they raise.
As time is limited I shall restrict myself to a few words. I support what Deputy Durkan said. The sub judice rule has been established for approximately 70 years and has restricted the Ceann Comhairle and Members of this House when debating matters of public importance and policy. People outside this House have effectively issued writs to stifle public debate, and criminal proceedings have been instituted to prevent Members from debating matters of utmost public importance. Because of the way our legal system works it can take years to deal with criminal and civil proceedings and accordingly discussion of matters of concern to Members is inhibited and prohibited.
I am concerned that the proposed sub judice amendment refers to proceedings in court but not the tribunal proceedings. I ask the Minister to clarify this position. Is the amendment of the sub judice rule as we now understand it applicable only to court proceedings or does it also apply to tribunals? In the past two months the rulings of the Chair in this matter has been questioned.
I commend the new system. It is a welcome development and I support it.
I will be as brief as possible. I do not wish to be at odds with my colleagues but I am concerned about doing away with the sub judice rule. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say in answer to questions on this issue. When a case is sub judice any comment made in the course of or during the hearing of proceedings is bad because it can interfere with the due process of law and the exercise of justice. In our system, as indeed in the British system, there is a very definite separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. I am concerned that the changes in the sub judice rule this evening would result in an encroachment in the judicial process by the Legislature, and I do not think that would be wise.
I refer to the draft guidelines on the proposed Standing Order on the sub judice rule, drawn up by a working group established by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It says that a Member should not be prevented from raising in the House any matter of general public importance, even where court proceedings have been initiated. I ask the Minister to define a “matter of general public importance”. Reference has been made to a bona fide matter of public interest, and I would like a definition of this phrase.
I am also concerned about the restriction on matters relating to a case where notice has been served, that is a case to be heard before a jury. The interesting reference here is that the purpose of this recommendation, which was made by the working group of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is to minimise the risk of prejudicing a hearing on the presumption that in non-jury actions the risk would be minimal. It would be very dangerous to accept a system which would allow for even minimal encroachment on the judicial process.
The working group proposed that a matter should not be raised in such an overt manner that it appears to be an attempt by the Oireachtas to encroach on the functions of the courts or a judicial tribunal. If Members were not to stick to the very strict rules and regulations, raising such a matter could be detrimental or prejudicial to a case. What penalty would be imposed on Members who encroached on such a rule? Once such a statement is made it cannot be undone. What legal redress would a group or individual have in such a case? We are in danger of crossing the divide in terms of separation of powers between the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislature. This draft document states that the Constitution refers to this separation of powers and that this should be observed. We have no choice but to observe it unless we are going to change the Constitution in this regard.
I was appalled to read in this draft document that when permission is given to raise a matter, whether by way of parliamentary question, Adjournment Debate or otherwise there would continue to be an onus on the Member to avoid, if possible, comment which might prejudice the outcome of proceedings. In other words, we are saying if at all possible we are to prevent such encroachment; we are not saying that such encroachment should be prevented at all costs. I can understand that people might feel frustrated and annoyed when they are prevented from discussing certain issues in the House, but it is beneficial to the public in the long term to maintain the very important separation of powers I outlined earlier.
I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words about this matter because I, perhaps more than most, have run into difficulties under this rule as it stands at present. I saw the ridiculousness of the present state of Standing Orders in regard to the sub judice rule when I was precluded from saying in this House normal straightforward things about certain matters here but I could go upstairs to the RTE Studio and say normal acceptable things to which nobody could object. It is selfevident that the House cannot continue with the present system.
I was very pleased with the indication that it is now accepted that the present very restrictive rule will have to be changed. I welcome that. I recently got the draft guidelines and the new proposed draft Standing Order but on analysis I find we are back to square one. The guidelines are so extraordinarily restrictive that in practice the system will be the same. Much of what happens in this life and in this House are illusions in the sense that because you are told there is a change or an alleviation in the sub judice rule, it is changed for the better, but that is not the case. The guidelines are incredibly restrictive and, in practice, I do not think there will be much difference between the present and the new systems if the changes made are on the lines set out here.
My party considered this matter a couple of years ago and came up with a proposal to modify the sub judice rule. Under our system a Deputy would be entitled to say within Dáil Éireann what he is entitled by law to say outside Dáil Éireann. That is what the new Standing Order should state. A Deputy within the House should be subject to the same constraints as a Deputy or any other citizen speaking outside the House. It is unreal to continue to operate a system that allows a Deputy to say things outside this House which he cannot say in this Chamber. It is ridiculous.
Gagged.
It makes this House appear even more irrelevant and ineffective than it already is in the minds of a great many people. I reiterate for the Government, the Minister and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that the only effective and reasonable way to approach this difficulty is to draw up a simple Standing Order along the lines that I have suggested, so that Deputies speaking within the House are subject to the same constraints as are citizens outside the House. Such a Standing Order would work. It would give no additional power or privilege to people here vis-á-vis matters that are sub judice and it would not disadvantage them as is the case at present.
We know the sub judice rule has been abused. There are people outside the House who regularly issue writs for the purpose of preventing discussion of certain matters within this House. The Chair will no doubt recall that, about ten years ago, a Member issued a writ for the purpose of preventing discussion in the House of certain actions of his, and he got away with it. That is another example of how foolish this rule is. If I had more time I would develop these points in detail.
I think the House will agree to hear the Minister of State.
Two minutes will be sufficient for me.
I wish to make——
Only six minutes remain.
I have indicated that I will listen to the debate and I will refer to it tomorrow.
We shall share the remaining five minutes between the two Deputies who are standing; Deputy Ferris and Deputy Rabbitte have two and half minutes each.
A Cheann Comhairle——
There are three Deputies offering. I will leave it to your own sense of fairness.
I will be very brief. It is a welcome change that we are moving down this road because this has been a contentious matter for all sides of the House. I am disappointed that Deputy O'Malley who had this idea some years ago and who spent a period in Government did not have any changes made. We are making some progress now.
Unlike the Deputy's party, we were not in a partnership Government.
We have to remember the point made by Deputy de Valera that there are also some restrictions, so let us be careful. The point I want to address was raised by Deputy Durkan and is fundamental to all of us. As elected Members with privilege we have the right to raise matters that are brought to our attention if we are satisfied that our source is legitimate. I would not like it to go out from this House that Members use their privileged position here in a frivolous way without checking and protecting the identity or the source of the information. Sometimes information is given on condition that confidentiality will be respected particularly as people whose names are published could lose their jobs. We have a responsibility to ensure the legitimacy of the source of complaints, and there are means available to check the validity of such complaints.
They should be valid complaints.
I do not think Members should concede their constitutional privilege to bring matters to public attention. I say that because Deputy Durkan felt we should not raise such matters unless we could substantiate them, otherwise people in positions of importance could lose their job. If something untoward is happening about which Members are aware they should have the courage to raise that matter and they should not be stifled in this regard.
What we are talking about here is central to the concept of making the House relevant to what is happening in modern society. What we are talking about is a matter of public controversy, usually a matter of some import, otherwise we would not have this problem. The House sometimes puts itself in a position where one imagines it is in loco parentis rather than a national parliament. As Deputy Ferris said, Deputies do not always have the sense of duty and responsibility that goes with being elected to this House.
Deputy O'Malley gave a couple of examples. I will cite the example confronted by my colleague, former Deputy Eric Byrne, in respect of the Cotter and McDermott case which had profound implications for equality in social welfare for a great many people. The Deputy was not permitted to raise the matter in this House, or subsequently on the Social Welfare Bill, because aspects of it had to go back to the Supreme Court.
Matters of major public importance and public controversy can be discussed everywhere except in this House. We are not in loco parentis with many of us behaving as if we were in a créche. Duties are imposed on membership of this House and committees of the House deal with breaches of that duty or responsibility. I agree that the proposals advanced here might represent an improvement, but they are restrictive. I have not thought about the formula advanced by Deputy O'Malley but if we are to be seen to be relevant and able to deal effectively with issues of the day, there is no need to impose chains on our ability to do our job. We will have to look again at this question because I do not think the proposals advanced by the Minister are adequate, although I accept they represent an improvement.
I thank my colleagues for sharing their time. In relation to the difference between the Standing Order and the draft guidelines, there is a distinction between a matter of general public importance referred to in the Standing Order and the No. 1 guideline which states the matter should be of public policy. That could lead to a problem in future as to whether a matter may or may not be raised.
I agree with Deputy O'Malley's remarks about it not being possible for us to make statements here that can be made outside the House. Nevertheless, we should be acutely aware of our privilege and not make statements in the House that we cannot stand over.
Hear, hear.
That is something that you, a Cheann Comhairle, and the Chairman of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges should address as a matter of urgency. We had the ludicrous situation here not long ago where the Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, was asked publicly to use his privilege to name people without any evidence. If we use this Chamber for that purpose this Parliament will no longer function as it was intended.