Dáil Reform: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Dempsey)

The section of the Programme for a Partnership Government "Broadening our Democracy" outlines measures which the Government believes will accelerate the process of institutional reform. Specific reforms are proposed in the programme dealing with electoral reform, local government reform and Oireachtas reform. The measures being debated today and tomorrow are a reflection of the Government's commitment to Oireachtas reform.

Reform of the procedure and practices of a legislative assembly is not something which can be dealt with in a summary way. A root and branch approach is necessary. Rather than dwell on previous attempts at reform and perceived successes or failures, I should like today to reflect on the package of measures proposed in the Government document and outline the thinking behind them.

The purpose of reform of the Dáil is to improve the efficiency of the way the House does its business, to provide individual Deputies with a more effective legislative function and a more meaningful role in the consideration of public policy. It is also necessary to ensure that the Government is fully accountable to the Dáil for its policies, decisions and actions. These objectives are an expression of our commitment to open Government as outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government.

Over the years the perception has grown that Deputies' influence on the legislative process has diminished and that the role of a Deputy as an ombudsman for his or her consituents has assumed greater importance. This has led to much discussion on the appropriate role for Members of Dáil Éireann.

Throughout the ages legislators, historians and philosophers have speculated about whether representatives' first loyalties should be to constituency, to party, to country or to one's own conscience. Perhaps the most frequently quoted authority is Edmund Burke who, in a speech in 1774 said:

Parliament is a deliberate assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole, where, not local purpose, not local prejudices ought to guide but the general good, resulting from the reason of the whole."

Society in the 20th century is different from the one in which Edmund Burke lived; yet, his classic statement serves as one ideal when we consider what the Dáil ought to be.

Parliamentarians today represent a diverse electorate, and their ideas on the role of Deputies are equally varied. Deputies, for there part, must keep a balance between constituency and party endeavour and their duties as legislators. The measures proposed here are an attempt to enhance the role of the Deputy, and to strengthen the role of the Dáil as the key to maintaining confidence in our central democratic institution.

I would now like to refer to the detail of some of the proposals. The Government document on Dáil Reform submitted to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in April 1992 contained a proposal for the relaxation of the sub judice rule. By longstanding practice, the House imposed on itself the convention of the sub judice rule, the purpose of which was to avoid the risk of prejudicing judicial proceedings or of being seen to interfere with the administration of justice in the courts. The rule is, of course, commendable in itself. However, as with any rule, no matter how well founded in principle, it has had a disproportionate effect on Dáil proceedings and over many years has become very restrictive and prevented the House from discussing matters of real public concern, excepting, of course, debate on legislation. Guidelines have been prepared to assist the Ceann Comhairle in the implementation of the proposed new Standing Order. The relaxation of the rule will open up debate on matters of public concern, particularly where so called “gagging writs” were utilised in the past.

The guidelines set out the conditions that should apply to the raising of a matter which is sub judice. The matter raised must be of general public importance. This is to ensure that only bona fide matters of public interest which clearly relate to matters of general public policy are raised.

A matter may not be raised where it relates to a case where notice has been served, that is, to be heard before a jury; or is then being heard before a jury. This minimises the risks of prejudicing a hearing, on the presumption that in non-jury actions the risk would be minimal. A matter should not be raised in such a manner that it appears to be an attempt by the Oireachtas to encroach on the functions of the courts or a judicial tribunal. The long standing ruling of the Chair that "members of the Judiciary are independent by virtue of the Constitution and they may neither be criticised nor have their rulings referred to in the House except on a substantive motion" shall continue to apply.

The principle of the separation of powers in the Constitution must be observed. Members may only raise matters in a substantive manner where due notice is required. It is important that the Chair should not be placed in the position which requires him to make instant rulings during the course of a debate on the admissibility or otherwise of matters sub judice within the context of the guidelines. The Chair should have adequate opportunity to become aware that a matter to be raised is relevant within the context of the guidelines and to decide whether the matter to be raised is of general public importance.

When permission to raise a matter has been granted, there continues to be an onus on Members to avoid comment which might, in effect, prejudice the outcome of proceedings. Members should always be mindful of the fact that the possibility that comment might prejudice proceedings always exists, ever when raising a matter within the guidelines.

This new sub judice proposal is subject to the established rules of procedure of the House. Thus, for example, reference to specific cases being heard or to be heard by name or in such a manner so that the parties to the hearing may be identifiable, should not be made. The general point of substance at issue can be raised without readily identifying or criticising the parties involved.

The guidelines endeavour to strike a balance to allow matters of public interest to be raised while, at the same time, protecting as far as possible from the risk of prejudice or perceived interference in the courts. However, a certain onus of responsibility should rest on Members for raising matters sub judice.

A register of Members' interests is being introduced, initially on a non-statutory basis, by wasy of motion in the House. A provision in this regard will be made in the forthcoming Ethics in Government Bill, which will put it on a statutory basis.

The purpose of the register is to give public notification of those material interests held by Members which could be thought by others to influence their parliamentary conduct or actions. The motives in establishing the register is to provide Deputies with a means of declaring relevant material interests. It is not intended, nor should it be the case, that a Member's right to privacy should be invaded.

It should be pointed out that Deputies debate public policy and hold to account those who take executive decisions. All members have an interest, on behalf of their constituents, as well as in their own right, in all aspects of public policy and must be allowed to participate in their deliberation. Members of the House are also entitled to engage in outside activities. We welcome into the Oireachtas people with a wide range of experience whether in business, trade unions, the agriculture industry, education, health or any activity that broadens the range of expertise in the House. The business of the House and the duties of Members are so all-embracing that inevitably there will be occasions when a Member's personal interests may be pulled in a different direction from the policy of his party or his wider responsibilities as a legislator.

The register of interests affects all Members directly and personally. I know that all Members have views, many strongly held, on how far the register should seek to obtain information, whether the value of all the assets or interests held by Members should be declared, whether the interests of Members' relatives or spouses should be declared; indeed in an age of equality, whether the independent income or otherwise of spouse be declared. For instance, if a spouse refused to declare such interest on the basis that he or she was not a member of the House, contending that his or her business interests are not open to public scrutiniy, how could we impose a sanction on the Member of the House? Members also have view on whether such a declaration for Members or their spouses should be made either publicly or privately and the extent to which such a declaration should be made. The debate tomorrow will provide an opportunity for all the Deputies to air their views and express their concerns.

The Ethics in Government Bill is at present in the course of preparation. The views od all Deputies will be given careful consideration before that Bill is presented to the House. It is intended that a copy of the register will be published and made available in the Oireachtas Library.

The new committee system being introduced is probably the greatest single change in the way the House conducts its business since the foundation of the State. The potential for each Deputy to influence legislation and spending by Departments should not be underestimated. The first major business which the finance general affairs committee will consider wil be the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. I know a special committee considered the Finance Bill last year when the experiment was a significant success, a fact acknowledged by all Members who participated. Indeed, the way in which parties co-operate when Bills are sent to committees was a factor in the decision on the formation of the new system. In general, when special committees considered Bills in the past amendments and ideas from backbenchers on all sides of the House were accepted on all readily than across the floor of the House, the atmosphere being less confrontational and adversarial, everybody making a contribution. The Government is anxious to ensure that this approach continues within the new committee system.

I should like to draw the attention of Deputies to a number of significant points in the terms of reference of the committees. First, the committees will be able to hire people with specialist knowledge to assist them, and may invite submissions in writing, if considered necessary, from interested persons or bodies; second, the Government envisages there will be close co-operation between Departments preparing legislation and the committees. Before consideration of the Committee Stage of a Bill by the committee private briefing session shall be held between the officials of the relevant Department and Members of the new-style committees.

Three further legislative committees will be established in the near future, — the enterprise and economic strategy committee, the social affairs committee and the legislative and security committee. Legislation and Estimates from all Departments will be sent to committees, as the Dáil decides. The new committee system is a significant development in the evolution of the role of committees. It builds on the expertise gained over many years. Each committee will have 30 members. They will be properly resourced, their chairpersons and convenors, who will act as Whips will be remunerated. Legislation regarding privilege and the question of compelling witnesses to attend will be introduced as a priority.

A new foreign affairs committee is included in the Government proposals. This will be a joint committee of both Houses, the Dáil Members of which will consider the Estimates for the Public Services submitted to Dáil Éireann in respect of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation and report thereon to the Dáil. The joint committee will deal with the Committee Stages of all Bills referred to it. The joint committee will also consider those matters previously the responsibility of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland, including Northern Ireland, may attend meeting of the joint committee and of its sub-committees. Other members of the European Parliament may, at the invitation of the joint committee or of a sub-committees, attend particular meetings. Members of the European Parliament attending on such occasions may take part in the proceeding but without having a right to vote.

The introduction of the new committee system will necessitate many changes regarding arrangements for sittings to ensure more effective and efficient use of Dáil time. These changes will take place after the fullest possible consultation. When the new system is put in place it will bring about a complete and fundamental change in the way operate in this House. I should like to put it on the record that that can only be done with the full assistance and co-operation of Deputies on all sides because it is a matter that affects all Deputies in the House.

In relation to other reforms, a revamped adjournment procedure and separate Taoiseach Question Times are other measures proposed which represent a commitment to improved accountability a and scrutiny of the Government by Deputies. A new procedure for the introduction of Private Members' Bill is also proposed. This is designed to give Deputies on all the right to introduce Bills and explain to the House the purpose of their respective initiatives.

In relation to voting procedures, there has been longstanding criticism — with which few would disagree — that current voting procedures waste time. The introduction of electronic voting in the autumn should eliminate these problems. In the meantime new procedures are being introduced to streamline current practice while ensuring that Deputies have the right to vote against any measures with which they disagree.

The measures are an attempt to ensure that, where possible, divisions will be postponed to a set voting time. Voting will take place at that time in a manner which processes the divisions as speedily as possible while maintaining the rights of Deputies. Obviously, divisions pressed on the Order of Business will have to be taken at that time.

We have tried to streamline the taking of divisions on Committee and Report Stages of Bills to ensure that while the rights of Deputies to oppose sections or parts of Bills and propose amendments must be protected, the greatest amount of time should be spent debating legislation rather than voting.

Reforms suggests a sharp transition from one condition to another but the increasing pace of change, the perception of the needs of the citizen, and the increasing complexity of the tasks of Government require a developmental strategy of change.

The measures being introduced today are a progression of developments that occurred in the last Dáil which saw the introduction of televising Dáil proceedings. This enabled the public to experience at first hand the operation of the Dáil. There is an increased public awareness of the way in which we, their public representatives, carry our work on their behalf. Last April, after examining existing procedures, the Government proposed a wide series of measures designed to address the perceived inefficience and inadequacies of the present system. These measures were broadly welcomed by the Working Group of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges which was established to consider the Government proposals. I should like to place on the record of the House my thanks to my colleagues in the group, Deputies Flanagan and Clohessy, the Minister for health, Deputy Howlin, the former Deputy McCartan, Deputy Enda Kenny and Deputy Rabbitte who responded to the proposals in an extremely positive manner. Indeed, many of those proposals are incorporated in the proposals before us today.

I should like to respond briefly to some criticism expressed recently on the attendance of TD's in the Dáil Chamber. As all Deputies are aware, as indeed are most of the general public, the majority of a Deputy's work does not involve sitting in the Dáil Chamber listening to debates. I have no doubt that if Deputies sat in this Chamber listening to Dáil debates the criticism would be that it was a very unproductive way of conducting our business. To a certain extent, the new committee system will allow Deputies to participate more fully. Televised porceedings of Dáil debate are relayed to all Deputies' offices and to public areas in Leinster House. Therefore, it is not necessary for Deputies to sit in the Chamber to listen, or follow, a debate.

Apart from following the proceedings Of the house, as I said earlier, Deputies Must represent their constituents and Much of this type of work, such as contact With Ministers or Departments or attending with deputations, is undertaken while the Dáil is sitting, simply because Ministers are available in the House, unless otherwise engaged on official business.

Deputies are frequently criticised for doing constituency work. Many people, particularly those in the media, take the view that Deputies should not do this work. As every Member knows, Deputies who do not do constituency work will not be re-elected to this House. A balance has to br maintained and we, as legislators, are trying to maintain that balance. It is unfair to attack Members of this House for doing constituency work, which is a vital part of their role as public representatives. The criticisms in this regard are unfounded and, in some cases, display an ignorance.

The measures being discussed today will be introduced by way of sessional orders. This will allow further refinement, if necessary, before their incorporation in Standing orders. The Government is preparing further reform proposals as part of a development strategy of reform and these will be brought forward for discussion shortly.

As I indicated earlier, the government is committed to a programme of institutional reform. The measures proposed today, or indeed Oireachtas reform alone, are not the complete answer to the development of the legislator who is focussed on the broader national, or indeed international perspective. It would be instructive if Deputies expressed their views on any possible constitutional change which they believe would be necessary to bring this wider objective about.

Finally, I wish to say that the Government does not believe that only the reform measures it suggests should be pursued. As Minister of State with responsibility for Dáil Reform, I wish to say that any party or Deputy with ideas or proposals for constructive change will be listed to. For my part, I undertake to give full and careful consideration to all the suggestions put forward.

Mr. E. Kenny

It is important that this debate is taking place at a time when an unprecedented number of new Deputies have been elected to this parliament. They will find the process of becoming acquainted with and understanding the constraints and the strictures of this House a very chastening experience.

The Fine Gael Party has always supported the concept of reform of the Dáil. Indeed, over the past number of years Fine Gael has produced a number of documents and put forward suggestions on how the Dáil could be made more effective and efficient and Deputy Bruton, who was the then Leader of the House, produced a fairly comprehensive document dealing with many of the items which were a cause for concern to parties and Deputies.

The public are entitled to have an effective, vigorous, responsive and efficient Parliament. The old ways in terms of parliamentary systems, inherited from the British Crown, must be revamped and changed. That is obvious to anybody who has been involved in politics at national level for any length of time. As the Minister said, there has to be a balance between the mandate given to a public representative by his constituents to represent them and the mandate he has been given by those constituents to act as a legislator in Parliament. Public representatives have to understand the problems of the country and deal with them by way of legislation in the Parliament.

Politicians are fair game for all kinds of criticism, and people in the public arena have to understand that. The questions most frequently asked by visitors to the public gallery are: why is the Chamber so empty, and where are all the Deputies? This matter was referred to by the Minister in his speech. People at Heuston Station on a Tuesday who see Deputies arrive by train with their briefcase bulging with constituency work should remember that modern politics is the most accountable, most demanding, most transparent and most temporary job anyone can have. Deputies hold a responsible position and they have to give responses to families who need their assistance. Politics is a high pressure, very accountable, demanding and temporary job. I should like to put down some markers in terms of the general support the Fine Gael Party has for the concept of Dáil reform. I wish to refer in general to some of the proposals mentioned by the Minister in his speech. Deputies will have an opportunity to discuss these matters in greater detail under there various headings. It should be borne in mind that Dáil reform is being introduced by a Government which has the largest majority in the history of the State. The Fine Gael Party believes that all these proposals should be referred back to the Committee of Procedure and Privileges for final analysis before being presented again to the House by way of sessional order.

We do not have a problem with the proposals in regard to the sub judice rule. Members of the House are generally responsible in terms of the issues they seek to raise. While the guidelines are technical, they allow for a relaxing of the present regulation. To a certain extent, Members will be able to raise matters of national importance without interfering with court hearings that are underway or impacting on the decisions of a jury in a court case.

The Fine Gael Party accepts in principle that there should be a register of Members' Interests. It would not be proper if all matters relating to Deputies were kept secret. We are public representatives and, as such, the public have a right to know our interests. However, the question is, how far down that road does one go?

The proposals in regard to the Register of Members' Interests are a cause of concern to a number of people for good and valid reasons. In the Fine Gael document published a number of years ago we recommended that a register of Members' Interests should be kept by a special committee of the House and that complaints arising therefrom should be investigated by that committee. However, the Government proposes that the register of Members' Interests should be published in Iris Oifigiúil and a complaints procedure laid down. This would probably lead to a public examination or assessment of a Deputy's worth in terms of financial assets and so on at the end of the year based on assumptions, many of them wild, that may appear in the public press.

In regard to the declaration of the address and main business of the provider of benefits to Members, it should be borne in mind that there is a danger of entrapment of Members who may have received a gift or financial allocation for an election, etc. If such benefit, assistance, service or goods as set out in the section are not declared in the register, a member could find he was being investigated by the committee. Therefore, there is a clear need to define these services. There should also be a limit below which it would not be necessary to declare and register financial donations in the official register. It is very important that the terms "services, benefits and goods" are clearly defined and that a lower limit is set in terms of financial allocations. Otherwise there is a danger of entrapment.

In relation to outside professions and remunerations, my party does not have any problems with this. Some Deputies may have a second, or sideline, occupation which they validly consider to be of no interest to the public and which does not interfere with — and in some cases it may enhance — their ability to perform as public representatives and politicians. We do not have any objection to naming a business that is owned in whole or in part by Member. That is only fair.

In regard to property which a Member may hold, it should be clearly outlined whether this refers to property held outside or inside the State. If this proposal is to apply to Members, will it also apply to senior departmental officials? This issue needs to be looked at. We have no objection to a Member giving the details of a registered office or business he or she might have.

The issue of shares needs to be clearly looked at. We consider that "a substantial shareholding" in a company should really mean that a member is in a position to influence company policy by having a majority shareholding in that company. Otherwise, a declaration of speculation on the Stock Exchange in regard to any amount of shares could be traced for publication and there could be an assessment of an individual Deputy's worth at the end of the year.

The definition of gifts need to be made clearer. If Members are invited to go to Brussels on a deputation or to attend a conference of the Council of the European Movement, will the costs of the air fares, hotel accommodation etc., be regarded as gifts? If Members who are asked by specific organisations to put down parliamentary questions, etc, are taken to lunch to discuss the issue, is that to be regarded as a gift? That point needs to be clarified.

In regard to disputes, it should be borne in mind that this is an area where Members could suffer unduly at the hands of the public if a complaint — completely invalid — is lodged about a Member and an unscrupulous person — I do not suppose there are many of them left—says a Deputy is being investigated by a committee, the public will think something is wrong and the Deputy must have something to hide. We recommend that no publication take place until such complaints are resolved.

We object to votes being postponed until Wednesday evening. It is a fundamental right of Opposition parties to call votes, and we will strongly stand by that. If all votes were postponed to Wednesday evenings many Deputies would only turn up at that stage. It is important that there should be a plenary session each day. It is very important that the Leaders of the Opposition parties can raise important matters of national interest. If plenary sessions were abolished, the Opposition parties would not have this fundamental democratic facility.

Under the committee system, a Member who has been elected to represent a particular issue may never get a chance to raise it if he or she is not appointed to a specific committee. Therefore, it is important that every Member should have the opportunity to attend a committee dealing with a matter which is of interest to him or her.

In relation to Question Time, the first point I would make is that Ministers should give answers to questions. When I first came into this House, information was always given by Ministers. We now appear to have a Question Time which is either loaded with waffle or bloated with woolly answers. This leads to frustration for Opposition Members and causes a number of difficulties for the Ceann Comhairle. We also propose that written parliamentary questions should be allowed during the Dáil recess and that they should be answered within a month. It is important that Ministers responsible for semi-State bodies should answer relevant questions in the House. If one puts down a question about Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann etc., one is told the Minister has no responsibility for these companies even though he has overall responsibility for their budgets.

We have reservations about the proposed committee system. We believe that the chairman should be appointed on a proportional basis. We object to the conveners being remunerated — they are mandated to be here in any event. While we support the general principle of the committee system, we will require further clarification on the facilities and staffing of these committees. Fine Gael has always accepted that a great deal of work should be done throught the committee system.

In regard to Private Members' time and the introduction of private Bills, we do not agree that one should have to give notice to the Government as this could enable it to steal the thunder, so to speak, of the Member who wishes to introduce the Bill.

Finally, in regard to topical debates, Standing Order 30 should be relaxed to some degree. Over the years there have been few occasions when the Chair has been in a position to allow a debate under Standing Order 30. If this rule was relaxed it would allow for greater discussion of topical issues.

I am glad that this debate is taking place at this time. I hope Members who make contributions under the various headings will put down some markers and put forward valid suggestions that can be sent back to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for final analysis before being referred back to the House. We all understand the need for a more efficient and responsive Parliament and we will be as helpful as possible in the suggestions we put forward in this regard.

Ms Keogh

Sadly, over the past number of years the operation of this House and the way in which it conducts its business has become a byword for inefficiency; its work practices are antiquated. This House has come to be regarded as a joke by many people. Unfortunately, the grim reality is that many of their perceptions are correct in varying degrees.

It is essential for the maintenance of a healthy democratic process in this State and ensuring the necessary respect, that our national Parliament, in its business and procedures, provides a positive lead and example for Irish society as a whole. Since the foundation of the Progressive Democrats we have made comprehensive Oireachtas reform one of our key policy objectives. Over the past seven years we have spelled out a range of practical reforms to make the Dáil more effective, responsive and transparent, to use the present buzz words, thereby giving a positive lead to the Irish people. That is one of the reasons we ensured that the two programmes for Government we negotiated during our period in Government, between July 1989 and November last, set out detailed measures to tackle the more obvious anachronisms that have dogged the way in which this House has attempted to do its business.

The reforms we proposed included the setting-up of special committees to transact much of the business of the House, changing the bizarre sub judice rule, the elimination of the present cattle mart system of voting, the publication of a Register of Members' interests and, perhaps more importantly of all, longer sessions and a more normal daily timetable. Despite my apprenticeship in the other House, I find the hours of the Dáil incredible. I think it was John Kelly who said we should work Godly hours and I agree with that comment.

When we were in Government, unfortunately we found our Government partners singularly disinterested in the subject of Dáil reform, and it was only in the last year that we made any real headway on this vital agenda. This culminated in the presentation of a detailed set of reform proposals by the then Government to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Unfortunately, the planned implementation of these reforms was interrupted by the collapse of the Government and the general election. I am glad this issue has been addressed so promptly by this Government. However, it should be borne in mind that much of the ground work was initiated by the Progressive Democrats in Government.

My words of welcome for the proposed reforms must end abruptly. The proposals before us are riddled with deficiencies and anomalies. Some of the measures are plainly inoperable and would reduce the role of this House to a mere cipher for the actions of Govenment. These proposals should not be taken seriously in their present form.

I wish to say as an aside that this is not a debate; it is a series of statements. I should like to put down a marker in regard to the future operations of this House and how we in the Progressive Democrats will approach this matter. It is essential at all times to have the healthy cut and thrust of debate and from that point of view we will certainly oppose any attempt to have a series of statements on the way we operate our business. In view of the fact that the Government has 101 Deputies, it is imperative and urgent that the Dáil resists becoming a compliant rubber stamp of the constitutional Executive, the Government. The Progressive Democrats are determined that Dáil Éireann will not be reduced to the status of a rump parliament dominated by the Cabinet.

I wish, in particular, to draw the attention of the House to the abysmal and shameful proceedings in this Chamber yesterday when legislation with far-reaching implications from a constitutional and practical point of view was forced through this House without any adequate debate and scrutiny. The fact that a vital amendment had to be spliced into the Bill in the dying seconds of the debate is a reflection on the whole system of guillotining legislation for the convenience of the Executive. This should not happen. All the high-minded rhetoric in the new Programme for Government about Dáil reform and the need for and promise of an open and accountable Government was thrown out the window in what could only be regarded as a disgraceful manner. The way in which Government ordered the business of the House yesterday meant that some parties were prevented from expressing their views on the Bill; the constitutional right of many Deputies to give their views on an important piece of legislation was ignored, trampled upon, in what some might regard as a very cynical fashion.

As I said, the Progressive Democrats do not look with much favour on the proposals before the House. Some of the proposals are seriously flawed and deficient, and we will be insisting on many changes. I hope the Minister will be as co-operative as he promised to be. I am sure there is a degree of goodwill on the part of the Government, which I would like to see it display. If these proposals were adopted in their present form, they would complete the process of emasculating or sterilising this Chamber and lead to an even less effective, more fragmented, less independent and more submissive Dáil than exists at present.

Some proposals need extensive revision, while others should be rejected. Many of the proposals would only have the effect of giving the Dáil a bad name. For example, some people may think that the proposal to set up committees was a step in the right direction and at first glance that may seem to be the case. It may be intended that such committees will, like the select committees at Westminster, make this House more accountable. In the aftermath of Black Wednesday, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, was grilled by his fellow parliamentarians in committee about his apparent failure in the handling of the British currency crisis. He was asked embarrassing questions about the way he had discharged his duties as Chancellor. He was made accountable for his actions in a very real sense. Michael Heseltine, who has responsibility for the Board of Trade, was also asked about his plans for the mining industry. British Ministers accept that their Parliament's committees are entitled, as of right, to closely scrutinise their performance. We also saw how the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Robin Pemberton, was examined about the BCCI scandal. I wonder how many of our Ministers would be willing to subject themselves to that type of scrutiny? We should be asking for a similar committee system here.

What price accountability? As has been pointed out by Mr. Justice Hamilton, if genuine Dáil scrutiny of ministerial performance and policy was allowed, there would have been no need for the lengthy and expensive beef tribunal. The absence of real ministerial accountability to this House is not only wrong, but addressing that wrong has literally cost us millions of pounds not to mention the hundreds of millions of pounds that might have been lost if no real barrier was put in the way of some ministerial policies.

Deputies will be surprised to learn that the Government, which declared in the final page of its Programme for Government that the hallmarks of this Administration would be openness and accountability, has already suggested that its members will not be accountable in any way to the new committees. This was made clear in a written reply by the Taoiseach to a question put down by party leader, Deputy O'Malley, on Wednesday, 10 February last. The Taoiseach sought to suggest that there was some constitutional obstacle to Ministers coming before committees of the Dáil. He said:

Accordingly, it is proposed that Ministers will not ordinarily be involved in the deliberations of the new committees other than in the processing in the normal way of financial and legislative business.

This is nothing more than a cop-out. How does the Taoiseach's suggestion that Ministers can only be answerable to the Dáil square with the fact that they are also answerable to the Seanad and can be called upon to explain their policy decisions before a public tribunal? If the present Dáil reform proposals do not include the introduction of a Westminster style committee system, before which Ministers can be summoned to account for their actions and policies, then the proposed committee system will be a farce, to say nothing about the chairpersons, the convenors or any of the technical aspects of such a system.

The answer given by the Taoiseach was a fundamental error of law. The Constitution does not provide that Ministers are answerable to the Dáil only and not to committees, as the Taoiseach claimed in his reply to Deputy O'Malley. The Constitution provides that "the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann". To say that under that paragraph Ministers are immune from being answerable to committees or sub-committees of the Dáil is a ludicrous and far fetched interpretation that would not wash with a first year student of politics or law.

The Taoiseach's response is devoid of any constitutional basis in fact or law given that Ministers already answer questions in the Seanad. If this is permissible, as opposed to being mandatory, then it follows that they must be accountable to Dáil committees if they so choose at the very least. There is an unwillingness on the part of the Taoiseach and his Ministers for real accountability. International parliamentary experience has shown that the only effective mechanism for ensuring accountability is examination before a committee. To suggest that our Constitution prevents Irish parliamentarians from following the same procedures and having the same level of accountability in place as on Capitol Hill or in Westminster is foolish and misleading.

During this debate my party colleagues and I will outline further inadequacies in the Government's Dáil reform proposals, including the ludicrous voting proposals, the sub judice proposal and the proposals in regard to the Register of Members' Interests, which require major amendments. We will go through each aspect of these proposals and make constructive suggestions so that we will have a more vibrant and more accountable Dáil.

Mr. Rabbitte

Dáil reform is not merely about setting-up a few new committees, increasing the number of Adjournment Debates or introducing electronic voting. All of these matters may be important in themselves, but Dáil reform is about making our national parliament relevant to the challenges that confront modern society.

The people who have elected us expect and demand that our parliamentary institutions are capable of responding comprehensively, effectively and democratically to the many issues and problems that arise on a daily basis. They expect us to give leadership in tackling the longstanding and deeply entrenched problems of poverty, unemployment, crime and discrimination of all kinds. Our institutions are expected to facilitate access and encourage participation by all citizens in a full and satisfying life.

Parliamentary democracy, as evidenced in Dáil Éireann, falls a long way short of people's expectations. As a Parliament, we are besieged by our own growing importance, anachronistic procedures and the corrosive cynicism of sections of the public and the media. Powerful vested interests and their professional lobbyists, instantaneous communications and the increasing complexity of modern life means that any parliament which clings to traditional procedures and structures is doomed to irrelevancy and impotence. Precedent and tradition certainly have a place, but when they appear to be used primarily to restrict rather than enhance the role of Deputies then it is time to rewrite the rules.

The structure of Dáil sessions and the arrangements for sitting hours date from an era when virtually all TDs were parttime. The exceptional lengthy summer recess had its origins in the need to facilitate large farmers during their busiest season.

Most oral parliamentary questions are not reached and replies to questions which must be answered are frequently designed to confuse, obfuscate and minimise the information to be imparted. Priority questions were introduced to protect the lazy performers in the larger parties and restrict the effectiveness of smaller parties.

The sub judice rule often reduces the Dáil to the level of farce when issues of public policy are debated throughout the media but may not be raised in this Chamber. Ministers hold press conferences to make announcements — the same promises are often announced on several occasions — but they may not be questioned on these matters in this House. In the recent example of the execution of an eminent journalist by the Iraqi régime the Ceann Comhairle did not permit the matter to be raised on the basis that it was of insufficient urgency. When we were allowed to raise the matter in the afternoon the journalist had been executed.

Many Members who strive to represent their view of the public interest within the straitjacket imposed by the present system are understandably aggrieved at the growing disposition towards more sensational uninformed and destructive comment in sections of the media. It is no comfort that although the regular press corps who monitor the performance of the House rarely unreasonably resort to such cheap comment, neither do they frequently defend the role of Deputies. From my observations, very few members of the press corps have been forced to retire early by reason of overwork or exhaustion. We have to admit that the reason those who cover the Dáil regularly do not come to the defence of the role of Deputies is that we really do not have a Parliament any more; we have an Executive that operates in a semisecret way, begrudgingly informing the Dáil about what it has done after the event.

Expensive tribunals of inquiry would rarely be necessary if that Executive regarded itself as seriously accountable to the Dáil. The effectiveness and credibility of the Oireachtas depends on procedures striking the proper balance between the right of Government to get on with the business of Government and the right of the Opposition parties to probe, query, challenge, initiate and, where necessary, to oppose. The current rules of procedure and the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann do not strike that balance and are unfairly titled in favour of the Government.

I wish to refer to one area that is not dealt with in the document presented by the Minister, and that is, the allocation of financial resources between the Government and the Opposition. In addition to the entire resources of the Civil Service being at its disposal, the Government seems to have managed on this occasion to find what I estimate to be £2.25 million to pay for special advisers, programme managers, etc. Yet it does not seem to be able to find enough money to employ a press officer to defend and present an image of this Parliament as a national inistitution. Neither can it find money to provide Opposition parties, particularly Opposition Front Bench spokespersons, with the necessary backup facilities so that they are properly equipped to examine legislation being put through the House. It seems extraordinary that, so far as one can establish, Ministers and Junior Ministers have up to four civil servants in their constituency offices to deal with their constituency business while an Opposition spokesperson who is required to examine legislation has only a secretarial assistant. That situation is exacerbated in the case of small parties and Independents who have few rights and no financial entitlements as things stand in this House. The necessity for the Dáil to project and present itself as a national institution which is central to the lives of our citizens rather than as some kind of beer garden for squabbling politicians is important. This question of the presentation of this House to the public needs to be urgently addressed while the question of the role of Independent Members and Members of smaller parties needs a great deal more consideration than it has received in the document.

In the time available to me I want quickly to go over some of the matters dealt with by Deputies Kenny and Keogh. I want to refer in particular to the question of electronic voting. If we are to introduce electronic voting for most occasions then the proposal contained in the document that votes should be taken en masse on a Wednesday evening is nonsense. I do not understand how we could debate a Bill if we did not know whether an important amendment would stand or fall and we had to move on to deal with the following amendment given that one's approach to it would be conditional on what happened to the preceding one. If we are to be confined to voting on Wednesday evenings it would leave the House open to the charge which no doubt would be made by somebody from the Star on a rare visit, that a Government, which is fortunate enough to have 101 Members, could so arrange its affairs that it would need only have all Members present on a Wednesday evening. I do not think that would be desirable. Therefore, the Government will have to look at that issue again because it would not be in the interests of this House.

I welcome the proposal on the introduction of Bills. However, will this be the only method open to Members to introduce Bills? Will the old procedure, whereby a party with more than seven members had the right to introduce a Bill, be withdrawn in favour of the new system?

Deputy Kenny referred to the need to have a plenary session of the House each day. It is imperative, given that the Government partners have 101 Deputies, that there be plenary sessions each day that the Dáil convenes. This is the only pivotal opportunity open to the Opposition parties to pursue the Government on major issues of public importance.

We need to look carefully at the role proposed for committees. There is the important question of resources if these committees are to be effective. I was a member of the Special Committee which met in the Seanad for a week last year to examine the Finance Bill. Everybody concerned thought it was an unqualified success in terms of its examination of the legislation and the enactment of that Bill but the committee was under-resourced. Indeed we did not receive the official report of the Committee Stage debate before Report Stage and if memory serves me correctly, we did not receive it until many months later. We were faced with the prospect of an industrial dispute on the day the debate started when hardpressed staff felt they could not service the committee and undertake the rest of the work of the Houses of the Oireachtas also. Apparently, as we speak, there is an industrial dispute involving staff of the House which I am sure was not entered into lightly. It goes without saying that that dispute should be resolved quickly. The staff of the House are under extraordinary pressure. The Star newspaper does not advert to this but some of the staff of the House are under more pressure than many Deputies or members of the press corps who also attend the House. Therefore, one cannot talk seriously about establishing committees of the House in the manner proposed in the document without also dealing with the question of resources.

We will focus on the question of the register of Members' interests in tomorrow's debate. The issue here is whether a conflict of interest could arise. That is something we have to guard against in compiling even a temporary register. It is proposed to enshrine it in law subsequently.

In an article in The Irish Times on 7 August 1992, Geraldine Kennedy referred to the fact that the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry revealed to public scrutiny for the first time the extent of financial contributions to political parties and individual politicians in respect of one section of one industry. She made the point, in passing, that the evidence before the——

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Foxe)

I interrupt the Deputy to inform him that he has approximately one minute left.

Mr. Rabbitte

It was a critical time to interrupt my flow. Geraldine Kennedy stated in that article:

The evidence before the Tribunal to date has shown that Hibernia Meats contributed £103,000 to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats in a two year period. It gave £75,000 to the minority Fianna Fáil Government between February 1987 and June 1989 in three separate lots of £25,000. Is it purely coincidental that £25,000 was given to the party treasurer, Mr. Ray MacSharry, a few weeks after the crucial meeting on 4 September 1987 at which the Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, allocated export credit insurance cover to that company?

That matter will be decided elsewhere but I make the point of illustration that the issue is whether major financial contributions influence policy decisions. That potential conflict of interest has to be resolved. That is the reason transparency is necessary on this question of putting a ceiling on financial contributions and so on. We will deal with this question in more detail tomorow.

I welcome this debate. It is the first time in many years that there has been such a debate in the House although a certain amount of lip service has been paid to the notion of Dáil reform. I welcome the spirit in which the Minister introduced the report and his openness to take on board suggestions that may be made during the course of the debate. It is in the interests of this Parliament in making it relevant and central to the interests of the people who elect us, that it not only works more effectively and efficiently but is seen to do so.

Mr. Ferris

On behalf of the Labour Party, I welcome the moves being made by the Government to streamline our procedures to make the Dáil more relevant and accountable to the people it serves. May I put the new committee system to which previous speakers have referred in context from our point of view? One hundred and sixty-six Deputies are elected to this House. Apart from the positions of Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle, whose roles in this House are defined, only 15 Members are elected to the Cabinet while another 15 are appointed as Ministers of State. In a democracy it is very important that all other elected Members serve and have a meaningful input in formulating policy and drafting legislation. This House should modernise the way it does its business to make this a reality. For some time my party has called for the committee system to be strengthened to provide for a meaningful and detailed examination of policy and legislation. Very often the most important contributions made by Deputies are not made in the set pieces which grab the headlines but rather in their detailed input to legislation. I hope that members of the media, many of whom are quick to comment on the inactivity of politicians, will take note of the work that will be done by the new Dáil committees. Deputy Rabbitte referred to the tremendous work carried out last year on the Finance Bill. In spite of the fact that all those responsible were beavering away, playing a very important role, it went almost unnoticed in the media.

No Member who acts as a chairman or convenor of an important legislative committee of this House should have to make any apology to anybody if they are allowed an additional allowance for carrying out what will be an extremely important job. Mr. Gleeson referred to this in his recommendation. He chairs an autonomous body which recommends to the Minister for Finance and the Government ways in which people should be compensated regardless of whether they take on additional responsibilities. The media perception is that we grant ourselves additional salaries and so on when the reality is that somebody else makes a recommendation, the Government makes the decision and no backbencher of any party has any role to play or has an input into this matter.

In today's society Government is a complex business. Politicians need to scrutinise Government policy and legislation in a commonsense way, they must also have an understanding of the problems which communities face. They also need to scrutinise in more detail complex measures which can have far-reaching effects. Such scrutiny would be best served by having an effective committee system. Legislative committees of this House which examined complex legislation such as the Child Care Bill, the Roads Bill and last year's Finance Bill improved the legislation in a constructive way.

I welcome in particular the establishment of the Finance and General Purpose Committee which will deal with budgetary legislation. Very often this is the most complex legislation dealt with in the House. Armies of accountants and tax lawyers spend a great deal of time and money studying and scrutinising legislation line by line. It is only right that Members of the House should receive some specialist advice in trying to meet the needs of their constituents in scrutinising legislation and policy in this area and have opportunities to study the issues concerned in detail. We need to streamline the way in which we do our business in this House to bring it into line with best modern practices. It is a welcome change that business under a number of headings will be transacted simultaneously at committees in addition to the plenary sittings of this House. In this way we will be much more effective than we have been in the past. The introduction of electronic voting later in the year will lead to our operations in this regard being streamlined further.

The way in which we use our time has also been subjected to public scrutiny. We are extremely busy people and have to balance our duties as legislators with our duty to deal with the problems that confront the public who elect us. There is without doubt scope for manoeuvre in using our time more efficiently. Over the years practices and procedures have evolved about the way in which we do our business in the Chamber — the Minister of State referred to this — which have not lent themselves to the most efficient conduct of our business. Important legislation, such as the Social Welfare Bill which effect one in three citizens, have been guillotined while less important legislation can absorb a great deal of precious Dáil time. This happened yesterday when Members of the Opposition precluded Government backbenchers from debating the important and urgent legislation introduced in the Dáil. There must be scope for far-reaching agreements across the House on non-controversial issues or simple amending legislation so that more time can be given to debate issues which merit a more detailed examination. Under the new committee system there will be more scope for a genuine exchange of ideas across the table and fewer time filling speeches to keep a debate going.

The question of the sub judice rule has been referred to. The proposed changes to Standing Orders in relation to this rule are also to be welcomed. Indeed, the Labour Party expressed reservations a number of years ago about the restrictive interpretation of this rule. It is important that Deputies should be in a position to raise matters of urgent public importance in the Dáil having regard to the overall requirement that any matter which might prejudice a fair trial should not be permitted. The new rules will provide for due notice to be given to the Ceann Comhairle on any item to be raised by Members. That will lead to a fair balance being struck between the public interest, the role of the Legislature and that of the Judiciary.

The question of declaration of Members' interests has been the subject of wide debate in the media in particular. This is one of the few western democracies where there is no formal mechanism under which Members' interests may be declared. The Labour Party has long held the view that, as public repreprentatives, it is important for the health of our democracy that we instil confidence in politicians and the political system and that politicians should publicaly declare their interests. Last year we prepared an Ethics in Government Bill which was voted down by the Fianna Fáil Party and, indeed, by the Progressive Democrats. I am pleased to say that agreement has now been reached between the partners in Government in the Programme for Government to put a Register of Members' Interests as well as those of senior public servants and members of State boards on a statutory basis. In accordance with the law local authority members — I am a member of a local authority also — have to register their interests in land or property in their authority's area of jurisdiction. As most Members of this House would agree, members of local authorities have had no problem with this and we are familiar with this procedure. The new system will extend that degree of public accountability and transparency to Deputies. The Labour Party believes that this can only lead to confidence in politicians and the political system being enhanced.

During the recent election campaign the Labour Party pledged to put trust back into politics. These measures — the register and the forthcoming Ethics Bill —will be of importance in re-establishing that trust in politics. The declaration of interests, of sizeable gifts and political donations alongside the introduction of State funding for political parties and limits on campaign spending, form an important package which will serve to enhance the political process and remove any suspicions the public may have of hidden influences on the actions of those involved in politics. The public expects that what you see is what you get; and greater openness can serve to remove some of the myths and unfounded suspicions which can flourish in its absence.

The Taoiseach is to be complimented for the way in which he spontaneously declared his own interests on taking up office for the first time last year. The introduction of a Register of Member's Interests and the ensuing legislation should not be taken by any Deputy as casting any aspersions on any individual Member of this House. Members provide a service of high standard. Indeed, many of them have long service in this House, often at significant financial loss to themselves and their families. Frequently, their family life has suffered. The only interest many Members would have to declare are their overdrafts. But this is not an issue on which we should be on the defensive, rather we should welcome the opportunity to clear the air. A reasonable balance must be struck between the right of the public to information and the right of a Deputy and his or her family, particularly his spouse, to privacy. In our previous Bill, which was modelled on the Australian system, the Labour Party proposed that the existence of financial interests, but not their amounts, should be disclosed, as was made very clear by my colleague, Deputy Howlin, now Minister for Health, in introducing that Bill in this House. At no stage has my party envisaged that the actual sums involved in private bank accounts would be required to be disclosed. Similarly in the legislation being propared by my colleagues in Government, there is no intention that the details of Members' private bank accounts should be subject to public scrutiny.

Equally, there are areas where it would be desirable that a particular interest should be recorded by the Clerk of the House or other relevant authority, but in some instances where it would not be appropriate for details of that interest to be made public, there could be a balance. The correct balance needs to be struck between the public interest in having information made public and where the public interest is adequately served through a priviate declaration. For example, I do not believe it is appropriate that details of Members' liabilities be made public, although in many jurisdictions Members are required to declare the existance of liabilities above a reasonable threshold. Nobody wants to undermine the credibility, financial or otherwise, of Members of this House who try every day, in a daily way and in a difficult time, to represent their constituencies.

As the House embarks on this course to deal with this, it is important that what we do should be done right. There is little point in trying to re-establish public confidence if the legislation concerned is clearly full of loopholes as it will have quite the opposite effect.

I believe we should try to build on international practice in these areas.

Acting Chairman

May I interrupt the Deputy to let him know there is approximately one minute left.

Mr. Ferris

I have a few points which are important, so I hope you will be reasonably liberal with me.

We should try to build on the best international practice with regard to declaration of one's interest in property, ownership, partnership or shares in business, debentures or bonds and similar instruments, political consultancies and contracts with public authorities. These are all vested interests. I do not see that people should have any hesitation about declaring them because they could interfere with the independence of a Member's role here as a legislator. Interest held in another person's name, which have been purchased by the Member or disposed of for nil value could also be in question, or having client's because of one's political position.

Most of these matters are covered in the register proposed by the Ministers and will be included in the framing of legislation. I am pleased the Minister gave a commitment to listen to all points of view expressed here. We will have to address the question of penalties if people breach these. Any legislation introduced will have to satisfy the test of time to provide for further eventualities, however remote, which we may not even see now. The scandals currently besetting parties in Italy serve to remind us that corruption can take place and enter the political system.

This is a new Dáil with an unprecedented number of new Members. I hope today's debate will set a new beginning in how we can improve the conduct of our business and the standing of the political process in our institutions. I know only too well how hard Deputies work and how a practical concern for the people who elect us is shared right across the parties and the political spectrum. I welcome the views expressed. Let us hope that today we can make a new start in making that work more effective, more open and more accountable to the public who elect us to do a job.

Acting Chairman

Before calling on Deputy O'Hanlon I should inform the House that the focus of this debate will be on the proposed legislation committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee. Each statement shall last no more than ten minutes.

Dr. O'Hanlon

May I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, on bringing forward these proposals. I have no doubt they will improve efficiency and the use of our time here. They will improve the throughput of legislation and make the processing of legislation more orderly than it has been to date.

I do not agree with Deputy Keogh that it will in any way cause a diminution of the role of Deputies, rather it will enhance it. It will allow for greater participation by Deputies in the whole process of legislation and in the business of the House and of Government. It will allow Deputies make better use of their time. I am sure there are many Members who have sat in this House for two and half or three hours waiting for a Deputy on the other side to conclude his or her contribution so that they might speak. Many Deputies prepare speech material but find they do not get an opportunity to contribute on the appointed day. Then two or three weeks later the Bill may be guillotined so they do not get an opportunity to contribute. I have no doubt the new arrangement will enhance the role of Deputies and give them a greater opportunity to participate.

The advent of television in the Chamber certainly drew attention to the fact that at any given time there is not a large number of Deputies in the House. It is important to reiterate what has been said already, that the vast majority of the Deputies are on the premises and they are working in the Chamber dealing with legislation or in their office on behalf of their constituents. On many occasions when there was criticism of the small numbers present in this House, Deputies were working in committee rooms processing legislation.

The committee system is an important new development and is a major reform in this House. The committees will have wide-ranging powers and responsibilies. They will consider the Estimates and Committee Stage of Bills. We have already seen the success of referring Committee Stage of Bills to a special committee of the House. Deputy Ferris referred to this. The Roads Bill and major legislation on child care in 1991 were taken in special committee. It is important that we build on that success and I have no doubt the new committee system will be a major advance.

The establishment of a foreign affairs committee is welcome. It has wide-ranging terms of reference. We are all committed to peace and justice, not alone in our own country but around the world. The new committee will deal with matters concerning our international relations. It will consider EC programmes that may require legislation and will also consider the various EC regulations and directives.

Each year there is an increasing volume of EC legislation which we are obliged to implement. It is important for a committee, and indeed for Government, to monitor implementation of the legislation and to study how the legislation is implemented in other member states. At a time when the emphasis in this country is on the creation of new jobs and the maintenance of existing jobs, it is important that European Community regulations should not be imposed on us here and implemented here in advance of other European nations, very often to the detriment of employment in this country. That is an issue the foreign affairs committee will have an opportunity to go into in detail, to ensure that EC directives and legislation are regulated in a proper way.

Paragraph (7) of Appendix 6 of the discussion document on Oireachtas reform dealing with the proposed joint committee of foreign affairs states: "That political and security issues relating to Northern Ireland shall not be considered by the Joint Committee." That is too finite.

While we all recognise the need for sensitivity in discussing the very tragic situation that exists in the north eastern part of our island, nevertheless there are times when it might be appropriate for that committee to discuss issues that may have a political or security connotation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it might be appropriate for the committee to meet the British-Irish parliamentary group which discusses such issues from time to time.

I ask the Minister to look at the relevant paragraph to see if a formula can be found. There is provision in the section on the committee on finance to have sessions in private and perhaps that might be appropriate in this case also. There might be an occasion when the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Taoiseach might want to refer to that committee to discuss something which might be of benefit to them. It might be possible to find a formula that would take account of sensitivities and, at the same time, ensure that political and security issues in Northern Ireland could be debated or discussed.

I welcome the fact that MEPs from the whole island will be able to participate in the committee. With regard to Northern Ireland, from paragraph (7) it appears that it will be appropriate for the committee to discuss economic issues and that, of course, is important. While the distribution of European Structural Funds is a matter for the Minister for Finance, nevertheless, I have no doubt the committee on foreign affairs would have views and an input in that issue. The International Fund for Ireland, a fund that has contributed very much to improving the economic lot of the Border region, is also the responsibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I would like to raise an issue relevant to but not specific to this debate, that is, voting. I have previously raised the question of the provision of a pairing facility for ill Members. I believe now is the appropriate time to raise that matter again, when we have such a massive majority, the largest in the history of the State. There is a long established practice here where Members of this House who were seriously ill, and indeed terminally ill, were brought into the Chamber to vote, particularly in votes of confidence to save a Government from defeat. On occasion, I have seen Members in here after serious surgery. Their health might have been endangered for life by the very fact that they were brought in here in a wheelchair. We have seen wheelchairs, stretchers and Members being helped in to vote. Now that we have such a large majority, perhaps the Ceann Comhairle and the Whips of the various parties might bring forward proposals to ensure this will not happen in the future.

I do not believe we serve democracy by acting in that way; we do not serve the Irish people and we certainly do not serve ourselves as Members of this House by bringing in colleagues, particularly against their wishes, to vote. I would like our Chief Whip to look at this issue and bring forward a code of practice that would apply not just for the term of this Government, when we have a large majority, but would apply in the future when a Government may have no majority or a majority of one.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

We are talking today about Dáil reform in the context of a Dáil that has sat for no more than about 20 days in the past six months. I would say to this Government that if it is seriously interested in Dáil reform, the first thing it should do is allow the Dáil to sit. It is an absolute disgrace that this situation has arisen and it is no wonder we have such cynical comments in the media and among the general public about the situation. We are elected to the Dáil to come here to sit in the Dáil.

I would like to see clear evidence from the Government that it is prepared not just to talk about Dáil reform but to act on it. Quite frankly, I am not encouraged by what I have seen this week. Jackboot tactics were used to put a Bill through the House yesterday. That, to me, is the antithesis of what Dáil reform should be about. Bills should be properly debated and further time should have been made available to debate that Bill.

Last evening we had the very late publication of the Estimates. I have been in this House for the past 15 years and every year we have had a debate on the Estimates. Now we have a Government talking about Dáil reform, but we have no debate on the Estimates. We have no possibility of investigating the underlying decisions behind the figures. Is this Dáil reform? We had a very bad omen this week of the Government's intent in relation to Dáil reform and I remain to be convinced that its intentions are good.

Of course, real Dáil reform is necessary. On could look at other countries, for example, the United States, where they may have gone a bit overboard, and the committee system they have in operation there. Can you imagine what might have happened in this country, if we had a proper committee system, in relation to the allegations that led to the beef tribunal? That tribunal has already cost in 1992 in the Department of Agriculture Vote, £3.5 million, and other moneys under other votes. By the time it has completed its findings that tribunal will probably have cost the taxpayer upwards of £10 million. If we had a proper committee system it is more than likely that we here would have been able to investigate the complaints, at least initially, and thus saved a lot of that expense.

Furthermore, our proceedings would have been covered by parliamentary privilege. We would not have the situation where Deputy Spring, now Tánaiste, was able to come into this House and make allegations and then, after the tribunal was set up at enormous expense, to go there and see fit to give what I can only term rather muted evidence. That would be a further advantage of having a proper committee system. Essentially our democratic system is ramshackle and needs to be reformed. I believe, more and more, that the Executive has treated the Legislature as something to rubber-stamp its decisions, as virtually a nuisance to be dispensed with as far as possible. That will have to change.

I am all in favour of a proper committee system, but that has to be set up with the right attitude, the right approach, the right intent. Such committees must be properly resourced and staffed. They must have proper broad terms of reference. Ministers must be amenable to and answerable to such committees and they must be willing to attend those committees. If we have an approach along those lines, then the proposals before the House will have the support of the Fine Gael Party.

There are, however, serious questions that have to be addressed to which the Minister might reply. There are rather wicked rumours around this House that this whole rushed approach to Dáil reform and the setting up of committees is merely to provide jobs for the boys and girls, to provide jobs for the recalcitrant, disappointed members of the two Government parties and, in particular, of the Labour Party, in effect, to appoint them as chairmen and convenors of these committes in an effort to buy their silence. If that is the approach, I say to the Minister to forget it, we will not buy that approach.

Another wicked rumour was that this "grab all" Government was going to grab the chairmanship of all these committees and, indeed, the other convenor appointments as well. That would be totally contrary to the democratic principle and contrary to what happens in other democracies. Again, I warn the Minister: if that is the attitude and approach of this Government in pushing through Dáil reform, forget it, we will not agree to that. We are prepared not just to co-operate but to support the setting up of a proper committee system, but if these wicked rumours have any foundation, not alone will the Government be facing a summer of discontent but a spring and winter too. We will do everything possible to make sure the Government do not get away with it. There will be no co-operation whatever from the Opposition for that kind of approach.

Mr. Dempsey

This is completely against the spirit in which this debate should take place.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Government should come clean on this issue. I have a few points I wish to make in relation to the Foreign Affairs committee. Let me say in general that there is probably a case for some payment for the Chair of committees, but as for this new appointment of convenors, no logical explanation has been given. It lends fuel to the rumours about jobs for the boys and girls on the backbenches. I do not recollect it being mentioned in the Gleeson report which went into this whole question and produced a very comprehensive report.

On the question of the Chair of committees, let me say, very simply, in other democracies more than half the Chairs of parliamentary committees are reserved for the Opposition. We expect a similar approach to be adopted here.

In relation to the Foreign Affairs committee I will have to be brief. I want an assurance that what we have before us is a draft only for discussion and it is not again going to be rammed down our throats. Again, that will not wear with us. We want reasonable discussion on the draft terms of reference.

Perhaps the Minister might deal in his reply with a few issues I wish to raise. First, the draft terms of reference state that a number of Members of the Dáil shall form the select committee. How many Members of each House does the Government have in mind and from what side of the House will they come from? Second, in relation to consideration of the Estimates, I think it will be necessary to broaden the terms of reference. The committee should be entitled to look at and consider some of the Estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs and international co-operation. Bearing in mind that the vote for international co-operation does not cover all the items of ODA, for instance, the Department of Agriculture Estimate in relation to the FAO is classified as official aid, it should be broadened to cover all items of official aid.

In relation to the provision that "the Joint Committee shall consider the impact on equality of policy and legislation in respect of the Department of Foreign Affairs", may I say quite frankly, this is gobbledegook. What does it mean? I have considered it from all angles and I cannot ascertain what is in mind exactly. It could be a gesture to the new Minister for Equality and Law Reform. I do not know, but the Minister might at least explain it.

There is also a provision that Ireland's negotiating position in EC and other international affairs shall be excluded from the remit or the committee. I am not sure this is a wise idea. Why should not the negotiating position be considered? In Denmark, their committee has a very powerful role. I understand that over the years the practice has developed in Denmark whereby the Government, prior to every Council of Ministers meeting, presents all the items on the Council's agenda for discussion with the committee. I have found at EC meetings that the Danish Minister was able to use the threat of the foreign affairs committee in the Danish Pariament as a weapon to get more of his own way at the Council of Ministers' meetings on the grounds that he would have to secure their approval and consent. I question the exclusion of that function.

In relation to Northern Ireland, there may be a case for excluding security issues but I have great doubts whether political issues should be excluded. I want that matter reconsidered.

Will the Minister explain what is meant in the footnote to item No. 11 which is quite unclear. There should be transparency here. People should have to attend and, indeed, the Minister should also have to attend.

Finally, I note the Chairman is to have only one vote. This reinforces the tradition as in the EC committee where the Chairman has only one vote, that the Chair should be from the Opposition. He cannot upset the Government because he is confined to one vote.

Mr. Broughan

I would like to share my time with Deputy B. Fitzgerald.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Broughan

On reading the speech of the Minister this morning I was reminded of a great book I am engaged in reading at the moment. It is by my own great predecessor, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, it is entitled The Great Melody and deals with the life of Edmund Burke. It is clear when one is reading through this excellent biography that this House still, unfortunately, shares many characteristics of the House of Commons described by Edmund Burke in the mid to late 18th century. Indeed, it was Basil Chubb who said in The Government and Politics of Ireland that many of the procedures and debating methodology of this House are archaic and badly need to be reformed. That has to be the starting point of the debate today.

Walter Bagehot said a parliament's four basic duties were to make the Government behave, to make the laws and to make war and peace. As a new TD's first impressions, I suggest that on three of those duties this House is very far from achieving those ambitions. I hope that under the programme bravely initiated by my colleague, the Minister and Chief Whip, we will now proceed on a path of making this House a relevant and modern legislature like the Bundestag, the National Council of Switzerland or any of the other European or American assemblies behind whom we have badly fallen.

A newcomer's impression of this House is not great. First, on this critical debate, we have perhaps a dozen people looking at each other, not really engaged in debate, in contrast with my other chamber of Dublin Corporation, where I am leader of the Rainbow Coalition and where perhaps 30 members will seriously debate with each other on most key issues. So far, I have not seen that happen in this House. It is not the best use of parliamentary time to engage in foolish ritualistic procedures on the Order of Business or for people to seem to have themselves deliberately expelled from this House.

There is also a shortage of general resources available to TDs. I was surprised I was to share an office with two other TDs due to lack of resources. I believe it is standard practice. It is a decade since we had a secretarial assistant. We also have no research assistants. In a competition with, for example, the Library of Congress our Library in most respects would be second best.

I heard Deputy O'Keeffe entering a caveat in relation to the new committees. We have desperately sought these committees for 20 years, as his own colleague Senator Manning, has said so often but the first thing we now hear is that the Deputy is worried about the kind of money that may be paid to convenors or chairpersons. What we should be doing in these five new committees, if we are serious about reforming this House, is setting up a counter bureaucracy. We should have officials to research, instruct and, if necessary, write speeches for people in this House and at those committees, and inform them in every way necessary. That will not happen unless adequate money is provided. Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned convenors. Most continental assemblies have rapporteurs. Often in a continental assembly the four or five key committee chairpersons will sit alongside the Minister.

I warmly welcome the Minister's proposals and I am delighted that I will be a member of at least one of these committees where I hope to give my own ideas on economics and finance. I would like to see the five committees established and the Members enabled to participate fully in the proceedings. This can be done if we get the proper resources. If we do not get the resources the committees will not be successful, they will just be talking shops. They can be very successful if they have their own staff aided by a good convenor, a good chairperson, with plenty of back-up facilities. I welcome this development as a way of reforming this House.

I also welcome — I know this is primarily for the debate tomorrow — the Register of Interests. It is important to know who people are and who they represent. I am now a full-time politician. The Lord Mayor of Dublin said recently that politics was his business; politics is my business too. When politics is one's business one should get the proper resources to do the job properly.

I also welcome the relaxation of the sub judice rule. We have had a lot of tom-foolery in this House over this, even in the short time I have been here. I hope in future, we can have proper discussion of important matters.

I would like the powers of the Office of Ceann Comhairle to be greatly strengthened. For example, could the Ceann Comhairle have his own press office? He has a duty to protect all the Members of this House. Recently in a Sunday newspaper a comment was made about me which was totally untrue and which I may have to pursue formally in other areas as I have no other recourse. I would like the Ceann Comhairle to have a press office to represent all of us, irrespective of changes. I welcome and support the Minister's contribution.

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

As a new Deputy I welcome any change that will streamline the system because it is still rather confusing trying to get to grips with the existing procedures. I welcome this motion before the House because a genuine effort is being made to streamline our work.

The committee system can work and should be made to work. I sincerely hope it does not lead to subcommittees of subcommittees which could drag out the process and make it more confusing than at present. That would delay necessary legislation which should be enacted as quickly as possible.

I welcome the Register of Interests for Deputies but I have reservations in relation to its application to spouses. I do not believe we should encroach on the privacy of spouses. They are not elected and they do not have to face the public. Serious consideration will have to be given to that area. Full-time politicians should not have anything to fear in relation to the disclosure of their intentions.

From a public perception, the existing voting system in this House is seen as a joke. It has been there for many years but in this day and age it is high time we changed the system and the proposal to change it must be welcomed by everybody. Yesterday, we saw people taken from other meetings where they could have got their business done. Because of three or four votes, a great deal of time was wasted. Is it any wonder people have an unfavourable image of us?

The setting up of the Foreign Affairs committee must be welcomed. It has great scope in view of the fact that our MEPs may participate and it is also open to our Northern Ireland colleagues. In the long term this can be of great benefit to Ireland as a whole, particularly to this House. I also welcome the fact that we can invite members from outside Ireland. Perhaps we could invite our British colleagues to participate at certain occasions.

Mr. J. Higgins

I have absolutely no doubt but that if a time and motion study were carried out on the productivity and efficiency levels of this House, the findings of such a study would be a devastating indictment on the stubborn resistance of successive Dáil and Governments over the years to positive change, fundamental reform or restructuring of our procedures. It is incredible that on the brink of entering the 21st century we should have clung for so long to a scheme of operation where all business is transacted here in this Chamber, where only one Member can speak at a time, where, apart from the Ceann Comhairle, 164 elected legislators are mere spectators or bystanders because only one Member can hold the floor at a time, and where the legitimate input indeed the valuable input of many Deputies is denied to them and to the House because of time constraints or because Ministers and front bench spokespersons get the lion's share of what is going. This debate, therefore, is very welcome in that it signals a realisation and acceptance that things must change now.

Fine Gael welcomes the broad thrust of what is proposed in this draft document. Indeed, large tracts of what is proposed are directly taken from the Fine Gael policy document "Better Laws, Wiser Spending, Speedier Redress of Injustices" produced by a Fine Gael committee headed by our Leader, Deputy John Bruton, and of which I was a member. We are delighted if the Government should decide to flatter us by plagiarising our views, but we regret our proposals have not been acted upon earlier. Had that happened, it would have prevented much of the odium and scorn poured on this Assembly and its Members last week by a certain tabloid newspaper and radio presenter. Indeed, the newspaper in question may even now decide to claim that it has stampeded us into bringing forward those proposals now even though they were in incubation well before last week's onslaught.

Fine Gael has been pushing for Dáil reform for a considerable period of time, not simply as an answer and an antidote to criticism, but as a basic requirement and instrument of doing things better, of making better laws, of ensuring greater accountability and of maximising democracy.

A lot of damage has been done to the image, and indeed the integrity, of Members of this House because the mechanics and procedures of the House thwarted any kind of full and meaningful participation by the vast majority of Members, by a failure on our own part to challenge many of the unfair headlines and assumptions which were bandied about and to explain to the population outside how the archaic structures and procedures of this House have made meaningful involvement impossible for very many Deputies.

As my colleague Deputy O'Keeffe said, we want to warn the Government, however, that even more damage will be caused if the proposal is accepted to have the convenors to the various committees paid as well as the chairperson. It is legitimate to pay the chairperson of the committees. After all, that person would be presiding over the committees which will be carrying out minute and technical examination on a line-by-line basis of all legislation before them. This work up to now was carried out here in plenary session in the Chamber. By presiding over such work in the new committees, the chairperson will have an onerous task and he or she will be acting in loco for the Ceann Comhairle. It is legitimate, therefore, to pay the chairperson.

As Deputy O'Keeffe has said, there is absolutely no reason whatever, no justification, no valid defence of the proposal for payment of the convenor. I listened with interest to Deputy Broughan where he tried to compare the role of the convenor with that of a rapporteur in committees in other parliaments. It has no such role. There is no comparison or parallel. It is a riduculous indefensible proposal and Fine Gael will fight it tooth and nail. If it is proceeded with, it will be simply seen as a Labour Party proposal to placate the increasingly vocal, acutely disappointed and strident, threatening members of the Club of 22.

Indeed, if you are to translate the principle of paying both the chairperson and the convenor of the other committees of the House as well as the legislative committee then it will simply be a case of "one for everyone in the Labour Party audience". Fine Gael see absolutely no justification for the payment of the convenor of the committee. This work can be done effectively by way of an instruction from the Chair, it can be done by the Chief Whip of each of the committees, or by an officer of the House. I do not care who does the work but, as far as we are concerned, no payment should be involved. This Government has appointed a plethora of advisers and programme managers costing, in total, £1 million. The gravy train has to stop somewhere and it is going to stop here in this Chamber in relation to these committees.

While I welcome the general package of reforms, now proposed in draft form, and look forward to a further development and refining of areas not properly addressed in the document, there is no doubt that the proposal to use legislative committees to deal with the Committee Stage of various Bills is the nub of parliamentary reform. Because the legislative programme was not overcrowded when certain Bills were introduced, they received the line by line treatment they deserved. How often, however, have we seen in this House a Bill half dealt with and the other half guillotined ruthlessly through, with all the amendments falling automatically except those in the name of the Minister? How often have we seen emergency legislation bulldozed through by the Government, sometimes needlessly, after a totally inadequate and cursory examination of its contents? How often have we seen billions of pounds of taxpayers' money forced through the House by way of Estimates with no examination whatsoever, with a nod, a wink and a promise of a detailed irrelevant post-mortem examination at some subsequent stage several months later?

The dealing with important legislation or handling of public moneys in such a fashion is irresponsible, and indeed is the negation of public accountability. It is important when we are making laws, that we make good laws. In doing so we should allow participation by interested parties. I suggest that in drawing up the terms of reference of such committees we allow for public hearings. For example, if you are having legislation that deals with Telecom Éireann, then the chairman and the board of Telecom Éireann should be able to come to the committee as should the members of the communication workers union and consumer organisations. We could then have, at Committee Stage, a properly balanced, well proportioned Bill that will strike the necessary balances and produce good legislation. The reason so many Bills find their way into the courts is as a result of an inadequate Committee Stage debate in this House.

I want to see the semi-State organisations, which are the main lever, and the powerhouse of economic developent, brought to the committees as well. I want to see accountability to committees by semi-State organisations or any organisations which have budgets of millions, and in some cases, billions of pounds but which are insulated from public accountability by reason of semi-State and autonomous role.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

In debates like this, one can grow used to contributions like the earlier remarks of Deputy Higgins which seek to condemn what takes place in this House and refer to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, John Bruton as the source of all of the innovative proposals which he supposedly sponsored when he was a Minister. As far as the Department of the Environment was concerned in that term of office there was one reforming piece of legislation, that dealing with dogs. I suppose we had a lot of bark and no bite.

This debate is concerned essentially with the way in which we carry out our work in this Office. The Government is putting forward a package of reforms which, when implemented, will contribute significantly to the effective discharge by the Oireachtas of the role conferred on it by the Constitution.

As Members of this House, we must give a wholehearted welcome to these reform proposals. The Oireachtas is the centre, the very heart, of our democratic system. It is essential to the health and well-being of our democracy that the Oireachtas should be effective in the discharge of its functions and should be seen to be so.

The way we carry out our work in this House and in the Seanad is subject to a good deal of criticism, much of it unjustified, much of it ill-informed. Some of the more cynical comments, I regret to say, tend to be made by people who not only should, but do, know better. The Government has resisted the natural inclination in this situation to respond defensively and instead we brought forward proposals which are specific, practical and constructive. I believe the reforms will make this House more effective, more relevant and more responsive. I trust that all sides will see them as they are, an honest, constructive and open attempt to improve the structures, procedures and practices of the House and thereby enable us to do a better job in the interest of all the people.

Last year, in the Department of the Environment, we sponsored virtually 25 per cent of the Dáil legislation that passsed through the House. I would like to thank Deputies on all sides who contributed on Housing, the Environmental Protection Agency and Electoral Reform Bills. I particularly thank those Deputies who came to Setanta House during August for the Committee Stage of the Roads Bill, without getting a single line in the media for their efforts at the time.

I would like to put the proposals for Oireachtas reform in a somewhat wider context by relating them to the closely associated field of electoral reform. This relationship is specifically recognised in the Programme for a Partnership Government which deals with both Oireachtas reform and electoral reform under the general heading of "broadening our democracy." Under this heading, the Government programme sets out a very substantial catalogue of electoral measures. It proposes: to introduce State funding for political parties; to introduce a system of registration of substantial donations and subscriptions to parties and candidates; and to impose limits on the election expenditure of parties and canditates.

These proposals have wide ramifications and raise issues which must be carefully weighed. They require substantial research which will take account, in particular, of the practices and experience of modern democracies elsewhere. To give effect to the measures decided on, a detailed legislative framework will have to be established.

My Department, as a matter of urgency, is preparing the heads of an electoral Bill to deal with these matters. It is my intention to submit specific proposals for consideration by the Government in the near future.

The Programme for Government also proposes the establishment of an independent electoral commission to prepare proposals for the revision of Dáil constituencies and undertakes to provide a statutory basis for the Commission. It also provides for the setting up a commission to prepare a revision of the Euro-constituencies.

The House will be aware that the commission to deal with the Euro-constituencies has already been established and has been asked to report within three months. It is essential to have any changes in the Euro-constituencies in place in good time in anticipation of next year's elections. for this reason, it was appropriate to set up a commission now, on a non-statutory basis, rather that await legislation and the inevitable delay that this would involve.

However, the Electoral Bill, to which I have already referred, will include provision for the establishment on a statutory basis of a commission to deal with the Dáil constituencies and any future reviews of Euro-constituencies. I understand that the necessary census figures for a revision of the Dáil constituencies will be published over the next few months. On that basis, we can expect to have a statute-based Dáil commission operating in the present year.

The Programme for Government contains a commitment that the process of modernising and consolidating the various electoral codes will be pursued vigorously. The enactment last year of the Electoral Act, 1992 brought together, for the first time ever, the entire law relating to Dail elections. We were able to restore the dignity of voting procedures on the day of an election in a way which was widely accepted by the community as a whole.

I intend to follow this up with a similar Bill in relation to Presidential elections. Substantial progress has already been made with the drafting of this Bill. I hope to have a final text at an early date and it should be possible to have the measure dealt with by the Oireachtas in the present year.

Once the Presidential Elections Bill is enacted, my intention is to follow up with a Bill to modernise and consolidate the referendum law. The ultimate aim is to update all of the electoral codes and to bring the entire body of electoral law into the last decade of the 20th century.

Finally, the Programme for Government indicated acceptance in principle that there should be constitutional change to give voting rights to emigrants. This is, of course, a complex question, with significant implications for our representative structures, and it has been debated on more than one occasion in this House. The matter will now be examined in the specific context of constitutional change.

I think it is both necessary and appropriate for the House to take note of these comprehensive proposals for electoral reform and to set the current proposals in relation to the Oireachtas firmly in this wider context. The package of proposals contained in the section of the Government programme entitled "Broadening our Democracy" constitutes a significant and far-reaching blueprint for reform in the public life of this country. This Government has already demonstrated its appreciation of the need for wideranging reform and we will continue to address this in a constructive, realistic and consultative way in the months ahead.

Mr. M. McDowell

I want to dwell, if I may, on the proposals in relation to the reform of this Chamber and, in particular, the proposals for committees to be established. I appreciate the Minister, Deputy Smith, wishes to advertise the programme of his Department in relation to electoral reform, but we are discussing different matters. We are discussing this place and why it is not working. I was elected in 1987 and now, when I come back here, I find that all the same old faults, with a few slight alterations, still persist.

In relation to the committees I want to deal, first, with the proposed foreign affairs committee. I have a special interest in that as Foreign Affairs spokesman for my party. The terms of reference for the committee provide that it cannot consider political and security issues relating to Northern Ireland. I ask, why not? In what way can Dáil Éireann consider such matters if it cannot do so in its own foreign affairs committee? Why should not the Dáil establish a committee to consider a basic aspect of Government policy, namely, political issues relating to Northern Ireland? I note it is proposed to give a right of audience to Members of the European Parliament North and South to attend this committee. Those things amount to nothing, on closer consideration. They are a gimmick. Why would John Hume, for instance, want to attend a committee meeing of this Chamber if it was expressly prohibited from considering the North.

What is worse, this sham of a foreign affairs committee is also precluded, according to the proposed Standing Orders for the committee, from considering Ireland's negotiating position in EC or other international affairs. That means that anything that is on the current agenda and relevant is taken away from the remit of this committee. That is being done at the behest of the mandarins in Iveagh House who have tried to prevent this committee from being formed since it was first suggested a number of years ago. They have set out to deliberately emasculate this committee, to make sure no discussion takes place on foreign policy in this Chamber or in any subcommittee of this Chamber. They have made every effort to ensure that this House will not have any say and that they will not be accountable for the conduct of Irish foreign policy to this Parliament.

Under the Constitution Dáil Éireann is given a special role, as distinct from Seanad Éireann, in relation to our international agreements and their consideration and approval. This House does not fulfil that function. The Department of Foreign Affairs is intent on making sure that none of its officials, and certainly not its Minister, ever come before a committee of this House for the purpose of explaining Irish foreign policy to the Dáil, to which that Minister and that Department are ultimately accountable.

It is shameful that we could contemplate, and that any Minister of State or Minister could present to this House, a constitution for a foreign affairs committee which excludes that committee from discussing Northern Ireland policy or security matters and which prevents the committee from thinking about, contemplating or considering any aspect of current foreign policy which is the subject matter of a negotiating position by the Irish Government either in the EC or in any other international forum. How low can we get, to suggest a foreign affairs committee which cannot deal with any relevant international issue in which Ireland has an interest and which cannot deal with the most basic and most domestic foreign affairs issue, the policy matters relating to Northern Ireland? What a sham we are dealing with here. It is a sick joke.

Furthermore, this committee is being given the same powers that were given to the former Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. What relevance has that to a foreign affairs committee? Why should the foreign affairs committee consider delegated legislation from the EC on brucellosis testing? What possible function has it to do something like that? The reality is, it is not going to be a foreign affairs committee. The purpose is to dress up the former Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities as a foreign affairs committee but make sure it does not do anything useful in the field of foreign affairs.

Why should a foreign affairs committee consider, for instance, the recent statutory regulations made under the 1972 European Communities Act on unit trust funds? Why should any self respecting foreign affairs committee attempt to examine regulations of that kind? This is inexcusable and it is a sham being perpetrated on this House in order to get across the idea that there is genuine Dáil reform. There is no Dáil reform if this foreign affairs committee idea is a yardstick of what is proposed.

If the foreign affairs committee proposed cannot consider any issue on which Ireland is at the time adopting an international position either at EC level or at international level, what can it possibly discuss — anodyne and harmless matters like Latin American politics or general benevolent thought about Third World assistance?

Mr. E. Kenny

Rockall.

Mr. M. McDowell

Except, for we all know, we might have a position on that issue. This is an elaborate sham and a phoney proposal coming from the Minister of State and it should be rejected as such. There is no point in masquerading at establishing a foreign affairs committee if what you are doing is resuscitating a committee which is supposed to examine EC regulations made under the 1972 European Communities Act, which has nothing to do with foreign affairs. The bulk of the material before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities has nothing to do with foreign affairs; it has all to do with agriculture, industry and other matters. This is an elaborate joke.

Why has this House been presented with a sham proposal of this kind? It is to make it appear that there is a foreign affairs committee where none is intended. It was well known in the two previous Dála that the Department of Foreign Affairs was adamantly opposed to this House having a genuine committee which would look to foreign affairs issues and now it has succeeded because it has persuaded the Government to bring before this House a proposal which is so ludicrous that it will make a laughing stock of any committee. No Foreign Affairs spokesman for any party would waste his or her time going to a committee of this kind.

Why should John Hume come to a committee of this House where the two issues he is prevented from talking about at that committee are Northern Ireland and any issue where Ireland has a stance on EC matters. The only person who may turn up is Dr. Paisley and he may turn up just for a laugh.

This is a ludicrous proposal and there is no point in dignifying it with very serious or lengthy consideration. It is a sham. It is the Department of Foreign Affairs' answer to a legitimate demand that the Parliament of this country should have some say in foreign policy and it is designed to make sure that the Parliament has no say on foreign policy.

I note one of the Government speakers, Deputy O'Hanlon, has said that Northern Ireland should not be excluded from discussion, but what about the equally ludicrous and pathetic suggestion that international issues on which Ireland has a negotiating position should also be excluded from consideration? That is like saying we should have a finance committee which never talks about the budget or a law reform committee which never talks about impending statutes. It is quite absurd and should be withdrawn.

The foreign affairs committee is one which I looked forward to participating in because I thought, for a change, there was going to be a genuine window for Irish parliamentarians to take an interest in Foreign Affairs. Alas, I am disappointed. Unless this committee is substantially rejigged and reorganised and unless these miserable terms of reference are withdrawn, we will have nothing to do with it. If this foreign affairs committee is just given the function of scrutinising legislation made under the European Communities Act in relation to issues which have nothing to do with Foreign Affairs it will be a waste of time.

Deputy Keogh mentioned this morning something which everybody in this House would agree with, that all these committees will have no function at all if Ministers do not turn up to answer policy questions. As she, so rightly, said this morning, Mr. Justice Hamilton had pointed out that if Ministers had actually answered questions and explained their policies to this House there would have been no beef tribunal, millions of pounds would not have been spent on it and the costly errors it was established to investigate would not have occurred. I will leave the beef tribunal, having said that about it, but if Ministers really believe they can avoid responsibility to Dáil committees by resorting to the justification given to my party leader, Desmond O'Malley, of the Constitutional difficulty the Taoiseach thought existed in relation to Ministers attending, then we are all being led up the garden path.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must ask the Deputy to conclude now.

Mr. M. McDowell

I appreciate the Minister of State Deputy Dempsey's initiative in beginning this debate. I do not want to be negative but when I see something as unspeakably silly as the proposal in relation to the foreign affairs committee I despair of any real reform ever being undertaken.

Mr. Penrose

I am glad to have this opportunity to address the House for the first time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I wish the Deputy well in his maiden speech.

Mr. Penrose

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

As one of the new crew of Labour Party Members, having observed the procedures as they operated in this Chamber, my initial perception is that they leave much to be desired. We appear to be bedevilled by anachronistic procedures which quite clearly have left the public outside questioning the role of the public representatives in this Chamber. From that perspective, I welcome the proposed improvements which have been outlined here today by the Minister of State, the Government Chief Whip and which I hope will facilitate a vast improvement in the workings of this House. That would be a clear signal to many people who have a jaundiced view of the operation of the House.

The section of the Programme for a Partnership Government which deals with the broadening of democracy is to be wholeheartedly welcomed. As far as I am concerned, I am elected to the Dáil and my principal role should be that of legislator. Very often, the public perception and the one we have often created for ourselves, is that of a messenger mentality whereby we are very much engaged in parish pump-type politics instead of devoting our time to legislation and legislative reform.

With respect to my colleague, Deputy M. McDowell, his party was in Government for over three and a half years and some of the reforms here today did not emanate from his party when they were in Government.

Mr. M. McDowell

I agree.

Mr. Penrose

These reforms constitute an important step forward for which we in the Labour Party can justifiably take a certain amount of credit.

A number of matters outlined to the House today should be unreservedly welcomed. The voting procedures which have been used in this House are unbelievably cumbersome. I was shocked at the manner in which people had to line up to troop through the lobbies. The introduction of electronic voting will certainly get rid of that anomaly which makes the viewing public wonder what we are doing half of the time.

It is important also to state that often when Members are not present in the House, they are doing other work. Sometimes it is very easy for the public to suppose that, because one is not present in the Chamber, one is not present in the Dáil at all. The committee system will prevent that false impression from gaining greater credibility.

The committee system will also enhance the working of this Chamber. It is important that each piece of legislation undertaken on behalf of the Government should be subject to critical analysis. The committee system will facilitate all Members of the House in that regard.

I look forward, as a possible member of the finance and general affairs committee, to examining the Committee Stage of the forthcoming Finance Bill. Worthwhile amendments proposed in a less confrontational environment than in the Chamber of this House, may well be taken on board. We can then truly say that the legislation will reflect the working of the Dáil in total, not of a section of the Dáil.

In deference to some colleagues on my left, I wish to say no discussions in relation to appointments of chairmen of committees from the back benches has ever taken place in Labour Party rooms. I am disappointed with the tone of the comments earlier, that those would be seen as pay-offs to disappointed Labour Party backbenchers. That is not their role.

If we are going to develop committees we should ensure that they have proper resources to facilitate the detailed examination of legislation. Committees will fail if resources are not made available and if that entails putting in place chairmen and convenors, it is a small price to pay to ensure the committees will operate to the satisfaction of all concerned.

I look forward to the proposed Electoral Bill. State funding for political parties, the registration of donations and subscription to parties and candidates and the imposition of limits on election expenditure by parties and candidates will be welcomed through the country. It will certainly ensure a level playing pitch so far as candidates and parties are concerned, and allow those who do not have the financial resources or backing to contest elections. It will act as an important means of strengthing democracy. I welcome the Government's commitment to change the Constitution to give voting right to emigrants. This is something I have long advocated should be done.

I welcome also the setting up of a Register of Member's Interests which will be part of the forthcoming Ethics in Government Bill. I have been a member of a local authority for some nine years and following each election I have had to declare my interests. It is important that transparency and openness should be demonstrated to the public. However, I do not see any merit in a proposal to have spouses' interests registered.

I welcome the relaxation of the sub judice rule. The guidelines set out in that connection are welcome because they ensure that the principle of the separation of powers, enshrined in the Constitution, will be strictly observed.

Mr. McCormack

With your permission, I wish to share my time with Deputy F. Fitzgerald.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McCormack

The debate today on Dáil reform is necessary. In my comparatively short experience in the Dáil, I am convinced that Dáil reform is urgently required but the Government move is a farce. Several aspects of Dáil reform could be achieved if there was a willingness to do so on the part of the Government, without the need to introduce legislation. If the Government was serious about co-operation in this regard, much could be achieved and the farce which takes place each morning on the Order of Business could be avoided.

Mr. Ellis

The Deputy is a fair hand at it anywhere.

Mr. McCormack

Deputy Ellis is as good as myself at it. What has led to it is the frustration of Deputies because they do not have a legitimate opportunity to have their questions answered or their grievances raised. Therefore, they use the Order of Business to raise matters of concern to their constituents.

Members' means of eliciting information from Ministers can be achieved only at Question Time, on the Adjournment or in Grievance Time. If a Deputy puts down questions seeking information from a Minister he finds 95 per cent of those questions are now dealt with by written reply and the reply does not attempt to answer the Deputy's question but rather to evade it.

Deputies have a legitimate right to ask questions. If the Government was genuine about co-operation and reforming this House, a serious attempt would be made by Ministers to answer questions rather than evade them. When a Deputy fails to get information at Question Time he may seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment or in Grievance Time and if his request is granted the same farce is repeated. The Deputy will make the case and instead of the Minister engaging in real debate will read out a reply carefully prepared by his advisers or civil servants, but not relevant to the question. It will be for the purpose of giving other information which the Minister wishes to put on the record of the House. This frustrates Deputies and makes a farce of the Order of Business.

I will give an example. Last night, a matter in which I am interested was raised in the Adjournment. A Deputy raised the fact that staff from farm development services were being sent to livestock offices throughout the country and, as a result, farm grants could not be paid. This applies to Galway, Roscommon and to several other areas throughout the country. Instead of answering the question, we got six and a half pages of a script from the Minister. He dealt with everything except the question asked by the Deputy. He dealt with the amount of grants paid out and the number of applications for livestock grants which had nothing whatever to do with the question. In the last few lines he emphasised that clerical staff in farm development services have been transferred and other personnel in that area will continue working normally. Further assignments of staff to other duties is a temporary measure. Four lines at the end of a six page speech referred to the Deputy's question. If this is the farce Ministers intend to continue to engage to in, it is no wonder we want Dáil reform.

I welcome the attitude of speakers from the Labour Party regarding declaration of interests. I have no objection to the declaration of Members' interests but this should also extend to civil servants or to people who are in more important positions than Deputies, for example, recently appointed advisers, including some members of families who have been appointed as advisers to Ministers, particularly on the Labour Party side. Will those people be obliged to declare their interests? Should the 600 people appointed to State boards since this Fianna Fáil-Labour Government came to power have to declare their interests? The Government should look at this seriously because people in such important positions are often as influential as Deputies. Perhaps when we discuss this further I will have more time at my disposal to deal with those matters.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome this debate, particularly as I understand that it is the first time such a debate has been held in quite a long time. I welcome the thinking and spirit behind it despite some shortcomings in the recommendations. It is, indeed, overdue.

As a newly elected Deputy, I was shocked at the level of cynicism and hopelessness during the general election campaign expressed by the general public and almost on a daily basis in the media. Never has the institution of the Dáil and the cynicism of the public been at such a serious level. We should not underestimate the consequences of this type of cynicism and thinking. Disraeli referring to the UK many years ago spoke of a divided nation and the gap between the rich and poor. It is critical at this time of economic crisis, with over 300,000 people unemployed, that this institution be a model of leadership and efficiency and that there are appropriate mechanisms to ensure speedy scrutiny and enactment of legislation. Contrary to what the Minister, Deputy Smith, said earlier today, Fine Gael has a proud record of creating a climate of thinking and influencing public opinion to demand Dáil reform.

This Parliament must be credible and Ministers must be seen to be held accountable within the structures of the Chamber. By this we should not mean a sham accountability but a real and transparent accountability. That is the only way to rescue the image of this parliament as a national institution. An effective committee system, I stress "effective", will go a long way towards creating these conditions. Such a system must mean that the committees are well resourced, able to do their work and that Ministers should appear before them.

I agree with my constituency colleague that the brief of the foreign affairs committee must be enlarged for it to be effective. I hope that the mechanism which allows MEPs to attend will be developed and used efficiently as I think the democratic deficit which became apparent during the Maastricht Treaty campaign needs to be addressed and this may well be one way of ensuring that happens.

I very much regret the Government's intention to subsume the work of the committee on women's rights into the new committee system. I am extremely concerned at this critical time when the Commission on the Status of Women has just reported that such a committee should cease to exist. It would be a most useful, relevant and timely committee for the duration of this Dáil and I appeal for this decision to be reconsidered. Its record in dealing with issues, highlighting initiatives and barriers and carrying out research was excellent and I have no indication that its work will be integrated elsewhere. There is no room for complacency in the area of equality and I ask the Minister to reconsider this decision.

Mr. Ellis

I welcome the opportunity to discuss reform of this House. I have been a Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas and have served for approximately 15 years. In that time I have seen some reform, but not as much as I or other people would like. The establishment of a committee system is long overdue. Efforts to establish committees prior to this were sometimes thwarted by Opposition parties who felt that it would be more advantageous to have their daily batting session on the Order of Business with the Taoiseach of the day to see what would make the headlines the following day in the national newspapers. When we take as much criticism as we have taken in recent weeks to the point of being accused of drawing our salaries under false pretences, the people of the press should be present all the time in the same way as they expect us to be present when the House is in session. The simple fact is that we are here not to represent the press but the constituents who elected us to these Houses. In doing so, it is important to look after constituency matters and people do not realise that many of us work until 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday nights to clear the backlog of constituency work from the previous weekend. Many people who criticise us were at home with their feet at the fire while we had to plough the highways and byways of our constituencies to serve our constituents.

For the past three or four years I was a member of the EC committee and I was horrified to hear Deputy McDowell run that committee into the ground. It is obvious he is not aware of how that committee performed for the past number of years. It has done an enormous amount of work and it would be time well spent if he read the committee's reports. I pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, Deputy Barry, for his help in reorganising that committee and giving it a meaningful role in this House. If his efforts were fully recorded I believe that Deputy McDowell would not make accusations against that committee. He probably read the terms of reference and realised that his party colleague, Deputy Cox — who is also an MEP — will have the right of audience there as an MEP provided, of course, he has the time to attend having regard to his other duties.

We cannot be holier than thou in this House because we are here to represent our constituents and if we can do that by means of a better committee system perhaps we will not be ballyragged around the country for non-attendance despite the fact that we are either in the House and working or paired and attending to constituency duties. People do not want to see their politicians only at election time. They want to see them if there is a crisis or a problem to be dealt with and if that means that some of us are paired on occasions, we are entitled to do so. That should be the attitude of the Members of this House.

We must give the committees resources and back-up to allow them to function efficiently. I am sick and tired listening to people criticising the appointment of advisers. Are we to be experts on every possible subject in our own right? Some of us might know a certain amount about agriculture, foreign affairs and so on but we are at least entitled to the same level of advice available to the top civil servants who make decisions on our behalf which, on many occasions, would not be made if they were debated rationally by committees of the House. We are not here to apologise and I will not apologise.

A proposed Register of Members' Interests is ridiculous because as far as registration of people's interest is concerned, everybody knows mine and I have suffered for them on occasions like other Members of this House. We cannot tolerate being our brothers' or our families' keepers at all times. I do not have a problem on a personal basis with regard to declaring my interests. I declared them when I became a member of the local authority and I have no hesitation in declaring everything with regard to my membership of this House. However, we must be careful not to create a situation where people are afraid to take seats in this House because they feel that their personal lives will be pried into on a regular basis.

We take a lot of stick from the public on a regular basis and it does not matter to what party one belongs. It is time that this House decided to act efficiently. We need somebody to project the image of this House because it has been run into the gutter over the past six or eight weeks by people making all sorts of unfounded accusations against Members. We hear them on "Morning Ireland" or on other programmes and 90 per cent of people believe them. When we go back to our constituencies we are told we were not present in the House. They do not see the voting records of this House or the pairing arrangements made with the Whips to facilitate Members. It is time that the Oireachtas appointed a PR officer to protect our image. I hope the committee debates, where possible, will be broadcast on television or radio. We do not want the situation to continue where we are seen as 166 Members of an elite club with cosy little arrangements.

We are all elected here by constituents who want us to represent them. That does not mean we should put in every minute of the sitting day in this Chamber because, as I said earlier, we must look after the interests of our constituents. We can only do that by being available to them on a regular basis and by making the necessary contacts via a Department or otherwise. We all have to go back to our constituents and if we do not look after their interests, they will find somebody else who will. They are not interested in the fact that we are in the House and unable to look after their medical card or social welfare problems. It is important to have an efficient committee system and we make no apology for putting it in place.

Deputy Penrose mentioned the voting system. It is so archaic that it does not deserve to be mentioned. I believe there is a commitment to bring in electronic voting. Having had the pleasure of using it in the Italian Parliament as a member of the EC committee, I know it is efficient and would stop people asking why we march like sheep through the lobbies to show what way we are voting.

Mr. Deasy

I am at a loss to know why the expression "Dáil reform" is being used in this debate. I would have thought that "Oireachtas reform" would be more fitting. I am sure that the committees which are to be set up will consist partially of Senators. I would have thought the reform would have covered both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I feel sorry for the 44 new Members in this Dáil because they are already being lambasted on the airwaves and the media without having a chance to prove themselves. They must be asking what they did to deserve this. They have not had a chance to contribute and are being lumped in with the poorest of performers in the Dáil. It is particularly unfair.

The Minister referred to open Government and the Taoiseach made a virtue of saying repeatedly that he will have open Government while he reigns as Taoiseach. That contradicts the facts. Deputy Reynolds is anything but open in his manner in the House. He is elusive and defensive rather than open. If he were open, the business of this House would be conducted in a far better and more fruitful manner.

My complaint in that regard arises mainly on the Order of Business and at Question Time. In the Minister's speech there was a reference to a Taoiseach's Question Time. The quality of Question Time in this House has sadly deteriorated over the years. There was a time when one could get a straight answer to a straight question. Unfortunately, that day is gone. What one is likely to get nowadays if one asks a pertinent question is a lot of waffle and fudge. One is likely to get a Second Stage speech rather than an answer to a question. The whole purpose of Question Time is defeated.

It is probably improper to say unkind things about somebody in his absence but the Ceann Comhairle has a major duty to see that the business of this House is conducted in such a manner that the interests of the Members are best served and, in doing so, the interests of the public are best served. Sadly, the Ceann Comhairle is not impartial and has not been impartial for a number of years. I know the Clerk of the Dáil is turning around and saying I am out of order——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leonard)

That is very unfair. You cannot bring the Ceann Comhairle's name into this.

Mr. Deasy

If we cannot speak about the Ceann Comhairle's role——

Acting Chairman

No, you cannot.

Mr. Deasy

——in a debate on Dáil reform then we are wasting our time having such a debate.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has enough experience as a politician to know that he does not do so.

Mr. Deasy

I am a well enough experienced politician to know the difference between right and wrong and I say what I think. The fact is that the Ceann Comhairle has become an apparatus of Government. He defends and protects the Government——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is wrong on this occasion. I will not allow him to continue in this vein. I will call the next speaker if he persists with that line of argument.

Mr. Deasy

That practice will have to change because the House is not getting a fair deal.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Deputy to sit down in order to clarify the matter. We will not allow this line of argument. The Deputy knows that it is irregular and is an unwarranted attack on the Ceann Comhairle in his absence. I suggest that the Deputy goes to the Ceann Comhairle's office and raises his difference of opinion there instead of trying to get publicity in the press.

Mr. Deasy

I have said it——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will not be permitted to proceed with that line of argument. If he does I will call the next speaker.

Mr. J. Bruton

On a point of order, is the Ceann Comhairle not a publicly accountable officer of this House in the same way as any other Member? Is the policy underlying his decisions not open to question just as the policy underlying decisions of other elected Members is open to question?

Acting Chairman

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition not to be naive.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am not at all naive. I have been the victim of decisions by the Ceann Comhairle interrupting me and interfering with my rights when I attempted to exercise them.

Acting Chairman

You are now interrupting and using up the time of your colleague and——

Mr. Deasy

I do not object to that.

Acting Chairman

I suggest that the Deputy concludes and deals with the matters in the Bill and nothing else.

Mr. Deasy

I cannot see how we can discuss the question of Dáil reform without discussing the role of the person who chairs the business of the Dáil. It does not make sense. However, I have made my point.

On Question Time in general the new system whereby we have a Minister a day and take a limited number of questions has been a failure. We might consider going back to the old system whereby the questions to a specific Minister are continued day by day until they have expired. If the Minister for Social Welfare has to stay for four or six days then so be it. At present if Ministers see a particular question is awkward and they would prefer not to answer it, they give long-winded replies to the preceding questions. The objective of the system is defeated. Ministers can just carry on with three or four-page answers to a simple question. It would be better if each Minister had to sit through his whole list of questions instead of being allowed to escape by prolonging the process. One of the greatest reflections on this House and our system of Goverment occurred in the recent election where a certain Deputy was defeated. It will frighten people who want to make an interesting contribution here every day. Former Deputy Pat McCartan, a member of the Democratic Left, was probably the most frequent and pertinent contributor to debates, on the Order of Business and at Question Time. What happened? He lost his seat. People who never opened their mouths in this House were elected, some even topped the poll. There is a sad lesson to be learned from this which will send Deputies back to their burrows doing constituency work instead of coming in here speaking their mind.

I am not referring to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. He has a smile on his face. He contributes meaningfully when he speaks. It is a stark reminder of what happens to people who do their duty. Maybe Gay Byrne, Pat Kenny and Gene Kerrigan and the boys who lambaste Deputies might take this type of result into account. Hopefully, we will not be influenced by it but the people who do their job best of all can lose out and that individual did lose out.

I do not have any objection to the proposed declaration of means. My constituents will fall off their seats or crash their cars when they see my overdraft. I would love them to know my true financial position and maybe they would leave me something in their wills or send me anonymous letters with thousands of pounds in them. I very much doubt it. Why are other public servants not liable to the same scrutiny as Deputies and Senators? What do Gay Byrne or Pat Kenny or Gene Kerrigan earn yearly?

Mr. Mulvihill

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I welcome the Government's decision to make time available in the House to discuss Dáil reform. I was elected to the Dáil about a month ago and I cannot, therefore, speak with the voice of experience, nor can I claim to have studied the matter of Dáil procedures in any academic or professional manner. However, I would like to give the House the benefit of my experience of working in the Dáil over the past four weeks.

It is difficult to understand why such important matters as unemployment and poverty do not find a greater and more central place in the affairs of the Dáil. Surely unemployment is a curse in our community and should find an urgent place in the deliberations of this House? My Cork east constituents find it very difficult to understand why unemployment and their problems cannot be brought to the floor of this House in an effective way. For example, Cork Dockyard was sold a number of years ago to a Dutch company for £1 million with a promise of 400 jobs. To date not one job has been created by this company in the dockyard. People are late for work because the train service from Cork City to Cobh to Youghal is unreliable. Students are late for examinations and for lectures in college.

There is very high unemployment. The Chair might say that I should raise the matter on the Adjournment but five minutes is not adequate to discuss the unemployment problems of the east Cork region. I thank the Chair for allowing me time to speak on this matter and I hope we will return to it in the near future.

Mr. Kemmy

Today's debate is timely. I will not be churlish by questioning the motives of the Government in giving us time to debate this important issue or attempt to debunk those motives or question them in any way. That would be a cynical response to this debate. It is a much needed and long delayed debate. It was sought after by people like me who came to the House 12 years ago, saw the House working and had observations to make but found it difficult to do so. I am grateful, as a humble backbencher, to have the opportunity to speak on this issue.

The Dáil has been largely unreformed since it was first set up, 71 years ago. It was a model of the British House of Commons, lock, stock and barrel. We have a lot to be grateful for from British democracy. It was a good model to aspire to, as indeed the BBC broadcasting service was a good model for RTE. However we slavishly followed the British example and did not attempt to bring any practical reforms to bear on the workings of this House in those 71 years.

Deputies have tried to bring about reform. They might have had good ideas coming in here when they saw how the House affected relevant matters outside and how it affected democracy in their own lives. The best university of all is the university of life. A colleague of mine, former Deputy Barry Desmond, tried to bring in some reforms and Deputy John Bruton — I have no hesitation in saying that — also had ideas about Dáil reform although he did not put them into operation when he was in Government. That would have been the best example of all.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): He set up committees.

Mr. Kemmy

One can say something but to do something is much better. One should lead by example.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): He did.

Mr. Kemmy

The working group of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has also brought in reform. We need reform in this House and not just talk about good intentions. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The proposed formation of new committees is a good idea. It is a step forward which I welcome. However, the real achievements of this Dáil and the committee system can only be measured by bringing in good legislation.

A good debate can be interesting and illuminating. We can learn from it but the real purpose of the Dáil is not to be some kind of debating society or undergraduates' day out where one can make debating points; that is enjoyable and interesting but it is not the purpose of this House, it is to put good legislation on the Statute Books and to have a good government.

I am not impressed by the Fine Gael arguments. I listened very carefully to them and am most disappointed by their cynical attitude to Dáil reform. There was no constructive opposition here today only mealy-mouthed attitudes. They tried to belittle the people including my Labour colleagues who contributed to the debate. They tried to undermine them by casting doubt on their good intentions. We heard a lot in the past about constructive opposition. Fianna Fáil were often attacked for being ruthless, opportunistic and cynical in their opposition. Good Opposition is very important but we saw little of that today. Honest Opposition is very important. We heard little honesty but many very bad arguments today. I reject the point Fine Gael made about the Labour Party using this debate as a device to get jobs as chairmen of various committees, with the contempt it deserves. I am not a "yes" man, I speak my mind inside and outside this House. My speech was not turned out by a "script factory". It is my opinion. As chairman of the Labour Party I know that this is not an exercise in opportunism to get handy jobs for us as chairpersons of committees; nothing could be further from the truth.

In setting up a Government with Fianna Fáil the Labour Party Leader had a difficult job appointing various people to permanent posts. One cannot appoint 33 people to 11 posts. We are philosophical about that. Let us hope that the chairpersons of these committees will be appointed on merit only and not because they are friendly with or know somebody in Government. The media and the Opposition can speculate as much as they like but that is the attitude of the the Labour Party.

In relation to Dáil reform, we must make the workings of the Dáil more relevant to the public. My colleague, Deputy Mulvihill, highlighted how difficult it is to put matters like unemployment and poverty on the Order Paper and I agree with him. There should also be an induction course for new Deputies to show them how the Dáil and Seanad operate. Deputies can be overawed by the panoply of procedures and precedents, which can be quite difficult to come to terms with. In a famous book In Place of Fear Nye Bevan, a famous parliamentarian, wrote about what it was like for a miner to come to the House of Commons and how he could be over-awed by the appearance of the building, the stone arches and the magnificant portraits of parliamentarians of the past.

We need practical reform of the Dáil and mature Dáil Members who will not make a "Muppet Show" of Question Time and the Order of Business. That must cease. We need a better response from the Oppostition in that respect. More time should be available for Ministers and Deputies to speak. I approve of the changes in the voting procedures.

I echo the sentiments expressed by Deputy Mulvihill that this debate should be the first in a series of debates on Dáil reform. We will show the Opposition we are genuine in this regard and that it is not just a one night only like Duffy's Circus. We will continue to have further debates in this House and will bring about real Dáil reform during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Gilmore

I welcome the debate on Dáil reform, which is long overdue. My feeling coming into this House in 1989 was that it was almost like walking back in time to a university debating society where the smart remark was regarded both inside the House and, on some occasions by those covering the affairs of the House, as more important than any studied contribution.

I agree with the comments made by Deputy Deasy. I thank him on behalf of my party for the generosity of those comments in relation to former Deputy Pat McCartan. I also thank the Minister. That was an example of somebody who took the business of this House seriously. He may not have endeared himself to everybody in the House and some of the contributions he made from time to time may not have endeared him either, but he took the job of the House seriously. He also took his constituency seriously which I know from my friendship with him, yet the end result was that he lost his seat. He was not alone in that. The Sunday Tribune published a top ten list of contributors in the lifetime of the last Dáil before the general election, the majority of whom lost their seats.

In my constituency my colleague, former Deputy Monica Barnes, a superb contributor to the work of this House, who chaired the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights, lost her seat. There is a fundamental question to be asked by those covering and commenting on the work of parliament in relation to Deputies who take the business of the House seriously and do the job they were elected to do, which is to address themselves to the legislative matters before the House, but then find themselves in electoral trouble. I am not entirely convinced that it is due to a neglect of the nuts and bolts of constituency work because I know that many of the Deputies concerned did not neglect such work.

It is to some extent due to the fact that the day to day work of this House, the boring, mundane work that goes on here day after day, the Committee Stage of Bills and so on is, by and large, ignored by those covering and commenting the proceedings in this House. The Committee Stage of the Finance Bill last year dealing with taxation matters and matters which were relevant to every citizen in this State was virtually uncovered.

It is important when dealing with the question of Dáil reform that a superficial approach is not taken to it. I want to address myself specifically to the question of the committees which is what this part of the debate is dealing with. I very much regret two absences from the list of committees. I regret that there is not a specific committee or a continuation of the committee dealing with women's rights. It is a very serious omission. I do not think it can be adequately dealt with by encompassing the work of that committee in a broader remit of one of the standing committees.

Similarly, I regret the omission of a specific committee dealing with European affairs. I was a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities in the lifetime of the last Dáil. I agree with Deputy Ellis that, given the resources available to that committee, it was highly productive. It issued several reports and repeatedly sought time to debate them in the House. I also agree with Deputy Ellis in relation to his remarks about Deputy Barry's efforts to advance the work of that committee and to reform it.

It is extraordinary that, a few months after the passing of the Maastricht Treaty as we progress towards economic and monetary union and European political union as more and more of the work of this House is being driven by the requirements of the European Community, as the legislative work of this House is effectively being intiated in the European Commission and as the Estimates presented to us are clearly driven by the availability of European funds, we will not have a specific committee to deal with European affairs. The only provision in the terms of reference is that European affairs are to be dealt with by a subcommittee of the Foregin Affairs Committee. The terms of reference are clear in that the matters which that sub-committee can deal with are the proposals for legislation. It is effectively another secondary legislation committee. The European committee of the last Dáil made recommendations to this House that the terms of reference of the committee should be widened to include an ability to address all matters arising from our membership of the European Community, and report directly to this House on it; to examine legislation and our role within the European Community in detail and to enable debates to take place in the House. How will the sub-committee work? Will it report directly to this House? Will there be debates on its work? Will it have resources? The last committee was seriously underresourced given the volume of work it was required to do.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot, on the one hand, say that we are progressing towards European political union and, on the other, make no serious provision other than set up a sub-committee to deal with our membership of the European Community and all the issues arising from it. There is no direct accountability, other than through perhaps an occasional question at Question Time, by Ministers for what they do and say or how they represent us at meetings of the European Council. We need a committee to which there will be direct accountability by Ministers.

The question of resources was raised in relation to the committees. I do not want to incur the Chair's wrath by following the point made by Deputy Deasy in relation to the Ceann Comhairle, but the procedures of this House seem — and the resources for its work — to be very heavily weighted in favour of the Government. In addition to all the resources of the Civil Service available to the Government for the preparation of legislation and work that comes before this House, an additional £2.5 million is being spent on the provision of various forms of assistance to Government Ministers. Whatever resources are being made available to these committees appear to be purely in the form of chairpersons for and convenors of the committees. What resources will be provided for those of us who will be expected to be members of these committees and address legislation or matters put before them?

One suggestion which would not necessarily involve additional resources is that a system should be devised whereby the civil servants attending the committees from the various Departments would be in a position to answer questions directly and contribute to the discussion. The existing system where a Minister may not be familiar with the details, for example, of a question or amendment and is passed slips of paper with the answers on them will have to end. There should be some kind of direct communication between Members of the House and the civil servants who are responsible for the legislation on the matter under discussion.

Mr. Killeen

The proposals for the Dáil reform are welcome. There is agreement on all sides that it is necessary to make the Dáil relevant to the world outside and responsive to the problems experienced by our constituents.

Many speakers referred to criticism of Dáil Deputies in newspapers and elsewhere. I used to be a great newspaper reader but, since my election, I very seldom get time to read them. I certainly will not be influenced by what I have read.

Mr. J. Bruton

Just read The Star.

Mr. Killeen

That paper would not normally be on my purchase list, but even other newspapers apparently have been critical. I hope Members who have been here a long time will not be offended if new Members are critical of the procedures. For instance, yesterday I would have liked to have spoken on the Bill going through the Dáil. It will almost certainly be the only Bill in the life of this Dáil, and perhaps the only one in the life of several Dála that will be relevant to life in my own parish, but, because of the procedures adopted, I did not have an opportunity to speak on Second Stage.

There is general welcome for the promised Ethics in Government Bill. We all agree that there must be provision for a sensible register of Members' interests and those of us who are members of local authorities are already familiar with such a procedure at that level.

The Order of Business and Question Time were referred to by a number of Deputies. My impression is that they achieve virtually nothing except perhaps to confirm the view of many of us that they are used almost exclusively to make irrelevant points and to gain for the people involved a certain amount of notoriety and publicity. Some of the blame for the perception of politicians in the newspapers recently must be laid at the door of politicians themselves.

One matter frequently highlighted is the small number of Deputies present in Chamber. Yesterday, during Second Stage of the State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill a number of Opposition Deputies berated the Minister, Deputy Higgins, for not being present when they were well aware that he was attending a most important parliamentary party meeting. They also-berated him for not making a contribution to the debate when they knew that their activities would ensure nobody on the Government side would have an opportunity to say anything on the Bill because of the time constraints.

Mr. J. Bruton

Imposed by the Government.

Mr. Killeen

I might not agree with the Minister on everything but it was grossly unfair to single him out in that manner. In a sense we deserve the criticism we get when it is intiated in the Chamber and carried a little further in the press.

I welcome the committee system particularly since I understand the previous experience has been that it provides an opportunity for backbenchers to have their ideas and amendments incorporated in legislation. The greatest weakness of the Dáil is that its structures inevitably led to an executive system where all decisions are made at Government level and where, because of existing procedures, there is limited opportunity for backbenchers and others to have an input. The system will only work if the Departments preparing legislation work in co-operation with the committees. That does not just mean briefing the committees. It will also have to allow for the members of the committee to have an input. It will have to be a two way process and the committee's proposals and suggestions will have to be taken on board.

The foreign affairs committee will place Oireachtas Members closer to the decision-making process and will, in particular, improve communications between the national parliament and the European Community legislative process. The consideration of Committee Stage of relevant Bills by this committee will be an improvement on the previous position. This is one area which needs reform. There is a strong perception, and I certainly hold the view, that many decisions that most affect people are taken outside the Chamber and outside the country. There does not seem to be correlation between decision-making at European level and the proper role of decision-making at Oireachtas level.

I hope that the establishment of the Enterprise and Economic Strategy Committee will allow individuals who have strongly held views on the key elements of national policy to make constructive comments on legislation, to influence its direction and provide the impetus to initiate legislation. Politicians know the views of those whom they represent but they have very little opportunity to make their views known and ensure they are reflected in legislation and in policy generally.

If the role of the new committee is confined merely to considering Estimates and to dealing with legislation on Committee Stage, then their potential will not be realised. I urge the Government, in determining the terms of reference of the committees, to make provision for them to initiate business in the House and to put to Government proposals for the initiation of policy. The value of the committee will depend to a huge extent on their being in a position to initiate such action rather than considering on Committee Stage whatever is proposed or examining Estimates which will, in effect, have been spent already.

Regarding Dáil reform, it should be borne in mind that many Deputies live a long way from Dublin and can spend three or four hours travelling to and from the city. On the other hand, many live within reach and travel home virtually every day. It should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Dáil and Seanad to devise a system that would accommodate rural Deputies in making contributions mid-week and accommodate relatively local Deputies who could do some of their business at night, make more frequent visits and contribute on Fridays. The present rostering system should be expanded further to allow Deputies to avail of the opportunities that time presents to make a better contribution in the House.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to share my time with Deputy Bradford.

Acting Chariman

It that agreed? Agreed?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Fáil-tím roimh an phlean seo chun athrú a dhéanamh ar chóras na Dála. Cuireann sé díomá orm, áfach, nach gcloistear Gaeilge sa Teach ach corruair. Nílim ag cur milleáin ar éinne nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu ach orthusiúd a bhfuil Gaeilge acu, agus ar chuid mhaith daoine a bhfuil sí acu ó dhúchas, agus ar Airí go speisialta. Deir Fianna Fáil go bhfuil sé de chuspóir acu athbheochan na Gaeilge a chur chun tosaigh. Cén fáth nach dtugann siad an dea-shampla anseo sa Dáil?

Braitheann beatha na teanga anseo orthusiúd a bhfuil Gaeilge acu agus tá Gaeilge ag go leor Airí ach ní bhaineann siad úsáid aisti sa Teach seo. Uair amháin, tosaíodh gach óráid Aire i nGaeilge; ní chloistear focal Gaeilge faoi láthair. Molaim go bhfillfeadh Airí ar an ngnás sin arís chun dea-shampla a thabhairt; ní cóir a bheith ag brath ar ráitis d'aidhmeanna scríofa de chuid páirtí ar bith.

Bainimid usáid as Gaeilge anseo chun taispeáint do na daoine óga go bhfuil suim againn inti agus dá múinteoirí atá braon de bheith ag múineadh na teanga nuair a fheictear dóibh nach bhfuil suim dá laghad ag daoine ar chóir dóibh suim a chur inti. Dhéanfadh sé sin maitheas don Ghaeilge.

Somebody should be responsible for public relations in this House to counteract the rubbish we hear regarding the workings of Dáil Eireann. The public might not understand the system because it has never been explained to them, but broadcasters, who probably earn the income of 20 Deputies put together, use this as a means of lambasting politicians.

I welcome the fact that a time limit will be imposed on Second Stage speeches. There should be no need for Deputies to sit in the Dáil Chamber for most of the day waiting to take part in a Second Stage debate when it can be heard and seen in all the offices. The people who broadcast to the nation should explain that aspect to the public.

Deputy Kemmy spent much of his time criticising Fine Gael for their attitude in Opposition. I wonder if the first reform of the Dáil is that the Labour Party seems to be so absorbed in Government that criticism from the Oppostition is no longer acceptable. Just a few months ago he would have been using his mason's hammer to clobber Fianna Fáil Ministers who suggested this. Without even going to Lourdes, Deputy Stagg was miraculously cured of his anti-Coalition feeling and is now a Minister.

Mrs. O'Rourke

A very good one.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Given that the Labour Party is reforming so quickly we do not need any official policy.

Mr. Mulvihill

He would have built houses.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Kemmy said that Deputy Bruton was good with words but did not implement them. I remind him that he did introduce reforms. In 1983 he introduced the concept of broadcasting the Oireachtas and set up the Committee on Public Expenditure Legislative Committee. Credit should be given where credit is due.

As regards housing, the Government is starting from a great base because a 100 per cent increase could mean few houses, but it would be a marvellous increase on nothing.

Reform should begin with questions and answers. I miss the former Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey. At least he had an answer for everything although it would take perhaps half an hour to decide whether it had been satisfactory. On 60 occasions during a short period the Taoiseach has answered thus: "it is in the early course of preparation", "shortly", "as soon as possible" or "in the course of preparation". This is another way of saying he does not have the remotest idea about what he is being asked. That is why the Ceann Comhairle gets into such difficulties. It is very hard for Deputies to accept such answers. No matter what Ministers are asked questions, the Taoiseach answers. It is as clear as daylight that he cannot even distinguish between men and women as proved yesterday in regard to his list of nominees.

Mr. Dempsey

On a point of order, the Deputy should not personalise matters and make disparaging remarks.

Mr. J. Bruton

That is not a point of order. The Taoiseach is a public office holder. It is criticism of the conduct of his office, not of his person.

Acting Chairman

I ask Deputy Bruton not to encroach on his colleague's time.

Mr. J. Bruton

Does the Minister think this is a tea party?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If the Minister believes that is a valid point of order he should go back to school. I am entitled to criticise the lack of order and information of this House. If the Minister is covering up for the Taoiseach, he may get promotion but he will not make an impact on me. I thank the Deputy very much for the silly intervention.

Mr. Dempsey

I am learning my points of order from Fine Gael.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): It was a silly point of order.

Mr. Bradford

In the minute available to me I will try to restore some harmony after Deputy Browne's interjection.

It is interesting that so many people wish to contribute to this debate. It is understandable because Deputies who have served in this House for a number of years feel that their work, time and effort do not always bear fruit. There is great public disquiet at the economic and social difficulties facing the country. I suspect the public believe that Members of the Oireachtas are either unable or unwilling to address the issues properly. That is no surprise.

Deputy Browne mentioned the failure of the Taoiseach and Ministers to give appropriate answers to questions posed, but on a daily basis, matters of public importance are raised which the Chair must rule out of order. Until we reach a stage where the Dáil is seen as relevant and a body which can respond immediately to the problems of the day, the public will continue to believe that we are not doing the job for which we were elected.

As a backbencher, I often feel that my role and that of my coleagues is quite irrelevant. We are here simply to rubber stamp legislation. I hope the new committee system will give us an opportunity to make an input into legislation and, for that reason, I welcome the committees.

I support Deputies who expressed disappointment and concern at the reported decision not to have a committee on women's rights. I am a former member of the outgoing committee on women's rights which was relevant and dealt with issues which might otherwise have gone unreported. I hope the Minister concerned will reconsider this decision. It is disappointing that, at a time when we are about to discuss the report on the Second Commission on the Status of Women, the forum within the Oireachtas to debate and decide such matters is to be taken from us. I hope there will be a rethink on that matter. Secretarial assistance and other facilities are not available to Deputies.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 18 Feb 1993