I should like to share my time with Deputy Noel Ahern.
Dáil Reform: Statements (Resumed).
I take it that is agreed? Agreed.
The register of Members' interest has been debated and there is no doubt but that the need for Dáil reform has been the subject of considerable discussion and comment in recent years. This deals with the functions of Deputies, their role as legislators and as public representatives. The proposals being discussed aim to bring Dáil procedures into the 20th century. For too long we have operated on the basis of a system we inherited in the early years of the State. We have failed in large measure to update our procedures for dealing with the business of the State. We still retain the Victorian practices taken from Westminster even though the English Parliament has developed substantially over the years.
The reforms now being introduced go a long way towards overcoming many of the criticisms voiced by citizens and will improve the efficiency of Dáil business. I am particularly pleased that this matter is being dealt with at the commencement of the 27th Dáil. Various recommendations have been made for reform over the years, but unfortunately little was done.
I was a member of various committees which produced very worthwhile reports, but little subsequent action was taken. For that reason I welcome the fact that the proposed terms of reference of the new committees are more effective and stronger than in previous cases. The committees will be able to have the services of people with specialist knowledge and invite submissions from interested persons or bodies. They will give Deputies an active role in the passing of legislation with less rigid procedures than those that apply in the Dáil. Backbenchers will be in a position to make positive contributions in their role as legislators.
There will also be close co-operation between Departments and the new committees. I welcome the proposed establishment of these new committees and urge the Government to ensure that they are set up as quickly as possible. Draft terms of reference have been circulated by the Minister of State. In the case of the Financial and General Affairs Committee, they may consider in respect of the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance and Environment the following: the estimate of those Departments, the impact on equality of policy and legislation, the Committee Stage of Bills and such reports as may be referred to the Dáil. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the extent to which the committee makes policy on issues arising from the activities of these Departments. For instance, can the committee decide to examine the housing policy of the Department of the Environment other than its impact on equality? Clearly such a matter could be raised on the Estimates, but how is it envisaged that the committee would consider the Estimates? Presumably there would be considerably more detailed consideration that at present. Would it be ongoing throughout the year, with the committee looking at particular aspects of the Estimates it considers it should examine? This would appear to be the most effective approach and one I would recommend.
The Minister might also clarify the position relating to committees obtaining information from the relevant Departments on topics under consideration. Is it envisaged that civil servants would attend at public and private meetings of the committees, apart from the Committee Stage of Bills, to brief Members on the issues under consideration? I recall that previous committees felt they faced certain difficulties in not having power to call persons, papers or records. While I do not see that included in the terms of reference, I hope that the appropriate channels of communication would exist between the committee and the relevant Departments. I would also like to see the committees meeting with State agencies under the aegis of Departments. Presumably this could be done in the context of the consideration of the Estimates funding for the relevant agencies. This would increase the public accountability of such bodies and provide the public with a better understanding of the function, activities and cost of the services provided by them.
I am committed to the proposed committee structure. I have no doubt that it will make an invaluable contribution to the work of the Dáil. I raise those points in light of the invitation from the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to make constructive proposals for a more effective Oireachtas.
I thank Deputy Wallace for giving me some of his time. As a new Member, perhaps it is inappropriate for me to talk about Dáil reform, since I am unfamiliar with present procedures. The other day there was discussion about the ordering of Priority Questions during which the Leader of the Fine Gael, Deputy Bruton, said every Member of this House is equal and should be treated equally. After two weeks in this House I do not feel equal and I do not see how anyone on this side of the House is equal. It is like looking at the economics of Germany, Japan and the UK and wondering who won the war, the equivalent being who won the general election.
The Deputy's party did not anyway.
On the Order of Business, at Question Time and at adjournment debates those on the opposite side of the House hog the floor continuously. I am beginning to wonder how it works.
The Deputy will have his turn at that too.
Not in the way envisaged by Deputy Mitchell. Perhaps we can speak at such time also and I am just not availing of an option open to me. In the timetable for yesterday and today, giving the time slots, the discrimination is almost institutionalised. If there are 101 people on this side and 67 people opposite, I cannot see how I or any other Member is treated equally. I think for the future there should be three speakers from this side for every two opposite. Perhaps in the past the Government and Opposition were more or less equal in numbers, but it is a different ball game now and it should be dealt with differently.
With regard to the registration of Members' interests, I agree that there should be some format for that, particularly where it might be perceived that peoples' conduct could be influenced by their interests. It is a case of drawing up rules and regulations that would be reasonable without being ridiculous. Giving details of bank accounts or building society accounts would be ridiculous.
Deputy Ferris suggested we do not have to give the details of the account, but if I have a couple of hundred pounds in a building society or bank I am listed as an account holder the same as an account holder with £100,000. The same would apply if one held shares. Irrespective of the value of the shares one would be listed as a shareholder. That would be ridiculous and would distort the situation.
I agree Members are entitled to engage in business outside the House. I worked in CIE up to a few weeks ago and had to take leave of absence under an Act of the Oireachtas; yet, other people do not have to give up their livelihoods. I am not complaining; I am happy with my first two pay cheques. In the last Oireachtas there was a Seanad Member who is now a Deputy who had a job in the transport business. His organisation was openly lobbying for changes in the road passenger transport Act. It was rumoured in the business that he was on a salary of £26,000, plus a car. He was viewed as a professional lobbyist. In cases like that a question should be raised of the people involved taking part in such debates or votes. Alternatively, Members could be asked to leave the Chamber as happens at local authority meetings.
I know there are a number of Deputies who are barristers or solicitors and they are entitled to supplement their income. I wonder if it is right that they, while serving Members, should be allowed to act in any case that involves the State or any organ of the State. Last year Dublin Corporation paid out £5 million in public liability claims and about £1.5 million in third party legal fees. The figures up to November were made available eventually and they show one solicitors' firm, Taylor and Buchalter, received £250,000, five times more than the next amount. A Member of this House is a partner in that company. I do not know if it is right for Members to get business through their involvement in the political process, to take cases on behalf of constituents and be paid fees.
I support the regulation but there should be certain rules. People should not have to record interest which would be less than an annual Dáil salary.
I support the broad aims of what is proposed and the need for a register of interests but I am concerned about elements of what is proposed.
The Minister and I were in the same Department in different capacities ten or 12 years ago during the time of a brief six month Government. I was Minister of State on that occasion and the present Minister was an adviser to the Minister, Eileen Desmond.
The approach of the Labour Party to this Bill reminds me of their concern about a different priority at that time, which was a valid one, dealing with poverty. It looks as if their approach to this is a cover up for the unethical formation of a Government, which effectively conned the people, for many of the developments that have taken place since and for failure to concentrate on the immediate economic areas. I hope the Minister accepts that these proposals should go back to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for further analysis and discussion before they emerge as a Bill. As a legislator, I am concerned about a number of elements but, personally, I have no problem with it. Last September when we got the written notice about it I wrote immediately to the Clerk and said, "I declare my interest in 2, Richmond Place".
What about the Deputy's overdraft?
My overderaft is something I prefer to keep private and I do not think it is anybody's business whether I overspent at Christmas. I am delighted to hear the Minister has changed her mind in relation to that.
If my spouse were included I do not think we would have any great difficulty. We would have the partnership of a company. I do not know whether I would be required to declare the names of people with whom my spouse does business. The proposals as they affect spouses will have to be examined carefully because we do not know whether the wives of Members are working, have property, family, personal interests or whatever. It is a difficult area. It could be another obstacle in the way of women coming into this House. Privacy and the issue of individuals who are not Members of this House will have to be looked at very carefully.
I wonder why the Minister considered a private register. When the Minister's esteemed father-in-law looked at this issue for Fine Gael in the past, he suggested that there should be tiered requirements. I wonder why there is no distinction between the requirements of Ministers, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste who have a great deal more influence than Members and why there has been no analysis of their situation. One of the events which caused a public outcry in my period in the Dáil was the extraordinary gift presented to the then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, by visiting sheikhs.
The diamond necklace and the gold dagger.
From my reading of this, that is not addressed at all. He would still be entitled to receive those gifts. All he would have to do is declare that he received them. Will the Minister consider including a ban on politicians receiving such gifts? They should remain in the ownership of the State and should grace the State Apartments.
I believe the matter the Minister raised and on which she requested views, namely that Members would declare an interest where an issue of relevance is being discussed, would be a valuable intervention and has operated well at local authority level. One of the problems will be that while the majority of Members will comply with this fully, as experience in other jurisdictions has shown, those with the most interest may be the least compliant.
I am concerned about the second proposal which says we should provide the names and address of the provider of any business received in return for a service provided. That is an extremely difficult area. For example, if I meet somebody and they lobby me in relation to a problem and I then decide that I, as a politician, will argue their point of view, am I giving them a service? If politicians are taken to lunch by the INTO, will we be required to declare that? There is no financial limit on what one can receive. I am a member of the Association of Western European Parliamentarians against Apartheid and frequently they invite members to go on fact finding missions. I am aware that some Members attended the election process in Namibia. Is that an interest to be declared? Am I receiving a benefit or is that a gift? Are those gifts or benefits I am receiving in return for services? That issue should be clarified.
There are many other areas of State activity and expenditure. Others referred to these requirements being imposed on the heads of semi-State agencies. In the medical professions it might be said consultants are in a position where they could be influenced.
Like other Deputies, I am concerned at the undue focus, on the proposed register. I hope many of the suggestions made will be taken on board in order to have a good register of Members' interests, one that does not trip people up unnecessarily but allows them to comply positively and does not unjustly damage the reputations of a body of people who, in the main, have served this country with honour and often at great personal loss.
I have three or four questions to ask initially; I take it it is in order to put them together as it may help the Minister of State.
In putting these proposals forward, what kind of abuse does the Minister of State fear? It is not clear, from the way the proposals are framed, how Members of this House might be in danger of abusing their position.
Mention was made of the requirement for local authority members to declare their interests. In what way does the Minister of State think the activities of the Houses of the Oireachtas are similar or can have similar effects on public policy? If there is no similarity, then similar measures would not necessarily be appropriate.
The Minister referred in her speech to the fact that in other jurisdictions there is provision for an ad hoc declaration by Members when an issue in which they have a direct financial interest comes before the legislature. Does she intend to cover that in the legislation? If so, I would like to hear it and if not, why? If she is covering that in the legislation, it seems it will deal with some of the other issues that vaguely seem to be covered in the other provisions.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I am anxious that not too many questions be put together.
I have only one more very brief question. The Minister of State referred in her speech to penalties. She said, small breaches would attract small penalties but serious breaches should attract serious penalties. There is no provision for penalties in the proposals put forward. What kind of penalties has the Minister of State in mind?
Does the Minister wish to reply now?
Yes. Deputy Dukes appears to have difficulty with the whole concept of this legislation. The register was promised by the previous Government. It was discussed in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It was delayed there, mainly by the Fine Gael Party. This kind of register is common in other western democracies. There is a register in Britain, the US, the European Parliament and in most member states. I can go through that detail for the Deputy if he wants.
I know all that. I am asking what kind of abuses the Minister of State has in mind?
This is an important measure to bring us into line with practice in the 20th century. As one of the few Members in this House who has not been a member of a local authority, perhaps Deputy Dukes does not appreciate how valuable it is having the declaration of interest at local authority level and how little trouble it causes.
As regards ad hoc declarations, I said in my speech that I am concerned that we do not have loopholes in the legislation, which will be wider than Members' interests on which today's debate focused. If we are going to do a job we are going to do it right. In that context ad hoc declarations round off the process. Points have been raised in the course of the debate in relation to whether there is concern about small issues. Deputy Cox raised de minimis non curat lex and that would be my approach. The question of small interests will be spelled out in future legislation and at what level people will be obliged to declare them. That is reasonable. The point was well made in relation to the ownership of the family home.
The purpose of today' debate is to listen to points made by Deputies. The proposals are almost identical to the draft prepared and put before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges last September. The Government decided, before finalising proposals on the ethics Bill — I have been looking at other wordings and formulations in the context of preparing that Bill — to bring what was already on the table to Members and listen to what they said.
At this stage, the register is not about penalties. The legislation goes a lot wider that the interests of Members. We all know there is serious concern about practices in the State and semi-State sectors. Guidelines are issued to State bodies in relation to that. Some of the scandals were adverted to by Members and we need to talk about imprisonment if there is a gross abuse of public money. The scale of the penalty must reflect the scale of the offence. That is an important defence for the public interest. If we are talking about somebody who omits something through error, obviously that is entirely different and is small beer. In that instance, we are talking about a small penalty or a caution.
What kind of abuses does the Minister of State fear or foresee may be committed by Members of the Oireachtas?
I do not have a crystal ball.
The time available for this form of question and answer is rather limited. I want to facilitate as many Deputies as possible.
I have a couple of very short questions.
Brevity must be the key note.
I would like to hear more from the Minister of State in relation to gifts. It seems that private and quite innocent transactions would have to be published. What she is getting at is not clear. What about the provision for blind trusts which is used by Ministers at present?
It is envisaged that the legislation will cover the issue of gifts to Ministers. There are Government procedures in place in relation to Ministers operating at one remove from any business interests they may have, signing over a family business or whatever, and operating blindly. Those procedures are being looked at.
Mention was made of the INTO dinner and Deputy Cox raised the issue of staying with his aunt or uncle when he is in Cork. He has a peripatetic lifestyle and visits many places. He stays with friends and asks if that will be considered a gift. That is de minimis and does not come under this. There is a formula of words in other jurisdictions if travel is paid by, for example, a foreign Government or a foreign organisation — that may be a better form of words that that put to the Committee on Procedure and Privilages. This is the sort of issue we need to tease out in legislation. Members made a fair point about whether one had to declare every time one had a pint with somebody. That is not what is involved. But if one is operating as a parliamentary agent, a paid lobbyist for an organisation — again this is covered in a number of jurisdictions — that should be on the record.
Does the issue of property refer to property owned outside this jurisdiction? In the case of entrapment, let us say that a Deputy is given a political donation of £800 at election time and in the heat of battle he or she does not declare it, what penalty is the Minister talking about for a misdemeanour of that kind? Is that a major or minor fault? The Minister mentioned sanctions and penalties. The complaints procedure allows for a member of the public or a Minister of the House to lodge a complaint with the registrar against another Member. If that happens, newspapers, for instance, could print a banner headline that a Deputy was being investigated by the complaints committee. That could be detrimental to the Deputy. Can I take it that the proposal would be that nothing would be published until a complaint had been dealt with? In the event of a complaint being lodged, will the accused have the right to face his or her accuser?
I have not considered the issue of property owned outside or inside the State at this stage. Election donations will be considered under a separate legislation which will cover donations, campaign funding, a ceiling on campaign spending and State funding for political parties. That legislation is in the course of preparation. It will deal with that issue and the appropriate penalties. Up to 1963 there was a limit on funding. An agent was responsible for handling donations. We would need to look at the entrapment issue.
That provision was scrapped because it was largely ineffective.
There is no point looking at State funding for political parties and engaging in Sacchi and Sacchi style election campaigns. We need to tone down the level of outside contributions to the political process and the level of election expenditure. In that context we can legitimately ask the public to help fund the process but not otherwise.
Entrapment is an issue that must be considered. Obviously we do not want members of the public making unjustified complaints which would result in banner headlines. We must have a procedure to deal with vexatious or unfounded complaints. Anybody who lodges a complaint should be asked to substantiate it.
Is that a general principle? Does that apply to Members of the House in all other circumstances also?
I want to bring in Deputy Richard Bruton.
I hope you are not overlooking me just because I am being orderly.
I will try to——
I have noticed that the Chair overlooks orderly Deputies.
I would not wish to do that. There are a number of Deputies offering and we have a quarter of an hour left. I wish to facilitate Deputies but please be conscious of the time factor.
How does the Minister propose to treat publication of this register? If it is general publication, how will she treat the use of that information? Just as one could have a banner headline saying so and so is being investigated, one could have banner headlines alleging conflicts of interests where they might not exist or alleging a misdemeanour that was not substantiated. Does she envisage a code of practice regarding the use of this register so that it could not be used to abuse people? Does the Minister envisage having a code of ethical practice for the guidance of Deputies as to what would constitute conflicts of interest? It is more important to let Deputies know what is regarded as proper than to have long lists of items that might not improve ethics and behaviour.
There is merit in the pursuit of a code of ethical practice that would set those guidelines. In fact, the guidelines for State bodies do set out codes of practice. The code of ethical practice should also include desisting from sexual innuendo in the House.
Learn to read English first, Minister.
As regards publication of the register, the draft register as currently proposed, would be public. As regards the interests of spouses the point is well made. The spouse does not stand for public office or run for a State board. If it is appropriate to declare the interest of spouses, those interests should not be made public. That is a very reasonable point.
As regards the declaration of interests of spouses in the Greencore case some of the allegations centred on whether the transfer being made to family members might have been beneficial to an individual. There is need to look at this issue. In some jurisdictions there is a requirement to publish interests beneficially held by the Member or bought by the Member and transferred at nil value to another. These issues need to be examined. It is important that what is published is reasonable. People who are not in the public eye should not have their interest published.
I want to pursue the Minister on that point because it is at the heart of Members' reservations. Is it absolutely necessary that in all cases there should be publication? Can the Minister distinguish between declaration to an appropriate authority and publication in all cases? There could be a commissioner for ethics to whom the declaration would be made. They would receive the complaints and then vet the interests of the Member. That is the nub of the problem. Are we invading privacy? Does one have to declare a bank overdraft or a major loan? Members could have credit companies pursuing them and declaring them bankrupt which would mean disqualification from the House. That may seem an extreme case but I do not know whether the Minister has adequately considered the pros and cons of that. If publication is absolutely necessary, will there be a code of ethics in relation to how publication is treated, that it would not be trivialised or sensationalised? If publication is absolutely essential, how does the Minister differentiate between a transfer between one spouse and another or one common law spouse and another? How does one differentiate between common law relationship and a normal relationship and what happens in case of marital breakdown? Is that to be declared and publicised? What about settlements made?
How does the Minister of State distinguish between a political donation to a candidate and a candidate's political organisation? Does she propose that Members declare, for instance, in return for services given, favourable consideration in certain business deals or the gift of valuable information which could be beneficial either politically or financially?
Which they should declare in front of the tribunal.
We already heard Deputy Davern talking about being given tips for horse races in return for his support of the horse breeding industry but that was intended as a joke. The Deputy raised the issue of spouses and I hope he is not implying that somebody living with somebody else is not in a normal relationship.
It is not a legal entity.
It is not a legal entity under some Acts; it is a legal entity under the social welfare Acts. As the Deputy knows, the definition of spouses includes persons living together as husband and wife and does not include people who are separated de facto or legally, so we must deal with the real world when looking at these issues.
As regards how one would distinguish between a gift, a political donation or donations to an organisation, this will be dealt with in separate legislation. One should look at an aggregation of donations for electoral purposes; whether they are made to the party or the individual. As regards donations I received, in many cases people made a cheque out to me and I handed it over to the constituency treasurer. That is the way most people operate.
But one might get a £10 postal order.
Or actual cash in hands.
That will be looked at under separate legislation. On the issue of publication, as I said in my speech, there are certain issues which should be a matter of public record and there are other issues which should be a matter of record but not public record. Deputy Ferris already said in the House that the view of the Labour Party was that liabilities should not be a matter for public record for precisely the reasons he mentioned.
My question relates to the funding of political parties. People want to know who is bank rolling the political parties. I am concerned about the differentiation between an individual candidate and political parties. I appreciate there are two separate sections and we cannot cover both. A candidate gets contributions as a candidate, and I am not clear whether that will be declared. If one applied for a donation from a trade union in one's own name, it would be extraordinary if this sizeable donation were not declared but was lumped in with broad political party support. People want to know if this happened because there is a feeling that we would be beholden to the person or organisation who made the donation. Obviously the point of the register is to make sure that everybody is clear about where our support comes from. I only wish I could get the same kind of support from a trade union.
The Deputy has made a fair point and that kind of donation will be included in the electoral side of the legislation
Is the Minister saying it will not be on the Deputy's side?
On the interaction between the two, the Deputy has made a fair point. It is being considered but as to the nuts and bolts of how it will be dealt with, I am not in a position to say at this stage.
I am interested in how the donation the Labour Party gets from unions will be treated. It is the practice that many Labour Deputies or aspiring Deputies, have facilities provided locally — offices etc. — by the unions? I take it these perks will be included. On occasions, printing machines are made available to various parties and, during the recent general election campaign, a major meeting was held on the Team Aer Lingus premises to which only the Labour Party and their leader were invited — I am sure it was organised using the facilities of the House. Would such matters be taken into account and would they come under this or the other Bill? Would that have come under the heading of the Tánaiste's private interests or would it have been in the party's interests? How are such matters to be defined?
A lot of disappointed people there.
The issues of premises, etc. provided will be looked at in the context of the electoral aspect.
The purpose of the exercise is to eliminate any possibility of an allegation of misconduct by Members and I agree with the broad guidelines. However, following on Deputy Flaherty's question, how would the Minister define "interests"? There are interests, other than financial contributions which could have a bearing on the conduct of an Opposition Deputy in this House — for example, membership of an association or organisation, family friendship, extended family relationships, etc. What influence can Opposition Deputies have on the awarding of Government contracts? None, unless by family association or the form of Government includes something we do not know about yet. I agree with the objective but I find it difficult to understand why other interests do not have to be declared which could also have a major influence on the manner in which public representatives conduct themselves, adapt to policy and represent their constituents. How do we get around that?
The Labour Party Bill deals with membership of organisations or officership in organisations. That will have to be looked at by Government when making the final decisions.
Before this motion came before the House the Minister mentioned that jail penalties might be imposed on Members. It just occurred to me that it will cost more to keep them in Mountjoy than to keep them here for a week.
Liabilities are to be included but has the Minister thought out all the pros and cons because there could be greater potential for pressure on Members and the blackmail of Members. That ought to be considered. It highlights the whole tricky area of publication as distinct from declaration. The question was raised about the penalties the Minister has in mind. But she did not answer that nor did she state the type of abuse she envisaged.
The Deputy made a fair point about how the existence of liabilities can often create more pressure for a Member than, for example, the existence of assets. I believe, for the reasons outlined by Members opposite, that any declaration of liabilities should not be published, that could add to people's problems. We need to distinguish between declaration to the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad and publication of the register. They are two separate issues.
Abuses and penalties.
What kind of abuses does the Minister envisage?
And what penalties are envisaged?
The ethics Bill in the course of preparation will contain all that information. That Bill will be before the House in another couple of weeks.
As it is now 2.30 p.m. we proceed to deal with other matters, sitting arrangements, topical matters, debates, Question Time and Private Members' Bills.
I welcome the proposals of Dáil reform which are at present before the House and I would like to emphasise the various points already made in the House which are relevant to the working of a modern democracy.
Some of the proposals are obviously strange and may cause concern among Members, but it is essential that if we are serious about creating a legislative process that fits the needs of a modern Ireland and sheds the mantle of an antiquated time-consuming system we must act now and change the present one.
The public perception of the present workings of the Dáil is that they have outlived their usefulness and produce very little in the way of meaningful legislation. While that perception may not be correct, I believe that the time has come for reform — and the sooner the better. While in no way accepting that very little is done in the Dáil and rejecting news media reports, at least from some of the press, that no work has been done in the weeks since the formation of this Government, it must be pointed out that the changeover of Ministers and the creation of new areas of responsibility has been a huge task, a task that the public does not very often see or know about. Even the physical aspect of vacating offices, creating space and moving files has been onerous and the Office of Public Works must be complimented on the manner in which it handled the job, a job for which it gets very little credit.
I believe this Government, which is a new partnership arrangement, has the will to carry through the necessary changes and reforms as outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government and I do not accept that, as perceived by certain news media sources, Members work very short hours and do very little. There is a need to overhaul the present system, to eliminate time wasting measures and get to the business of introducing, reviewing and amending legislation in the shortest possible time without affecting the quality or purpose of such legislation. I believe this can be done if there is a willingness from all Members in the House to make the workings of the Dáil more meaningful to its members and to the general public. There are traditions that have always been respected and they can continue in a more modern and efficient working Dáil. If production from both Houses of the Oireachtas can be increased without impinging on the Constitution, it should be done as soon as possible.
The perception of politicians and the legislative process in Ireland today as viewed by the general public is low. People have a general mistrust of politicians and the work done in this House. None of us who is a Member of Dáil Éireann can absolve ourselves from this poor image the public has of the proceedings of the House. For many, including Deputies in the House, the procedures adopted are both over-long and antiquated, although the perception of a near empty Chamber, with little work being done by Deputies, is unfair and misleading. It is incumbent on us to overhaul and revitalise many of the existing rules and structures. With this in mind, the Government has set as a priority in its programme the introduction of much needed Oireachtas reforms. The proposals before the House today are clear evidence of our intent to move forward in this area without delay. These are not merely cosmetic changes. Rather, they are an immediate response to the wishes of many Members of both Houses as well as the general public.
The Government has set itself a lengthy agenda for the next four years; an agenda which, when implemented, will restore confidence in the country. Such is the crisis facing so many sections of society that we must act more efficiently and work much harder to ensure that all the features of our partnership programme are implemented effectively.
With the implementation of our Oireachtas reform proposals, the passage of legislation will become more streamlined. The structure of business in the House will be altered to allow greater scope for debate on a wider range of topics.
The introduction of the Register of Oireachtas Members' Interests is a vital component in the Governments's desire to ensure that the twin pillars of honesty and ingegrity are central to the Legislature of the country.
There is a misguided public view, accentuated by certain sections of the news media, that some politicians are guided by less that altruistic motives in many cases. Our proposals, when implemented, will return a sense of trust and confidence to the public with regard to politicians. The greater the trust and confidence shown in us, the more we can move forward with a feeling of support in our Programme for a Partnership Government.
Accountability of politicians in several areas has been lacking for too long. While not wishing to see us going down the road of inquisitorial hearings into the private lives of politicians, as happens in the US, it is vital we lead by example in the area of accountability so that the fears of the public may be put at ease once and for all.
This Government is about trust and partnership. The proposals on Oireachtas reform are vital to the central idea of trust and partnership. By putting our own house in order we are sending a clear signal to the public that we are a Government whose word is its bond and a Government that is serious about its intentions as set out in the Programme for a Partnership Government.
One of the most worrying traits in our democracy is the degree of apathy and mistrust evident throughout the country. Today's proposals are the first in a number that will show our commitment to real change, real reform and a return to high standards in public life.
I am concerned that for many years there has been increasingly poor attendances in the House. I had the privilege of visiting another Parliament in a country which is at a much lower level of economic and social development, an emerging democracy, Yemen. It was interesting to note that in that parliament one-third of the full membership were present at the time. No Member read from a speech; every Member spoke from his heart. The speeches were short. There was no need for expensive electronic voting. Members simply voted by holding up their hands when the question was put. There was no need for bells to be rung because Members were present in the House. We, in this House, could learn a lot from that Parliament. There is no point making this speech if only a small number of Deputies are listening. It is important that one should speak in this House to influence the views of one's fellow Members. If one's fellow Members are not here, one has no chance of influencing them.
There are a number of things that should be done to improve attendance in this House. One is that Standing Orders should be enforced and Members should not be allowed to read from script. It is regrettable that the last speech, although admittedly by a Minister, was read from script. Under Standing Orders it is out of order for a Member to read a speech; it is actually in breach of the precedents of the Chair. The Chair frequently cites precedents. I have the Book of Precedents and it is out of order for a Minister to read a speech, apart from a Minister making a major announcement of policy. I understand why it happens; Members want publicity and perhaps the Press Gallery are not as adept as they used to be at taking notes in shorthand. Supplying them with a written script is one way of getting better publicity. It is destroying the spontaneity of debate in this House and that is bad.
One of the facilities in Standing Orders is that a Member is entitled to be interrupted: I will quote: "A Member interrupting another Member must stand up to interrupt him. It is in order in this House for the Member in possession to accept the interruption", in other words, to yield and the interruption then is taken and he or she replies to the interruption. That procedure in Standing Orders and in the Book of Precedents is not applied by the Chair. The Chair has constantly refused to allow orderly interruptions, so all one gets now are disorderly interruptions where people shout something across the Chair.
Does that apply in general debate or is it specific to a point of information?
It applies in general debate, both in Westminster and in our Standing Orders as printed. There is allowance for a Member to make the type of interruption the Minister of State has, very properly, just made. That should be allowed because it would greatly enhance the spontaneity of debates and there would be greater attraction for Members to come in to the House.
If the Minister, Deputy O'Sullivan, made some points on which I wanted to question him, I could have asked him and I am sure he would have accepted the interruption. However, my very good friend, the occupant of the Chair, might have felt he was bound by what he thought were precedents and may not have allowed me to do so. In fact, it would have been in order to allow me do so. That would lead to a better interchange in the House and it would be worth Members' while to come in and listen. I know there is a problem with time limits, so obviously interruptions would have to be brief, not more that 30 seconds or so. Brief interruptions would greatly enhance the proceedings in the House and lead to a better attendance.
I am not in favour of the Minister's idea to have one period when all votes will take place. It would be ludicrous. For example, if a Member is disorderly in the House on a Thursday morning and a motion is moved to put him out, that motion would not be voted on until the following Wednesday and in the meantime he has to leave the House. It is like execution before trial because the procedure for putting somebody out of this House is that the House decides he was disorderly and that he should leave. But, if a Member can be put out simply by a Minister saying "I name Deputy O'Sullivan" effectively the Executive, with the aid of the Chair, will decide who is and who is not in the House for a particular vote. I know that is not the Minister's intention but it will be the result of compressing votes into a Wednesday evening.
I am against electronic voting. It is an unnecessary elaboration and unnecessarily costly. The simplest and quickest way to vote is by raising your hand to be counted and there would be no expense involved. That was the way they voted in the parliament I visited recently.
In regard to speeches if Members have a written statement it is in order for them to circulate it and speak without notes. Page 69 of the rules of Precedent allow that. They may summarise their speech and we might introduce a procedure to put their speeches on the record.
As regards the Register of Members' Interests, details of member's private activities will now be published in Iris Oifigiúil and it will be impossible for these matters to be referred to in this House. Under the Rules of Precedent, the private activities, affairs and allocations of Members may not be introduced into debate. A Minister's private affairs has nothing to do with his administration as a Minister. The actions of Deputies as members of private companies are not a matter for discussion. The fact that Members have an interest in companies that have won Government contracts would not justify introducing the affairs of such companies into debate. These are existing Rules of Precedent. If this new Register of Members' Interests is introduced, it will be impossible for us to discuss what is in it because the existing Rules of Precedent rule that out.
We will have the strange situation that the private affairs of Members can be discussed in newspapers and elsewhere but not here in this House. That is topsy turvy to say the least. It is worth noting that there are a number of things one is not allowed to say in the House about Members. For instance you may not accuse them of slander, chicanery, dishonesty, being a black marketeer, a criminal or a gangster; have cheated or swindled, or being bribed. One cannot accuse them of being an acrobat or an acrobat in a circus; of barking or grunting; of being a brat or acting the brat; of being a chancer, a clown, a clown in a circus, a comedian, a Communist, a cornerboy, a cur, a Fascist, a gurrier, a guttersnipe; an informer, a stool pigeon or Pontius Pilate; a stooge, a trick-of-the-loop, a twister, a yahoo or of yapping.
What if he were a member of the Communist Party?
I do not know whether they are still in being. I merely introduce this to put it on the record that there are an extensive number of names one cannot call one's colleagues. It will be interesting that all this information will be published but we will not be able to refer to it in the House.
There is one other point I want to make about precedents. There is a procedure in the House, on page 115 of the Ruling of the Chair, that no reference may be made in the House to the appointment of judges or the suitability of judges for appointment. That is an unduly narrow approach. There could be no questioning of the appointment of judges, as I understand it. Choosing people for judicial appointment is one of the very important functions of the Government and there should be some procedure whereby the suitability of people to be judges can be discussed if not in the Chamber at least somewhere else. I hope that under the terms of reference of one of the committees questions could be asked, if necessary in camera, about this.
I wish to express my abhorrence at some of the proposals put forward in relation to disclosure. I do not believe that current accounts and deposit accounts should have to be disclosed. It is an affront to the integrity of every Member of this House. A headline in the Irish Independent a few days ago compared us to Marcos, which is laughable. Where will it all end? Is this the thin end of the wedge? If this Bill is introduced, before very long citizens will be obliged, possibly by law, to disclose their accounts. Perhaps there will be a register at the local police station or county hall. Imelda Marcos had 2,000 pairs of shoes whereas I only have three pairs.
I stood for four general elections and two local elections in Cork east which has an electorate of 60,000 people. If I were abusing my position, financially or otherwise, I would have received a vote of no confidence. The electorate know me very well. They know I am a farmer and that I have a business. That is my life, and I have given a certain amount of my time in the last ten years to politics.
I have strong views on the proposals. There will be headlines in the newspapers, stating that Deputies will be subject to investigation for one thing or another. A Deputy may have four, five or six bank accounts, which is not unknown, and will forget to declare one. If a Deputy has a financial investment, perhaps saving certificates or shares in his local co-op, these will be part of the investigation.
I have listened for some time to people talking about ethics in Government and the abuse of power. What I have witnessed in the last month or so has been a mockery of everything that has gone before. Last month I saw more nepotism and political jobbery in the guise of political advisers. Will those advisers declare their interests? It is vitally important that they do because many of them come from the private sector and are involved in accountancy and other areas. I would like to see them making declarations also.
Hear, hear.
Good point.
On the one hand, there is talk of a harsh budget and more sacrifices being made by the hard pressed taxpayer but, at the same time, we propose to spend huge amounts of taxpayers' money on reform. This cannot be right. It makes a laugh of the whole system.
We have one of the best Civil Service structures in Europe and expertise of all kinds within the public service and Civil Service. I served as a director of companies in the private sector and I am now in public life. I have seen some of the finest people in the Civil Service and public service and I deal with them each day. I ring them, talk to them and meet them. I cannot understand why we have to go outside the Civil Service to bring in advisers. We have some of the finest people in the public services — accountants, lawyers, etc. It is an insult to their intelligence to recruit advisers from outside.
We are ignoring the real reform for which people are calling. We have a population of approximately three million people; we have two Houses of Parliament and a Dáil of 160 Deputies. Our population is equal to that of Merseyside or Birmingham. We have not talked about reform of the House in the context of numbers. We cannot afford our bureaucracy or the costly structure. For instance, we have 15 Ministers of State. We must look at the whole structure of the House and its cost effectiveness. We must look at the role of the President and the Taoiseach's Office. We cannot afford a Tánaiste's Office. I say that as a Government Deputy. We must look at areas where savings can be made if we are to get co-operation from the public and particularly from the large numbers of unemployed people. There are 300,000 people unemployed. We have high mortgage interest rates. Respectable and decent people are living in fear because they are not able to meet their mortgage repayments. At the same time, we are building our bureaucratic system bigger and bigger by the day. That must stop.
I believe in accountability but no-one has the right to introduce measures like those in Eastern Europe. The Berlin Wall has come down. A small number of Deputies may have committed misdemeanours and there is an obligation on Deputies to expose that if it is as bad as we are lead to believe. To be compelled to reveal our bank and business accounts and our wives' accounts, etc., is an attack on the system. Many of us gave our time in a voluntary capacity in our constituencies and were singled out for public office. We were successful at conventions etc., and were elected. The antics in this House in the last month will result in more cost to the taxpayer, which cannot be right. We are creating an environment of envy, resentment, begrudgery and a dependent culture instead of an environment of enterprise, initiative and independence.
In the 11 years I have been a Member of the House the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill has never been fully discussed or teased out. While I have not often participated in the debate it is major legislation. No matter how long it takes, it is necessary to get to the Final Stage of that Bill and to have everything properly teased out and examined under the microscope. If that is not done the committee structure will have no future or role.
The way we operate Question Time is out of date. There must be more accountability from Ministers in answering questions, especially in the area of State boards. It is absurd that a Deputy can put a question down for answer in relation to a State board and get a reply from the Ceann Comhairle's office saying it does not pertain to the responsibility of the particular Minister. Many of those State boards deal with taxpayers' money and public properties. We are entitled to the necessary information.
Quite true.
In relation to Structural Funds, funds under the Leader programme and other EC funds, this House is the sole authority of public funds and finance. We must identify with that and get answers.
I welcome the committee structure. We will have many committees but the most important one will be the Finance Committee. I look forward to its success. I believe that good will come from that committee and if there is co-operation from all sides of the House, we will see better Finance Bills in future and a better financial structure.
I support the last speaker in relation to the debate on the Finance Bill which is the most important legislation which goes through this House. His point in relation to the raising of questions on Question Time is a favourite hobby horse of mine. One can ask a question about various agencies spending millions of pounds and one will not get an answer. One will be told that the Minister has no responsibility to the House in that matter, despite the fact that this House may have set up that agency and that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money can be spent by it. One is not entitled to ask a question because it "relates to the day to day running affairs of the particular agency".
It is generally accepted that debates go on for too long. However, if time is too restricted on some debates such as those on the budget and Finance Bill Members will not be able to deal adequately with the subject matter under discussion. That, in turn, will lead to lack of interest in them.
My colleague, Deputy John Bruton, has referred to the interest of Members in following debates. One of the reasons Members come into the House is the possibility that they will be able to participate in a debate and make a worthwhile contribution. I fully support the points he made in relation to reading scripts. One script writer could produce all the speeches of this House. It shows how daft the situation has become. Public representatives are supposed to represent the public. They are supposed to relay their views based on their knowledge and what they see around them, in this forum. It should not fall to somebody to write a script. Members are often accused of repetition, there is nothing as repetitious as scripts because they are all the same. With no disrespect, Government scripts have not changed in the last ten years.
The same person writes them all.
That is exactly the point being made and it is a very important point.
I thought there was a difference of——
The Minister speaks from his heart.
When I first came into this House, which is not a very long time ago, Members would converge on the Chamber during the course of a debate and interest was maintained. That was because they did not know what would be said next. No script was circulated and nobody knew what would happen next. That added to the unpredicability and the spontaneity of the debate. That is what parliamentary debate should be about, but unfortunately, we are moving further from that concept. It has been known that scripts were issued and short speeches were alleged to have been made in the House which were never made. They bypassed the system completely.
Does the Deputy remember the famous speech of former Deputy Paddy Cooney?
This holds up the whole system to ridicule and forces Members to spend more time behind closed doors writing scripts or getting somebody else to write them. We can keep in touch with the debate by electronic means in our rooms. Anybody who has an interest in football will tell you that watching a match on television is not as good as being present and I hope we will again see the kind of spontaneity that existed when I first came into the House.
And interruptions.
Interruptions can cause a lively debate. It would bring more Members in as they may feel left out of it if they were not in the Chamber. It would make parliament much more interesting. I hope that as a result of some of the reforms this parliament will become more relevant and responsive to the difficulties that may arise on a daily basis. We have never been able to respond adequately to a particular crisis. Everybody — except Members — can talk about it. We have no machinery in place to allow us to do so.
We changed the Order of Business some years ago because it was too disorderly and we decided to have grievance time. The reason there is not the same interest in grievance time is simply because it could be at 12 a.m. or 1 a.m. People are tired at that stage and there is no possibility of them giving of their best even for two minutes, at that time. Again, the replies are predictable and we could write them ourselves. Why go to all the trouble of raising the matter in this House at 12.30 a.m. and forcing civil servants and Members into the House to reply to a question? The Minister of State and the Chief Whip's Office said one should not put down a question unless one knows the answer but, while one may well know the answer, one may not get the answer one expects, that is where the problem arises.
There has been a serious deterioration in the standard of Minister's replies over the past number of years from all sides of the House. The objective is to give as little information as possible over the longest period possible, to such an extent that they hope the Opposition will become irrelevant. It is dangerous for democracy and serves no useful purposes.
All major announcements are made outside the House. If the public want information, they should not come into the House, they should read the newspapers or go on a particular chat show on the radio in the morning or maybe on a television show on Friday nights. One would get considerable information of vital national importance at a Fianna Fáil or Labour cumann meeting although the Members have great difficulty getting it in the House.
The Deputy is welcome to join us.
In spite of the number of Deputies in the Government parties, there are not many present on those benches.
I speak in support of the scheme for registration of Oireachtas Members' interests. There is already a requirement for members of local authorities to declare their interests in the property area and this has worked quite well since it was introduced. Members of local authorities are involved in the planning area, the drawing up of city and county development plans, material contraventions and rezoning of existing zonings. It is important that the public has confidence in local government and in the people who make decisions on their behalf in local government. Anybody who has an interest in that area declares it so that everybody knows where they stand.
The same principle applies to the whole area of public funds. Citizens who apply for an education grant for a member of their family have to declare their income, their spouses' income and that of other members of the family in order——
Not for publication though.
——to qualify. A citizen applying for health entitlement or hospital treatment would have to disclose his or her income.
But not for publication.
Anybody who applies for unemployment assistance or non-contributory pension is subject to a means test, which also applies to the family. In the differential rent system in local authorities all household income is declared. With PAYE everybody has to declare their income for tax purposes. There is a list published every year containing the names of people in default. That system operates in the tax area and was introduced by legislation.
One wonders about all the concern and scaremongering in relation to the declaration of interests. Every other democratic assembly has these principles. Elected members declare their assets where there might be a conflict of interest. In recent years there has been public disquiet in relation to politicians and political parties. Very often, at election time one hears that politicians are lining their pockets and that there is corruption. This, as we know, is untrue, but that perception applies generally. One comes across highly educated young people who are openly sceptical about our democratic system and even unemployed people become quite cynical about its operation. It is important that the electorate trust their elected representatives and the democratic system. This is a step in that direction and one which has been taken in other democratic parliaments throughout Western Europe.
Deputy Dukes made a significant comment the other day when talking about peeping Tom. This is an unusual phrase to use when one talks about the registration of interests. Perhaps at the next election Deputy Dukes might display a lifesize poster of himself so that the electorate in his constituency can see he has nothing to hide.
Nobody is opposed to a register of interests or even an ethics Bill but people are opposed to an invasion of privacy. The position of spouses should be protected and, in this instance, it would be a husband as opposed to a wife. I know that I would feel very protective towards my husband's interests if they had to be declared and published as opposed to declared.
The Minister said we should have root and branch changes. I agree with him. Unfortunately when using the existing blueprint it is very difficult to do that, although I accept the Minister's bona fides. Even though I served my apprenticeship in the Seanad, what strikes me is how stultifying the Dáil is. Long standing Deputies know this but it must be said again and again. It stultifies debate as Deputy Bruton said. The point is very well made that to have any kind of free flowing debate is virtually impossible. We have set pieces and it is terribly difficult to break out of that system. I have not read Standing Orders thoroughly but I did not realise that one could interrupt people. Being new, I would be a little bit faint-hearted about that initially, but this is the sort of thing we should do. Some people are far braver than I am and others would not get a look in.
Some people might never sit down.
I think I am beside one of them.
(Interruptions.)
That must be Deputy John Bruton.
Despite the fact that I want to throw all this away, I will refer to it just to make the point about how stultifying it is. The sitting arrangements are appalling. I will be a little sexist about this because women usually take on the responsibility of looking after families and organising family life. It is obvious that the sitting arrangements were not made by anyone who had anything to do with organising family life. It surprised me to realise that so many male Members are married with children because one would think these rules were drawn up by elderly bachelors who did not have families. The sitting arrangements and hours should be changed. I support the point made by Deputy John Kenny about sitting godly hours and having the holidays in tandem with the school holidays. That would make life a lot easier for everybody.
The suggestion was made that we should allow adjournment debates of five minutes in order to address topical matters. Adjournment debates in the middle of the night are useless. One of the things about topical issues is that, to a certain extent, we are playing to the gallery — empty though it may be at the moment. We are trying to make a name for ourselves and establish with the press corp that we have something to say. The trouble is that if we are speaking at midnight nobody will bother publishing it and by the next day it is old news anyway. It does not address the issue at all.
Question Time absolutely amazes me. We have Priority Questions and there has to be proportionality due to the fact that Fine Gael is the largest party and so on. We usually do not get further than Question No. 3. Now we intend to allow an extra five minutes for Priority Questions. What happens is that the Minister puts his or her head down and gives long waffly answers. It very difficult to ask supplementary questions never mind get a reply to them. This system should also be addressed. Ministers should be accountable and if they do not reply, what kind of accountability is that?
I am all for brevity. It amazed me in the Seanad that people could blather on for hours about absolutely nothing. I am all for keeping speaking time down to a minimum. Most people can say what they want to say on an issue in 15 to 20 minutes. The other aspect we have to allow for is that on Second Stage debate on a Bill a Minister has to have sufficient time. We have to be flexible about this and make allowances for time limits on specific debates so that more people get an opportunity to speak. For the more technical aspects of introducing Bills we should have a different time structure. This is commonsense.
On the new voting system, I was quite taken with Deputy Bruton's idea that we should raise our hands to vote. Obviously it would be a lot cheaper than electronic voting.
Of course it would. Somebody could count them.
Perhaps it would work. Our voting system needs to be open and looked at again. The idea of having one time to vote will not work. Deputy Ferris yesterday gave all sorts of explanations about how it could work, pairing and so on. I have some experience of speaking on amendments to Bills and so on, and one has to have an opportunity to debate, vote, debate and vote.
Deputy Durkan gave the very eloquent example of having somebody expelled from the House. In that case, if one voted several days later it would be an extraordinary circumstance. Voting arrangements will have to be looked at to see if there is a better system. I do not have any particular experience and, perhaps, the Whips will have to examine the various systems available.
Australia has a good system.
I do not have experience at this stage which would enable me to give constructive advice.
More waste of money.
Those are my points in relation to procedure. I hope that any system we agree and any structure we reform will not be just changing existing procedures but will result in an openness and a new way of doing things.
I congratulate the Minister on his new idea on reforms. The committee system will get more work done and we will be able to enact more legislation. I am glad that votes will be taken early. The proposed electronic voting is not a good idea. A show of hands, as proposed by Deputy Bruton, would result in miscounts, as happens frequently in golf clubs and recounts would have to be taken. The idea of orderly interruptions sounds good but in practice continuous interruptions would result in the speaker not being able to complete a speech. Contributions should be brief; half an hour speeches are too long.
The Member does not have to accept the interruption.
I am looking forward to the change.
If you put up both hands instead of one when surrendering, you would win.
This two day debate on Dáil reform has certainly resulted in some very interesting suggestions. The Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, should be congratulated for having the initiative to bring these suggestions before the House and allowing Deputies from all sides to express their views as to how the House could be run more effectively and be more responsible.
Fine Gael supports the principle of Dáil reform. We will encourage greater openness and accountability in our political actions. That is fundamental and the essence of this debate. We support the principle of a register of members' interests. We do not agree with having a spouse's interests debated publicly. Other elements relative to the register of interests referred to here by a number of speakers, are nonsensical. There was quite a deal of discussion also with the other Minister of State, Deputy Noel Treacy, regarding these matters.
There have been very few examples in the history of the State where Members of this House, irrespective of their party, abused the legislative system to acquire benefits or special interests for themselves through that process. It is in everybody's interest to have real and effective dialogue and to allow for the full expresion of views by all Deputies in this House. I could not support any attempt to remove from Deputies the democratic right to call for a vote at any time on an important issue. We need a process of full and democratic political involvement, not political castration. This Government has the largest majority in the history of the State. There should be no fear in regard to promoting change and allowing full answerability.
Some Members referred to questions and Question Time and compared it to the House of Commons. It should be possible to have Taoiseach's Question Time on Tuesdays and Wednesdays on national television between 5.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. By then the majority of working people would be finished and would have an opportunity to view it. A packed House with debates of real meaning and passion would add greatly to the understanding of politics, to the interest of people outside in what happens here and to the accountability of Ministers and the Taoiseach in answering questions. Why is it not possible for parliamentary questions to be answered during the recess? If these are matters of fundamental importance, our State system should be able to cater for them, even in the form of replies. It should be possible to achieve that kind of reform. Why can we not have a system whereby Ministers are responsible to the Dáil for semi-State bodies when all the beneficial announcements about such bodies are made by Ministers outside the House.
During the general election campaign, when the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, was under severe pressure in her constituency in Galway West, she announced the addition of a pay phone on the Galway-Dublin train. A fortnight ago a train driver on the Dublin-Sligo line had to stop the train in an emergency, get out of his cab and walk across the fields to a house with a telephone to summon help. If a question is tabled in this House about such a situation, the usual response is that the Minister does not have responsibility to the House for such matters. Yet, if an announcement has to be made about new trains, new carriages, new lines and so on, the first person to do so outside this House is the Minister. When we pass the budget here next week the Minister should be made responsible for that area.
Having worked closely with the Government Whip I believe it is possible to work out an effective, working rota for these committees, together with the ordinary committees of the House, if enough thought is put into it. It is fundamental that the necessary resources and staff are made available to these committees. If these items are not agreed before we start the committees will collapse and the whole exercise will have been pointless.
In a small country like ours where people have a passionate interest in politics, it is in our interest to have a parliament of action, response, openness and accountability. Ministers should have nothing to hide or nothing to fear about appearing before committees of this House or going before their peers. If they do not measure up or are ineffectual, then these inadequacies should be exposed in the public interest. After all politics is a blood sport in this country and the responses across the House are a great way of generating genuine interest in the political system.
The politics of the nineties are very different from those of the twenties. We have had too many examples of words meaning nothing and some politicians seeking to achieve power at all costs, as distinct from using the legislative system for their own benefit. The Fine Gael Party has as its interest the demands and problems of the ordinary people. Our recommendations are based on the provision of a system that works and is seen to work and respond. All political actions should be above board and in the public interest.
I thank the Minister of State for bringing this matter before the House and allowing Deputies the opportunity to discuss it. I urge the Minister of State to bring all these suggestions to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for final analysis before coming back to the house and presenting us with final suggestions.
Hear, hear.
Fine Gael will support constructive proposals for the better running of the Dáil but will resist absolutely, with all the political mechanisms open to us, any attempts that either involve greater secrecy or attempt to remove or weaken the democratic mandate given to each Deputy to represent the ordinary people of this land in Dáil Éireann.
What we have experienced over the past two days has been very valuable. I thank the Minister of State for his openness and awareness in this debate. I was glad yesterday when he agreed to change Question Time to encompass another half hour of questions and answers. That is the type of change we have requested for some time. If he shows that type of openness in his dealings with Oireachtas reform it will be a ray of light so far as I am concerned. I would hope to co-operate with him. It is all very well for the Minister of State to be open to us, but the Government has to be open to us as well. It is within their remit to make these reforms actually happen. We must have an absolute commitment by the Government through the Minister of State, that we will have genuine reform and not just lipservice. I hope the Minister's efforts will be rewarded and that he will be flexible in his attitude towards reform.
One of the things which struck me was the number of Deputies who referred to the public perception of politicians. On the one hand they appear to be very defensive while on the other hand it shows that politicians as a group have pride in what they are doing and do not want to see that rubbished, put down or undervalued. They are entitled to do that. We should be proud to say that we work very hard, we deserve decent remuneration for what we do and we should get it.
My fear about the whole ethics issue is whether it serves to undermine what we are about. I am totally in favour of having a register of interests. When I was elected to the county council I had no problem with signing on the dotted line saying I owned half my house. I would have a problem though with everybody knowing the extent of my overdraft, especially after election time. We do not want to undermine to any extent what politicians are doing or attempting to do.
The Star newspaper has been referred to here at least 100 times. It is justifiable to say that that newspaper has embarked on a campaign which is totally unnecessary, unwarranted and unfair. I wish I knew the person responsible so that I could throw the odd brick up at him or her when he or she are sitting in the press gallery.
We are all aware of the need for accountability and transparency in Government. As politicians we should be open in our financial dealings and so on and we should take this openness into the way the Government is run. If the Government is serious about democracy and transparency in the Programme for Government they will have to look carefully at all of the Oireachtas reform package presented to us. The register of Members' interests presented to us has not been thought through and it is nothing short of disgraceful. It should have been thought through so that we could debate it properly at this stage. I appreciate we will have the Ethics Bill later but at this stage we should be debating it properly and we should know better what it is we were discussing.
The committee system may be forced upon us. I am fearful of that because there appears to be an anti-democratic thread running through it of which I am wary. I would ask the Minister to consider the role of the Opposition. Does this great monolithic group of 101 people have to hold such sway over the parliament? When we have such a huge Goverment majority it is important that democracy is upheld.
I mentioned earlier I would like to throw the whole package out and start all over again but that will not happen. We have heard from Members whose contributions have been both critical and constructive, that we have something to work on. I know the Minister of State is open to suggestions and has listened very carefully. I hope that openness will be translated into taking on board the many excellent suggestions which have been made here. The long experience of many Deputies came to light in some of their contributions. In some ways old heads are best but let us try to mix the old with the new. I would be very disappointed if following two full days of debate nothing were to happen and if the Government fell unexpectedly nothing would have changed for the next Dáil. That would be the biggest disappointment of all. I would remind the Government of the shortness of days and weeks in politics and urge them to act speedily. The Progressive Democrats will co-operate with any measures which will serve to improve the operation of the Dáil and make it more accountable. We will be looking very carefully at the accountability of Ministers to this House. If Ministers were to come before committees and be accountable, that would make for much greater openness, a better perception of us as parliamentarians and a better belief in us as a people who are doing our level best for the people of Ireland who placed their trust in us.
Whether or not the two days of debate have been worthwhile will only be determined when we see the colour of the legislation that will derive from it and the changes which we implement. The controversial debate today about the register of members' interests will only be meaningful in the context of whatever informative influence it will have on the framing of the legislation which the Minister has promised to bring before the House.
It has been a very defensive debate from the point of view of many Members of the House who feel they have to answer to the media or to some of the commentators or criticisms made which do not warrant defence at all. If there is an area where Members are laying themselves open to criticism it is on the unreasonable length of the recesses which the House traditionally resorts to. We cannot continue to justify the length of the summer recess or the necessity to take four week breaks at Christmas or Easter. Despite the fact that we work an inordinately long and brutish day and are here for very anti-social hours, that is all forgotten about in the public criticism. The fact that there is this very long summer break is doing the image of this House more damage than anything else. If we are going to embark on a system of establishing committees which will peruse and examine legislation, then I do not see why that work cannot go on for much of that summer recess, thereby changing the image and the face which this House presents to the public. That is something which has not been dealt with in any great detail in the part of the debate which I managed to hear. The structure of the working year is an issue which will have to be addressed.
I expressed my views yesterday on some of the cheap coverage which the House has been subjected to and on the point-scoring criticism by some sections of the media. Whether or not we are doing what we should be doing or whether a lot of the work a TD has to preoccupy himself or herself with is appropriate, we certainly have no apology to make about the length of the working week or the length of the working day of Deputies. It compares favourably, both in terms of earnings per hour and in manhours worked, with those of any member of the press corps in the House or of any member of the press corps who visits us occassionally.
I am not satisfied that the introduction of cosmetic changes will do anything but make our last situation worse than our first. The Minister should reflect carefully before he brings final proposals to the House. Whether the media like it or not or whatever the Star thinks about the number of Deputies in this House, I personally believe that the proposed setting up of four major standing committees, along with the existing committees of the House, and proposed committees like the Foreign Affairs Committee — nothwithstanding what Deputy McDowell said about it — will pose enormous demands on the resources of a 166 Member Parliament. That situation does not obtain at Westminster, for example, where there are 650 members. Very careful thought has to be given to how that situation will work, how it will be resourced, the problems it will present for members of staff of the House and above all, the implications it will have for plenary sessions of this House. As I said yesterday, we are in danger of having no parliament. We have an Executive which makes all the decisions and begrudgingly advises us of them after the event.
One of the few opportunities for accountability is the Order of Business, although in recent times it has become progressively more restrictive as to what one may raise at the Order of Business. This is particularly the case during this session, for whatever reason.
If it is proposed that the committees be locked away, albeit televised while locked away, and that they should engage in examination of legislation while this House does not sit in plenary session, that would be a retrograde step and our last situation would be worse than our first.
I heard Deputy Ferris on some monitor saying that I had got it wrong about the voting system. I hope he is right. If I did not get it wrong, I presume that the Minister will consider the agreed position of the Opposition parties on this question of the voting arrangements, that any proposal which would create a situation where the votes of the week are put into a period on Wednesday evenings is open to very serious difficulties, apart from allowing Deputies who would be so inclined — I do not think there would be many — not to be present in the House. It would also open up an extraordinary scenario in a narrower majority situation than we have at the moment. I trust that will not be proceeded with and that the Minister will reconsider.
I have here a document which I think is from an article printed in The Economist which refers to the situation in the British Parliament. I quote the following as summarising some of the questions which confront this House:
Whose interests is your Member of Parliament representing? Yours? Or those of some powerful business or lobby as well? This special investigation by Richard Askwith is your chance to find out. Of the 650 Members of the current Parliament, nearly 400 have outside interests which they declare in the Register of Members' Interests. One in three is a paid consultant. The current edition of the Register lists more than 1,200 directorships, consultancies, trades, professions, ‘employments', ‘clients', sponsorships, gifts, free trips, property holdings and shareholdings. Most are quite small; many are innocuous; some are positively praiseworthy. But some appear to be rather more controversial.
That fairly sums up what has been an unnecessarily contentious aspect of this debate. I do not see any particular necessity for this House to be so defensive about the register of Members' interests as I understand it. This morning the Minister has sought to put the record right on some interpretations which were put on it before now. The only matter I am concerned about is whether or not there is a conflict of interest or a potential conflict of interest whereby the Executive could make decisions in favour of people who had vested interests in those decisions supporting that party or combination of parties in Government. That is the issue which has to be protected against. Deputy McGahon, my close friend, and political stranger, has accused me——
A sparring partner.
——of being a consultant for Hal-AI, the meat company. I am happy to have the opportunity to tell the House that it is not true. Deputy Lawlor instanced this morning the area of oil exploration, where it is possible that decisions made in this House by the Executive, the Minister for Energy, might involve a potential conflict of interest.
The Deputy should bring his remarks to a close.
Nobody is more relieved to hear that than I, since I have been preoccupied outside the House over the past couple of hours protecting the privilege that all members rightfully should have.
This is the first full-scale debate that this House has had on the question of Dáil reform. Lip service has been paid to the notion of Dáil reform for a long time. We now have an opportunity to follow this two-day debate by introducing meaningful changes that will make our national Parliament central to the lives of the people who elected us and relevant to the challenges that confront them.
I shall begin by thanking Deputy Rabbitte for making the effort to get here. I know his mind is in other places at the moment. I take this opportunity of thanking Deputies from all sides of the House for contributing to the debate, not in a party political way in the sense that they felt they had to defend the party line. That is useful and is something which affects all of us as Members of the House. I would like to encourage that approach.
A large number of points were raised and it would not be a good idea to attempt to address all of them in the few minutes available to me. However, some general points are worth referring to. I thank the Deputies opposite for their comments in relation to my openness to change and commitment to this process of reform. I assure the Deputies that this is no illusion. I have a responsibility, as I said yesterday, for Dáil reform and I intend to live up to that duty and responsibility. All of us, no matter what party we come from, have a commitment to the public, a commitment to the process of democracy and it is up to us, because we regulate our own business, to try to ensure that we have every facility available to us to live up to that commitment. I am committed to this process of change and the evidence has been before me for the last two days that Opposition parties would also be open to a process of change.
The bottom line in these reforms is that there is a danger in a situation where a Government has a huge majority and do not need to consult with the Opposition because they could steamroll anything through the House. There is a danger that Government and Government Ministers could become very arrogant, very aloof from people and removed from the real situation that exists. I hasten to add that this will not happen to this Government or its Ministers.
We will endeavour to ensure it does not.
I am sure the Deputy will. There is that danger. I accept the point being made. My approach to Dáil reform and the other ideas put forward would be to ensure that this does not happen, that Ministers are accountable to the House, that there is openness. That commitment has been made by the Taoiseach and we have an opportunity in this House to ensure that it is carried out.
Mention has been made of committees. I have been a short time in this House, listening to Deputies of all parties. They seem to believe that a committee system would be more democratic, would leave legislation more open to scrutiny, would leave a Minister more open to scrutiny in his legislation and through the Estimates process, his spending and his general politics more open to scrutiny. Committees will and should work in that way.
The question of voting and the plenary sessions is a concern I have noted from a number of Deputies. Members may have mistaken the guidelines on a suggested method of voting. It is not intended that every vote in the House would be postponed to a set time on Wednesday evening. It does state, and I referred to this in the House yesterday and I do not intend to delay too long on it, that there are only certain kinds of votes that that would suit. At the end of a Second Stage Bill where the issue does not have a knock-on effect the vote can be postponed to a Wednesday evening. The Committee Stages of most Bills will be taken in committee and the votes will take place in committee.
In the case of Report Stages of Bills, if it cannot be agreed in advance that the different amendments can be taken together, they would have to be voted on in the House. A system has to be worked out but it is not envisaged that every single vote would have to take place at a set time on a Wednesday evening because that obviously would present its own problems.
Deputies have said that the Order of Business is becoming progressively restrictive but if Deputies read what is allowable on the Order of Business they will understand that the latitude Deputies get is very wide. I accept the point and I intend to discuss it with the Whips when the working group is in progress. I accept that there is a feeling among Deputies that the only time they can raise topical matters is on the Order of Business because then everyone is in the House, the Press Gallery and the Public Gallery are usualy full and so on. There are Adjournment Debates and Private Notice Questions that meet the need for topical debate. I am open to discussing some type of topical debate procedure two or three days a week in the House in plenary session where the procedure would be much more flexible, as stated by Deputy Durkan, and there would be more give and take, cut and thrust. I will discuss this matter with the Whips. I am putting this marker on it: that will be in exchange for the chaos we have on the Order of Business. That is a reasonable exchange.
A Deputy asked about the possibility of change and whether we are serious about this. We spoke yesterday on various aspects of Dáil reform. Fine Gael asked for an extra five minutes in relation to Question Time which was acknowledged in the House. The Government agreed to that. That is a marker of our intent. Many Deputies spoke yesterday of the need for an information officer or press officer for the Houses of the Oireachtas. I agree and will try to have it put in place as a matter of urgency.
Deputies yesterday expressed views about having a women's committee in the House. I am amenable to that suggestion and would certainly agree to go along with that.
I put those down as markers of intent. I am underlining the fact that I am committed to listening and to trying to implement proposals.
I wish to refer to one matter that may have led to misunderstandings or lack of clarity in relation to convenors of committees of the House.
I stress there will have to be one appointed on the Government side as well as one on the Opposition side because liaison will be necessary. Basically it will be much like the Whips system used in plenary sessions of the House. The convenors will liaise with the chairman regarding the programme and implementation of legislation. There will be liaison with Opposition parties regarding committee business. Deputy Kenny raised the question of the sitting times of the committees and the avoidance of clashes. There will be liaison with Departments and officials in the preparation of legislation, preparation of briefings and the taking of submissions, as Members need that facility. There will be liaison on the presentation of documentation and evidence to the chairman. There will be liaison with the chairman and specialist advisers and in operating the pairing system for committees with the nominated individual from the Opposition to be the Whip or convenor on the other side.
Briefly that is the role the convenor will play. Anybody who knows anything about such a system will be aware that it will be a busy role for both Government and Opposition. I make no apology for saying that anyone who takes on an onerous task should be paid for doing so.
I made clear yesterday that the purpose of the introduction of a register of Members' interests is to allay fears that there might be conflict of interest. That is all. There should be no invasion of privacy. I am glad that that came across in the debate this morning. It is something that must be taken on board. Many valid points were made during the debate. There are some people, not elected to this House, who never have to go before the public but who are paid from State funds, who do not make declarations of interests. That is something that it might be profitable to look at.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 February 1993.