Standing Order 33: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. J. Higgins)

I move:

That, with effect from 1st November, 1995, until further notice in the 27th Dáil, the following be adopted in substitution for Standing Order 33 of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business:—

`33. The Ceann Comhairle shall examine every Question in order to ensure that its purpose is to elicit information upon or to elucidate matters of fact or of policy, that it is as brief as possible, that it does not seek information provided within the preceding four months in the case of Questions for oral reply or provided within the preceding two weeks in the case of Questions for written reply, and that it contains no argument or personal imputation. The Ceann Comhairle, or the Clerk under his authority, may amend any Question, after consultation with the member responsible for the Question, to secure its compliance with Standing Orders.'."

This motion proposes, in effect, that the repeat rule for written parliamentary questions should be reduced from the present four months to two weeks, for a trial period. No change is proposed in respect of oral questions.

All Members will readily agree that parliamentary questions are an essential element of democracy. Members can ensure that members of the Government are accountable to the Dáil for their actions. It is worth reminding Members that, in 1992, it was calculated to cost approximately £64 to provide the answer to each parliamentary question. Obviously that cost is higher at today's salary levels. Just out of curiosity, I examined yesterday's Order Paper. There were 56 oral questions and 160 written questions, a total of 216 questions. Taking the 1992 costing per question, that gives a total of £13,824 as the cost of answering the parliamentary questions just for one day. I leave it to the mathematicians to calculate the annual cost.

Members, therefore, have a responsibility not to abuse the system of parliamentary questions. For example, repetitious or mischievous questions that could be easily answered by a telephone call to the relevant Minister's office or Government Department, should be avoided.

The Government's policy document —A Government of Renewal— states. among other things, that the Government will make the Dáil more efficient, businesslike and provide accountability and transparency. Members will recall that most of the Government's proposals relating to Oireachtas Reform as set out in its policy documents were approved by the House in March. Relaxing the repeat rule for written questions is another tangible example of the Government's commitment to its policy of accountability and transparency. Members will know the Government will very shortly propose a comprehensive package of measures to implement the stated policy to improve the proceedings of this House. This package will be the result of intensive consultation. In that context, I pay a particular tribute to the Fianna Fáil Party which published its Dáil reform proposals in June. I assure Deputies that the Government is actively considering those and other proposals and the resultant package will reflect that consideration.

It is crucial to the effective functioning of a democracy that the rules and procedures of the Houses of Parliament must facilitate the constructive input by each and every Member of the House. Members must feel that they have rightful and meaningful participation in the parliamentary process. The committee system, whereby we now have legislation committees of the Dáil, have enhanced that input. The committee rooms are less intimidating. They promote exchange and dialogue rather than the expected inevitable conflict. Even though a Deputy may not be a member of a particular committee, there is nothing to prevent him or her attending the committee and participating in the debate on a Bill. The development of the committees mean that the time constraints of the past whereby the guillotine was frequently employed to bulldoze legislation through, is now, happily a thing of the past.

The committees, while they have certainly created more work for the individual Members, have undoubtedly also more than compensated by way of a feeling of fulfilment and participation. The arrival of the TV camera to the Chamber and to the committee rooms has given rise to the need for other procedural developments or modifications.

Certainly Parliament has shown a capacity and a willingness to adapt and accommodate. It is an evolutionary process, however, that must be helped along. That is the reason I look forward to the publication of the Government's proposals, which as the Taoiseach said in the House yesterday, and again today will be available in the very near future.

As the motion says this proposal to amend Standing Order No. 33 is for a trial period. During that time I, as Government Chief Whip, the Government and you, a Cheann Comhairle, will be reviewing its operation to see if it is producing efficiency in the running of the House and to ensure it is not being abused by Members.

Members should be aware that if this relaxation is abused by continually putting down the same question or asking other Members to do so, it may be ruled out of order, at the discretion of the Ceann Comhairle. There may also be an element of misusing public funds considering the stated costs of parliamentary questions. If any abuse becomes obvious the Government will, reluctantly, propose revoking this amendment. Hopefully, that will not arise and Members will use the relaxation in the spirit of openness and transparency in which it is intended.

There have also been representations to extend the relaxation rule to oral questions. That is the subject matter of an amendment from Fianna Fáil. However, we cannot accept this because answering oral questions is substantially different from answering written questions. For example, oral questions involve Dáil time, which is scarce and expensive and requires a great deal of briefing and preparing replies for members of the Government compared with written questions.

We might await the outcome of experience with the relaxation of the rule relating to written questions and we will take matters from there. This matter has been referred by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to one of its subcommittees and it would be prudent to leave further discussions on it to the subcommittee.

The adoption of this amendment will dramatically reduce the administative burden on the officials dealing with parliamentary questions in the Houses of the Oireachtas and Government Departments. The time involved in checking and cross-checking whether a parliamentary question is a repeat is incalculable. Considering the number of questions put down each week the Dáil sits, it is obvious that such checking requires a high number of man hours which could be used more productively.

I am assured by the officials of the Houses of the Oireachtas that the passing of this motion and the consequent reduction of the administrative burden will result in decisions being made earlier on other questions. I am sure that will be generally welcomed, particularly in relation to whether these questions are relevant. This will result in a significant net gain for all Members and Government Departments. For all the reasons stated, I commend this motion to the House.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 1:

(1) To delete all words from and including "that it does not seek" down to an including "written reply" and substitute the following:

"that, in the case of Questions to the Taoiseach for oral reply, it does not seek information provided within the preceding six weeks"; and

(2) to add the following to the proposed new Standing Order:

": provided that no Question shall be ruled out of order on the grounds of being anticipatory of debate.".

I thank the Minister for putting down this motion. At recent meetings the Opposition Whips have been requesting that measures be brought forward to address this problem. Unfortunately, this side of the House cannot support the motion because it is a minimalist approach and does not go far enough. It is indicative of the way in which this House is ensnared by its rules, procedures and precedents that I had to spend a great deal of time formulating an amendment to this motion. Unfortunately the Ceann Comhairle, in his wisdom, saw fit to emasculate much of it. I thank the Ceann Comhairle's staff for the assistance they gave me in relation to the amendment.

The amendment I have put down on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party will, in effect, abolish the repeat rule for all questions, oral and written, except in the case of questions to the Taoiseach who answers oral questions every week in this House on Tuesdays and Wednesdays — there is a repeat rule in regard to oral questions to the Taoiseach. There is, in effect, an inbuilt repeat rule in relation to oral questions to Ministers on the basis that they answer questions only every five or six weeks. In these days of computerisation, it is the height of nonsense that officials in this House spend endless hours trawling through the Official Report to see whether a question tabled is a repeat of a previous question. The Minister knows that much departmental time is also taken up in that regard.

This amendment will help to alleviate some of the difficulties referred to and will ensure that Members will be given earlier notice when questions are disallowed by the Ceann Comhairle, through his staff. The Ceann Comhairle has also seen fit to deem in order another suggestion by the Members on this side of the House that a question will not be ruled out of order on the basis that it is anticipatory of debate. That is to be welcomed because I could never understand that rule, even when I was in Government.

The following lofty words are contained in the second paragraph of A Government of Renewal which, as Deputy O'Rourke often says, is the glue keeping this Government together:

But the relationship between Government and the people it serves has been damaged by a lack of openness. That relationship must be renewed, so that the people of Ireland have total confidence in Government and in a political system which is fully inclusive.

Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left came into Government on a wave of openness, transparency, accountability and freedom of information, but what has happened since then? The political correspondent, Geraldine Kennedy, said some months ago that this is one of the most secretive Governments in the history of the State. Indeed, in today's Irish Independent there is an article about transparency at the end of a tunnel. Those remarks by outside commentators indicate that it is not just Opposition Members who believe that this Government's lack of transparency is unique in the history of the State.

I do not want to go over the whole débácle of the Lowry affair but some commentators said it was an unseemly debate which achieved little. This side of the House wanted the matter to be discussed in committee where it could have been investigated in the reasonable way the Minister suggested. However, at his — and the Government's — insistence, he came into this House. He stated on television that he would stay here until midnight answering questions yet, as my fellow Whip in the Progressive Democrats knows, a cat and mouse game was played with us in relation to the number of questions ultimately allowed by the Government. The Minister also hid behind the sub judice rule.

This attitude to parliamentary democracy is held by there parties who profess to be trail blazers in regard to Dáil reform. Over the years, the Taoiseach has made himself out to be one of the key people seeking Dáil reform. In November last year, when the Taoiseach was in Opposition, he stated:

We need a new Government that will reform the institutions of this State to make every Member of this House who holds office duly accountable. We need reform to ensure that when answers to questions asked in the House are not adequate, the Ceann Comhairle can demand that a further answer be given.

Where does the Taoiseach stand in that regard now in relation to the débâcle in the Lowry affair, when the Minister came into this House and gave answers to five questions that were totally different from the questions asked? The Tánaiste also does not go unscathed in this regard. When he was in Opposition he stated:

If this House were to accept that a Minister would never be accountable to the Dáil without direct culpability on his or her part, the principle of accountability would wither away. Without accountability the value of a parliamentary democracy would be fatally undermined.

These were lofty sentiments from the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste when they were in Opposition but they seem to have forgotten about them in Government.

In reply to a number of questions in the House yesterday, the Taoiseach was disingenuous when he said his Department was informed at the same time as the Opposition when questions were disallowed. He hid the fact, in effect, that there is substantial contact between his or the Minister's Department and the General Office as to whether a question is allowable. With all due respect to the officials in the House who are totally overworked in relation to the number of questions put down — I know that the deletion of the repeat rule will be of some benefit in this regard — they must rely to a large extent on the advice they are given by the Departments. Where is the separation of powers in that respect? If contact is made between Departments and the officials in this House in regard to whether a question is allowable, it puts into question the separation of power between this House, as a Parliament, and Government and the accountability of Government to this Parliament. I believed, even while in Government, that this should be examined and changed to ensure this House is totally separate when dealing with questions.

We also have the ludicrous position in relation to the transfer of questions. It is fitting that the Taoiseach has been very vigilant in relation to the questions addressed to him. I would like to quote the following from a Fine Gael policy document on law reform:

There is considerable dissatisfaction amongst members at their lack of ability to adequately scrutinise the activities of Government by means of Parliamentary Questions. There is a feeling that Ministers have the capacity to avoid answering Questions, and to use the understandable anxiety of the Ceann Comhairle to move on to the next Question to evade appropriate answers. Where there are a number of parties in Opposition, this problem is accentuated by the anxiety of each party to put in a questioner on each Question.

Fine Gael went on to say that proper rules——

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): We were ahead of our time.

Mr. O'Dea

The Deputy's party still has not caught up.

Mr. D. Ahern

——should be put in place to ensure that the Taoiseach of the day cannot transfer questions willy-nilly, as Deputy Bruton does to this day in Government.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy's party set the standard for us.

Mr. D. Ahern

Much of what we are doing today had its genesis in the remarks of the chairman of the beef tribunal. He said that if a more open policy had been adopted to the answering of questions through the years, leaving politics aside, perhaps we might not have had a beef tribunal. That is why we, on this side of the House, make no bones about the fact that we want this system changed in such a way that the Ministers and institutions of our State will be far more accountable to this Parliament.

I, perhaps unfairly, mentioned statements made in the past by the Taoiseach's party. I also have a document containing Democratic Left's proposals for Dáil reform which makes intriguing reading. If I had more time, I would quote what it says, and I agree with much of it. The document states:

It comes as a great shock to most newly elected Deputies to discover just how restricted they are in their efforts to represent their constituents by Standing Orders and by obscure often unwritten rules of precedent and tradition — precedent and tradition seem to be used primarily to restrict rather than to enhance the role of the Deputy.

Vocal proponents of Dáil reform in Opposition too often become unquestioning defenders of precedent and tradition when elected to Government.

I wish Minister De Rossa was here to hear what I am saying.

The document continued:

At present, Ministers regularly provide vague and partial or overlong answers in reply to oral questions. The Ceann Comhairle should have the power to request the Minister to respond to a question or to state why he cannot.

That is from the party of a Minister who is the subject of a complaint to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges having walked out of this House and refused to answer direct questions put by our spokesperson on Social Welfare. He had the audacity to say, "I am not answering that question." Those in Government should put their money where their mouths are and introduce more than a minimalist change to Dáil procedure. I spent some time over the weekend working on this issue. I thank the Minister for at least complimenting us for taking the time to put our Dáil reform proposal before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and this House.

Unfortunately, the Ceann Comhairle saw fit to rule our proposal out of order but perhaps the Minister will accept it. The proposal is not an exhaustive list because many of the issues I wanted to include would have been ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle. One of the suggestions was that there be a priority time for the Taoiseach's questions for half an hour on a Tuesday and a Wednesday in addition to oral questions to the Taoiseach.

There is another problem which I accept also occurred when we were in Government. Last Wednesday while the Taoiseach was answering oral questions, the Tánaiste was waiting to answer a myriad of questions on important subjects such as Bosnia and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, there were only 20 minutes in which the Tánaiste could answer questions. We propose that, irrespective of the number of Taoiseach's questions, there should always be at least one hour set aside for ordinary oral questions to Ministers.

The remit of questions and answers should be widened. There is a problem as a result of the setting up — and we were party to it when we were in Government — of bodies outside this House, such as, for example, the National Roads Authority. I cannot ask a question in this House about one of the major roads going through my constituency.

That, unfortunately, is one of the downsides to establishing these separate bodies which, in effect, are not answerable to the Dáil. I propose that a change be made to Standing Orders to make Ministers answerable not only in relation to his or her Departments but also local authorities and other State bodies such as the National Roads Authority and the IDA.

I was very careful when drafting the proposal—I thank the officials for their help — and I did not suggest that we should be entitled to ask questions about the day-to-day running of Departments or local authorities. Questions should relate to the general administration and policies of these bodies. It is only fair and proper. In view of the fact that Exchequer funding comes from this House to those bodies, it is only right they should be answerable to it.

The other suggestion we made relates to priority questions. We suggested that there should be priority questions to the Taoiseach and that in addition, the leader of each Opposition party should be permitted to table a Private Notice Question every day under the same rules. I accept it would have to relate to a matter of urgency but party leaders should have that facility. It may be said that it exists but it should be designated specifically so party leaders would have an opportunity to raise issues which are being discussed in Molesworth Street but not here.

One of the other important proposals made on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party is that written questions be answered during Dáil recess. The Dáil rose on 20 July this year and returned on 20 September and we had the ludicrous situation that we were not permitted to table questions during that period nor were we entitled to seek written replies to questions from 20 September onwards. Either the House is sitting or it is not. I was told that the committees do not count and that the Dáil was in recess. As far as I am concerned, if the committees of this House are sitting, we should be allowed ask questions. What else can Opposition Deputies do but table questions to elicit information from Government Departments? The Dáil in effect now sits for 11 months, rising for August and over Christmas, and I suggest that Deputies should be able to seek written replies to questions during the Dáil recess.

The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, refused to answer questions by relying on the sub judice rule. I was party to the changing of that rule when I was a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Unfortunately the sub judice rule has been abused by people inside and outside the House. Up to approximately two years ago once someone had paid £50 to issue a plenary, High Court or a Circuit Court summons the matter could not be raised by way of question or motion in the House. That rule was relaxed by the Dáil under a Fianna Fáil Administration so as to ensure full accountability. In spite of this the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications recently hid behind the sub judice rule. I do not understand his reasons for doing this as it is only when the notice of trial, the final document in an action, has been lodged in court that the sub judice rule comes into operation. Given the delays in courts, it would not be possible for the notice of trial to have been issued in the cases which the Minister pleaded were subject to the sub judice rule. It should have been possible, therefore, for him to answer our questions.

I am perhaps straying somewhat from the motion but I feel very strongly about this matter. There were approximately 40 items on the agenda for the last meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and there will probably be another 40 items on the agenda for its next meeting. There are some very serious issues to be addressed in relation to the alleged abuse of privilege. When the motion recently came before the Dáil my party supported the change on the basis that people outside the House should have an opportunity to put their positions on the record. From my recollection, my party has never abused the privilege of the House even during difficult times. Members of the Government abused the privilege of the House when they were in Opposition and unfortunately they appear to be abusing it again. A meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should be convened to discuss the alleged abuse of this privilege so that the matter does not go on for ever and people outside the House are given an opportunity to put their positions on the record. This is the first time this rule will be looked at and I ask the Ceann Comhairle to convene an urgent meeting to discuss the matter.

I implore the Minister to change his minimalist approach to questions. I do not understand why he cannot devise a system whereby there is an inbuilt repeal rule for oral questions so that the questions cannot be answered in any event for five weeks. It would make the House more accountable and allow for more scrutiny.

In the case of questions which are repeated every second week it is in order for the Department to say "this question was asked a fortnight ago and there has been no change in the position since then". The problem in the case of the beef tribunal was that when questions were asked the information was not available and when it was available questions could not be asked. When it was in Government with us the Labour Party was adamant that these rules should be changed so that——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the Chair has given him some latitude in respect of time.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Fianna Fáil Party has been extremely active in regard to Dáil reform. This is the first time I have been in Opposition since I came into the House and I now understand the difficulties of Opposition parties. Over the years Governments have given in to pressure. It would be much better for elected parliamentarians, who have nothing to hide, to lay the facts before the Dáil. Instead of adopting a minimalist approach I implore the Government which came into office on a wave of openness, transparency and accountability, to accept my proposal. If necessary, the Minister could introduce an amendment incorporating my proposed changes to the Standing Orders.

Ms O'Donnell

I cannot over emphasise the importance of our deliberations. The issue of the questioning of the Executive by the Opposition is of fundamental importance in our democracy and just as important as, for example, the legislation on freedom of information which is due to come before the House. I understand there is a difficulty in getting it through the Department of Justice, something which does not surprise me.

The Government's proposal is a half baked minimalist response to the very serious need to review the way in which we deal with parliamentary questions in the House. It arises from a proposal I put to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to abolish the repeat rule applicable to parliamentary questions. This rule is one of the many means used by this and previous Governments to avoid answering questions. To put it simply, if a similar question has been tabled and answered within the past four months the repeat rule provides a way out for the Minister. It gives him an opportunity to flee from accountability in the House.

From time to time there is a certain amount of melodramatic apoplexy and outrage when it is alleged that Ministers have misled the House, an offence which is meant to carry the ultimate sanction of resignation. When such a charge is made the Chair asks for it to be withdrawn as it is deemed to be an offence against the Parliament. These occasional melodramatic occurrences are disingenous given that the House is misled on a daily basis as a result of the way in which parliamentary questions are replied to by Ministers. I find it disheartening that a Government which owes its existence to the failure of the previous Administration to be open and accountable to the Dáil has failed to learn any of the lessons which flowed from the beef tribunal inquiry and then the Brendan Smyth affair. The Government appears to have the memory of a goldfish and an indecent capacity for hypocrisy when it comes to openness, transparency and accountability. It constantly states that it is committed to open government. Yet on a daily basis Opposition Deputies are thwarted and there is much ducking and diving by the Ministers in an effort to avoid answering questions. The Government has failed to translate its commitment to openness into parliamentary practice.

Despite a change in composition, it was clear from the Brendan Smyth "part two" affair earlier this year that the Executive leopard had not changed its spots when the new Administration headed up by Deputy John Bruton failed its first test of accountability. Who can forget that frozen moment of radio shock when the Taoiseach, of all people, said: "The Deputy (me) did not ask the right question"?

What was different about the Brendan Smyth part II affair was that it was not confusion, tiredness or the fast unfolding of events, as claimed by the previous Administration when it fell from parliamentary grace, that led to the Dáil being misled; information was withheld from the Dáil on independent legal advice given to the Taoiseach to the effect that if he answered the question posed by me relating to unanswered correspondence in the Attorney General's Office it would prejudice a civil servant's right to due process. That set a dangerous precedent.

The supreme right of the Dáil to receive information requested was sub-jugated by a civil servant's right to due process and the potential threat which this posed to the State in terms of a possible claim by that civil servant for unlawful dismissal. Is it now acceptable for Ministers to suspend the right of the Dáil to receive information on the grounds that if a question is replied to properly a third party's legal rights might be infringed, leading to a claim against the State? This is no academic doodle for leisurely consideration in the House.

Would it have been possible, for example, to get straight answers about the Blood Bank-hepatitis C scandal by way of Dáil questions? Will we ever see the unabridged version of the report of the investigation into the events at Madonna House or the health board inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Kelly Fitzgerald? If those reports were published, the legal rights of third parties might well be infringed.

In a parliamentary democracy the only way an under-resourced Opposition Deputy can hold the Government or Executive to account is by way of questions to the Taoiseach and Ministers. As in cricket, there are rules to play by — Standing Orders and rulings of the Chair for the orderly conduct of business. When the integrity of parliament starts to slip in terms of the quality of replies to questions the core value system which underpins our activities is endangered. This has happened, it is an appalling vista and one which must be addressed if this and subsequent Governments are not to fall and confidence in the political system is not to be undermined.

The Government has done nothing to enhance the primacy of the Dáil and strengthen its role as an inquiring body. It has been diminished as the Government has become a big spending Government which spends much money in spinning the truth. Thousands of pounds are spent in each Government Department on spin doctors and public relations consultants. Will we ever be given the exact figure?

The Government Chief Whip told us how much it costs to respond to a Dáil question — £64. That was hilarious. Are we supposed to feel guilty when this is the only way we can hold the Executive to account? I find it extraordinary when the Government spends so much in spinning its own version of events——

Mr. D. Ahern

£64 a minute is more like it.

Ms O'Donnell

I would not like to start the clock in terms of the amount spent by the Government on spin doctors.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Is the Deputy in favour of extra spending?

Mr. J. Higgins

The Progressive Democrats spend more.

Ms O'Donnell

I often use the image of David and Goliath to highlight the differences between the Opposition and this big spending Government.

Against this background the parliamentary question is even more important since it is a plain instrument which should endure and suit its purpose, but only if the rules are honoured. Any Deputy will testify that the practices exposed in the beef tribunal inquiry in relation to the failure to answer Dáil questions are still being engaged in.

One of the most frustrating experiences and aspects of my job as an Opposition Deputy is that I am thwarted on a daily basis as questions are blocked by a range of obstacles, one of which is the repeat rule which is blatantly abused by Ministers to avoid answering controversial questions. When presented with an awkward question officials in Ministers' offices will claim that it is a repeat and the General Office has little clout to dispute this. It is also easy for a Government Deputy, by arrangement or innocently, to raise a matter on the Adjournment or table a question for a written reply which has the effect of preventing the Opposition from raising if for four months.

In office, Ministers tend to see the Dáil as an irritant and a tedious brush with accountability which they must physically endure for one day every six weeks. For the remainder of the time they leave it to their officials or advisers to box cleverly in fielding and transferring questions. Depending on their stamina and forensic skills the inquiring Opposition Deputy is worn down after a number of attempts to elicit a reply.

My files tell a sad tale of parliamentary obstruction whereby questions have been ruled out of order, transferred to other Ministers to buy time, blocked by the repeat rule and minimally answered in outrageously deceptive terms with a view to throwing me off the scent. It should be remembered that the evidence in the beef tribunal revealed the boast by a civil servant that his crookedly drafted reply would "confuse the Deputy".

Although this is a major issue few people understand or care about it. We are very much involved in a housekeeping exercise today. Many of us have become parliamentary pests because we refuse to be thwarted by this device which is used to duck questions. There is a need for radical reform. This motion, the purpose of which to dilute the repeat rule, is a miserable response to a request for reform from the Opposition parties which was supported at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges by all Members, not just Opposition Deputies.

In May 1989 former Deputy Pat O'Malley sought information by way of parliamentary question to explain the major discrepancy between the beef export figures to Iraq for the two year period 1987-88 and the figure for export credit insurance provided for these exports in the same period, but this question was disallowed on the grounds that it was a repeat of previous questions. The question was then filleted — this is another aspect of the repeat rule whereby certain parts of questions can be filleted by the Administration or the Ceann Comhairle's office — deleting the portion which sought a clear explanation for the discrepancy. The Minister was then free to report only on the state of the departmental investigation into the matter in a written reply which was a masterpiece of distraction and Civil Service verbiage.

There is a need for glasnost in relation to our procedures in this House. Without such major reform we are only whistling in the wind in introducing a freedom of information Bill.

On a daily basis, I believe this House is misled by the use of procedures, such as this repeat rule, which deny information requested legitimately by Members in their efforts to hold this Government to account.

I support what is left of the Fianna Fáil motion, which has been filleted in the usual way. We will continue to press for radical reform in this area.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Is maith an rud é go bhfuil athrú ag teacht ar chóras na gceisteanna anseo. Molaim an tAire Stáit, an Teachta Ó hUigín, atá in aice liom, gur mhol sé na hathraithe seo. Bhí na daoine ó Fianna Fáil agus An Páirtí Daonlathach a labhair romhaim i gcomhacht, bhí seans acu rud éigin a dhéanamh ach nil ach caint fágtha go dtí seo.

It is fascinating to note that Deputies O'Donnell and Dermot Ahern whose parties were in power were able to tolerate this awful system which Minister Jim Higgins is making an effort to correct. We have had to listen to this codswallop. At least, St. Paul, who travelled on horseback to Damascus, saw a flash of light and was converted. The distance across the Chamber is but four or five yards and, lo and behold, there is a light flashing non-stop over the Opposition benches. Even Deputy O'Dea, who was a Minister of State, was not over there five minutes when he thought law and order had broken down here.

Mr. O'Dea

It was not my idea.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Daily Fianna Fáil tables motions telling us how this country should be run.

Mr. O'Dea

I was not in charge of a Department.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): We are told the education system is chaotic and Deputy Martin is worn out producing ideas on how to spend money and do more work. His ideas are unbelievable. What happens to Fianna Fáil when it is in power? Do the brains of its members get clogged up? Why is it that they get these ideas only when they are in Opposition?

Deputy O'Donnell has left the Chamber very concerned. I thought the whole idea at Question Time was that the Questioner was permitted to bamboozle the Minister.

Mr. O'Dea

Ask the right question?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Yes, and to know what information to seek. I will not read out some of the questions on the Order Paper as I was once pilloried by a stupid journalist in an article on questions. The journalist decided my question on school furniture was a waste of money. I would like to break his back a little for him because I was trying to help children whose back formation was being seriously damaged and I had the support of the physiotherapists of Ireland and a surgeon in Finland. If I read out questions some Members might think I was making light of their questions. Most of the questions on the Order Paper have as much reason for not being answered as one could find anywhere.

There has been much talk about openness. Deputy Dermot Ahern said Geraldine Kennedy was scathing in her comments about this Government not being open. I am sure it must be an awful disappointment to journalists to find they get no inside stories about what was said by the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare, or the Taoiseach. The days are gone when such stories were all over the place and when journalists had scoops. A Government should do its job, make decisions and cut out the background information as to who said what and whether somebody smiled, frowned or coughed.

We heard about trailblazers and lofty thoughts when in Opposition. Deputy Ahern mentioned that Deputy John Bruton and Fine Gael had lofty thoughts when in Opposition. They were not nearly as lofty as those which Deputy Ahern has at present. He seems to have awakened from a dream, a vision or, perhaps, a nightmare now that he is in Opposition.

When Fine Gael was in Opposition, there was always a row about the transfer of questions and they were transferred by the Taoiseach. The Ceann Comhairle could not do anything about it. I do not think Fianna Fáil did anything about it either. The terms of the motion will be for a trial period and the repeat rule for written questions has been changed to two weeks. Things happen quickly in Ireland but a period of two weeks is fair enough for major changes. One might say a week is a long time in politics but a fortnight is not too long for written questions.

Reference was made to the sub judice rule. A Minister who is being taken to court in a personal capacity is different from one making statements on a semi-State body, a flooding, a road accident or a train accident which may result in a court case. If I was being sued in my personal capacity I would be very careful about any information I would give to the Dáil. The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, is being blamed wrongly for his stance on the sub judice rule. He is not avoiding answering questions about some company or body. He will be in court and that is a personal matter. Those on the Opposition benches who have legal training should see the difference. While it may be great fun attacking a Minister, fairness should prevail.

The phrase "whiter than white" was used. I do not understand this kind of language which is emanating from the Opposition. The Government has not been in power for 12 months yet and the Opposition is making efforts to change things which have been left by Fianna Fáil for seven years, and that is only the minimum amount of time for which I can blame them. All of this was handed over to this Government and yet we have heard claims that something was rotten in the state of Denmark. There is something rotten in the Dáil, obviously, if Fianna Fáil, now it is in Opposition, thinks the whole place is collapsing around its ears and the Government is doing nothing about openness and giving answers.

Ms Geraldine Kennedy's condemnation was mentioned. As a former member of the Progressive Democrats and a former Member of the Dáil, she may not be a friend of the Government; I do not know. While she is a very good journalist she is not one I would like quoted as having the final word on any particular issue. She is entitled to express her views. The Progressive Democrats when formed were lucky they had glowing tributes paid to them in the newspapers and on radio. Three or four journalists suddenly became members of the party having done all the praising in their writings. Was that fair play?

I have not heard anything from Deputy O'Donnell about what efforts her party made to change anything when they were in power. She spoke about misleading the House. I thought the phrase was deliberately misleading the House. Any Member could mislead the House. A member could say something which is not factually correct as long as he or she did not deliberately set out to do so. It is the phrase that counts.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to this Government as having an indecent capacity for hypocrisy. Some people would think there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the Progressive Democrats's high moral stand on so many issues and there is also a lot of drama, to which the Deputy also referred. We have courtroom scenes here at times. It is very dramatic.

The Government is to be complimented on bringing in this change which will over the next two years, and in the next Dáil, make this a fit place in which to work. The Government will change all the things which have been wrong.

Mr. O'Dea

As the practical aspects of the differences between the proposal in the name of the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, and the Fianna Fáil proposal have been well articulated by my colleague, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and indeed, Deputy O'Donnell of the Progressive Democrats I do not propose to go back over that ground again.

This debate is essentially about accountability; the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and, though Parliament to the people, whom we are all, ultimately, here to serve. The chairman of the beef tribunal opined that the tribunal might have been unnecessary if the Executive had been more accountable to, and open with, this House. He was not alone in that view. Hardly a day passed in the last year of the previous Administration without some Member of the Opposition, especially Deputy Bruton, loudly lamenting the lack of Government accountability to Parliament and trumpeting the need for radical and fundamental transformation. This proposal is an example of what he means by that. As I understand the proposal, the position will be that instead of getting written replies to written questions on the same topic every four months we can get them every two weeks. Is this the accountability "godot" we have been waiting for? To describe this change as minimalist, as the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip did, is going too far. If a change is described as minimalist it means some change occurred in the first place. The reality is there was not any change.

The proposal will not lead to increased accountability. It is a mirage. It is the merest and meanest gesture to tokenism I have encountered in my 14 years in Parliament. Although the Government has resolutely refused to change the rules regarding oral questions a Deputy can look a Minister in the eye, ask a few supplementary questions and might get answers if he or she asks the right questions. My only objective in tabling written questions is to help a constituent. It is not something I do lightly. The Minister of State is right when he says the device of written questions should not be used when a simple telephone call to a Department would elicit the necessary information. I abide by that and only use the device when information is not forthcoming. The device is also of use in getting statistical information but one cannot be sure that one will receive the information one requires.

For the most part and especially in cases where a full and comprehensive reply would embarrass the Government the written reply is carefully crafted, designed more to obfuscate and conceal rather than reveal. The best definition of the inadequacy of written replies was given by Deputy Gay Mitchell who is a member of this Administration that seeks to increase accountability by giving even more written replies. As reported in Volume 447 at column 426 at the Official Report he stated that written replies were usually designed to mislead the House and he was so incensed that he wanted a contempt of parliament Act to deal with Ministers who seek to mislead the House by using the device of written reply.

The token cosmetic proposal before us which is the Government's contribution to accountability contrasts fundamentally with what the Taoiseach and his colleagues said on this subject when in Opposition. As reported at column 344 of the Official Report the Taoiseach stated:

We need a new Government that will reform the institutions of this State to make every Member of this House who holds office truly accountable.

He wanted to:

... devolve power in our society and remove the centralisation of power in the hands of a small group of people in Merrion Street,...

We are doomed to disappointment if this proposal is the Taoiseach's engine of devolution. As reported at column 1159 of the Official Report he stated:

The Government must go about its work... as transparently as if it were working behind a pane of glass.

He stated, as reported at column 1180 of the Official Report:

Every voter is entitled to expect a Government... to be answerable for every action it takes and to be open.

He committed himself to "a demonstrably different way of working". What is demonstrable about the Government's way of working is that it is worse than the previous Administration's way of working.

This exquisite minuet of hypocrisy cannot fall into the Programme for Government where the three parties promised, under the heading of Oireachtas Reform, to make the Dáil more efficient and businesslike; enhance the role of Members as legislators; ensure that the various organs of State and holders of high office in the State are more answerable and accountable to the legislature and make the Executive more accountable to the legislature. Not a day passes when each of those pious platitudes is trampled on by the Government.

There are eerie similarities between the Taoiseach and the late unlamented Oliver Cromwell on this matter. Both came to office on the basis that there was too much power centralised in the Executive and parliament would have to have its say. On assuming office both of them decided that parliament was an irritant, an irksome nuisance to be ignored. In fairness to the great Lord Protector it took him much longer to come to that conclusion than it did the Taoiseach.

The Irish body politic is infected with a culture of secrecy which is reflected for instance in outdated and draconian official secrets legislation, a bizarre extended interpretation of the doctrine of cabinet confidentiality; abuse of the sub judice rule — a text book example of which we had recently in the House — and a policy of failing, to provide information to the House in a full, frank and open manner even when we ask the right questions. This culture must be abandoned. A society that promotes such a culture offers unique advantages to the Executive and the bureaucracy as against parliament and the individual because it is the Executive and bureaucracy that presides over the host of national secrets. As our former imperial masters operated one of the most secretive systems of government in the free world, it was more or less inevitable that the founding fathers of this State would not only endorse but enhance the culture they inherited.

It must be borne in mind that we are living in the 1990s and information that we seek in the House is not a perk to be granted or withheld at the whim of some Minister or bureaucrat. It is something to which we are entitled in our capacity as public representatives. My colleague, Deputy Ahern the Fianna Fáil Chief Whip, will not fall out with me if I say the Fianna Fáil proposal, including the part which has been omitted, is not radical or earth-shattering, neither will it effect a fundamental transformation in our democracy but it is a solid foundation on which we can build for the future. The need for the Executive to be properly accountable is beyond dispute. That has been publicly acknowledged and articulated by the Taoiseach and is the cornerstone of the Programme for Government. If the Government's commitment in this vital area is more than merely verbal, then a good first step would be to accept the Fianna Fáil proposal. It would go some way towards narrowing the yawning chasm between the rhetoric of the Programme for Government and the reality of what we see here every day. If our proposal is not accepted and the Government proceed with this so called change, nothing will change and the secrecy, obfuscation, lack of accountability and evasiveness which characterise proceedings in this House will continue to be the order of the day. The gulf between this House and those whom we represent will continue to grow and, as the Minister knows, it is already dangerously wide.

Mr. Nealon

I dispute the figure of £64 given by the Government in 1992 as the cost of a Dáil question. The Government of the day likes to give the impression that there is a major cost involved but I believe the figures are totally exaggerated. Take two questions on today's Order Paper. Who works out the averages and does the calculations? The figures of £64 or £100 are picked out of the air. One is to ask the Minister for Education the current position regarding an application for approval for a general purposes room at a school, details supplied, in County Galway. It does not cost £64 to answer that question. One just looks at the file. The other is to ask the Minister for Justice the progress, if any, her Department has made regarding the provision of a new purpose built courthouse in Navan, County Meath and it does not cost £64 to answer that question either.

I have tabled an important question to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht asking what he will do to prevent satellite television organisations gaining monopoly coverage of major sports events which, while important, should not cost £64 to answer. If it costs, say, £64 for 60 words from the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, replies would become exorbitantly expensive.

As the Minister of State said, parliamentary questions from an extremely important, essential element of our democracy, so that Members can ensure that the Government of the day is made accountable for its actions. Despite the occasional abuse of parliamentary procedures, occasioned by totally inadequate replies being given at times, the parliamentary questions system has served us very well over many years.

The improvement proposed today merely tinkers around at the edges of the general, major issue of Dáil reform. Generally speaking, the manner in which we conduct our business is something of a farce. One need only look to the Order of Business any day and ask, according to the rules of the House, what can Members deal with? The answer is "with promised legislation only", which leads to the farcical position in which Opposition parties find themselves endeavouring to raise major topical issues, matters this House should discuss, but can discuss only under the guise of "promised legislation". The trouble is the rules of the House do not permit Members to deal with important or urgent issues of the day. Therefore, I was glad to hear the Minister say major reform of our procedures will be introduced.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputy should not hold his breath.

Mr. Nealon

It is my firm belief such reforming proposals will be implemented, that the Taoiseach is very committed and will deliver on them. Nonetheless we need to devise some method of getting such important issues onto the floor of the House rapidly, otherwise we are merely rendering ourselves irrelevant.

Significant improvement has been wrought through the increased number of committees of the House, constituting a much more satisfactory manner of dealing with Committee Stage of Bills and testing out their provisions, rather than adhering to a confrontational system across the floor of the House.

Even though we have 166 Members for our relatively small population, Members are unable to adequately serve on these committees because we must spend some 60 to 80 per cent of our time on constituency work. Otherwise we will not be re-elected to the Dáil although, perhaps with a bit of luck, may be elected to the Seanad. Generally speaking, unless we can have a constructive input into the deliberations of those committees, we will not be re-elected. We must devote our attention to that prospect. We should take courage and give Members the proper services and research facilities they deserve, like those afforded to say, constituency and Dáil secretaries. Always we have backed away from this through sheer cowardice, for fear of the electorate objecting to the provision of the relatively decent facilities necessary to enable us carry out the job for which we were elected.

The Minister of State has told us that the Government is bringing forward proposals for long overdue, necessary reforms. The sooner they are implemented the better. No doubt we shall have plenty of opportunity to give them ample consideration. Nonetheless I am somewhat disappointed they were not inaugurated by Members of the Dáil and Seanad, the practitioners mainly affected by such reform. Rather than such proposals having been handed down to us in draft in the form of an Executive decision, Members of both Houses should first have had them submitted for their scrutiny, thus ensuring a bottoms-up approach, affording us an opportunity to make an adequate input so that the ultimate result would lead to a better set of reforming measures. While we shall have ample opportunity of discussing them, my approach would have been preferable.

The key element in parliamentary questions is Members' confidence that they will receive full, frank and absolutely accurate replies. Over the past ten years or so the approach adopted in replying to parliamentary questions has changed to the extent that cleverness has become the essential element. That is a very serious development. Heretofore, because there had been enormous respect for parliamentary questions, at times perhaps somewhat greater than was deserved, confidence had been maintained. Frank, accurate comprehensive replies were given without recourse to economy of truth. Ultimately replies are the responsibility of the relevant Ministers who give them, but it would appear that cleverness is now regarded as a virtue in replying to questions. It should not be, because it dilutes a major arm of our democracy. It is a very disappointing development. I look forward to the major Dáil reform promised.

At some stage, we must approach the matter of electoral reform because, however much we try under the present system, we are forced to spend somewhere between 60 per cent and 80 per cent of our time on constituency work. While recognising that the electorate loves the proportional representation system perhaps some system could be devised comprised of a combination of the PR and list systems, something broadly along the lines of that obtaining in Germany, so that half of the membership of this House would be elected solely as legislators. I recognise that would give a great deal of power to the party leadership——

Mr. Cowen

I join Deputy Nealon in his denigration of the figure that has emerged from the system, of a cost of £64 to answer a parliamentary question. Ministers always should be careful whenever they receive such information, and ask a few questions themselves, before allowing it into the public domain. The Minister of State in his opening remarks seemed to remind members of the cost involved, thereby perhaps suggesting that fewer parliamentary questions should be tabled for that reason.

It ill behoves the system to advance that argument, when we know how much the taxpayer will have to pay resulting from the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry which could have been avoided had there been greater frankness and openness on the part of various Ministers in replying to questions tabled to them. Indeed it is as a result of the recommendations of that report these issues are being addressed today and I hope more of them will be addressed in the future. As politicians, we do ourselves a disservice in succumbing to the argument that because of some unstated, prohibitive cost involved, we should constrain ourselves in seeking valid information from the Government and various Departments.

I do not intend to focus so much on what additional changes we should engage in, in terms of our procedures but rather on the fact that existing procedures are not being adhered to, which does not bring any sanction on those Members who fail to meet their responsibilities, as Members or as Ministers.

My particular bone of contention relates to recent events. Members are aware how difficult it is to engage in a structured debate during plenary session where information — which has been properly sought and is of public importance — might be obtained. On a number of recent occasions it has emerged that, because of the heat generated by force of numbers and the partisan nature of debate during a plenary session in this Parliament, it is not the best way to make people truly accountable. There has been a great loss of focus as to what is the function of the Executive when its members enter this House. It is not simply for the purpose of defending Government policy, it is for the purpose of being accountable to Members of this House.

The Chair must always be mindful that his duties are not simply for the purposes of maintaining good order within the House. There are times when, because of the failure of Ministers to meet their own responsibilities, good order might not be maintained in this House, because it would conflict with the rights of individual Members to impinge upon the stand taken by Ministers seeking to obfuscate and deflect attention from the core issues under discussion. That has happened in this House in recent times. I ask Members, who value the standing of this House in the public mind, what action should be taken in relation to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications who entered this House and sat silently, refusing to answering a properly constructed question — which the Chair ruled to be in order — on seven separate occasions during Question Time last week.

What sanction is this House prepared to impose on a Minister who refuses, by his silence, to be accountable to properly constructed and well-ordered questions? The Minister is impinging upon my rights as a Member of this House by his non-compliance with that position. It is important that all Members enjoy equal rights. Those who assume the responsibility of high office and enjoy its privileges should be prepared to meet the obligations of that office in terms of respecting my rights as an individual Member.

While we are discussing Dáil reform, and before any further changes are made to the procedures of this House. how can we insist on adherence to existing procedures and practices? What action will be taken in relation to Members, particularly Government Ministers, who refuse to answer questions and leave the Chamber saying "That was another difficult day but we will forget about it and move on to some other issue next week."? The public standing of this House is brought into disrepute by the implicit collusion of all Members in permitting that behaviour to stand and be deemed acceptable in terms of an individual's accountability to Parliament. That, above anything else, is what will bring disrepute on this House.

I was a member of the last Government and I say to the Chief Whip, and the Government, that there is always an inclination within Government to have the easiest possible time vis-á-vis the workings of Parliament because the Executive is busy carrying out its duties. If the Executive is to be perceived as strong in the public mind it is clear, from examples in other jurisdictions, that strong parliamentary procedures enhance not just the Parliament but the Executive in terms of its interaction with Parliament. That interaction does not exist in this Parliament. This is not because we do not have more flexible procedures but because we do not insist on imposing sanctions on those Members who do not adhere to existing procedures. The Chair, for example, in respect of any Member who is out of order can ask that that Member be named. The sanction for refusing to leave the House under the Chair's instruction is that the individual is suspended from this House. I agree with that because it is a proper procedure in terms of the good order of this Parliament.

We have been talking about Dáil reform for many years. Regardless of who has been in power what has taken place is really leading to abuse rather than reform of the Dáil. I would like an honest and more transparent — that word is so misused it is becoming like a swear word and should not be used — approach.

Mr. Dempsey

I agree with a great many of Deputy Deasy's points. Our Whip also put forward the suggestion of Taoiseach's Question Time. The suggestion has been around for a long time but it is a necessary reform. When we were in Government the then Taoiseach accepted the idea of Taoiseach's Question Time but the Labour members of Government argued against it and they held sway.

Among my papers on Dáil Reform I found a letter from a Minister of State who was pursuing matters on behalf of the Tánaiste when we were in Government urging the importance of changing the rules of the House along the lines we are now proposing to deal with situations where questions are not answered in substance because the information is not available. It seems the Labour Party has changed its mind in that regard.

If all of us remembered that our primary job is to represent the people, the procedures and practices in this House would be very different. The House would be much more efficient and effective and would enjoy much more public confidence. Confidence in this House and in politicians generally is something we spend much time discussing.

Our role is to act as legislators and policy makers and, particularly in the context of today's debate, to scrutinise the actions of the Executive on behalf of the public. I regret that the rules, procedures and precedents of this House prevent rather than help us to do that. Over the last few weeks we have seen a prime example of how ineffective our parliamentary system is when a Government effectively decides it will brazen something out. We have seen how ineffective the system is in tackling a Minister who misleads the House when the Government decides to protect him. I suppose one should not be that surprised at the contempt which has been shown by this Government in the last few weeks, given the example of the Taoiseach earlier in the year when he misled the House and sent a Minister in to apologise for his misleading of the House, when the normal procedure is for the Member who misled the House to explain and apologise. I said at the time that it showed contempt for this House but the matter has still not been rectified.

A Minister has been allowed by this House, with the connivance of the Government, to tell the House when he should be answerable to it. He has been allowed to decide, again with the connivance of this Government, whether he will attend a committee of the House and when. That is lowering the standard of accountability in this House. It is unacceptable to me not just as a member of the Opposition but as a Member of this House. It is treating this House with contempt, and we will regret it if we do not do something about it.

Today's motion deals specifically with the area of parliamentary questions, another area in which Members of this House should be able to make Ministers and Government accountable. In theory, Ministers are accountable in the House through Question Time. In practice it is different. I welcome the proposed change as a step in the right direction, but it is only a tiny step. In this age of computerisation there should be no earthly reason to have a repeat rule regarding oral or written questions. As things have evolved, it is hardly worth our while tabling questions at Question Time. Instead of providing at maximum information as it should, there is now evasion, the opposite of what was intended. Deputy Deasy's suggestion that Question Time should continue until all the questions have been dealt with might overcome the difficulty.

I am not saying this problem began last December. It has been the trend for the last ten or 15 years, and it is time Members of this House called a halt to it. I listened to many fine words and much empty rhetoric from this side of the House when I was in Government, but things have not improved. Despite the many promises made by this Government on openness, transparency and accountability, words nobody likes to hear now, we have a Government that is paranoid about dispensing information, which has turned out to be more secretive than any of its predecessors and which has spent more time and money on investigating leaks of what, in many cases, was harmless or innocuous information than in investigating matters of serious public concern.

In the fast few years we have heard much about the introduction of an information Act which has been touted as another giant leap forward for this House and the public. It will be as ineffectual as many other measures introduced here unless it is accompanied by a change of culture within Government and within the Civil Service. Legislation alone will not be sufficient to ensure a free flow of information if a Minister or a civil servant decides he does not want to let that information out. It will require a complete change of attitude on the part of members of this Government, of civil servants and Members of this House.

I neglected to say that I wish to share my remaining few minutes with Deputy Cullen. First, however, I wish to make one final point regarding Question Time. Over the last nine months questions on the environment happened to fall on Wednesdays. We have only had the opportunity to ask priority questions on three occasions. It is time we had a fixed time for questions on Wednesdays, as we have on Tuesdays.

Mr. Cullen

From what the Minister said, one would think this was the most open Government ever. He said that he wanted the Dáil to be more businesslike and to be accountable and transparent, and touts this minuscule move on written questions as a major breakthrough. I do not know how he has the gall to put forward the notion that this is an accountable and open Government, given what we have witnessed in the last few weeks, particularly yesterday at the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies where we were voted down by the Government on a motion to allow natural justice to take place regarding people who had been abused under Dáil privilege by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry. That Minister's use of Dáil privilege has been the greatest abuse ever perpetrated in this House by any Minister since the Dáil first sat. The Government parties in a Government that points to white collar crime and cosy cartels, combined to prevent a committee which is supposed to have new powers, from investigating these issues. I have to take with a grain of salt the aspirations put forward in this document. The Government is very good at putting words on paper, but it is sadly lacking when it comes to real efficiency and accountability.

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

I wish to share time with Deputy Ring.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

As I have been a Dáil Member for only a short time, I cannot draw on great experience in this matter, but I bow to Deputy Cowen's considerable experience regarding the skill of Ministers in avoiding answering questions. It is a little rich for Members to complain about what has taken place in the past few weeks when one considers the cost of the beef tribunal. If questions had been answered at that time, the beef tribunal would not have been necessary.

The motion deals with parliamentary questions, but there are many broader issues that need to be addressed and the sooner they are the better for everyone. While it is often suggested that more women should be encouraged to enter politics, the hours politicians work and the system that operates here would not even encourage female Members to remain in politics. Also, we should not allow the media to dictate the way we carry out our business.

There are many areas in need of examination. For example, the voting system should be altered. It is ridiculous that Members should have to leave committee meetings to vote in the House. The system should be structured in a way that would allow votes to be taken at a particular time. Also, if there is a quorum on the Order of Business, Members should not be allowed to call one during the remainder of the day. In the run-up to a recent by-election ten quorums were called during one day's business. Nobody gains from that.

Mr. D. Ahern

Is the Deputy saying it did not happen when his party was in Opposition?

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

I was on the same side as Deputy Ahern during the period to which I am referring.

Mr. D. Ahern

It also happened when the Deputy's party was in Opposition.

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

That may be true, but it does not make it correct.

In regard to disorderly conduct, it is ridiculous that the Ceann Comhairle must call the Taoiseach or a Minister to name the disorderly Member following which a vote must be taken on whether he or she should be removed from the House. Effectively we are asking for a vote of confidence in the Ceann Comhairle. If a Member is disorderly and refuses to leave the House when asked to do so by the Ceann Comhairle, the House should be suspended to allow the Member to be removed. The present carry-on in that regard is nonsensical.

Why is it necessary to hold Adjournment Debates at 12 midnight? This has happened even in my short time as a Members and it certainly does not encourage women to enter politics. I have heard female Ministers answering questions from female Members on the Adjournment at 12 midnight. That should not happen. Why is Private Members' Time taken so late in the evening? Why can we not take busines then that would require fewer Members to be present? Many reports are awaiting debate here, but they will have lost their relevance by the time they are debated. An electronic display system should be introduced so that the public and Members know what is taking place in the House. It is up to us to address all those issues and I will co-operate with the other Whips in the next year or two to improve the position.

As a new Member I am disappointed with the way the Dáil operates. I call for the introduction of legislation to bring back power to the House and to Ministers and to make those elected accountable. Setting up bodies, such as the National Roads Authority, merely takes powers from Members and if that is the hidden agenda perhaps the public should seek another form of democracy.

Mr. D. Ahern

Deputy Ring should vote for my amendment.

Mr. Ring

I welcome the Government's move to introduce this motion. Having listened to the comments from Opposition Members, one would not believe they were ever in Government. They have all the answers when they are on that side of the House but none when they were on this side. Perhaps they are now aware of the frustration felt by backbenchers. Some of the Members on the Front Bench opposite will probably be Ministers at some future date, but having regard to the performance of the Government they will not see that day for a long time.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I suspect it was when the shovel of a county council was stolen that the phrase "what's everyone's business is nobody's business" was coined. It would appear that is certainly the case here. Nothing illustrates this better than that every one of the 17 questions I put down to the Taoiseach yesterday on the role of the Attorney General's office in indemnifying the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications against any award of damages and costs arising out of allegations he made regarding cosy cartels in the semi-State sector and surveillance of him was disallowed. Some of the typical reasons were: "The Taoiseach is not officially responsible to the Dáil for legal advice sought or received from the Attorney General", "The Taoiseach has no official responsibility to the Dáil in relation to this matter", "The question contains argument" and so on. I suspect that if I had put down a question to the Taoiseach asking him how many frogs were in Ballymagash last spring the question would have been allowed and I would have been given an answer. It appears that the more difficult the question, the less likelihood of a reply.

In a rather remarkable exchange in the House yesterday the Taoiseach said that he engages in consultations with the Ceann Comhairle's office regarding questions. When pressed on this matter he confirmed that he might even make "representations" to the Ceann Comhairle's office regarding questions. It is quite improper of the Taoiseach's office to do that. The only conclusion I can come to arising from the disgraceful scenario which I have graphically outlined is that the Government that promised transparency is the Government with an iron curtain locked and clamped down over it. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. It appears that rules made in this House and agreed by everybody are ignored when it is convenient for the Government.

The previous Government changed the sub judice rule, specifically providing that if High Court proceedings were initiated in an action, a Government Minister could still answer questions relating to that subject matter provided a notice of trial had not been served. However, because it did not suit the Minister, Deputy Lowry, to answer direct questions in the House he simply said that senior counsel advised him that since there were proceedings against him he should not answer at all. It appears that the Taoiseach and Ministers make up the rules for themselves as they go along and ignore rules which are made by this House to ensure accountability.

I strongly suggest that accountability, certainly in terms of the office of the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, are not realistic options in this House. One cannot hope to expect straight replies to direct questions. If a question is embarrassing or difficult or if it does not suit the Minister or the Taoiseach, they will say that the question does not apply to them, they do not have to answer it or they are not accountable for it, and they hope that ultimately it will go away. In the final analysis it is left to the Fourth Estate to investigate whether a question unanswered deserved to be answered. The only people left to explain to the public precisely what happened are investigative journalists, and that is a sad indictment of democracy.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. J. Higgins)

I thank all the Members who contributed. That many Members could not be accommodated indicates that examination of this subject is long overdue. It is a matter that will be fundamentally and comprehensively addressed. This is a narrow motion that afforded an opportunity to people to range across the entire area of parliamentary reform. As the Taoiseach said, we will bring a document before the House shortly which will afford Members a very comprehensive input into what will eventually emerge as substantial reform of the structures of the House.

I reject absolutely and utterly the condemnation of the motion as minimalist. I explained at the Whips' meeting and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that it is only one narrow element of a very comprehensive document. Because a request was made by the Whips and by individual members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to bring in this motion as a stand-alone issue, we introduced it before introducing the document.

I reject the allegation that the Government is secretive or tries to conceal matters. In terms of openness and telling it how it is, on the Order of Business it has been generally recognised, particularly by people in the gallery, that the Taoiseach tells it exactly how it is. If the Taoiseach is not in a position to answer a question he will not bluff or bluster; he will come back with the information the following day.

It amuses me that three speakers on the other side of the House acknowledged that the genesis of this measure is the beef tribunal. Wisdom in hindsight is great. Had questions been answered on the day, the taxing master would not have to determine whether the £35 million in legal costs can be reduced so that the taxpayer will be saved that expense. It is in that context this measure was introduced.

The allegations by Deputy O'Donnell that this is a minimalist approach is rich coming from the great crusaders, the champions of change and reform, the people who will utterly change the system. The Progressive Democrats were in Government as well as in opposition but it changed absolutely nothing. Today we heard not a single example from Deputy O'Donnell of her allegations of lack of accountibility in this House. The Deputy's performance is particularly difficult to take in view of the fact that I cannot recall a single suggestion from the Progressive Democrats on Dáil reform other than that we relax the rule governing oral parliamentary questions.

It is obvious the Progressive Democrats have lost a considerable number of their original heroes and that with depleted resources the collective brains of the party have been badly diminished — they recently lost Pat Cox MEP, Deputy Cullen and Stephen O'Byrnes. However, that does not afford them the opportunity of ducking their responsibility to put forward constructive ideas on Dáil reform. They have done absolutely nothing in this regard. They seem to be seeking spontaneity in the House — many of us would like that — but considering the performance of some members of the Progressive Democratsl, what they would like to do is turn the House into a parliamentary version of the Muppet Show.

On Deputy O'Dea's point that answers to questions are carefully crafted pieces of misinformation or evasion — this has been referred to time and again by the other side of the House — the whole purpose of a question is to elicit information and find out the truth, and there is no compulsion whatever by the Chair to try to protect any Member who is less than truthful. It is up to each Deputy to find out the truth and to pursue a matter until such time as he gets the truth.

Mr. Cowen

What does one do when Ministers refuse to answer questions?

Mr. J. Higgins

I am not saying that the system is perfect, but we are committed to Dáil reform and we will deliver on that. In the short-term we should not disparage the work of the House. We have the Order of Business — the Ceann Comhairle is liberal in that regard — and Standing Order 30. We have Private Notice Questions, Private Members' time and an Adjournment debate during which four matters may be raised. A breakdown of Dáil time yesterday reveals that the Government had two hours 40 minutes and the Opposition four hours. There is a fairly definite balance in favour of making the Opposition relevant by giving it an input into parliamentary procedure and ensuring there is balance in the implementation of the procedures of the House.

What I am proposing today is not purported to be a fundamental reform of Dáil procedures, it is a minor stand alone issue which Opposition Whips want addressed. I compliment Fianna Fáil for introducing its reform document and certain elements of it will be reflected in the document I will produce. This is not the end, it is the beginning.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 64.

Tá

Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.
Browne, John (Wexford).
Burke, Raphael P.
Callely, Ivor.
Clohessy, Peadar.
Connolly, Ger.
Coughlan, Mary.
Cowen, Brian.
Cullen, Martin.
Dempsey, Noel.
Ellis, John.
Fitzgerald, Liam.
Flood, Chris.
Foley, Denis.
Foxe, Tom.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.
Jacob, Joe.
Keogh, Helen.
Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Aylward, Liam.
Brennan, Séamus.
Briscoe, Ben.
Kitt, Tom.
Lawlor, Liam.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Martin, Micheál.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McDaid, James.
Moffatt, Tom.
Molloy, Robert.
Morley, P.J.
Moynihan, Donal.
Nolan, M.J.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donnell, Liz.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Ned.
O'Leary, John.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Power, Seán.
Smith, Brendan.
Wallace, Dan.
Walsh, Joe.
Woods, Michael.

Níl

Barrett, Seán.
Barry, Peter.
Bell, Michael.
Bhamjee, Moosajee.
Boylan, Andrew.
Bradford, Paul.
Bhreathnach, Niamh.
Bree, Declan.
Broughan, Tommy.
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Bruton, John.
Bruton, Richard.
Burton, Joan.
Byrne, Eric.
Connaughton, Paul.
Connor, John.
Coveney, Hugh.
Crawford, Seymour.
Crowley, Frank.
Currie, Austin.
Deasy, Austin.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Doyle, Avril.
Durkan, Bernard J.
Ferris, Michael.
Finucane, Michael.
Fitzgerald, Brian.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
Gilmore, Eamon.
Harte, Paddy.
Higgins, Jim.
Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Philip.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kemmy, Jim.
Kenny, Seán.
Lowry, Michael.
Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McDowell, Derek.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Paul.
McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Gay.
Nealon, Ted.
Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Owen, Nora.
Pattison, Séamus.
Penrose, William.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Ring, Michael.
Ryan, John.
Ryan, Seán.
Shatter, Alan.
Sheehan, P.J.
Shortall, Róisín.
Spring, Dick.
Taylor, Mervyn.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Upton, Pat.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995

Standing Order 33: Motion.

Deputies

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 1995