Standing Order 26: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. S. Brennan)

I move:

"(1) That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business be amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (3) of Standing Order 26:

‘(3) Following the announcement by the Taoiseach and the disposal of any motion comprehended by paragraph (2), the Ceann Comhairle may permit, at his or her discretion–

(a)a brief question from each Leader in Opposition about a matter of topical public importance and in respect of which the following arrangements shall apply:

(i)each other Leader in Opposition may ask one brief supplementary question,

(ii)the Taoiseach shall then be called upon to reply,

(iii)the Leader in Opposition who asked the original question may then ask a brief supplementary question,

(iv)the Taoiseach shall then be called upon to reply in conclusion,

(v)in this Standing Order, "Leader in Opposition" means the leader of a group as defined in Standing Order 106 (1);

(b)questions from any member about business on the Order Paper; about the taking of business which has been promised, including legislation promised either within or outside the Dáil; about the making of secondary legislation; about arrangements for sittings; and as to when Bills or other documents on the Order Paper needed in the House will be circulated: Provided that, the Taoiseach may defer replying to a question relating to the making of secondary legislation to another day.' and

(2)that Dáil Éireann–

(a)calls on all Parties in the House to expedite the proposals for reform of Dáil procedures currently before the sub-Committee on Dáil Reform, and

(b)calls on that sub-Committee to present a formal report on those proposals to the House at an early date.”

I move this resolution to restore the privileges that the Cheann Comhairle bestowed on the House by the ruling of late 1999. I have no hesitation in doing so. In so doing, the Government has accepted word for word the amendment tabled by the Fine Gael Party and added two paragraphs to it to the effect that we call on all parties in the House to expedite the proposals for consideration before the sub-committee on Dáil reform, and the sub-committee to present a formal report on them to the House at an early date. We suggest that those additional paragraphs should be added to the Fine Gael motion which we propose to accept. That should cover the matter.

The background to the motion is that a procedure had evolved whereby the Order of Business was found to be restrictive. Opposition leaders were of the view, rightly, that they wanted the right to put direct questions to the Taoiseach of the day on topical matters on the Order of Business. The Ceann Comhairle of the day took the view, as he was entitled to do, that he would extend the idea of leaders' questions into a formalised arrangement whereby there would be one round of questions followed by supplemen taries. That persisted for over one year at the end of which his ruling was challenged. Probably as a result of that challenge, or perhaps other factors, he decided that that should be reversed. It is worth noting that in deciding to reverse it, he invited the sub-committee on Dáil reform to introduce a Standing Order which would formalise the latitude for which he had provided. This Standing Order responds to his invitation to introduce such a measure. It is in that spirit that the Government took the same view on the issue as that of Fine Gael, which was simply to restore the privilege the Ceann Comhairle had extended. We have no difficulty in restoring it at this stage because there is a far bigger issue involved.

I trust that in dealing with the motion we will not lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that this House cannot be frozen in time. It is becoming more obvious by the day that this Parliament needs to be reformed and updated and that it requires new procedures. I do not take from the Opposition's right to use any issue as a parliamentary tactic; that is fair game in any parliament. It is a pity, however, that the Opposition has chosen the subject of parliamentary reform on which to impose a veto by not attending meetings of the sub-committee on Dáil reform and by not moving forward with reforms until such time as another issue on the Electoral Bill is dealt with. This is not the occasion on which to have such a debate, however, because my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, will be in the Seanad tomorrow to deal with the Electoral Bill, and I do not wish to preempt what he will say.

The bigger issue is that we need to increase the relevancy of the House. We desperately need to introduce practical measures to update it. The House needs to earn again the respect of those outside it. I do not take from anyone's right to cause the sort of shambles we have witnessed in the last couple of sitting days on the Order of Business, but if anybody thinks that the people are stopping their cars to turn on the radio to listen to incessant wrangling about Standing Orders, we all need to cop on.

There were good proposals before the sub-committee on Dáil reform from the Fine Gael Party, with an excellent document from the Labour Party. Independent Members have also made some excellent ideas through Deputy Gormley on which real progress was being made. The Government has laid its own document before the sub-committee. Between all those documents there is enough meat to earn again respect for the House. It is a pity that we cannot get back to that matter. The reason the Government hesitated is that a demand was expressed vehemently to restore one particular measure of Dáil reform while ignoring and moving away from the dozens of measures the House requires. This is only a tiny, insignificant reform. If anyone thinks that Opposition leaders are not in a position to get their point across, they are mistaken. They have been well able to do so in recent years. Even when Fianna Fáil was in Opposition, we did not have great hesitation in getting our point across. One does not have to be that creative to mention a Bill and go on to spend 20 minutes dealing with an issue which may have nothing to do with that legislation. We are codding ourselves.

One of the ideas I put before the sub-committee on Dáil reform was to have a new current issues time slot, although I hasten to add nothing formal was agreed in that respect. I understood that all parties would consider my idea that every Minister could be questioned on the Order of Business without notice every morning. This is done in Canada and other parliaments and it represents real accountability. Anyone could ask the Minister for Health and Children what was happening in hospitals, ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform what was happening in Garda stations, and ask questions of the Minister for Education and Science.

Mr. Gormley

Is that everyone or just the big parties?

Mr. S. Brennan

I proposed all those ideas, but the process has been stalled. That Standing Order could be put through immediately. I have also proposed in the document – there has not been any huge objection – that we should install electronic voting on these benches. That would not take away from the necessity to have the odd traditional vote, but we could install the new system. We could use it when there are five or six votes in a row or we are here until midnight. We can introduce that modern system. We lecture the country about e-commerce, but we do not have it in this House.

I proposed that Independent Members should be able to table priority questions, Private Members' motions and private notice questions and have formal speaking rights in debates whereby they would be allocated the standard time to take part in all discussions and be able to question each Minister. While that is provided for in the document, the process is stalled because the Dáil reform committee cannot be properly assembled. I am not interested in a Dáil reform committee which will be run on the basis of who has the most votes. If we politicise Dáil reform, we will all retreat into the trenches, the introduction of Dáil reform will be deferred until the next Government, the members of which may take the same view and off we will go again. Alternatively, we could depoliticise it and take the view that this is a bigger issue to do with the future of Parliament, a new century, a new millennium, new systems, proper accountability and a real role for Independent Members and smaller parties.

There are some fine proposals in the Fine Gael and Labour Party documents, such as allowing the television cameras to pan the House to show who is and is not responding. Taken together, the reforms advanced by the main parties and Independent Members are exciting. It is a parliamentary tragedy that we are not in a position to advance them. We are not in a position to do so because we have got bogged down in political argy-bargy which bedevilled the last five or six attempts to introduce Dáil reform.

There is nothing new in these reforms. They were included in successive Opposition documents. Each time they were introduced, the Minister of the day said that he or she would like to proceed with them, which everyone said was a good idea, but they were not progressed.

It is all very well to talk about cleaning up politics, reforming the House, making people accountable and zoning in on one tiny fraction of a Standing Order, which makes little difference. Let us be conscious of what we are doing. The next group of Deputies who will inherit this Chamber in the next general election, whoever they may be, will inherit a past century Parliament without the issue of parliamentary reform having been tackled.

I invite all parties to return to the Dáil reform committee where these measures can be advanced. Let us fight the other battles on the electoral and other Bills separately. It is regrettable that Dáil reform is being selected as a lever to deal with other matters when it is the one issue on which we should unite. No one else will reform this House. If we do not reform it together, on an all-party basis, it will never be reformed. It would be a dreadful pity if that were to happen.

Mr. Bradford

I thank the Minister of State for his statement, with most of which I concur. His comments illustrate that there is a willingness among Deputies on all sides to consider the over-all picture and to move in the direction of proper Dáil reform at the earliest possible date.

It is an appropriate evening on which to discuss the motion for which one hour has been allocated. Anyone who has tuned in to the proceedings of the past two hours will realise that we do not have the answer to the question relating to the former Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, which the whole country is asking, from a political perspective, and which Opposition Members spent two hours attempting to raise. That is clear proof that we must reform our procedures as a matter of urgency.

As Whip of the Fine Gael Party, my primary duty is to be as responsive as I can to my parliamentary colleagues and party Leader, Deputy Noonan. In almost my first role as Fine Gael Whip, it is unfortunate that I must take a stance to defend my rights and those of my parliamentary colleagues, including my leader, to challenge the Government on a daily basis on topical matters, such as he attempted to do earlier despite being ruled out of order continually.

As a result of the decision the Ceann Comhairle, in his wisdom, made, which he had every entitlement to make, a fortnight ago, Opposition members and leaders have been prevented from tackling the Taoiseach on urgent and important issues in the House on a daily basis. That decision will silence the new leader of the Fine Gael Party and, as a result, protect the Taoiseach and his Ministers from answering difficult questions which the country demands should be answered by the Government. The effect of the Chair's decision, if not overturned, will be to make the Dáil even more irrelevant. Anyone who viewed the proceedings of the House during the past two hours will wonder how relevant is our national Parliament when the question that everyone, from a political perspective, was asking over the weekend went unanswered. We have become irrelevant. Unless we can make progress on issues such as Dáil reform, we will continue to remain irrelevant to the majority of the people.

The Fine Gael Party supports taking a step back to where we were a fortnight ago. In no way would that be adequate, but at least it would allow the leaders of Opposition parties to speak on a daily basis on the issues that matter. It would not be Dáil reform by any means. It would be a small step, but in taking that step back to what is now known as the status quo ante, we would be able to move forward in a strong and dynamic fashion. I respect fully the right of every Member elected by the people to this House to speak for his or her constituents and party, but my responsibility as Fine Gael Whip is to ensure the party and its leader are heard on the issues that matter to us. The former leader of my party, Deputy Bruton, could raise topical issues on a daily basis until a fortnight ago, but that has changed. As a matter of urgency, we must revert to that position. I must ensure the leader of the my party is allowed the same opportunity to raise important issues, such as the health service, the housing crisis, equality in education and across society and corporate funding. Those are issues that need to be raised on a regular basis in Dáil Éireann by the leaders of the various Opposition parties. By reverting to the position that prevailed a fortnight ago, we would, at least, make a small, but important step in that direction.

What we are discussing is not Dáil reform, but only a small step in that direction. My party has strong policies on Dáil reform. I am glad that the Minister of State acknowledged this. The deputy leader of my party, Deputy Mitchell, and the former party leader, Deputy Bruton, produced a far-reaching document, A Democratic Revolution, in recent weeks, which sets out the type of Dáil reform Fine Gael would like to see implemented. We want this Chamber to be responsive to the needs, requests and concerns of the people. I am sure that aspiration is shared by every Deputy. The decision taken a fortnight ago must be reversed in the interests of good order in the House and the entitlement of party leaders to strongly assert their rights and the entitlements they should have.

The proposals before the committee on Dáil reform put forward by all parties, if implemented, could introduce real change in the way the House works. We are all aware from our constituents of the growing disinterest in politics among the population, particularly among young people. Unless we can make it clear that Dáil Éireann works, that it can respond on a daily basis to the pressing political needs of the day, in the minds of the majority we will continue to be a laughing stock.

I look forward to a genuine, open and full debate at the earliest possible date on the issue of Dáil reform. It was because of Deputy Noonan's concern for restoring trust in politics that he announced a difficult and far-reaching decision a fortnight ago. For many months, we have spoken about breaking the link between business and politics and tackling head-on the issue of corporate funding of political parties. Deputy Noonan has decided that Fine Gael will no longer accept corporate donations. Such decisions are necessary if we are to show that there is no undue link between business and politics, if we want to rebuild trust in politics and if we want electors to believe their vote is equal to that of others. The funding of politics is hugely important in the context of Dáil reform.

Without being patronising, my colleagues and I appreciate the concerns of the Labour Party regarding the Minister, Deputy Dempsey's changes to the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. I see it as nothing but a bare-faced attempt to buy the next election, which will not be successful. It sets a dangerous precedent which needs to be tackled head-on. I am aware that there has been no progress on legislation before the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government. My party supports the request that the committee make urgent progress.

Our opinions on this side of the House on the substantive matters are similar. We recognise that trust in politics must be restored and that a clear and precise end must be brought to the link between business and politics. This House should conduct its business in an open, transparent and responsive fashion. By stepping back to where we were a fortnight ago and by discussing the area of Dáil reform we could make progress.

My party supports the amendment because our party leader needs a daily entitlement to speak about the issues that matter to people across the country without fear of interruption or being ruled out of order. We support it because we genuinely believe that the parties in this House have progressive policies on Dáil reform which should be implemented. They cannot be implemented until we work together. I respect the rights of all parties in this House. Until we discuss a better way of doing business, we will have more days like today, when we spent two hours failing to discuss the political topic which everyone demanded should be discussed. We allowed the Taoiseach to walk out after two hours without telling the House anything about the scandal concerning Deputy O'Keeffe. If we are to bring to an end the days of political darkness, we need to progress Dáil reform as a matter of urgency. I call on my colleagues to work in unison to make it a reality.

Mr. Quinn

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann, noting–

(f2>a)the problems created for the Ceann Comhairle, the Government and parties and Deputies in opposition arising from difficulties of interpretation of Standing Order 26 relating to the Order of Business;

(f2>b)that the current proposal for amendment to Standing Order 26 emerged from a bilateral meeting between the Whips of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties;

(f2>c)that under Standing Order 91(1)(f2>a) the Committee on Committee on Procedure and Privileges is required ‘to consider matters of procedure generally and to recommend any additions or amendments to Standing Orders that may be deemed necessary';

(f2>d)that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is broadly representative of the membership of the House; requests the Ceann Comhairle to convene a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at the earliest possible opportunity to consider the Order of Business generally and make recommendations for procedures that would provide both order and uphold the democratic right of Opposition parties and Deputies, including those who are not members of a group as defined under Standing Order 106, to oppose, challenge, question and demand accountability of Government;

and, pending the receipt of such recommendations from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, urges the Ceann Comhairle to reinstitute the informal procedure of leaders' questions which the Chair had operated up to 7 February 2001; and–

further noting the urgent necessity of reform of Dáil procedures and political reform generally to re-establish public confidence in the democratic system;

deploring the decision by the Government to undermine the impact of the Electoral Act, 1997, through proposals that would increase by almost £1 million the amount the Fianna Fáil Party would be permitted to spend at the next general election;

believing that it would be hypocritical to co-operate on Dáil reform proposals with a Government that is intent on forcing through an increase of up to 50% in the permitted spend at elections;

calls on all Opposition parties and Deputies to withhold co-operation from the Government on Dáil reform proposals until such time as the spending proposals are withdrawn;

and, further believing that the ending of corporate funding of politics is essential to the restoration of public confidence in politics, resolves that the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government shall, in accordance with Standing Order 79B, send a message to the Dáil in relation to completion of its consideration of the Electoral (Amendment) (Donations to Parties and Candidates) Bill, 2000, not later than the last day on which the House shall sit before the Easter recess."

The issue we discuss may appear to people outside the House a rather technical matter that does not mean much to them. I have heard journalists describe it as an in-house matter that is of no interest to anyone other than ourselves, but what we are discussing is a vitally important issue that is central to our democratic system and the right of those in opposition, both parties and individual Deputies, to oppose, to challenge, question and demand accountability of the Government.

Problems about the Order of Business are not new. There have been problems for as long as I have been a Member of this House, and I have seen it from both sides. The Order of Business has often been ragged, untidy and unsatisfactory, but it is a vitally important part of Dáil business and provides one of the few opportunities for Deputies to raise issues of current interest.

The Taoiseach has, in recent weeks, attempted to rewrite recent political history by suggesting that there were never any problems on the Order of Business until the lifetime of this Government. If one was to believe the Taoiseach, during the term of office of the rainbow Government Fianna Fáil asked a few respectful questions about pending legislation and after a few minutes we went off about our business. A glance at the Dáil record for the period in question will show a different picture: one that is not dramatically different from the record of this Dáil. I acknowledge that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Brennan, has contradicted the Taoiseach and stated the correct position in relation to our own experience.

Mr. S. Brennan

Deputy Quinn is engaging in spin.

Mr. Quinn

The one change made during the lifetime of this Dáil was the decision of the Ceann Comhairle to place on a more formal basis the practice in recent years, to one degree or another, of allowing the leaders of the principal parties in opposition to put questions to the Taoiseach on matters of current interest. While I welcomed this development, as one of the beneficiaries of the process, I was concerned that this innovation was being used to further exclude Deputies from any meaningful role on the Order of Business, not just colleagues of mine in the Labour Party, but also the bulk of Fine Gael Deputies, Independent Members and Deputies of smaller parties who are not members of recognised groups.

Despite these problems, I was surprised that the Ceann Comhairle considered it necessary to make the statement he did on 7 February terminating without notice the facility of leaders' questions. In my experience the Order of Business during the lifetime of this Dáil has been conducted in a relatively restrained manner. Any disorder that there may have been from time to time was no greater and, on many occasions, less than that experienced in previous Dáileanna.

The interests of democracy will not be furthered if the Standing Orders of this House are framed in such a way as to unreasonably inhibit the Opposition from fulfilling the role it must play in a democratic society. Robust exchanges between Government and Opposition are an essential component of any parliamentary democracy. The Chair should be in a position to manage robust exchanges between Government and Opposition in a manner that is fair and impartial to all Deputies.

We will not be serving the interests of democracy if we introduce procedures which stifle the Opposition and reduce important set pieces, such as the Order of Business, to some sort of polite, parliamentary tea-party. I intend no reflection on the Ceann Comhairle, or those who previously held that high office, when I say that the Chair as an institution, including those who advise the Chair, tend to stress the need for Standing Orders that are neat and tidy. Far greater emphasis is placed on good order than on ensuring accountability of Government. The interests of democracy are not always served by Standing Orders that provide only for a neat and tidy approach. If the price of ensuring an effective role for the Opposition and some degree of accountability of Government is a degree of untidiness and dis-order, it is a price we should all be prepared to pay.

When the Ceann Comhairle made his statement to the Dáil on 7 February he suggested that the Dáil reform sub-committee should meet to prepare a new Standing Order to govern the Order of Business. On the same day I wrote to the Ceann Comhairle indicating that, although this was public knowledge, the Labour Party had some weeks earlier withdrawn from that committee. We had taken that decision because of the decision of the Government to introduce the Electoral (Amendment) Bill which provides for increases of up to 50% in the amount that may be spent by candidates in a general election. This Bill will allow Fianna Fáil to spend an additional £1 million at the next general election, on top of the £2 million that it can currently spend. It will greatly increase its capacity to try to buy its way back into power; that is the sole motivation behind the Bill.

The Labour Party regards the defeat of this proposal as crucial to the future health of our democracy. The decision of the Government to introduce this measure, coupled with its determination to defend to the death its right to accept corporate donations by blocking the Labour Party Private Members' Bill to outlaw corporate funding, shows that Fianna Fáil has learned nothing from the tribunals of inquiry. It would be hypocritical to co-operate in Dáil reform with Fianna Fáil while ignoring its efforts to further demean and devalue politics by tearing up reforms introduced in the 1997 Electoral Act and providing for such a huge increase in permitted spending limits. We see little point in debating the issue of Dáil reform with a Government which is seeking to further corrupt the electoral process.

The Labour Party withdrew from what purported to be a meeting of the Dáil reform sub-committee last week. Following the withdrawal of the Green Party representative, only representatives of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were present. Apparently, the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Whips agreed to bring to the House the proposed amendment to Standing Orders. This is a proposal originally tabled by the Fine Gael Party immediately after the Ceann Comhairle's statement of 7 February. Fine Gael made a serious error of judgment in tabling it. It fell into a trap set for it by Fianna Fáil. This controversy coincided with a change of leadership in Fine Gael, a change of Whip and the appointment of a new Front Bench. It is understandable if the eye was off the ball.

While the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael proposal will provide for a limited degree of latitude for the leaders of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, it will institutionalise the exclusion of everyone else from a role on the Order of Business. It will exclude not just Independent Members and members of smaller parties, but all my Front Bench, the Fine Gael Front Bench and all its backbenchers.

Did anyone in Fine Gael ask why its proposal for this new Standing Order was taken on board with such enthusiasm and alacrity by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats? The answer, as they must know by now, is that the new Standing Order suits the Government. They knew that they could not write a better one.

The Government's motivation in seeking a new Standing Order is the success of the Labour Party in harrying and embarrassing the Government, in particular, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, over the extraordinary decision to give a Bill, the purpose of which is to increase electoral spending, priority over other much more important legislation promised by his Department. Fianna Fáil has been under the cosh and it does not like it. It knows that this will be more difficult if this Standing Order is introduced. It will provide it with protection against any sustained effort by the Opposition on the Order of Business.

I welcome the decision of the new leader of Fine Gael to join the Labour Party in seeking to bring to an end corporate funding. I also welcome the support he has given on the Order of Business in the past two weeks in ensuring Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats cannot prevent the committee from considering the Labour Party Bill to ban corporate funding. It has an opportunity to put further pressure on the Government by supporting our amendment which seeks to ensure the committee will complete its consideration of the Bill by the Easter recess.

Even at this late stage I urge Fine Gael to reconsider its approach on this matter. Does it want to stand shoulder to shoulder with Fianna Fáil, to troop through the lobbies with it to vote against all their colleagues in opposition? What sort of message will that send to the electorate?

The motion should be withdrawn. The Labour Party amendment which seeks to refer the contentious matter of the Order of Business to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should be accepted.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 20 Feb 2001

Standing Order 26: Motion.

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Mr. Coveney

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Feb 2001