Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Feb 2004

Vol. 579 No. 4

Standing Orders: Motion.

Mr. Kenny

I move:

That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business are hereby amended as follows:

(a) by the deletion of Standing Order 26A; and

(b) by the adoption of the following in substitution for Standing Order 26:

‘26. (1) Every sitting of the Dáil shall be governed by a printed Order Paper, which shall be prepared under the direction of the Ceann Comhairle.

(2) The Taoiseach shall have the right to determine the order in which Government business shall appear on the Order Paper and, by announcement at the commencement of public business, the order in which it shall be taken each day; and may propose, on motion made without notice at the commencement of public business, arrangements for sittings and for the taking of such business until such business has been disposed of; save where any such proposal is opposed, the Ceann Comhairle shall permit a brief statement from a representative from each party in opposition and the Taoiseach before he or she puts the question thereon. Provided that where a second or subsequent division is demanded on any such proposals on the Order of Business, the period for which the division bells shall ring and the interval between the ringing of the bells and the locking of the doors shall be not less than two minutes and not less than one minute respectively.

(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 not exceeding two minutes from each Leader in Opposition to the Taoiseach about a matter of topical public importance and in respect of which the following arrangements shall apply:

(i) The Taoiseach shall be called upon to reply for a period not exceeding three minutes,

(ii) The Leader in Opposition who asked the original question may then ask a brief supplementary question not exceeding one minute,

(iii) The Taoiseach shall then be called upon in conclusion to reply for a period not exceeding one minute.

(b) the total time allowed for Leaders' Questions on any given day under this Standing Order shall not exceed twenty-one minutes and the Taoiseach may nominate another member of the Government to take Leaders' Questions in his or her absence.

(c) in this Standing Order, “Leader in Opposition” means the leader of a group as defined in Standing Order 114(1): Provided that the Leader of a party which is a group under Standing Order 114(1)(a) shall have precedence over the designated Leader of a group recognised under paragraph (1)(b) of the Standing Order.

(d) 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.’.

With the Ceann Comhairle's permission I wish to share time with Deputies Tom Hayes, Crawford, Durkan and Timmins.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Kenny

The effect of the motion, if accepted, would be that the Taoiseach would attend on each sitting day but in reality would be here on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays to deal with matters of a topical nature arising on the Order of Business; that the Labour Party would retain its position as the second party in Opposition in respect of Leaders' Questions because it is a defined and growing party, under the relevant Standing Order; and that the Taoiseach would answer Leaders' Questions on each sitting day, that is, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

In recent years we have discussed Dáil reform and more effective working of the House. There are arguments for and against many of the motions. We have not had a serious proposal for some time from the Government Whip as to what could be done.

I recall a Thursday before Christmas when an allegation about involvement in the planning process in County Roscommon was raised. The Taoiseach was not present to answer it on that occasion but he did come into the House in the afternoon to make a statement because he felt he had not infringed the planning process in any way. There are occasions on Thursday mornings, in particular, where it would be appropriate that the Taoiseach should be present to answer on issues of the day, topical questions Deputies wish to raise or issues that arise from legislation, be it stem cell research, the closure of factories, issues relating to Europe, the war on terrorism or whatever. The motion deals with those three issues — that the Taoiseach should be present on sitting days, namely, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; that he would answer Leaders' Questions on those days; and that the Labour Party would retain its position as currently applies.

In the seven years since the Government has been in office it has spent extraordinary sums of people's money to achieve extraordinarily little. The status of the Dáil has been reduced to that of mere nuisance. As a consequence, democracy is diminished, public trust is broken and cynicism, apathy and disaffection occur on a widespread scale. People regard politicians as all being members of the brown envelope brigade. The Government has relegated the people to mere spectators in the political process. That political process decides how people live their lives and, in many cases, how they die. That is quite an achievement.

We want the Government to be more accountable to the Dáil, to the public, and to stop behaving like a self-serving privileged elite; an elite that often ignores, accommodates and protects, in some cases, the wrongdoings of its members in order to shore up political ambition.

When we raised the matter of ethics here earlier, there were shouts from the Government benches. Politics is not trivial. It is about public duty, about making life better for the people, about guaranteeing a future for the next generation and making that essential difference.

I recall the late Deputy John Kelly speaking here nearly 20 years ago about an address the then Taoiseach gave to a Fianna Fáil women's group which was reported in The Irish Times. He told them that to get past the convention they would have to eat a diet of humble pie, keep the middle ground, keep in with everyone, even though they may hate them, and, above all, be prepared to sell their souls. If one believes that a candidate should sell his or her political soul to get past the Fianna Fáil selection convention, one can only imagine what one would have to do if one ever had the ambition to become Taoiseach.

We have seen time and again what Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are prepared to do to hang on to political power. They protect and accommodate and, in some cases, law-breakers have been rewarded for the sake of their political ambition. It has been alleged that they treat the public finances as a private election slush fund, spending not according to what the people need, but according to the number of votes it will buy them.

There was the stroke on budget day that reduced the Civil Service to what it might consider its proper status, a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrat electioneering tool. The Equality Authority, which deals mainly with the courts in Dublin, is moving to Roscrea. There was no consultation. The hallmark of the Government has been that on any issue that has to be raised, the consultants are the first to be called in to give their response.

The manner in which the Taoiseach ambled in here on a spring evening to announce that a general election was to be held is a demonstration of the way he often treats the Chamber, whereas it should be the most public and most important forum in the land. He strolled into the House, after 9 p.m. and announced we were having a general election.

Ms Hanafin

I was here. Was the Deputy here?

Mr. Kenny

I was actually.

Mr. Durkan

I was here too.

Mr. Kenny

Many people got very frightened when he announced it. In her capacity as Chief Whip, the Minister of State has witnessed the guillotining of Bills, the ramming through of legislation and instances such as the rushing through of the Immigration Bill last week to cover up for the embarrassment caused by legislation being flawed because it was rushed through in the first place and insufficient debate was given to it. In addition, Ministers have retired to Cheltenham when their Bills were being discussed in the House. All these examples highlight the lack of important treatment of the work of the House and the democratic process.

The Minister of State has responsibility for bringing forward proposals for the more effective operation of this House. Although she may well argue that the Opposition will attempt to stymie or disagree with what is proposed, for too long it has been said that the Chamber is empty, that Members will not turn up and that there is no real debate, only palaver.

Today's business was a concession from Government and a recognition of the pressure from those outside the Houses that a matter of national and public importance be discussed. That is why it was important the Government conceded there should be questions, answers and statements about an issue to allow it to be dealt with. Increasingly, if there is no fear among politicians to deal with such matters, elements which are dragged out ad nauseam at tribunals could be dealt with here in a much shorter time at very little expense. Truth is the common denominator of the answers.

I want to formally move the motion. I had discussions with the other Opposition parties and we will look at what we consider to be a range of common denominator views to improve the workings of the House. This motion is one such attempt and I hope it adds impetus to the work of the Minister of State in this regard. The Taoiseach should be in the House on Thursday mornings and should answer Leaders' Questions, which would add to the decorum and importance of the House.

Mr. Durkan

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the motion and congratulate Fine Gael and my party leader for putting it down. It will help Members to focus on the removal of almost one third of the influence of the House when the Taoiseach is away from the House. While there was never a difficulty in regard to pairing arrangements for official Government business, last year we took a retrograde step when we released the Taoiseach from the House on Thursdays, thereby reducing the influence of the House.

The public expectation is that Members are in the House, the arena where Government and Parliament meet and where Parliament holds the Government to account. Over the past ten years, one issue which has become apparent is the obvious need to ensure that Government, whatever Government is in power, is always accountable to the House and that it comes here to account for itself.

While we have discussed the tribunals for many years, adequate accountability and transparency in terms of the answering of questions in this House would have meant there was no need for tribunals. When the onus and responsibility for such matters is removed from Parliament and transferred to the courts, for example, the courts will do the job required. However, that takes a long time.

Seven years have passed and much money has been spent while tribunals dealt with issues which could and should have been dealt with in this House. If we continue as we are, another seven years will go by and we will be lucky to have a response from one tribunal on one issue. All this is in regard to matters which could have been dealt with in this House if there had been proper openness, transparency and accountability.

I regret that since I first entered this House I have seen a gradual decline in its influence and the ability of Members to question Ministers and hold them to account. While that is sad, it is easier and more convenient for Government that it is this way. However, Government, whatever hue it may be, will pay a price further along the road. I strongly urge the Minister to take on board the Fine Gael motion because it will go some way to addressing those issues.

When one talks to people in the community, one finds an expectation on their part that the issues which affect them are aired in Parliament almost immediately. While it does not always happen that way, they feel that we should be able to deal in this House with the questions which concern them, but we do not. A simple example would be a matter on the Adjournment of the House tonight. There is no chance of having the responsible Minister answer on the matter. One Minister will answer on four questions, if the House is lucky. However, if that Minister was asked to go to Áras an Uachtaráin to collect his or her seal of office, some enthusiasm would be found.

Ministers should recognise that their responsibility is not just to Government but to Parliament. Whether they like it, sooner or later we will have to arrive at a situation where the two meet and greater transparency and accountability accrue. If that does not happen and this erosion continues, we will find ourselves in a situation where Parliament becomes a sham. We will go through the motions by coming to the House in the mornings to raise a couple of items before going home.

We heard for years about the vacuum which existed in another part of this island and we know the consequences of that — we heard politicians being blamed for allowing the vacuum to continue. It is best to remember that wherever a parliamentary vacuum occurs in a democracy, it is always replaced by something else which inexorably — there are no isolated incidents — moves away from democracy.

I acknowledge the role of the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, in regard to today's proceedings and thank her for her help and co-operation, as I thank the other Whips. I also acknowledge that the job of Government Whip is not an easy one.

Ms Hanafin

The Deputy has got it in one.

Mr. Durkan

I would not mind swapping places with the Minister of State just the same.

Mr. Kenny

Will I write that down?

Mr. Durkan

The job of the Opposition Whip is also not easy. Members on this side of the House recognise the problems. It is not in the interests of Government to protect itself and to remain aloof or withdraw into a shell-like cocoon and refuse to answer questions which concern the House. It may well be that it postpones the answer.

My final point concerns the fact that a simple parliamentary question would require Sherlock Holmes to find its answer because, without doubt, it would be buried in the middle of the reply. It has become common practice over the years to withhold information for as long as possible from as many as possible in the hope that when it is eventually divulged, nobody will notice. That is a sad fact which I hope the Minister of State will address. I know that she sincerely believes in meaningful parliamentary reform, and such reform needs to be meaningful if we are to address the issues which confront us in society at present.

Mr. Hayes

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this important Private Members' motion. It is a great opportunity to debate what we feel is a better way to do business. Having worked in the Seanad for four years prior to being elected to this House, I often wonder at the way it approaches business, especially the Order of Business and issues relevant to members' constituencies. What happens here leaves much to be desired compared with what happens in the Seanad.

The most important aspect to reform of the Dáil and the way it does its business is that it should be relevant to the public. We are here as servants of the public. It is a great honour to be elected to this House. To represent people in any national parliament is a great honour, something which happens to very few people. When elected, we have a duty to bring the views of our constituents to the Houses of the Oireachtas in the strongest way possible. Whatever the issue of the day, whether local or national, Deputies have a duty to bring it to the House. We need to be facilitated to do so. We must be facilitated by way of the Taoiseach or Cabinet Ministers answering questions relevant to the people we represent.

Thursday, when the Taoiseach is not present, is a different Dáil day from Tuesday and Wednesday when he is present and can be asked various questions by different Members. The fact that the Taoiseach is not present demeans the House. In light of the debate tonight and tomorrow night, I urge the Taoiseach to be present on Thursday rather than travelling throughout the country. I am aware that, as Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fáil, he must travel to meet people, but this is a House of Parliament and we expect him to be present to listen to as many of our views as possible. Members of the Government should listen to this debate and ensure this happens.

Many other issues need to be addressed. Standing Order 31, which is read out here on a regular basis, must be reformed. Today I raised the issue of 30 job losses in Tipperary town and 60 in Carrick-on-Suir. Some 90 to 100 families will be affected when these people lose their jobs in the next three weeks or month. When I raised the issue in the House today, I was asked to move on to the next business. I sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight but there were more pressing issues to be dealt with. Requests under Standing Orders should be answered by the relevant Minister because each has first-hand knowledge of the issues. The Tánaiste is well aware of the issues in Tipperary to which I referred. There is no reason she could not have given me a satisfactory reply when I raised the issues today. Matters on the Adjournment must be examined. If one is fortunate enough to have something selected for the Adjournment debate, the Minister responsible should be present to give the matter the attention it deserves.

Those of us who served on county councils and gave up our seats believe the Dáil should be a much more relevant forum, whether it discusses local or national issues. I recall my time on the county council when notice of motions allowed people to obtain a proper response to issues raised within a few days. Parliamentary questions should concern anything that affects our constituents. There is no point receiving answers stating that matters are not the business of the Minister. All these issues are the business of Ministers. I received a reply recently regarding my local radio station. I was told it was not the business of the Minister, rather that of the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland. The Minister established the BCI and should be ready and willing at all times to answer such questions.

There is the issue of reform of the Dáil. It is important for future generations of people elected to this House to make life easier and more pro-family. We should not have to work late into the night. It is sufficient for the Dáil to sit in Dublin for three days and the other days to be set aside for constituency work. I began work in my constituency at 8 a.m. yesterday morning and finished at 12 midnight. Certain work must be done. I would not offer myself for re-election in the future if I could not give that time to my constituents.

I am pleased the debate is taking place. We must be much more forthright in the way we plan our business. We should not try to knock people from different sides if we have a different point of view. There are just 166 Deputies in the House. For the benefit of future representatives and the future of democracy, we need to make the House more amenable and accessible to the people who work here. The Government, Taoiseach, civil servants and back-up staff must be ready, willing and able to assist ordinary Members who represent their constituencies.

Mr. Crawford

I thank our party leader and colleagues for tabling this important motion. We can spend much time talking about issues but if we do not have reform in the House soon we will lose even more credibility. I had friends visit the House today and they found it difficult to understand how we deal with such a difficult structure. I congratulate the Opposition parties and the Government Chief Whip on agreeing to the change in structure today to allow statements to be made and questions to be asked. To be serious, 15 minutes were allowed for questions, and two questions were answered, or not answered, whichever way one likes to see it. We must speed up the structure. The Ceann Comhairle is in charge but a structure must be put in place. In other parliaments, reactions are quick and straight to the point. There is too much waffle in this House.

I support reform in every sense. My colleague, Deputy Hayes, referred to urgent business relating to his constituency. I sometimes table a notice under Standing Order 31 because it is one of the few ways of putting an issue on the record of the House. If a Deputy does not do so, someone else will. This is the wrong reason for tabling such a notice. It should be possible to have written replies or some reply to questions at the end of the day. Nine or ten notices are read out, which is a waste of time.

I was in the House during Question Time last Wednesday. We reached only the second or third ordinary question. Some questions were taken together. Given that so much effort goes into compiling questions, it is unsatisfactory that one is allocated a limited amount of time to deal with them. The structure gives few opportunities to ask further questions or to get in-depth answers. We are answerable to the people and the Government must allow the Opposition to do its job and get those answers in this House. We may be as guilty on the Opposition benches as the Minister because we must get something onto the record. If we ask a short question, we certainly will not get a short answer and that is part of the problem.

We all like to speak on the Adjournment but such matters are really for the local media and do not achieve anything. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, came into the House last Tuesday night at midnight to reply to a debate on health services in the Cavan-Monaghan region. However, it is often not even the responsible or relevant Minister who comes into the House. If the Fine Gael proposal is not the right proposal, we must work at this to come up with ideas that will allow Deputies to raise urgent matters at the start of the day and to get answers.

I was one of the first Deputies to raise the issue of foot and mouth disease in this House. It was a crisis and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, answered questions and debated the issue during that period. I remember, however, that he gave Deputy Alan Dukes and me a commitment that within 12 months, we would discuss the regulations that were introduced at that time. It never happened. What is this House for? Is it relevant? Regulation after regulation has never been discussed in the Dáil. Decoupling was never discussed, although I asked for a debate on it several times. Avian flu, however, was discussed the moment it arrived. The EU is refusing to implement REPS 3. When will that be discussed in the House? When will the nitrates directive be discussed? Many farmers see this House as totally irrelevant.

Would the beef tribunal have been necessary if a structure in this House had forced the Minister of the day to answer questions? No, and we would have saved the time and money lost in that and subsequent tribunals. We must examine how this Chamber and the committees can compel people to come into the House to answer questions.

We all agree that social partnership has been of benefit to the country but it would be a good idea for the results of social partnership to be discussed in the House. Health boards are a further example. They had millions of euro this year while old people could not even get a bed. The answers we get to questions about schools are a complete joke. We are told to go to the Internet but anyone can do that. When we put down questions on education, we want an answer that is relevant to the question asked, not just a statement on a website. I urge the Minister to treat this issue seriously, otherwise this House will become totally irrelevant.

Mr. Timmins

The setting this evening epitomises the difficulty with the motion. All we are missing are beer and soft drink cans and empty crisp bags. It is almost like Croke Park in the evening after an all-Ireland, desolate after the excitement of the day. This motion, however, is very important. I deeply regret that, with the exception of a few discerning commentators, this debate will be ignored by the media because it is not simple, populist or tabloid.

Most people in this House do not expect Members to sit at unreasonable times. Deputy Hayes mentioned Friday sittings, an idea that may have come from this side of the House, but the concept is unreasonable and most Members would not want it. Society does not expect us to be here five days a week for 50 weeks of the year. For many Members, the Dáil is one of the few places where their time is their own and life is much more pleasant than the hustle and bustle of the constituency.

In the recent past we have pandered to the populist concept about TDs that is heard on the Pat Kenny show or "Liveline" with Joe Duffy. We should completely ignore it, we could even turn the tables on it. I was driving into the Dáil one day and someone on the slot normally filled by Pat Kenny said he was filling in while Pat Kenny was on holiday. That was while the Dáil was in session. I thought we had three or four months holidays while they had very few holidays.

This, however, is not a battle with the commentators. I do not want to anticipate the Government speeches but the speakers will outline how the Taoiseach is here on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and in previous Dáileanna he was not here that often on a Thursday, maybe only half the time. The line will be trotted out that he attends Parliament more than any Prime Minister in the western hemisphere. The fact of the matter is that the Taoiseach comes in here at 2.30 p.m. on a Tuesday and is gone by lunch time on Wednesday 30 weeks of the year. That has a knock-on effect. In the last Dáil we all talked about how we did not think it could become any more ineffective. It is populist to say it is a sham and irrelevant but that is what it has become.

There is only one real Order of Business, on a Tuesday, because the Order of Business on Wednesday is irrelevant. We are all at fault. The first Order of Business on a Wednesday since the end of the recess took place last week and when I came in there was only Deputy Kenny, the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Durkan, the Fine Gael Whip, and Deputy Enright. People leave after questions to the Taoiseach to go to committees or meet groups and they do not come back. Leaders' Questions is such a setpiece that it is losing its effect. It is not fair. I have looked back over Order of Business debates in the last Dáil and the Ceann Comhairle was one of the most vociferous in raising issues on the Order of Business but now they would be ruled out of order.

It is in the interests of the Government not to be in the Dáil. This is one of the few places where the Opposition is on an equal footing with the Government. Deputy Crawford mentioned the Department of Agriculture and Food. There are 200 policy makers in the Department and the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and his Ministers of State, Deputies Aylward and Treacy, have press statements spilling from the fax machine every minute of the day. It is difficult for the Opposition to compete. The Government feeds the information to journalists who need it more than it needs them.

The media have become lazy while the good cop, bad cop act has been perfected by Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil Members give both sides of the story on the plinth but then come into the Dáil and vote together. That hypocrisy is never highlighted because the media do not have the interest or the time to follow up on it.

We must become more relevant. It is meaningless to say we have turned out so many Bills in a year. We should have a value for money audit and review the Bills that have been passed in recent years. I am on the board of management of a secondary school so I was interested when the Education (Welfare) Bill was introduced with great fanfare but three or four years later the educational welfare officers are not yet in place. Could we not have a system whereby we would review a certain number of Bills to ascertain their effectiveness? A list of Bills as long as one's arm has been passed in the six years I have been a Member of this House, yet I do not notice any great changes in our society. We are still driving on the left hand side of the road and there is still trouble on the streets at night. Such legislation has made no difference because its provisions have not been implemented. The necessary funding has not been provided to implement certain sections of legislation, and we are only fooling ourselves if we think otherwise.

Let us be honest with each other and recognise that we are not always right, the Deputies opposite are not always wrong and vice versa. We need more open discussion in this House and we need to be more honest with each other. The Deputies opposite will traipse in and vote against this motion. They will vote for their amendment which many of them believe in their hearts is not correct. We need to relax the Whip system. The issue of levies is contentious. Every Fianna Fáil politician I have spoken to has said they are wrong. Therefore, we should discuss them in an open manner and not have Members on the Government side reading from a script to the effect that they are a biscuit while Members on this side say they are bar.

I believe and hope that other groups on this side of the House will support the motion. The Taoiseach no longer has the moral authority to stay out of the Dáil on Thursdays. We are not asking him to come here every Thursday, but at the very least the Order of Business must be changed on Wednesday to make it relevant and the Taoiseach must be available on some Thursdays to come into this House. If we were honest with each other we would admit that we have turned into a dysfunctional Parliament. Despite the hype and the tripe that has been put out, that is what has happened.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Ms Hanafin)

I move amendment No. 1:

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

"Dáil Éireann:

— notes:

— the continuing commitment of the Government to engage constructively with all the parties in the Dáil on ways in which the conduct of business can be further improved;

— that valuable Dáil time is wasted on procedural wrangling and recognises the need for a constructive dialogue on all aspect of Dáil reform;

— the initiatives which have been taken to improve the functioning of the House, including the allocation of a special Leaders' Questions time on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; and

— agrees that Dáil reform is a continuous process, best advanced by cross-party agreement through the sub-committee on Dáil reform, which was established for that purpose."

I wish to share my time with Deputy Kelleher.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Ms Hanafin

I am somewhat surprised that Fine Gael has chosen to spend its Private Members' time discussing one small element of Dáil reform, given that there exists a sub-committee of the House where agreement can be reached among the Whips and the various parties. The reason is that we have to work together as a Parliament. We need to reach a flexible framework within which we can work together and the framework is in place whereby we can do that. The Government's amendment to the motion is to ensure that we can examine this and other Dáil reform issues to ascertain how we can create a legislative assembly which is both legislative and representative.

I take this opportunity to outline some of the proposals we would like considered under Dáil reform.

Mr. Kenny

Thank God for that.

Ms Hanafin

We will focus not only on the item Fine Gael has put forward because we want this to be a Parliament of the people. We want to bring forward proposals which will bring order, flexibility and improve the way in which we do business because that is what we on the Government side want to achieve. Unfortunately, in this debate Fine Gael is fixated on one issue——

Mr. Timmins

It is an important issue.

Ms Hanafin

——that of ensuring the Taoiseach is in this House on Thursdays. If that is the only contribution Fine Gael can make to Dáil reform or the only topic it can find to discuss in its three hours of Private Members' time, one would have to question the relevance of the party, if not the relevance of that issue. It proves to me that Fine Gael has no alternative policies to offer on issues such as education, crime, health, immigration, justice, transport because it chose to pick on this particular issue.

It is an unusual time to focus on bringing the Taoiseach into the House on a Thursday, particularly when he holds the honour and role of President of the European Council of Ministers, one which we all recognise places a great demand on his time, but one which has elevated the prestige——

Mr. Kenny

It has always been the tradition on this side of the House when in Opposition to pair the Taoiseach on Government business. That will always continue, but the motion is that he should be here on Thursdays.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his point.

Ms Hanafin

The motion is that the Taoiseach should be here on Thursdays, but I will tell the Deputy where he will be on the forthcoming Thursdays. This Thursday he will be in Rome, the following Thursday he will be in Northern Ireland and the following Thursday he will meet the Prime Minister of Macedonia and European Commissioner Barnier.

Mr. Timmins

We have the list from last term. He opened a community centre in Killinarden, a factory in Cashel——

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Ms Hanafin

Let me highlight the hypocrisy of this debate on Dáil business and on the presence of leaders in this House. Last week we issued a schedule for this Friday to discuss the Mahon tribunal and the Nally report. However, at the special request of Fine Gael because Deputy Kenny has an important meeting in Lisbon——

Mr. Kenny

Madrid.

Ms Hanafin

——Friday's Dáil business has been cancelled. The Dáil cannot sit on Friday because Deputy Kenny will be in Lisbon, but the Dáil will sit on Thursday while the Taoiseach is in Rome.

Mr. Kenny

If the Minister of State wants to blame me for the Dáil not sitting on Friday——

Mr. Durkan

That is not a good move.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Ms Hanafin

Deputy Kenny wants the Taoiseach to be in this House to answer questions to him on Thursday but the Dáil cannot sit on Friday because he will not be here.

Mr. Durkan

That is a spin on the spin.

Mr. Kenny

We will remember that.

Mr. Durkan

That is a dangerous road for the Minster of State to go down.

Ms Hanafin

That just shows the level of hypocrisy there is in this regard. However, the business of this House will continue.

Mr. Kenny

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform gave me a copy of that report and I did not break his confidence. There will be no more requests from the Minister of State.

Mr. Durkan

This is unbecoming of the Minister of State.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister of State is entitled to be afforded the same courtesy as the members of Deputy Kenny's party, including himself.

Ms Hanafin

I was more than happy to oblige Deputy Kenny but there is a certain irony about the fact that on the same week he requires the Taoiseach to be here on a Thursday he will not be here on the Friday when Government business was to be discussed.

Mr. Kenny

We will remember this.

Ms Hanafin

However, important business will continue on Thursday and the Finance Bill will be passed on Second Stage.

Mr. Durkan

The Minister of State is on a dangerous road.

Ms Hanafin

The Taoiseach is entitled to his time and to progress the European Presidency, a role which the public recognise is bringing great prestige not only to him or the Government but to the country. That has also been recognised by the International Herald Tribune. It has recognised the Taoiseach's ability to do the job he is doing and one of its editorials states, “For all this, Ahern is the right man ... Ireland is the right man — Ireland is a rich training ground for the skill of negotiating, its relations with the US are good and the country's economic transformation is a shining example.” The editorial went on to state, “It is unfortunate that Ahern has only six months”, but I would add that fortunately as a Government we have many more years in which to make our mark.

Mr. Durkan

One of the spin doctors must have drafted that for the Minister of State.

Ms Hanafin

To follow up on what Deputy Timmins said, the Taoiseach is not only more accountable to this House than any previous Taoiseach——

Mr. Timmins

He is the only Taoiseach we have had who does not come into the House on a Thursday.

Ms Hanafin

——but also, as he correctly pointed out, than any other European leader. It is only since February 2001 on foot of an initiative of this Government that the notion of Leaders' Questions was introduced, allowing an important opportunity for topical issues to be raised in the Dáil every Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr. Kenny

The Minister of State must be looking for the old step up in June.

Ms Hanafin

Previous Governments never allowed that.

What happens in other countries? In the United Kingdom the Prime Minister's only obligation to the House is to take questions for 30 minutes a week. In France, the Prime Minister takes two periods of questions each week, each period lasting an hour.

Mr. Durkan

That is what is wrong. The Taoiseach has been rubbing shoulders with too many of the gentry.

Ms Hanafin

In the case of Austria, Denmark, Italy and Germany, there are no obligations to be present for any particular time. In Portugal, the Prime Minister attends for one three hour session every month.

Mr. Durkan

This is irrelevant.

Ms Hanafin

In Spain, the Prime Minister answers questions on three Wednesdays every month for about 20 minutes a week. In Belgium and Greece, the Prime Minister attends on one day each week.

Mr. Durkan

If the Deputies opposite think they will copy that practice and plant it on us here, they have another think coming. We will wipe the smiles of their faces very quickly, mark my words.

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask Deputy Durkan to allow the Minister of State to continue without any interruption.

Mr. Durkan

I apologise. The smirking of the Deputies sitting behind the Minister of State annoyed me.

Mr. Carey

The Deputy is easily annoyed.

Ms Hanafin

If Deputy Durkan would listen he would realise what I have said.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Durkan was afforded the courtesy of being heard without interruption.

Ms Hanafin

The Fine Gael Party is making petty points, which are ill-considered, regarding the Taoiseach's presence in this Chamber on one day. Fine Gael should put more time and energy into collaborating——

Mr. Kenny

Collaborating?

Mr. Durkan

Collaborating is not a word we are used to.

Ms Hanafin

——with all the parties in this House to determine the real Dáil reform measures we can bring forward to make sure that this House becomes a legislative assembly as it is meant to be and which also represents people.

In light of what has been said in this House already today, and the proposals which have come forward from other parties on Dáil reform, we must remember that this is Dáil Éireann. This is not the Four Courts. We are not the DPP. This is not a tribunal of inquiry. We are not investigators.

Mr. Kenny

Neither are we at a meeting of the ICA.

Ms Hanafin

We are a legislative assembly and what is needed is a more focused time to consider the legislation we are bringing forward.

Mr. Kenny

That is the Government's responsibility.

Ms Hanafin

That is why I will be proposing, in line with what two of the Deputies have already said, to extend the sitting times of the three days we are in this House to approximately 30 hours per week. I am conscious of the fact that the work of a Deputy does not start and end in this Chamber. All Deputies, particularly those who have constituencies outside Dublin, experience real problems in trying to balance parliamentary and constituency obligations. It is not just a matter of holding a constituency clinic, and I know the media deride that. It should also be noted that in the same way lawyers have their case law and doctors have their medical practices and their laws, we, as representatives of the people, have to know what those people are interested in, what they want and what are their concerns. This demands of us that we be involved in community issues, attend meetings, receive deputations and engage with our constituents on a wide range of issues. Any changes in sitting times would have to take account of that.

I would propose, for example, that those extra hours could mean the House sitting from 12 noon until 9.30 p.m. on Tuesdays, from 9 a.m. until 9.30 p.m. on Wednesdays and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Thursdays.

By substantially increasing the sitting hours, there would be more time for consideration of legislation, fewer guillotines, which I accept are not good practice to be used regularly, and more flexibility for special debates.

Mr. Stagg

That is the normal practice.

Ms Hanafin

It would mean that the hours we spend in the House would be much more productive. I know there are Deputies, particularly those from Dublin, who would suggest that we should sit from 9 a.m. to 5. p.m. for five days per week. This would be a totally unreasonable expectation, particularly for our colleagues with constituencies in the country who have to travel long distances and need to spend extra time at home. Thirty hours over three days would ensure proper legislation time.

The week during which the Dáil sat in January was very valuable for allowing debate on important topical issues, considering reports on substantive issues and for Second Stage debate. We should perhaps repeat this in September, bearing in mind that the function of this House is to legislate.

I also propose the publication of a monthly schedule of Second Stage legislation to be taken in the Chamber to allow for proper preparation for debate.

Mr. Kenny

Good.

Ms Hanafin

Each of us recognises that much irrelevant material, to put it mildly, is raised on Second Stage. By giving advance notice to Members, they would be able to prepare their contributions properly and improve the quality of Second Stage speeches.

I also propose that the Chief Whip publish every month an updated version of the promised A list legislation, which would allow Members to monitor progress on the Government's legislative programme on a more frequent basis.

Mr. Kenny

Good.

Ms Hanafin

We have an unparalleled legislative programme. Since June 2002, we have enacted 58 Bills and published 69 Bills. We are determined to deliver on our programme for Government and to do so we must put in place the legislative framework to support the economy, society and the institutions of the 21st century.

Mr. Kenny

What about medical cards and the gardaí?

Ms Hanafin

We want to regard this legislative process as informed, representative and as effective as possible. Some of my proposals will help in this regard.

All Members, but unfortunately nobody outside the Oireachtas, recognise the value of the work of the committees. which comprise one of the success stories of Dáil reform in recent years. Only last week I spoke with members of the Committee on Education and Science and they commented on the valuable debate and real engagement they had on the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill.

Committees are a valuable mechanism for holding Government to account on detailed issues of policy and administration and for progressing legislation and making better legislation. All committee members spend many hours doing committee work. Committees are very useful fora for allowing members of the public to air issues of concern to them. Consider the work of the committee dealing with the Barron report in this regard. Committees have highlighted topical issues such as telephone charges and obesity in children, which have attracted considerable informed public debate.

We would like the committees to be given more recognition in the plenary session. I propose that there be a weekly opportunity for committee chairmen to address the Dáil and that an hour be made available each week to hear a report of proceedings from a committee or committees. Each would be able to answer questions in the Chamber so all Members could become involved in all the committees.

On of the great advances that has been made has been in the area of EU scrutiny. Undoubtedly, there was a democratic deficit regarding the adoption of European legislation and European affairs generally. We need to raise the profile not just of the work of the Union but of our work in scrutinising what is happening in Europe. The Chairman of the Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny should be asked to address the Dáil at least every six months. As our joint committees are dealing with EU issues, they too should come before the Dáil.

In addition to measures to strengthen our legislative process, there are other changes which would ensure greater accountability. We all recognise that holding Adjournment debates at midnight and 12.15 a.m. is unsatisfactory, not just from the perspective of the backbencher but also from the perspective of the Minister. I propose that a new "topical issues" time be introduced at a prominent time during each sitting day. This would provide an opportunity for Members to raise local and national issues and allow for interaction between the Deputy asking the question and the relevant Minister.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Ms Hanafin

Having topical issues discussions at a prominent time would mean the issues raised would have a greater influence on the day's business. If introduced, we could get rid of the end-of-the-day Adjournment debate, which is taken too late and is irrelevant.

Mr. B. Smith

Hear, hear.

Ms Hanafin

It would also exclude the absolute time-wasting we witness every day whereby Members raise issues under Standing Order 31 asking that the Dáil be adjourned because of something that could only be termed as very trivial or of minor interest.

The issue of Question Time has been raised by backbenchers on both sides of the House. Oral and written questions provide a very valuable opportunity for Members to obtain information and to hold Ministers to account. When one examines the numbers, one will note how important Members regard questions. In recent years, the number of parliamentary questions has increased dramatically. In 1997, 19,708 parliamentary questions were tabled, and last year 35,460 questions were asked.

Mr. Durkan

Many of them were not answered.

Ms Hanafin

The arrangements have evolved over the year but there is undoubtedly room for improvement. Increasingly in this House, we are passing legislation to devolve power to other bodies, for example, local authorities and health boards, which are not accountable to this House. Neither is the Minister accountable for those bodies, but we need to find a mechanism by which Members can ask questions of those bodies and obtain written answers.

Furthermore, a simple, practical arrangement would involve changing the rota pertaining to questions such that if a Minister is not available, it could be changed at much shorter notice, by agreement. As one who is responsible for the Central Statistics Office, I am firmly of the view that it is not my role to talk about how many hind quarters were exported to Libya and that all questions on statistics should be tabled for written answer.

Mr. Kenny

How many seagulls flew over the Phoenix Park?

Ms Hanafin

In addition to the introduction of a "topical issues" time and improvements in the visibility of committee work, our aim must also be to continue with our special debates on topical matters and substantive issues in the extra weeks in January and September. This will improve our role as a representative body. However, it is also important that we communicate to the public the way we do business inside the House and interact with the electorate. This is the only means of reducing the apathy that exists among the public towards politicians. One way of doing so is to avail of the increased opportunities that exist for new technologies.

We make considerable personal contact with constituents, representative groups and interest groups, and this forms a vitally important part of the work of every Deputy. However, modern technology affords us the opportunity to connect with a much wider group of people and people with a broader agenda. Obviously, television and radio broadcasting open up Dáil proceedings to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, however, programmes such as "Oireachtas Report" are only for the very dedicated. However, there is considerable scope to extend this facility. In this regard, Members will be aware of C-SPAN in the United States, which is a dedicated channel. The Oireachtas committee responsible for broadcasting has already begun work in this area and should be progressing with vigour in respect of setting up a dedicated channel to broadcast parliamentary proceedings so those interested could tune in, at any time of the day, to see the work being done in the Oireachtas.

Live webcasting of proceedings in the Dáil and committees to complement the television and radio broadcasts should also be examined.

Mr. Stagg

On a point of order, will the Minister give credit to those who brought these ideas to the fore? She is simply stealing them from the last committee that sat.

Ms Hanafin

As I stated, the broadcasting committee has already progressed the issue of considering a dedicated television channel. If Deputy Stagg had listened to me, for once in his life, he would have heard what I said. We envisage that there would be much more extensive broadcasting and increased use of new technologies.

The Oireachtas website is very valuable and provides timely information on a wide range of parliamentary affairs. However, every Member of the Oireachtas could have a link to a home page on this website to facilitate easier communication with the public. Some of us have our own websites, which have proved to be very successful, but a direct link to the Oireachtas website is important.

One of the other hats I wear is my information society hat. The Government has been progressing not only e-government but the area of the information society. E-parliament must fit into that. We will prioritise the development of the e-legislation system as part of the e-government agenda. Already we have begun the process of e-Cabinet, but e-enablement in the drafting of legislation and the passing of legislation through the House would open up a host of possibilities, allowing Members access on-line to the text of Bills, amendments, debates and other information resources in the Chamber. We need to expedite that because it will lead not only to greater debate but a greater understanding of amendments being put forward, especially on Committee, Report and Final Stages.

We already have an electronic voting system in the House. That system is often undermined when tellers call for a manual vote, having witnessed the results of the electronic vote. It is a time-wasting ploy. It is there simply to ensure that Government cannot move forward with legislation. One of the proposals should be that, on procedural matters, a double voting system should not be allowed.

We are determined to move forward on Dáil reform in a constructive manner on a wide range of issues, which I hope can be progressed within the context of the Dáil reform committee. It is not just about examining the tiny issue of what should happen on a Thursday. It is in the interests of all of the parties in the House to re-examine the way we work. Some of the worst culprits in terms of drawing criticism of the workings of this House are Members who believe there is more to be gained from standing on the plinth and criticising our operational methods than there is from being constructive in the Chamber.

We need to work not just in our own interests but in the public interest because we are here to represent the public and we are here at the taxpayers' expense. Are they getting value for money from the way we do our business? Often the main aim of members of the Opposition is to go out on the plinth and play to the gallery; to entertain, not to inform. We rarely have reasoned argument on serious issues. What we get is false indignation, Members occupying the high moral ground, and bluster and bluff about issues. If we could rule out all that, we could focus on real legislation and engage in a democratic process designed to make this assembly what it is elected to be, namely, a representative assembly which is a legislative democracy. It is not good enough to expect people to pay for entertainment and playing to the gallery.

Mr. Coveney

The Minister should talk to her backbenchers about the plinth.

Ms Hanafin

Dáil reform is not about more play time, scoring points or making headlines, but about ensuring that we can raise real issues, progress the Government agenda and introduce real legislation. The public is not fooled by the sham indignation of people here week in, week out. Parliamentary procedure in this House is being abused by the Opposition whose constant aim is to waste time every day.

Judging by the motion that is the basis of this debate, there is only one issue that interests the Opposition, namely, keeping the Taoiseach in the House on a Thursday to ask more frivolous questions in addition to the ones already being asked instead of allowing the Government to get on with the business of Government. I regret that Private Members' time was used for an issue which belongs under the heading of Dáil reform. I regret that it was not seen as part of the wider issue of changing the system to improve democracy. However, I can understand why the Opposition did it; it has nothing else to say on any other topic.

Mr. Kelleher

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue of Dáil reform and I welcome the proposals outlined by the Government Chief Whip. However, I am disappointed by the narrowness of the Fine Gael motion in encouraging the Taoiseach to be present in the House on Thursdays. However, given the competent performance of the Taoiseach on Dáil questions and during Leaders' Questions, the Opposition would be better off if he were not present because he makes them look very silly most of the time. If he were present more often, they would look even worse than they currently do.

On the issue of Dáil reform and the Chief Whip's proposals, I hope the other parties will regard them favourably and support them. I wish to refer to a number of issues. The first is that this is not just a legislative but a representative Chamber. It behoves all of us to defend the work of Deputies in constituencies. Too often we kowtow to people who like to undermine the work of a Deputy in his constituency. It is an important part of representative democracy that Deputies are available to meet constituents not only as individuals but as groups. If we claim to represent the public, it is important that we are able to meet and interact with those people, hear their views and concerns, and raise them in Parliament when an opportunity arises.

I generally welcome the topical debate announcement by the Chief Whip because this will be an important instrument in allowing Deputies to raise issues of importance in their constituencies or at national level. I hope all the other parties will support this. We have the farcical situation of Deputies raising matters under Standing Order 31 every day. I understand the frustration of Opposition Deputies in trying to raise issues and being ruled out of order. We must move to a situation where a Deputy can raise an issue, it can be responded to in a forthright manner and there can be interaction between the Deputy raising the issue and the responsible Minister. That is an important proposal. I urge the Opposition to look on this positively.

On the question of longer sitting hours, we must accept that Deputies have duties outside Dáil Éireann to their constituencies. I welcome longer sitting hours which will increase parliamentary time to 30 hours a week. That will enable us to push through more legislation and to have longer debates in which more people can take part. One of the complaints we hear, especially in Fianna Fáil because it is such a large party, is that backbenchers often have difficulty in getting time to speak.

Mr. Stagg

That is because the Government guillotines all the Bills.

Mr. Kelleher

Often they must share time and have only two or three minutes. However, members of smaller parties receive more time to debate issues. Perhaps we should examine the possibility of introducing a system whereby more time would be given to larger parties in debates. That would be only fair in a democracy.

On the issue of guillotines, in my short term as a Whip I have heard much bluff and bluster from the Opposition and manual votes being called after the results of electronic voting have been announced. That undermines the credibility of the new electronic voting system that we put in place to ensure more expeditious voting. I urge the Opposition to be constructive rather than obstructive to ensure the smooth running of votes called in the House. I understand that dividing the House is part and parcel of democracy, but surely the results of electronic voting as announced should be accepted as the de facto result.

We have discussed the issue of Dáil reform for a very long time. Dáil Deputies have a duty to ensure that their work rate is exposed to the public. Often when we are attacked from outside we collectively cannibalise each other in the House rather than defending the profession and outlining what we do as public representatives in our constituencies and, more importantly, in Parliament.

Committees have been grossly under-reported. I would welcome any proposal of the Chief Whip's which would ensure that the committees are more proactive and that there was more reporting of the workings of committees. They do great work. They can interview deputations, and address and outline concerns. Members of other committees can also attend meetings and listen to the views of deputations and form opinions. That is something that is under-reported. If we implement the Chief Whip's proposals and establish a website with the possibility of linking into the various committees, it would be very beneficial.

I urge the Opposition to engage in proactive and constructive debate on these Dáil reform proposals and welcome the broad thrust of them. I hope we can have a more efficient Parliament in the years ahead.

Mr. Stagg

The second last contribution was a typical, self-righteous schoolmistressy lecture from the Minister of State. I am well accustomed to it. We have to listen to it at the Whips' meetings every week, well laced with a high degree of hypocrisy.

Mr. Carey

That is the head prefect talking now.

Ms Hanafin

The kettle——

Mr. Stagg

The Government amendment to this motion tonight suggests that Dáil reform is a continuous process and is best advanced by cross-party agreement through the sub-committee on Dáil reform, which was established for that purpose — I am quoting from the Minister of State's amendment. However, the Government's true intentions are made apparent by the fact that the sub-committee, chaired by the Minister of State, has not convened even once since the last general election in May 2002.

Ms Hanafin

It has.

Mr. Stagg

If it has, I was not invited to the meeting.

Ms Hanafin

The Deputy was invited. He was there.

Mr. Stagg

The Minister of State might have raised an issue at a Whips' meeting to try to cherry-pick something out of a report she had nothing to do with. However, she certainly did not convene the Dáil reform committee since her appointment as its chairperson.

Ms Hanafin

On a point of order and a point of information, the record will show that the Dáil reform committee has met and, indeed, Deputy Stagg was present.

Mr. Glennon

He was too preoccupied with manual votes.

Mr. Carey

It speaks volumes for his contributions.

Mr. Stagg

I thought it was a Whips' meeting and something was stuck in at the end of the agenda, but I did not see a Dáil reform committee, since the Minister of State was appointed anyway. There was not one new idea in a single point proposed by the Minister of State. It is all contained in the document produced by the previous Dáil reform committee and she cherry-picked out the pieces that suit Government only.

Ms Hanafin

The only thing cherry-picked——

Mr. Stagg

There is much more in that report. I inform the Minister of State that she had absolutely nothing to do with introducing Leaders' Questions. That was done by the present Leas-Cheann Comhairle when he was Ceann Comhairle. He introduced the system in the House, independent of Government.

Ms Hanafin

In February 2001.

Mr. Stagg

That is where that came from. The Minister of State is taking credit where it is not due and pinching other people's ideas, pretending they are hers and doing nothing about implementing them. She creates confrontation in this debate and there is no need for it, no more than at the Whips' meetings every week. There is no chance of getting the agreement that is necessary from all sides of the House to get the necessary Dáil reform.

Ms Hanafin

I suggest that Deputy Stagg ask to be replaced as Whip for the Labour Party if he is not happy there.

Mr. Stagg

I rise this evening in support of the motion submitted on behalf of Fine Gael. Speaking on behalf of a party whose constant theme has been the necessity to secure the accountability of Government in this House and its Members, I welcome any proposal, however modest in its terms, to advance that cause.

Specifically, Standing Order 26 provides that the Taoiseach, a member of the Government or the Government Chief Whip may take the Order of Business on Tuesdays and Wednesdays but that a member of the Government or the Government Chief Whip shall take the Order of Business on Thursdays. In other words, there is no Taoiseach on Thursdays.

Standing Order 26(3)(a) sets out the time for the taking of Leaders' Questions and provides for time limits on questions and replies with an overall time limit of 21 minutes on Leaders' Questions. It also sets out the sequence in which Leaders' Questions may be asked. Finally, it provides that political parties recognised under Standing Order 114(1)(a) get precedence over groups recognised under Standing Order 114(1)(b). Standing Order 26 is clearly defective in its terms. Apart from anything else, the Taoiseach is prohibited from taking the Order of Business on a Thursday, even if he wants to do so.

Ms Hanafin

That is not the case, and he has done so.

Mr. Stagg

There may well be sound reasons a Taoiseach would feel the need to take new and urgent business on a Thursday but, as matters stand, he cannot do so.

Ms Hanafin

On a point of order, the Standing Order states that a member of the Government can take the Order of Business. As Deputy Stagg knows, the Taoiseach is not only a member of the Government, but as Leader of the Government he has taken the Order of Business on a Thursday.

Mr. Stagg

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Carey

This is revisionism at its best.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will proceed.

Mr. Stagg

As a matter of principle, the Taoiseach should take the Order of Business and respond to Leaders' Questions on every sitting day on which he is available. Of course, there will be times when he is away on official business. There must be reasonable provision for substitutions, but there should not be automatic provision that he need not turn up on a fixed day of every week. As Leader of the House and chief spokesman and representative of his Government, his chief responsibility is to be here in this House, speaking on his Government's behalf.

Much of the focus has been placed on two aspects of Standing Order 26. These are leave of absence for the Taoiseach on Thursdays and the precedence of the leader of a political party over the nominated representative of a technical group.

Mr. Carey

With the blessing of the Labour Party.

Ms Hanafin

I thank the Labour Party for agreeing with it.

Mr. Stagg

There is, of course, as the Fine Gael motion recognises, no necessary connection between those two provisions. A group made up of representatives of three parties and others should not be given precedence over a single party that is larger than any one of those three smaller parties. However, that issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the Taoiseach taking answers in this House. The fact that a Government with sufficient votes to have its own way anyway sought to create a linkage so as to share responsibility for the achievement of its desire to reduce the Taoiseach's exposure does not make my party co-author of the amendments introduced by the Government in October 2002.

Mr. Carey

Deputy Stagg might give the House the real reason the Labour Party voted with the technical group.

Mr. Stagg

I have described this evening's motion proposing amendments to these Standing Orders as modest. That is not to detract from their legitimacy, rather it is to emphasise the scale of the task facing this House when it confronts the need radically to reform the way we do our business. The Labour Party published a comprehensive policy document in October of last year. I know that Fine Gael and the Green Party have also been active. We have been in consultation on this issue and I hope we may soon be in a position to announce an agreed programme that draws from the best of our three sets of proposals.

Mr. Carey

It is a final amalgamation.

Mr. Durkan

Deputy Carey should be careful. There are uneasy alliances sometimes on that side of the House.

Mr. Stagg

As I hope it is clear to anyone who has read the Labour Party document, we have put much research and work into it. It has been in preparation for several months. However, it was published against the background of an outpouring of criticism of the political system, to a considerable extent sparked off by the decision of the Government to close down a week's plenary session in the Dáil, for a mid-term break, only about a month after a long summer recess. Of course, that sort of public criticism is aimed at politicians in general. It is only rarely that attention is drawn to the fact that it is the Government alone, not politicians as a whole, that determines the length of parliamentary sessions and organises parliamentary business.

That Government decision encouraged the view that the Dáil, and our national Parliament generally, is losing its relevance and that the people who are elected to serve have only their own interests at heart.

Much of that criticism is superficial and uninformed. As we say in the document, the vast majority of elected TDs of all parties are dedicated to the interests of their constituents. They seek to live up to the commitment they make when elected that they will give all their constituents loyalty, hard work, and, in the words of Edmund Burke, their "mature judgment and enlightened conscience".

The recent practice of blaming every politician for the performance of a few is not only unfair, it is corrosive. Fianna Fáil has been successful in tarring all of us with its brush.

Mr. Carey

Tarring and feathering.

Mr. Stagg

Declining participation in election after election is a dangerous and unwelcome trend in any democracy. The performance is not simply confined to issues of efficiency or our ability in this House, under our present outdated rules, to do the job for which we are elected. Far more dangerously, we are faced with repeated allegations of sleaze, fixing, back-handers, preferential access and the illicit purchase of favourable decisions from the powerful in high office, in breach of their duty to keep faith with the public trust.

It is a constant source of anger for my party members, and for those in other smaller parties and some Independents, that allegations are repeatedly directed against a core group who long ago made their home in the largest party in this State but that their defence to these charges is to encourage the popular belief that "You are all the same, everyone is at it".

That claim is not now and never has been true. It is spread so as to foster cynicism and indifference among the public, to alienate the people from the conduct of public affairs — their affairs, their business — and to enable the guilty to fade into the murky and corrupt backdrop of their own painting.

Dáil reform is about securing one all-important objective. It is not simply a Labour Party objective. It is a constitutional imperative. The Government is responsible to this House. For a Government to be formed and to survive, it must secure and maintain the confidence of this House. The only test by reference to which any proposal for reform must be judged is whether it assists this House in securing Government accountability.

We cannot blame anyone else for the low esteem in which we as members of this profession are held unless and until we are satisfied that we have done everything to ensure that our own house is in order. We live in the age of benchmarking, when every public servant is being asked to give evidence of a commitment to modernisation, flexibility and an enhanced service to the public. There is no reason TDs, who are nowadays well paid, as well as being accountable public servants, should be immune from that.

We have to modernise. We have to adapt to the world around us. We have to accept that the people we serve are entitled to see the fruits of our work, the better to be able to make informed judgments about our performance. It is true that much of the work of a parliamentarian, work demanded by our constituents and work to which they are entitled, is invisible. Much of what the public sees, especially as filtered through the media, does not inspire a great deal of confidence and trust.

Fixing that, however, demands much more than changing the rules and procedures, however outdated. The task of parliamentarians is often described as "to legislate". The late Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, in a ruling in the course of the beef tribunal, put it differently when he stated:

It is, inter alia, the duty of the Members of the Oireachtas to elect a Government, to legislate and to look diligently into every affair of Government. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents and to inform and be informed by them.

The narrow vision of the role of parliament as a Legislature cannot be sustained. We cannot be benchmarked by reference to the number of Bills processed by the end of the year. If that were the only criterion, then the Dáil, sitting two and a half days a week for a smaller number of weeks in the year, would have a higher productivity than the House of Commons, which has a five-day week and shorter holidays.

In our democracy, in addition to making law, the Dáil identifies who should form the Government of the day, and part of the job of Opposition is to establish that better alternatives exist. It must seek to ensure that the Government is accountable to the people and must provide a public platform for discussion and the investigation of major issues. It must approve the raising of taxes and the way that money is spent. It must watch, appraise and criticise the activities of the Government and the public service. It must provide a forum for individuals to raise issues and grievances indirectly through its Members.

All these are essential functions. Separate from that, a Deputy has a role as representative vis-à-vis his or her constituents, a role insisted on by constituents and neglected at the Deputy's peril. We cannot carry out all these roles to the best of our ability when operating within antiquated rules designed to protect old-fashioned notions of decorum. Neither can we carry them out by a simple updating of the rules, necessary though that is. We must go much further.

The Labour Party position is, that if the Dáil is to be a powerhouse of accountability, a true representative of the interests of the people, a place where maladministration leading to injustice can be investigated and rooted out, it must be modern, efficient, dynamic and powerful. It must be adversarial, tough, fair and thorough.

Mr. Kelleher

And it needs an Opposition.

Mr. Stagg

That is the reason we have committed ourselves to the most fundamental set of reforms, not only of the operations of the Dáil, but of all the mechanisms and instruments of accountability ever proposed. It is also the reason we are actively pursuing that agenda with Fine Gael and the Greens. We will campaign for these changes in Opposition. We will work with other parties to agree and secure them. If not implemented, we will implement them at our first opportunity in Government.

Ms Hanafin

The Deputy will be left waiting.

Mr. Stagg

Among the measures we propose is a complete redrafting of Dáil Standing Orders. We want to see a specific obligation on the Office of Ceann Comhairle to ensure that the interests of Members and the public interest are fully protected. We want a specific obligation on Ministers to ensure questions are fully and properly answered, including an obligation to provide redress or correction if the House is misled. We also want rules covering the standard of reply.

Mr. Durkan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Stagg

We propose new measures to allow discussion of genuinely urgent matters, especially those of wider public interest. We advocate reform of the rules covering the passage of legislation to ensure that all matters covered by Bills are fully debated, including limits on the use of guillotine motions.

Ms Hanafin

And Members' contributions.

Mr. Stagg

We want changes to the rules of debate to allow far more interchange between Members and to make it obligatory on Members, including Ministers, to yield to reasonable interventions and questions from the floor.

We propose a major programme of legislative and administrative reform to ensure greater accountability in Government and throughout the system of public administration. We will restore freedom of information and extend it to the Garda Síochána. We will ensure the Freedom of Information and Ombudsman Acts are reformed so their remit covers all public bodies or those significantly funded by the State. We will repeal the constitutional provisions on Cabinet confidentiality and regulate it by law.

Ms Hanafin

On a point of order, the Constitution can be repealed only by the people of Ireland, not by the Labour Party.

Mr. Stagg

We will introduce protection for whistleblowers and repeal unnecessary provisions of the Official Secrets Act.

Mr. Carey

And govern behind a pane of glass.

Mr. Stagg

We will severely limit political donations and spending in elections and will regulate lobbying. We will restrict the right of civil servants, including political appointees, to take up positions in the private sector that might give rise to a conflict of interest. We will require heads of Bills to be published and debated in advance of final decisions taken on their structure and content.

We want major changes in the operations of Dáil Éireann. We propose that the Dáil meet four days a week in normal working hours. We also propose that the summer recess should be no longer than nine weeks, that the Christmas and Easter breaks should be no longer than normal working breaks and that the practice of a full week's holidays around St. Patrick's Day and Halloween be abandoned.

The net effect of our proposals will be to increase the number of plenary hours by one third each sitting week and the number of sitting weeks by half. We propose wide-ranging changes to the way the Dáil does its business when sitting. We believe Private Members' time should be extended and made available to all Members of the House so that Government Members and those in Opposition would be free to put forward legislation on areas of interest to them. We also propose that, ideally, such legislation should be debated and decided on a non-Whip basis, leaving Members of the House free to decide such issues on their merits. We advocate changes to the rules regarding legislation to ensure more democratic participation. We believe questions should be extended to allow written questions to the chief executive officers of public bodies given the ever increasing number of cases where Ministers no longer have official responsibility for them.

We believe the lawyer-client relationship between the Attorney General and Government, so often used as an excuse for refusing to explain why Ministers follow specific courses of action, should be re-interpreted to require a summary of the advice to be published in certain circumstances. We propose a significant expansion of the work of the Dáil on European and secondary legislation and call for much less restrictive and more informative televising, radio broadcasting and Internet streaming of the Dáil, including its committees.

The Dáil must play a major role in the carrying out of public inquiries.

Mr. Kelleher

Does Deputy Stagg actually believe what he is reading?

Mr. Stagg

As a result of recent Supreme Court judgments arising from the Abbeylara case and the knock-on effects of those judgments for the mini-CTC inquiry, it is clear that if parliamentary inquiries are to be effective, constitutional change is probably necessary. We therefore propose a constitutional amendment to allow the Dáil to inquire into and report on any exercise of the executive power of the State or on the administration of any of its public services.

We propose the establishment of a powerful new committee of investigations, oversight and petitions, bi-partisan in structure, and chaired by a member of the Opposition. The role of that committee would be to ensure consultation and collaboration between the Oireachtas and the Ombudsman, to receive parliamentary petitions from interested groups in the community seeking the redress of grievances connected with the public services——

Ms Hanafin

It is a good job that the Deputy was elected.

Mr. Stagg

——and with public administration generally; to arrange investigation of issues of urgent public importance which demand detailed and thorough investigation of the sort normally dealt with by a tribunal; and to supervise an office of parliamentary investigator.

The proposed office of parliamentary investigator would be designed to ensure timely and cost-effective investigation of issues giving rise to significant public concern. Persons would be appointed to this office on the basis of specific contracts to carry out specific investigations. They would perform functions similar to those carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General and would have powers to secure attendance, to direct answers to questions, to direct the disclosure and production of documents, to secure evidence and to make determinations where privilege is claimed over information or documents. In general, they would take evidence in private, without legal and other representation by other parties and would prepare written reports on matters of established fact which could be used as the basis for further investigation, including in tribunals.

We propose a strengthening of the law in regard to legal costs in future tribunals. We will require that all future tribunals of inquiry be televised to the maximum extent possible. We also outlined a number of measures aimed at broadening the definition of accountability to take account of the changed nature of modern administration. Specifically, we intend to introduce new legislation which will specify the roles, functions, powers and duties of Departments and the position of the Minister in charge of each Department. In that context, we will make provision to permit the delegation of specific powers to civil servants who would, to the extent of the authority delegated to them, be accountable within the Department and directly to the Oireachtas.

Members of the House are entitled to reject unthinking criticism that would treat the Dáil as a Bills factory and Deputies as doing a nine to five job. Equally, we must accept that change is necessary to do the complex job to which Deputies are elected. Our proposals, published last October, amount to a detailed and complex package of measures, but it is a package. We are determined, and I believe we share this determination with many other Members of the Dáil, that our House should be a place that earns the trust and confidence of the people we represent.

If that is to be achieved, Dáil Éireann must be a place to which people can turn with confidence when normal accountability is needed, when legitimate grievance needs to be aired, when issues arising from public administration of concern to the public need to be investigated and when vital legislation needs to be seriously and thoroughly addressed. We are confident the measures we propose will transform the perception of Dáil Éireann and restore it to the position of public trust that is essential in our democracy. We will work as hard as possible, in collaboration with our partners in opposition, to implement them.

Mr. Carey

Has Fine Gael bought into that?

Debate adjourned.