Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jun 2011

Vol. 734 No. 1

Government and Oireachtas Reform: Motion (Resumed)

The following motion was moved by Deputy Catherine Murphy on Tuesday, 31 May 2011:
"That Dáil Éireann:
recognising that:
the unqualified and urgent desire of the people of Ireland is to rebuild Ireland's political system into an effective, accountable, transparent, representative and participatory institution;
there is a critical need for immediate and meaningful Oireachtas and local government reform, to be done in tandem;
Dáil Éireann has a clear constitutional role to hold the Government to account;
there is a vast difference between this and the practical reality whereby the Government exerts its will over Dáil Éireann; and
the current party-political whip system has created an overtly centralised parliamentary decision-making mechanism, severely curtailing the freedom of individual TDs to cast their parliamentary votes in the interests of those they represent;
resolves to:
increase Cabinet accountability to the Dáil through:
the abolition of the party-political whip system to allow individual members to vote according to conscience and not instruction;
greater transparency in Cabinet decision-making and the decision-making of senior civil servants;
opposing any reduction in Dáil time for Taoiseach's and Ministers' questions;
reformatting Dáil debates, Ministers' and Taoiseach's questions to create a more dynamic and open forum in which discussion and debate takes place;
the timely publication of regulatory impact assessments to allow for full consideration of the pros and cons of proposed legislation;
providing legal advisory capacity to the Dáil;
improve the committee function of the Oireachtas through:
increasing the powers of committees to allow for input prior to initial drafting of legislation; and
introducing compulsory powers for Dáil committees;
implement meaningful local government reform in advance of the 2014 local government elections."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that the new Government is committed to extensive political and Dáil reform as outlined in the programme for Government;
commends the Government for introducing immediate changes such as:
a reduction in remuneration for the Taoiseach and Government Ministers;
new arrangements in relation to ministerial transport to reduce its cost and to free up Garda resources; and
radically overhauling arrangements for appointing senior civil servants by the Top Level Appointments Committee, TLAC, in order that the chairperson and the majority of TLAC members will be drawn from outside the public sector;
commends the Government for agreeing to produce vital legislation shortly to:
set up the Constituency Boundary Commission as a first step to reducing the number of TDs;
reduce the Presidential election spending limit;
introduce a six month time limit to hold by-elections; and
effectively ban corporate political donations, lower personal political donation thresholds and increase transparency in respect of all political donations;
notes that the Government intends to prioritise further proposals for reform such as:
establishing a constitutional convention to consider wide ranging issues for political and constitutional reform;
extending the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 to 2003;
introducing whistleblowers legislation;
establishing an independent fiscal council;
referenda proposals to give Oireachtas committees powers of investigation and for the abolition of the Seanad; and
enhancing the democratic process by involving Members at an earlier stage of the legislative process via Oireachtas committees, particularly before Bills are published;
recognises that the local government system has an important role in enhancing the welfare and quality of life of communities and can make a substantial contribution to the national recovery effort;
endorses the extensive commitments in the programme for Government to renew and develop the local government system;
acknowledges the progress made to date in improving efficiency in the local government sector and the establishment of an independent implementation group to implement relevant recommendations of the local government efficiency review group report:
notes the intention to publish a policy statement outlining proposals for the development and reform of local government; and
calls on parties and members in the Dáil to engage constructively with ongoing discussions on Dáil reform with the aim of implementing a package of reforms in the House from September."
—(Minister without Portfolio).

Is ait an rud é go bhfuil an rún seo ar an gclár an tseachtain seo, os rud é go mbeidh díospóireacht againn ar an gceist chéanna amárach. Ag an am céanna, measaim gur mhaith an rud é go bhfuil an tábhar seo á phlé againn. Tá roinnt smaointe breise mar gheall ar athchóiriú na Dála á nochtadh ag na páirtithe difriúla. Is féidir linn díriú isteach orthu. Tá sé tábhachtach go ndíreoimid isteach ar conas gur féidir linn a chinntiú go bhfuil gnó na Dála — Parlaimint na tíre seo — oiriúnach don aois ina bhfuilimid. Tá éileamh i measc an ghnáthphobail go seasfaidh an Dáil chun díospóireacht a dhéanamh ar na gnéithe éagsúla is cúis leis an tinneas atá ag cur isteach orthu faoi láthair.

I have two issues with the motion proposed by the Technical Group. The abolition of the party Whip system would, in some ways, put me out of a job and there is a lack of understanding in that regard. Those of us who are elected as members of a political party believe we have a mandate to uphold party policy as the party directs us, having stood on a platform for that party. Therefore, the party Whip system should stand because it reflects democracy and the vote the electorate has cast. I am not suggesting people should not stand on an independent platform but when the electorate elects a Member to the Houses of the Oireachtas, who has stood as a member of a political party, the electorate understands the outline of that party's policy.

There is, and should always be, a role for difference in the Dáil and Seanad. That difference should be encouraged as much as possible to ensure many voices are heard in this House and that it reflects more and more society as a whole. One of the issues I have in terms of Dáil reform is not the technicalities or the changes to Standing Orders but the need to try to ensure the people elected to the House reflect society so we need more working class Deputies and more women. There has been quite an encouraging debate for the past number of years on how this institution can attract more women to be Members of Parliament. Whether that is done on the basis of quotas or by penalising parties through the Leaders' allowance, it is an issue we need to tease out.

We must ensure the people enacting legislation for our society reflect it. The Dáil should not be dominated by people from a certain profession or class, as has happened in the past. I will try to ensure that my party sees to it that the people representing it reflect the society in which they live and work. To date, we have done so.

A proposal in the motion is to provide legal advisory capacity to the Dáil. There is some legal capacity in the Dáil through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the committees. I presume what is intended there is that legal capacity should be available to Deputies in order that they have access to the advice of a legal team about legislative proposals they wish to make or to answer queries about legislation coming before the House. I do not believe that would be a problem and it would be a welcome development.

There are some welcome elements in the Fianna Fáil and Government amendments to the motion. That is why it is strange that there is a motion. The motion and the two amendments form the basis for Dáil reform. The Chief Whip has been trying to engage with the other Whips to try to set the wheels in motion on a package of Dáil reform measures. Some of what is contained here can be looked at in that context.

I find it interesting that Fianna Fáil has belatedly come on board in regard to the Dáil reform challenge. Movement from the previous Government in regard to Dáil reform was quite slow. I sat on the Dáil reform committee for nine years and progress was slow, if there was any at all. That was not only because of Fianna Fáil — in fact, among the worst in terms of blocking Dáil reform was the Labour Party which did a deal with Bertie Ahern when he was Taoiseach to allow him to absent himself from the Dáil on Thursday but quite soon afterwards, it said we could not have a Dáil reform package unless the Taoiseach attended the House on Thursdays.

It is good that there are new Members in the Dáil who have a different outlook because sometimes one can become institutionalised and it is hard to take criticism of the institution. Just because a debate in the House is staid or stale, it does not mean one must change things because change for the sake of change will not work. The Dáil has developed over time, as have other parliaments. If one goes to any country, one will hear parliament is out of touch or does not reflect what the public wants. That is a failure to understand the role of parliament. It is not only a debating shop; it has quite a valid job of work in dealing with legislation, holding government to account and so on. There is a balance to be struck between having a debating shop, whether at Leaders' Questions, and so on.

The only time one sees a full press gallery is when there is a bit of a row between the Opposition and the Taoiseach or a Minister but the normal day-to-day work, which is the most important, grinds on. When legislation is published, it is introduced in the House, goes to a select committee and then comes back to the House. That can be most frustrating and laborious work but it can also be the most rewarding because one gets a full understanding of the legislation. One can sometimes win over a Minister to one's point of view and legislation is changed and one manages to protect someone who is less well off or some group in society which will suffer the consequences of legislation which might be rushed.

I found it frustrating that the document, Regulating Better, produced by the last Government was not implemented. It called for regulatory impact assessments, which is included in the motion. In all my time in the House, I believe I only saw that mentioned in two Bills. If nothing else comes of this latest push for Dáil reform, an assurance that we will, in future, have legislation published in time to allow us properly to analyse it would be welcome, together with an undertaking that all legislation will be accompanied by impact assessments. Without knowing the full impact of a Bill, or at least having some idea, it is difficult for Members on either side of the House to assess it. A requirement to provide a regulatory impact assessment would also encourage those who are drafting legislation to have a greater regard for its effects.

The Government has committed in the programme for Government to a radical reform of our system of government, at constitutional level, at political level and at Dáil level. The Government will significantly reduce the size of the Oireachtas, with the proposed abolition of the Seanad being put to the public next year in a constitutional referendum. The switch to a single-Chamber Parliament would create an Oireachtas that is more effective, efficient and in tune with our democratic ideals. Sweden, Denmark and New Zealand have all abolished their second Houses to create single-Chamber Parliaments. When the Taoiseach, as Leader of the Opposition, announced that our party in government would give people an opportunity to vote on the abolition of the Seanad, it was called a gimmick. Within 18 months the other political parties were in agreement with that policy and it is now included in the programme for Government. The people will have their say on the matter in 2012.

In the interim the Government will try to ensure we have an efficient Seanad with a real work ethic that will offer a reformed way of doing business in the time remaining to it. The Taoiseach's 11 appointed Senators showed a break with the past by including a number of independent individuals from outside the political system. These include Dr. Martin McAleese; Eamonn Coghlan, the great Olympian athlete and director of the Children's Medical and Research Foundation at Crumlin hospital; Fiach Mac Conghail, director of the Abbey Theatre and chairman of We the Citizens; Mary Ann O'Brien, founder of the Jack and Jill Foundation; Jillian Van Turnhout of the Children's Rights Alliance; and Marie-Louise O'Donnell, lecturer and media contributor.

I am currently meeting with the Opposition Whips to devise proposals for Dáil reform. Work has already started to establish a boundary commission which will review the findings of the recent census of population and seek to reduce the number of Deputies. Reform has been an issue that many Governments have discussed but few have acted upon, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh observed. This Government will be different. We have proposed a radical reform of the way the Dáil operates to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century. The programme for Government undertakes to increase the number of Dáil sitting days by 50%. This will involve reducing the length of breaks at Christmas, Easter and during the summer and returning a day earlier after bank holidays. This has been the first Dáil to sit during the week of St. Patrick's Day.

The Government is also reforming the Oireachtas committee system. The new system will break with the practice of the previous Government which was designed to find jobs for Deputies rather than to ensure we had a functioning part of the Oireachtas. We will have fewer committees and they will be focused on detailed work programmes. Deputies and Senators will be members of fewer committees and will thus have more time to meet the demands and opportunities the new focused committees will provide. The vast majority of Members, in all parties, want to contribute in a meaningful way to the running of this country and to serve the Irish people. The radically reformed committee structure will give them that opportunity. In addition, we will ensure that Oireachtas committees have full powers of investigation. A referendum will be held to address the Abbeylara Supreme Court decision which currently limits the ability of committees to undertake effective investigations into crucial issues of public concern.

Following consultation with the Opposition Whips I will bring forward reform proposals before the end of this session. I hope those reforms will be in place by the second week in September when the Dáil returns after the summer break. They will enhance the functioning of the House and afford Members more opportunities for effective debate. That is what Members on both sides of the House want and what they were elected to do.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important issue. Like many other Deputies, particularly on this side of the House, I fought the recent general election on a reform platform and I support the radical reform proposals in the programme for Government. It is ironic that the Technical Group should introduce this motion given this Government's reform programme is more progressive than that of any of its predecessors.

The reform agenda kicked off on day one of the Government's appointment with reductions in remuneration for the Taoiseach and Ministers. One of the Taoiseach's first acts was to reduce his own salary to €200,000. This was followed by a restructuring of the ministerial transport system. Who could forget the sight of fleets of Government Mercedes driving into Farmleigh and Government Buildings, sending out all the wrong signals? Under the new Administration only a few Ministers have access to State cars. These reforms will be followed by a reduction in the number of Deputies once the boundary commission has reported. In addition, the people will have their say next year on whether the Seanad should be retained.

The most important area of reform must be in local government. The most frustrating aspect of my time as a local authority representative was that local government cannot finance itself. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, must be commended on his first step towards reform through the announcement yesterday of a new household charge. Although it has been described as harsh by some the charge will ensure money is ring-fenced for local government. For the first time in years local authorities will be able to raise their own funding. This will take the pressure off and may allow them, for example, to reduce commercial rates, a major bugbear for businesses in every town in the State since the recession began.

I have some concerns about the introduction of a 30% quota of female candidates for all political parties. Women should be elected as a right rather than as a consequence of a quota. There are many fine women involved in politics and many more will become involved in the coming years, with or without a quota.

Important first steps have already been taken, even though we have only been in government for 80 days. By the time of the next election I am confident that radical reform will have been achieved.

Some Senators will say in private that the Seanad as it currently stands needs to be abolished. That is why they argue in public that it must be reformed immediately in order to ensure there are checks and balances in our democracy. We could spend the next five years in this Chamber seeking agreement on reform of the Seanad instead of addressing the real problems with our democracy. Our democratic deficit will not be corrected if we do so. The problems for democracy in this State lie in large part in this Chamber. It may be somewhat paradoxical, as Deputy Deering observed, that the greatest reform we could make to this Chamber would be to make reform externally, at the layer of local government. However, we are debating Dáil reform, so I will focus on that.

From my brief time in the House I wish to make some observations that may help to make our time in this Chamber more meaningful. I make these comments in the knowledge that not many people are listening. That is part of the problem. I also make them knowing that they are ideas and need to be fleshed out in debate but we will not be afforded that opportunity in this Chamber. That is part of the problem. It bothers me that speaking time in this Chamber is divided equally between parties and groups rather than between elected Members. It is not right that Members elected to this Chamber should be excluded from the debate because there is insufficient time when it is distributed between the parties and groups. Time should be divided between those who want to speak.

It is not right that people come in here and use certain Standing Orders or rules of procedure to raise issues in the Dáil that they know cannot be addressed just so that they can go back to their constituents and say they raised the matter in the Dáil. It serves no purpose. It is Potemkin politics and it is a waste of everyone's time. Matters on the Adjournment fall into this category. To be able to raise an issue with the Minister and to receive a reply is no small thing but we cannot question the reply from the Minister. What is the point? We serve as postmen and postwomen. We might as well write a letter or an e-mail. If we cannot question the answer we are given, we are wasting our time because there is no debate.

In my time on Dublin City Council, I often went into the chamber without knowing what way I would vote. Through the debate on the issue, through the power of people's words and constructive engagement, I was persuaded to move one way or the other. That is a powerful process. I tried to take part in certain debates and to move others with my words and that too is a powerful process. In my time there, through constructive engagement with each other, our decisions and actions were all the better for having a debate. We had to know our material and we had to stand up and defend it. We could not hide behind the party line because there was no party whip. There used to be free votes in this Chamber and we should consider returning to that system, whereby Members can vote on the basis of the debate. Then we would have to take positions and able to defend them in this Chamber. That is important.

We need to transform this Chamber into a debating chamber, where opinions are given but also heard. Through constructive engagement with all sides of the House we can do collectively for this country what nobody can do individually. That is the root of parliamentary democracy and the system of checks and balances we need in Dáil Éireann. Strong, democratic governments require strong parliaments, which require strong opposition. Nothing I see so far in the operation of this Chamber lends itself to that idea.

We have seen this Chamber used in the past as a vehicle for the Executive to legitimise its actions. That serves no one well. I and the Government, including the Fine Gael and Labour parties, are committed to changing that. All Members are. That is why I commend this motion, which gives us time to discuss these issues and to try and find agreement, even though this is not proper debate. It is important that we do it together because the benefits will accrue, not to each of us as individual representatives in the benefits we try to gain from our work, but to the country as a whole because politics will have improved. Better decisions will be made on behalf of the people of this country, who we represent.

We are fortunate to have the parliamentary system we have so I ask that we use it as it is meant to be used. It should not just be a place of great speeches — there have been some great speeches from all sides since I have been here — but as a place of great debate. It should be the seat of responsible, accountable and proper decision-making in this country. I commend the motion because it has afforded us time to discuss this. I wish us all the best in our endeavours as we set out to achieve what so many of us promised in the recent general election campaign, to improve politics in this country. It must start in this Chamber. Through our collective will and actions we can do it.

I welcome any proposals on Dáil reform that have a chance of being implemented but the strange timing of the Technical Group motion surprises me. We are in the middle of a process of consultation with the Government Chief Whip about Dáil reform. Given the volume of demands from the Technical Group, I am surprised at the minimalist and miserable offering in the package of Dáil reform proposed by it.

It is a cigarette box motion.

Are Members of the Technical Group seriously suggesting——

Deputy Stagg should wait until he hears me.

I read the motion. There is nothing worth talking about in it. Are the great thinkers in the Technical Group seriously suggesting that the motion will correct all that is wrong? I doubt it.

Whips have been in vogue and in place in parliamentary institutions since Cromwell establish some form of democracy in Britain.

He is blamed for everything.

Perhaps I can be allowed to continue without interruption from Tipperary.

We beat him in Clonmel in 1650.

We do not hear much from that quarter. The history of Whips is that they were engaged as loyalist supporters of the Prime Minister to go into alehouses and houses of pleasure around the Parliament in Britain to beat the Members of Parliament out of them and to come in to vote. The Whips in England are still given a ceremonial whip when appointed. We should change that in this republic and call them co-ordinators or a more suitable name.

I am a long-standing Whip and my job is to listen to the views of the parliamentary party Members at the weekly meeting and to consider the various votes that will arise in this House. We make a decision collectively and I must ensure that Members vote accordingly. The Members have voluntarily taken a pledge to do so. If they want to be in the group, they must do so. If one wants to be an Independent, one can be an Independent instead and then one does not have to have a consensus. The proposal to abolish Whips would create anarchy in this House. People like Deputy Boyd Barrett and the opinions in the Technical Group mean that one could make no decisions on anything. No parliamentary institution in a democracy in the world is without some form of Whip system.

This Chamber is a legislative Chamber, it is not a debating society. The only reason the Government gave space in the past number of weeks to debates about nothing was that there was no legislation prepared. Normally, after being elected, the Government would go into recess for a period to allow legislation for the programme for Government to be prepared but that did not happen in this instance and it was a mistake. As a result, there is plenty of time to debate issues without any result. That will not continue. When the legislative programme is up and running, there will not be time to allow the Opposition to criticise the Government. That is effectively why they want the debates. They can do that in their Private Members' time.

Holding the Executive to account is the primary function of this Chamber. Since the election, I have encouraged the Labour Party backbenchers to raise questions on the Order of Business, to table oral and written questions to the Government and to raise matters on the Adjournment. There is not need for much encouragement but I ask them to continue to do so.

Deputy Stagg has one minute remaining.

I wish I had much longer. The point made by the last speaker is correct. The limitation of five minutes speaking time means we cannot have a debate.

It is imposed by the Whips.

Physician, heal thyself.

One of the major issues we need to address is that we have transferred power out of this Chamber to over 1,000 quangos. This point is not covered in the proposals in this motion. We need to recover that power. The power was given to us by people who sent us here. We transferred that power, unconstitutionally, to quangos outside this Chamber and we must recover it. We must bring it back to this Chamber so that the people are restored the powers they transferred to us when they elected us. That is essential.

I welcome the motion from the Technical Group and I welcome the commitment to what is a priority for the Government contained in the programme for Government. Unfortunately, the big idea from the Technical Group is to turn the Dáil into a collection of Independents. They want us to be recreated in their image and likeness. They want to abolish the political party system. I must tell them that politics is a serious business and representative democracy requires teamwork, policies and collective action. Independents, by their nature, are individual politicians and as such are something of a political luxury that a parliament can tolerate or accommodate. Nevertheless, there is no parliament composed entirely of Independents that could function effectively, as Deputy Stagg has clearly noted.

Ironically, the Independents have recognised the contradictions in their own status by now combining in a Technical Group which is not that far from a party. For all practical purposes they have become a political grouping to function in the Dáil; they even have a Whip or perhaps a couple of Whips. They speak with many voices but vote as one.

The amendment proposed by the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, contains a package of proposals which is far superior to the rather minuscule set of proposals outlined in the original motion. It would be very interesting if the Independents followed the advice in their own proposal, which suggests the abolition of the political Whip system to allow individual Members to vote according to their conscience and not by instruction. Will they practise what they preach? If they do they will observe that the package of proposals coming from the Government is far superior to what they tabled and they should exercise their individual conscience by supporting the Government's amendment. That would be an obvious action if they are to follow their advice in telling Members to vote with their conscience.

The extent of the reform proposed by the Government is absolutely unprecedented. Local government is to be reformed and the role of the Oireachtas will be enhanced through significant investigative powers to be vested in committees. A constitutional convention is to be held to consider wide-ranging political and constitutional reforms and it has already been announced that there will be a 30% gender quota, to be increased to 40% after the next election. These will radically reform the political system, and it is the first programme of Government in the history of the State which has made such comprehensive reforms a priority.

I will speak for a moment about an area which has not yet been mentioned, the role of national parliaments with regard to the European Union. Ireland's stance in the European Union has been diminished in recent years with a negative consequence on our political and economic well-being. This programme for Government is the first to contain a detailed set of proposals to transform our relationship with the European Union and bring European matters to the heart of Oireachtas proceedings.

European Union policy and legislative proposals will be subject to proper scrutiny, which has not happened in the past. Each committee will share the burden of dealing with policies and proposals relevant to their remit. Legislation will no longer be processed on the nod through statutory instruments, as has been the custom in the past, and Ministers will now be held to account by committees before attending meetings in the European Union. Likewise, the Taoiseach will be obliged to brief the Dáil before attending European Council meetings. That never happened in the past, although the Taoiseach may have attended the House a week or two later to relate what he was told by the representatives of Germany or France.

There will be an important new role for this Parliament in ensuring that the policies of the EU comply with the principle of subsidiarity, thus giving the Oireachtas a watchdog role as protector of the national interest in all European matters. For the first time, the Oireachtas will be proactive and instigate proposals for the draft annual work programme of the European Commission. The Oireachtas will also link with the offices of the European Commission and the European Parliament to engage in a wide range of in-house and outreach activities in communicating the European project to the Irish people. Proper engagement with Europe will enable Ireland to lead from the front instead of having to pick up the pieces when things go wrong.

If the Technical Group had enough time to read the full and comprehensive programme for reform, I am sure the members would have no problem voting for the Government amendment to the motion.

My two colleagues have dealt with the Technical Group motion and been reasonably critical of the group for bringing it forward. I will not repeat those comments and I will not add to the criticism on this occasion as the actions of the Technical Group have been helpful. There is no reason there should not be debate in this House about the need to change the way the House operates and the practices which may be in existence for decades. As Deputy Eoghan Murphy argued, we should address the elements that should be changed and I have no problem with the debate or the Technical Group raising those issues.

The point regarding the Whip system has been ventilated and I will not repeat it other than to pose a question. How could it be abolished and who would do so? How can the Dáil determine that people cannot come together in a voluntary way through a political party, make decisions together by compromise and come to the House to vote in a particular way? It is not open to the Dáil to abolish the party political system or the Whips in the sense proposed in the motion. As a result the argument against the Whip system is really unconvincing, demonstrating a frustration which Independents in the Dáil and Seanad have with the system. That is natural and although there is a luxury in being an Independent, those Members must also face the obstacles relating to the processing of business and the ability, essentially, to get work done in this Parliament. As Deputy Stagg and others have argued, practices have evolved through political parties because they are at the heart of our current system. Apart from that it is good to have this debate.

Everybody is in favour of reform and apart from the Whip issue, we are probably all in agreement. There is very little difference between the original motion and the amendments. Calling for reform is one thing but implementing it or setting it out on paper is another. Prior to the election, the Labour Party carefully and at some length examined this issue. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, set out a document of 140 proposals for genuinely radical change that would appeal to Members on all sides of the House. It took us a considerable period to analyse the problem and set out proposals which could be implemented.

Deputy Murphy is right to express frustration at how the House operates but change requires the unpicking of practices that have been here for a while and the way business has been done for years. Every time we look at a practice we can find a reason for its existence. Although we may want to get rid of it, we can see the rationale behind it so we have to unpick the practice in order to change it. We should do that and every Member should be involved in the process. The necessity for reform should not be the subject of contentious debate, although some of the individual aspects may cause people to differ. Deputy Stagg is right when he states that the process is ongoing and the impression should not be given that the matter is purely within the remit of the Government. Opposition parties should be involved, and I hope they will be.

I was struck by some of the debate when Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke more broadly about civic morality. It was a good issue to bring to the heart of the debate and there is a great expectation among people for this Dáil. This does not just relate to the economy and the principal issues that must be addressed but how we do our business. People expect change and want to see it happening. That is a reason it is good for us to proceed with the constitutional convention, although there is little detail yet as to how it will operate. That would be a genuine opportunity for us to examine the kind of republic we have and the sort of change we want to see in the republic.

I will comment on the committee system. Although everybody is arguing that the committees should be vested with true powers, I will repeat the argument because it is so important. The committees should be given a genuinely enhanced status. It should not just be a question of rhetoric that the Government will take committees seriously — as I am sure it will — and provide additional resources; we must see that happen. As parliamentarians we should stand up for the Parliament and our independent role, separate from the Government, even if we support that Government. We have a crucial role to play on behalf of the people who sent us here. We are right to demand that the Government should take the committees seriously, attend them and resource them. They should have an enhanced status. We also have a responsibility in regard to how we conduct our business in committees. Opportunities for grandstanding and set pieces should not be permitted and we need to learn discipline in, for example, scrutinising witnesses and asking questions. Many people have forgotten how to ask questions. A question is not a statement. I say with all due respect to my colleagues that we should take the committee system seriously. Let us be seen to make it work rather than simply expect the Government to do all the heavy lifting.

I call Deputy Wallace who I understand is sharing time with Deputies Healy, Ross, Joan Collins, Mattie McGrath and Halligan. The Deputies have five minutes each.

I thank Government Deputies for their interesting contributions. There was a divergence of opinion among speakers, which I welcome.

We are still in parties.

That is allowed. I do not have a problem with that.

Especially the all night parties.

I have not been at one of those for a while. Last night the Minister, Deputy Howlin, seemed to have a problem with the divergence of opinion on these benches as to what we should do with the Seanad. He criticised us for not thinking the same way. It is a strange notion that we should all behave like sheep or sing of the same hymn sheet even though we were elected as Independent Deputies. If the Deputies opposite want to agree on everything, that is their prerogative, but people should also be entitled to hold divergent views. I was delighted to hear the independent view set out by Deputy Eoghan Murphy in his contribution. Deputy Costello was not as keen on the idea.

He is in trouble now.

He is going to vote for you.

I completely agree with Deputy Stagg that it is outrageous to take power away from Parliament by appointing unelected members to quangos and paying them too much money, although we probably would not agree on much else.

Most of us will agree that the House is in need of reform. The general consensus is that it does not function like a Parliament and it would be healthier if it was reformed. I had a frustrating experience today when I tabled an oral question to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I was here for the duration of Question Time but my question did not come up because it was two questions away when the debate concluded. Of the 14 questions answered after priority questions, 11 were answered in the absence of the Deputies who tabled them. Obviously party colleagues are permitted to deal with the questions, which is a crazy practice. If a Deputy tables a question he or she should be here to deal with it. It was pure madness. I would have sat through the debate anyway because I was interested in hearing what Members had to say but it is a bad rule.

I will be delighted if the Government introduces reform and it will certainly earn my praise if it does so. However, some of the reforms will involve asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, which they do not like to do. Certain reforms would allow us to press the Government for greater accountability but there is a reluctance on the Government benches to expose themselves in this way.

From my experience of dealing with planning issues, I found local government to be poorly structured. The notion of electing councillors without allowing them to make decisions is madness.

The Deputy has one minute left.

God bless us, is that all?

Sorry, I am a killjoy.

The people who are elected to local government should be given decision making powers so they can be responsible to voters. The way local government is funded is madness. Insufficient funds are made available and we have one of the weakest systems of local government and the most centralised government in western Europe, which is to the detriment of society. I agree with the proposal to divert a certain percentage of income tax to local authorities but they also need greater capacity for raising taxes at a local level. If people can connect taxes to the delivery of services, they will be more inclined to pay. I am out of time already. I will have to revisit the matter.

No doubt beidh tú ar ais.

The fundamental issue in regard to reform is the accountability of politicians and the political system to the electorate. We need to put an end to the tactics pursued in the last election. Two parties, Fine Gael and the Labour Party, were elected to Government on a platform which asserted the bailout was not acceptable and would have to be renegotiated. One of the words used was "obscene". Subsequent to their election, however, they have acted on the same basis as the previous Government. There is no fundamental difference between this Government and its predecessor.

The absence of accountability to the electorate can be addressed in at least two ways. A system should be put in place whereby the electorate is able to recall politicians who stand for election on a particular platform only to change their policies on entering the Dáil. The original Irish Constitution, as well as a number of European countries, made provisions for popular initiatives whereby a certain percentage of the electorate can call for a referendum on decisions taken by the Government. Accountability to the people is key and if these two measures were implemented politicians and the political system would have to be accountable and transparent. They would no longer be able to operate on the basis of promises which are dropped after the election.

Various other issues arise in regard to Dáil and local government reform. I agree with those who stressed the importance of Deputies being in the Chamber when their parliamentary questions are taken. The idea that somebody else can deal with the question is not sustainable.

Before speaking on local government reform, I express my appreciation for the recently retired manager of South Tipperary County Council, Ned O'Connor, who gave 47 years of service to the county. He was absolutely committed to the social and economic development of south Tipperary over those years. He was prepared to listen and learn and was committed to the future of south Tipperary. I wish him well in his retirement.

However, I refer to three issues concerning local government. First, like Deputy Wallace, I favour the funding of local authorities by the Exchequer with a ring-fenced percentage available to them to provide services. Second, powers must be devolved to local authority members because, in recent years, more powers have been taken from them. Third, county managers should be elected. Those three proposals would change local government for the better.

I would like to point out something without doing so in a spirit of triumphalism. Apart from the Technical Group Members whose motion this is, why are there only three other Members present? What does that tell us about the Dáil and the way we do our business? This is not unusual. This is an important motion about improving the way we do business, yet only three non-Technical Group Members are present. That shows that Members think it is more important to be somewhere else.

It was unnecessary and unfair of Deputy Costello to criticise the Technical Group for tabling the motion because it is constructive. I am proud of that the fact that the group, of which I am a member, can table such a motion; its members can vote differently on issues and hold completely different views while working with each other in the interests of democracy and the workings of the House. Why are so few Members present? It is not just because of this motion. One of the reasons is Members prefer to be in their offices doing constituency work or to be outside the House doing something else. It is in their interests to do so. That is the result of the multi-seat PR system, under which we were all elected. It is in all our interests to keep it that way and, therefore, the incentive is to be on the telephone working the constituency and not to participate in the processing of legislation in the House.

There is a well known phrase that one talks one's way out of the House, not into it. The cynics say if one spends too much time speaking in the House, one will lose one's seat because one is not on the ground. If the system is changed and the number of multi-seat constituencies is reduced, there is a good chance that Members will come to the House and take legislation seriously. I am glad the Minister is present and I hope he will consider this suggestion because it would be in the interests of the House, which is 95% empty most of the time, to introduce a system that encourages Members to be present.

I have long suspected the other reason few Members attend the House is most of them believe the real action is offstage where power is held by Ministers, lobby groups and the social partners, as was mentioned earlier. This is less the case than heretofore, thankfully, but it is still an issue. Members regard decisions made in the House as rubber stamps. Legislation is not likely to be changed in the House and, therefore, we go through the motions. I may be wrong and a finance Bill will be taken next week. Let us see how Committee Stage goes and how many amendments are accepted but my guess is very few, if any, will be because this is a theatre rather than a legislative chamber.

We will have to stop Government backbenchers, in particular, accepting that they should act as lobby fodder, which is their traditional role. Deputy Eoghan Murphy apparently made an enlightened contribution earlier. I am sorry I did not hear it but he is an exception. There has been a tendency for backbenchers to accept a role as lobby fodder and not to participate in the business of the House in a meaningful way because they believe they will not achieve very much. That should end. There is a possibility through the committee system, which the Government has promised to reform and strengthen, of playing a real role and sending a message that Members on both sides of the House can play a real role. However, there are dangers in the Government's proposals for committees. They propose to reduce the number of committees in a concession to public opinion and the need to reduce expenditure but it is a great pity that many of the chairman posts will go to Government Members. Let us not pay the chairmen in order that there can be no accusation that the appointments are being made as sops to members of the Government parties. Let us then appoint——

And give the Deputy one.

Yes, give me one. I do not want to be paid. The Minister can give members of the Technical Group one each.

Everyone will be happy.

Let us divide the positions in a meaningful, less political way and not use the appointments as rewards. Let us give the committees meaningful powers to amend legislation to be returned to the House.

I congratulate my colleagues in the Technical Group on tabling the motion because the Government's response is interesting. It was with no great surprise that I noted the amendment begins, "To delete all words after ‘Dáil Éireann'...". Almost every Opposition motion over the past three months has elicited the same response. Is there not a word or sentence in the motion in which the Government can see merit? The motion recognise the lack of intellectual and political debate in the Chamber and my colleagues have reflected this in the issues they raised regarding accountability in our election to the House.

The motion also recognises the need for change and attempts to generate a debate on this. For example, on this motion, two amendments have been tabled. The Technical Group has called for the abolition of the Whips system. Fianna Fáil opposed this and called for a balance between the rights of parties and their mandate and the mandate of Members but the Government amendment makes no reference to this issue. There has been little debate on this, which was interesting. I agree with Deputy Eoghan Murphy that proper debate and accountability to those who elected us in our communities and consideration of the expectation of change in society could change a Member's decision and way of thinking and how or whether he or she votes on an issue.

The motion calls for the provision of legal advice to Members but the Government amendment is silent on this. There is no argument against this and it has been referred to by the Government.

The system in the Chamber is archaic. It is a reflection of what Fianna Fáil did over the past 20 years.

We have oral questions, written questions, priority questions, questions on the Order of Business, questions on the Adjournment, questions to the Taoiseach and Leader's questions. In general, very few of those questions get a real answer in the Dáil Chamber.

There is a need for reform. There is a big influx of new, first-time Deputies. The question is whether we could bring a breath of fresh air into the Chamber, if we could bring experiences that are more relevant to the lives and attitudes of the ordinary people who elected us and who we know. Could we bring in a new and more relevant way of conducting debate, scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account? That is what is needed.

The last paragraph of the Government amendment reads: "[The new Government] calls on parties and members in the Dáil to engage constructively with ongoing discussions on Dáil reform with the aim of implementing a package of reforms in the House from September". The sentiment clashes sharply with the reality of the Government's response to the motion. I am far from confident that any real change or reform will happen. Real reform or change will stem from the point made by Deputy Healy about accountability to the electorate and how we are judged on the basis of what we said before the election and doing something different when we get into the Dáil Chamber.

I too am pleased to speak to the Technical Group's motion. I thank my colleagues in the group for researching the issue and coming up with the formula used in the motion. Real reform is necessary in the House.

I offer my congratulations to my neighbour, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan. I wish him well. I hope to meet him in September in Croke Park.

We will be there anyway.

We will have another battle like last year. We need more than tokenism. The debate follows on from the Second Stage of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill. We saw from that the tokenism that is involved in some of the ways it was introduced. The huge ideological difference between Fine Gael and Labour will be a problem for the Government. We wish the parties well.

The public voted for change. They gave a huge majority to the parties that are now in Government. People are not getting the change they sought. Part of that demand came on the heels of the claims and accusations made on a daily basis by the spokespersons for Fine Gael and Labour. As I said in other debates, they did not need to promise anything, they would have got in anyway. Nonetheless, they promised much and have not delivered nor can they deliver. It was known that they would be unable to deliver. That is the political reality. It leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the ordinary electorate, especially the young people who are educated and understand politics. They want real debate and meaningful reform, as we all do. The Taoiseach has said on many occasions and he reiterated this morning that he does not wish to be involved in a Punch and Judy show. He accused Deputy Martin of engaging in a Punch and Judy show. We must move beyond that and introduce real reform and accountability in the Chamber.

Last night I saw the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, make announcements on the television news about water charges and property charges. Those issues must be debated in the House. He is a long-time practitioner of the political system and he understands it well. I accept he also wants to see change. We must get change.

The situation with legal advice was the same in county councils. I accept there are legal advisers available but we do not get legal advice. We are always told the Attorney General has advised the Government on this, that and the other. I have experience of the Whip system from my previous term in the House. On hearing that the Attorney General said we could not do such and such a thing I often asked whether we had sought a second opinion. The Attorney General is only one legal mind. I accept all legal experts are qualified but any day of the week one could hire three different, eminent senior counsel to give three different views on any given topic once one would come up with the readies to buy the advice. I often wonder why the advice of the Attorney General must be accepted. That was my experience on so many occasions during the term of the previous Government.

The members of the Technical Group were voted into the House in large numbers. People voted for candidates not in the party system who hold a different view. We have a mixed and varied grouping. A combined effort allows the group to put forward motions such as this one, avail of speaking time and to do other things. We can be different to each other and be honest and open and we do not have a Whip telling us what to do. We are also entitled to research staff. If the Government is honest about reform I do not know why we must wait until the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission decides whether we should get such staff when we are entitled to them as a right.

It is the same with Adjournment debates. It is very difficult to raise a matter on the Adjournment. We are allowed to raise matters under Standing Order 32 calling for the suspension of the Order of Business in the morning but having read out the matters the Ceann Comhairle rules them all out of order automatically. The public wants change. We must make the House accountable to the people on the street. That is our primary duty and that is why we tabled the motion. When it comes to the vote I hope the Government will accept the motion in the spirit in which it was tabled.

There should be a greater input at committee level on the drafting of legislation and people with expertise in all aspects of business, be it industry, agriculture, the economy, education, financial services or health should be integrated into the committees. Such people could be selected from the public. I appreciate that many Members of the Oireachtas have expertise in various sectors but we should include people with proven ability and knowledge at the initial committee level and following research and meaningful debate at that level we should proceed to debate in the parliamentary Chambers.

There should be more debate across the floor of the Dáil. More thought should be given to good, practical proposals rather than the existing format which has been used in Parliament through the years. It is a case of them and us. There is much more co-operation between members at local government level. Such a system works well if it is done in such a way that people accept the good points that are made from whatever quarter. Much can be achieved from such an approach if good propositions are taken on board.

Reference is made in the motion to meaningful local government reform. That is an area with which I am more familiar. Local authorities in their existing form exemplify local and democratic government at its best at a local level. Evidence of that is provided in larger towns where there are efficient and capable town councils. County councils have area offices in smaller towns where services are available for the public. That is the most effective way of delivering services and accountability. County councils have stood the test of time since 1899. They are democratically elected every five years and they are accountable.

Local development partnerships and RAPID programmes should be linked into local authorities and be synchronised with their work at local council level. County enterprise boards are doing a reasonably good job. It would maximise their results if they were even more integrated. I would prefer a system whereby they would report back to county councils rather than the current arrangement of reporting back to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. Many grants could also be administered at county council level, for example, social welfare protection grants and HSE grants. Such work would be more cost effective and could be done more expeditiously by county councils. Rent allowance should be transferred from the HSE to local authorities as soon as possible.

Much adverse comment has focused on the representation levels in this country. It is a proven fact that there are more public representatives in France and Switzerland than in this country. We are below the EU average per head of population. In Kerry South alone the population density is only a quarter of the EU average over a sprawling constituency. Connectivity is important. There is no point in comparing governments in Ireland and France or other European countries because they have a different tradition from ours. Our product has worked well in the past, particularly in the area of tourism. Now, after the visit of President Obama, we should capitalise on that worldwide, particularly in the area of genealogy.

I thank Deputies for their contributions over the past two evenings and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The motion and amendments are concerned with a range of important issues relating to the Oireachtas and other matters within the public expenditure and reform agenda. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, dealt with these and other matters relating to Government and the Legislature at national level. I will deal briefly with the items that come within my direct area, namely electoral provisions and local government.

As Minister with responsibility for local government and for overseeing a modern and efficient electoral system, reform and development are key aspects of the policy agenda I want to pursue. I agree with Deputy Fleming that all ideas for policy implementation should be considered. He made a number of practical suggestions that are important for the local government area, which are very much in keeping with my ideas regarding devolution of power from central to local government. I am sorry Deputy Ross left the House because when he speaks about political change and reform, it is about himself. As Fine Gael spokesman in opposition on this area not long ago, I spelled out radical ideas on how we could reform the Oireachtas and politics at local and national level. The then Senator Ross opposed every one of those suggestions. We cannot have it every way. I put political reform on the national political agenda and I am determined, as is the Government, that much of that reform will be implemented.

I take on board that there is significant change required in the way we operate in the House. The Government is intent on making that change. In terms of political reform, the Government is committed to delivering tangible results and that agenda has been placed at the heart of the Government programme. The Electoral (Amendment) Bill 2011 will provide for the implementation of a number of recent decisions announced by the Government. First, as part of the agenda to make the political system leaner and more efficient for its citizens, the terms of reference for the constituency commission will result in a reduction in the number of Deputies. The constituency convention, which will be established in the near future, will examine, among other issues, the question of whether we need a second House. The constituency commission, which is due to be established upon the publication of the 2011 census results will report within three months of the publication of the final census results in 2012. The Oireachtas will then have the opportunity to make the final legislative changes needed for implementation of these particular proposals.

Second, considering the current economic climate and bearing in mind the prevailing mood for restraint in all aspects of public life, the Government has agreed to reduce the spending limits for the forthcoming presidential election and to reduce the amount that candidates can be reimbursed for expenses substantially. Also, in order to ensure that citizens are fully represented in the Dáil and that vacancies will not be allowed to continue for an indeterminate time, the Government has agreed to an amendment to the electoral Acts which will guarantee that all by-elections are called within six months of a vacancy arising.

Yesterday, I announced details of the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Bill 2011, which will be published in the coming weeks. It will amend the electoral Acts to implement political funding commitments set out in the programme for Government. Key elements include significant restrictions on corporate donations over €200 and reductions in the amounts of political donations that may be accepted as well as a lowering of the thresholds that can be declared. We will also place a new condition on State funding of political parties. If parties do not want to have their State funding halved, they must have at least 30% female and 30% male candidates at the next general election. This will rise to 40% after seven years.

The Electoral Commission Bill is also part of the Government's legislative programme and it will be enacted during the lifetime of the Dáil. It contains a commitment to establish a commission to subsume functions of existing bodies and my Department into one entity. There is broad agreement on the principle that an electoral commission should be established. Issues for consideration include international best practice; its structures and functions; who it will report to; its relationship with other bodies; and the approach to be followed with regard to the extensive legislation that will be required.

The fundamental challenge for us all is to rebuild the economy and promote a fair and cohesive society. This will be the foundation for a restoration of confidence in the political system at national and local level. I am determined to devolve functions from central to local government, to make local government meaningful to citizens again and that people elected to local government will have a meaningful role and impact on the lives of those in local communities. We have set out a programme of political reform which will overhaul the way politics, the Oireachtas and government work. It is an ambitious programme, but it is required in order to modernise, renew and transform the way we do business here and in the political system generally. The public needs to have faith in politics again and in the ability of Government, in all its forms, to deliver. We are determined to deliver that.

I wish to share time with Deputy Stephen Donnelly.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

In response to the Labour Party Deputies, who have left the Chamber, it is important to point out that the motion put forward by the Technical Group is not meant to be a comprehensive response to the urgent need for political or Dáil reform, because there are divergent views within the group on that matter. We understand that there must be a real debate in society and between political parties and public representatives about how we make our system more democratic, responsive and participatory and in putting forward this motion, we wanted to prompt that debate.

The fundamental and radical change needed to democratise our society and make our political systems responsive to the needs and aspirations of the majority of the people goes way beyond Dáil reform and beyond tinkering around with its business. It is about deep, fundamental change. I want to speak about those deeper issues and the more fundamental change required. However, we put forward some points about Dáil business, because we know change is imminent in that regard. Change will happen because the Government has proposals on the table.

I support and welcome some of the proposed changes. The abolition of the Seanad is long overdue. The Government deserves credit for that proposal, although it was not the first to make it. Fair play to the Government which intends to go through with the proposal, because as far as I am concerned the Seanad is a disgraceful, elitist institution. The fact that only some people get to vote for a representative body and the majority does not makes it an institution that has nothing to do with democracy, one we must get rid of. That proposal is positive. However, whether what is left will be truly democratic or representative is something on which we need further discussion.

I also welcome the promise of whistleblower legislation and although we have yet to see the detail on that, it is a positive move. I agree with Deputy Wallace and others that the Government proposal to introduce a system for parliamentary questions which will mean Deputies must be in the Chamber in order to have their questions accepted is a positive and long overdue change.

However, with regard to smaller and more technical issues, some of the Government proposals move in the opposite direction from making the Chamber more responsive and democratic. Reducing questions to the Taoiseach to one slot a week, from the current two slots — which I believe used to be three — will reduce the exposure of the Taoiseach to public accountability. That is wrong and regressive and the Government should ditch that proposal. The suggestion put forward for topical debates is a good idea, but it is important these debates take place early in the day and that they are not shunted to late at night. We also need to do something about the fiasco that is the Order of Business. What needs to be done in that regard is not to remove the Taoiseach from that slot, but to open the slot up and regularise the de facto situation. Deputies want to raise topical issues early in the day with the Leader of the Government. They should have the right to do that and should not need to play games with the Ceann Comhairle based on an archaic mechanism of Order of Business which only seems to limit discussion. I do not blame the Ceann Comhairle for that but there is an urgent need to regularise the de facto situation which is that people want to raise topical issues early in the day.

These are technical details and even though I have made some proposals, as has the Government, the phrase rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic comes to mind. While I do not know who said it, he or she was right in saying that politics is concentrated economics. The bottom line is that no matter how wonderful our democratic structures are, they mean nothing if people have no real power and control over the things that matter to them — their ability to get a job or a house, to have industry, to have economic and social development. The problem is that in signing up to the IMF-EU deal, whatever tinkering we do with the political system is all irrelevant because the decisions on the things that really matter and that will affect the day-to-day lives of ordinary people have been handed over to a body that is completely unaccountable to the people of this country.

What is happening in Greece is terrifying. It also relates to the issue of privatisation which the EU and IMF are pushing, on which I do not know the Government's attitude.

The Deputy has two minutes remaining.

I wish to make an elementary point that relates to the point Deputy Stagg made about quangos. Quangos are unaccountable. They are areas of public endeavour that are at one remove from public accountability through this Chamber. Privatisation does that to an even greater degree. It is about giving away land, resources, vital infrastructure, strategic industry, vitally important companies and so on, which belong to the public. Therefore, through their public representatives members of the public have at least theoretically some influence over how those things are utilised in the interest of society as a whole or whatever. Privatisation means the end of that. It also means we are increasingly reduced to being a talking shop because it does not matter what we say as somebody else owns those things.

In order to get a 1% reduction in its interest rate Greece has been told to sell the telecommunications and power infrastructure, and hospitals and the credit union system are to be privatised. That is a systematic destruction of democracy. If the EU and IMF are willing to do that to Greece, why should we think they want to do anything different to us? Regardless of how much we get down on our knees and claim to be good boys in adhering to their programme, it is sinking our economy, yet they come back for more. Even to get a small concession from them we have to promise to give away more of our public resources and in the process give away our democracy.

Having a real and responsive democracy requires walking away from a deal that has handed over that democracy to forces that are completely unaccountable. If public representatives were to be truly representative of the public, they should have wages and conditions commensurate with what ordinary people have to deal with. Would we not be fighting much harder for the ordinary working people of the country if our economic situation was the same as theirs, which is what I propose?

I believe we are all agreed that the people demanded political reform in the recent general election. I recently saw a survey that showed that politicians were by far the least trusted professionals in Ireland — we are lower down the scale than lawyers by a large amount. I commend the Government on some of its recent proposals. If it manages to get through many of the things it proposes, there will be some genuine much needed reform.

In particular I applaud the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on his proposal on female candidates in general elections. That will be genuinely revolutionary. I am delighted to see it and fully support it. I suggest that a serious emphasis should be put on accountability in the Minister's proposals on local government. If we are going to have local funding and devolution of power we need serious accountability which does not appear to be there at the moment. I hope we see more of that.

I also welcome the proposal in the Government's amendment for forthcoming legislation on whistleblowers, which is much needed in Irish society. In particular I commend the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, on their contributions yesterday. The Minister, Deputy Howlin, explicitly addressed the motion tabled by the Technical Group and agreed with many of the ideas therein, for which I thank him. I note the passionate and convincing contribution of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, on how the balance of power between the Executive and the Dáil does not seem to be in a healthy place. Rebalancing this is critical and I hope we will see some substantive moves in that direction.

There has been considerable debate over the past two days on various aspects of reforming the Seanad, Dáil and local government. I wish to concentrate this evening specifically on Dáil reform. It is widely accepted in the political science community that Ireland has the most centralised power of any government in western Europe and it is widely accepted that this is not a good thing. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, spoke eloquently on the subject yesterday. I wish to make four observations as a new Deputy coming to the House.

There appears to be a lack of regulatory impact analysis. There appears to be a lack of meaningful debate with Ministers on their proposed legislation. We do not yet appear to have method for Government backbenchers or Opposition Members to interrogate Ministers on specific issues. There is a blanket opposition through the party Whip system. There appears to be a lack of transparency in Cabinet decision making. I accept some of that is necessary but it seems to be quite extreme.

Let me use the jobs initiative, which is extremely important, as an example. I believe we would all accept that taking €1.8 billion out of pensions is a very serious thing to do. Yet as a Member of the Dáil trying to represent the people of County Wicklow and east County Carlow and being asked to vote on the Bill, I have no information as to the projected benefits.

The Deputy has two minutes left.

I was told I had 7.5 minutes. I have spoken for 3.5 minutes and have four left.

I did my best to get everybody to hurry up.

The debate must end at 8.30 p.m.

I will speed up. The jobs initiative is a very good example of the present system not working. We were being asked to vote on extremely important legislation for jobs creation which has potential impacts on the pensions industry yet we did not have anything like the information we needed in order to do that. As we know the role of the Dáil is to hold the Cabinet to account as specified in Article 28.4.1° of the Constitution, which states: "The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann". We need to be provided with the tools to do that.

I welcome the Government's proposal to introduce a constitutional amendment on compulsory powers for committees and hopefully to introduce meaningful questions for Ministers on proposed legislation. I have no ideological objection to political parties and I understand that the Whip may be necessary at times. I commend Deputy Eoghan Murphy on the call for greater use of free votes. This is done in other democracies and is seen as a good thing allowing Government backbenchers to use their expertise and represent the people who elected them. The Government backbenches are full of talented people with good ideas and a passion to get things done. It must be extremely frustrating not to be able to hold the Government to account in a meaningful way and essentially to be forced to vote with the Cabinet every time.

We need to address the culture as well as the rules. While I commend the Government on much of what it is proposing, I wish to make three observations on the question of culture. With regard to committees, it appears on this side of the House as if we are being handed a fait accompli with very little input in terms of the number of committees, what they will do and the representation thereon. The Government has over-represented itself on the committees relative to the number of Deputies in the Dáil. That concerns me.

Deputy Stagg's recent and rather insidious contribution to the debate would be fine and we could dismiss him as a fossil of a bygone era if he were not the Labour Party's Whip. He is the Labour Party's person appointed to engage with the Opposition on issues of reform. When the person appointed in this capacity speaks with such contempt and disrespect for a genuine motion tabled by this side of the House on meaningful political reform, it suggests the old culture is alive and well.

The start of the motion, referenced by the Minister for public expenditure and reform, Deputy Howlin, states our democracy needs to be effective, accountable, transparent, representative and participatory. We probably all agree that we fail, to a greater or lesser degree, on all five of those criteria at present. There has been fantastic debate this evening and yesterday on this motion and genuine passion for change was expressed by very many Members. If we can change the rules and the culture of the House, there may be hope for us and for democracy in Ireland.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 101; Níl, 29.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Áine.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Browne, John.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Donnelly, Stephen.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Jonathan.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Amendment declared carried.
Top
Share