Gerry Adams
Question:1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans to bring forward proposals for Dáil reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39057/13]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Political Reform
Micheál Martin
Question:2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the position regarding reforming the Oireachtas committee system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39134/13]
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:3. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Taoiseach the key areas in which the Government has reformed the operation of Dáil Éireann's legislative process since it has come into office; and if it is intended that these reforms will be put in place regardless of the outcome in the recent referendum on whether Seanad Éireann should be abolished. [39145/13]
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if a Cabinet sub-committee on political reform has been established; if so the number of times it has met. [39365/13]
Gerry Adams
Question:5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans to consult Opposition leaders on the issue of Dáil reform. [40742/13]
Joe Higgins
Question:6. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach his plans and the timeframe to proceed with Dáil reform. [40870/13]
Gerry Adams
Question:7. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach when he next plans to meet the leaders of the Opposition on Dáil reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47694/13]
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the plans he has to reform Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47756/13]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
The programme for Government outlined an ambitious agenda for Oireachtas reform to be introduced in a phased process over the lifetime of this Government. No parliament is perfect and the process of parliamentary reform is always ongoing. The reforms introduced since this Government took office in March 2011, together with the reforms introduced last week, will improve the working of the Oireachtas, but they are not the end of the reform process. Work has started on the next phase of Dáil reform. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and I have met the Opposition leaders and Whips to discuss what should be included in the next phase of Oireachtas reform.
The first phase of the Dáil reform was introduced in the summer of 2011 and included an additional Leaders' Questions session on Thursdays, to be taken by the Tánaiste; Topical Issue debates to replace the outmoded Adjournment debates; Friday sittings for Deputies to introduce their own Bills; an appeal to the Ceann Comhairle if a Deputy is unhappy with the reply received to a parliamentary question; as well as a restructuring of the Oireachtas committee system by reducing the number of Oireachtas committees from 25 to 16 and providing a system of pre-legislative review.
In the summer of 2012, further reforms to the Oireachtas committee system were introduced, which streamlined the structure and allowed additional focus on areas such as jobs and agriculture. The Dáil reform sub-committee met on a number of occasions in 2012 and 2013 to discuss Dáil reform proposals. In September 2013, the Government announced the second phase of the Dáil reform programme. In October 2013 the Dáil debated changes to Standing Orders and the new changes were introduced last week.
More public involvement in the law-making process will be achieved as follows. A pre-legislative stage before an Oireachtas committee will be a requirement for all non-emergency legislation. A Minister who does not bring a Bill to committee for pre-legislative stage will be required to explain that decision to the Dáil. The pre-legislative stage will allow for an unprecedented and extensive engagement by the public in law-making. The committee can consult experts and civic society. Crucially, this will take place before the legislation is drafted. Where there has been a pre-legislative stage, the chair, vice chair or a member of the relevant committee will have a right equal to that of the Minister and the Opposition spokespersons to speak in the Dáil to outline the committee's work.
In addition, the Government’s priorities will be outlined to the Dáil on an annual basis as follows. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste will address the Dáil setting out the Government's annual priorities. Each Minister will also address the Dáil setting out his or her Department’s plans for the future. The Government will publish for debate in the Dáil an economic update and projections for the next three years, using the stability programme and national reform programme; a national risk assessment, which will set out the risks, both financial and non-financial, which the country faces in the year ahead; and a national progress report, produced independently by the CSO.
The role of Oireachtas committees in the budget process will be expanded as follows. In April each year the stability programme update is presented by the Government to the EU. Committees will be able to review this information and report before the budget in October. The budget and spending Estimates will be published in October and committees will, for the first time, scrutinise the budget proposals and the Estimates before the beginning of the financial year and before any money is spent. A new, improved model of financial scrutiny, which was piloted for five Departments in 2013, will be rolled out to all Departments by 2015. We are introducing a number of measures to improve the legislative process, including the following. A new system for the drafting and enactment of legislation will include a reduction in the number of legislative programmes to two per year. The Dáil sitting day will be longer, starting at 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, and the increase in time available will be used to debate legislation. These steps will result in a reduction in the use of the guillotine.
Legislative debate in the Chamber will be improved by the following reforms. On First Stage the proposer of a Private Member’s Bill will have five minutes to outline the purpose of the Bill. On Second Stage the chair or vice chair of the committee which considered the Bill at pre-legislative stage will have a speaking slot to report to the Dáil on its findings. At the end of the Second Stage debate, 45 minutes will be allowed for concluding remarks by Deputies chosen by the Ceann Comhairle at random who had previously spoken on the Bill.
Changes to Friday sittings will include the following: the Dáil will sit every second Friday to debate a Private Members' Bill and committee reports. This will allow more Deputies to have their Bills debated in the Dáil and allow Oireachtas committee reports to be debated in the Dáil. Private Members' Bills and committee reports will be selected using a lottery system. A Minister or Minister of State will speak during the debate to outline the Government’s response.
Reforms to the system for topical issues include the following: the Minister or a Minister of State from the relevant Department will reply to topical issue debates. If this is not the case, the Deputy can ask to have the matter deferred until a Minister from that Department is available, when it will be given priority.
Changes to parliamentary questions include the following: an ordinary oral question will be answered only if the Deputy tabling the question is in the Chamber when it is reached. The Deputy will be given a brief period of 30 seconds, to outline the question. An Opposition spokesperson will no longer be able to nominate questions in the name of other Deputies, but can submit five ordinary questions.
A new system of post-legislative review will be introduced as follows: a Minister will report to the relevant Oireachtas committee within 12 months of enactment of an Act to review the functioning of the Act. The number of Dáil sitting days has been significantly increased by reducing the length of the Dáil recesses and introducing additional sitting days. A comparison of sitting days between this Government’s first two and a half years in office, when the Dáil sat 303 days, and the first two and a half years in office of the previous Fianna Fáil, Green and Progressive Democrats coalition, when the Dáil sat 229 days, shows an increase of 74 sitting days or 32.3%.
No Cabinet sub-committee on political reform has been established. The establishment of Cabinet committees is a matter for Government and the need for further Cabinet committees is kept under review. Work has started on the next phase of Dáil reform. As I have already said, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Government Whips have met with the Opposition party leaders and Whips to discuss the next phase of Dáil reform. The Dáil reform sub-committee, discussions with Opposition party leaders and Whips and consultation with all Deputies will all form part of developing the next set of Dáil reforms.
I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh on behalf of Deputy Gerry Adams.
While I welcomed some of the recent changes to Dáil procedures they were not without some controversy. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State mentioned consultation. These changes are often a fait accompli, and by the time a decision reaches the Members the Government has already decided to go ahead with a particular proposal leaving us to row in behind it or suck it up. Does the Minister of State agree that there needs to be proper consultation as in a list of proposed changes circulated to all Members, not just those within political parties to allow them make some kind of input? Even if the Dáil reform committee does not agree with them Members will at least have had some say because the changes brought into this Chamber affect every Member of the House. They also significantly affect the staff who do not have a say in the matter in any shape or form. Can we ensure that there is proper consultation at an early stage rather than after the fact or when a full proposal is already on the table?
Does the Minister of State agreed that there is a conflict between the number of sitting days and the hours that we sit? He mentioned that we have sat an extra 32.3% days since whenever, but that does not necessarily equate to hours worked or productivity. There is also an argument about the two roles that Deputies play, first as messengers from their constituents who elected them, and second as legislators. The roles are intertwined but are often at odds. The trend seems to be that the days of the week when the Dáil does not sit are being eaten into by extending sittings to Friday and including sittings on a Monday which squeezes the other half of the work of Deputies. That impacts not only on the ability of Deputies to do that work but also on their personal life. A balance needs to be struck. The more we move towards full Friday and Monday sittings the greater the impact.
I have several practical proposals which I do not believe require the endorsement of the Dáil reform committee but if that is necessary then so be it. One is a simple change, to ensure that the headphones in this Chamber are discreet. If I speak as Gaeilge people do not put on the headphones because to do so would embarrass them by announcing to the world that they do not know Irish. The introduction of discreet headphones would be a simple change and does not require approval by a committee. Another simple change would be to install an abstain button. If one does not vote for or against a proposal one declares that one is not here. There are occasions when Opposition Members wish to abstain. I have not seen Government Members caught in that bind. I have been making this proposal for several years but because it does not fall under the scope of changes to Standing Orders it falls by the wayside.
Simultaneous publication of the explanatory memorandum of a Bill in Irish would provide the terminology associated with the Bill. The Minister for Social Protection said that it would happen or that at the very least she would consider it. I have argued for years that Bills should be published simultaneously in English and in Irish but it would be a step forward if the explanatory memorandum at the very least were published in Irish. Will the Minister of State consider that proposal?
I have submitted a detailed list of my Dáil reform proposals. I do not suggest that they are the be-all and end-all but I will argue the case in each one. Will it be possible in the future to have enough time between Government proposals and their implementation to consider their practicalities because in the case of some recent proposals the practicalities and the timeframe for implementation left a lot to be desired? I will leave it at that but I might come back in at a later stage when other Deputies have finished their contributions.
I take on board the Deputy's sentiments about consultation. For the nine years that I was Opposition Whip there was lots of consultation but there was no Dáil reform. The Dáil reform committee sat and talked but there was never any action or any decisions taken. It is possible to have lots of consultation but I believe we must also have action and results.
One of the first things I did when I became Government Chief Whip was to hold a debate on Dáil reform. That gave an opportunity to every Member of the House to speak. It would be no harm to repeat that process because there were many new Deputies who had been in the House only a month at that stage and who perhaps did not understand the workings of the standing orders of the House, the debates and votes and so on. Now that Members, particularly new Members, have settled in and know and understand the workings of the House we could have another debate. My parliamentary party has had several debates on Dáil reform.
We had one specific meeting recently before I implemented the changes. That is going back two or three weeks but we had a debate at our parliamentary party meeting. It is up to each party or grouping to have their own debates at their parliamentary party meetings. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for his proposals and I thank Deputy Ó Feargháil from Fianna Fáil for his. They gave me two reports as well as actions they are keen to see with regard to Dáil reform. I pledge to have a debate in the House before any future reforms. This will give other Members, especially new Members who now understand the workings of the House, an opportunity to outline what changes they might want.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh made reference to extra sitting days. People say we should be family friendly and so on. I see nothing family friendly in a Deputy having to come from west Cork, Donegal, Galway, Mayo, Kerry or Limerick, all of which are three or four hours from Leinster House, on a Monday and then sitting from nine to five on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and perhaps Thursdays. In that case they are away from their families for three or four days and that is not very family friendly, and nor is it family friendly for Members in Dublin to start off at 9 a.m. and sit until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. It is difficult for them to get back to their families. It is difficult to balance the requests.
I was in the Scottish Parliament recently. Business works there from nine to five with committees sitting in the forenoon and parliamentary work and debates in the parliament in the afternoon. It is difficult to balance it and to make everyone happy. It is not the case that everyone will be happy with the sitting hours in the House. However, it is important to try to do our work on the legislative process on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays in so far as it is possible. Anyone who wishes can then introduce Private Members' Bills or committee reports to be debated on Fridays.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh is correct that we are messengers of the people. It is important that Members spend time in their constituencies listening to the problems and the voices of the people because this impacts a great deal on our work in the House. Deputy Ó Snodaigh has seen as much himself, especially with the television programme he took part in some weeks ago. It was an excellent programme and I compliment RTE. The programme gave the public an insight into the daily workings of a Member of the Oireachtas. A number of people remarked on the programme to me. It is not only about national legislation. There are also a vast number of queries, such as a person's medical card or various other issues, to be addressed and it is important to give Members an opportunity to do so. We should allow Members time because there are considerable impacts on their lives when they are Members of the House.
I will take up the matter of headphones with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges if Deputy Ó Snodaigh writes to the committee. I will take his remarks on board. I strongly believe that if persons do not agree either way on legislation and wish to abstain, there should be a rollcall on those who abstain. However, these Members should be in the Chamber at the same time and should present themselves to the Clerk or the Ceann Comhairle. I am unsure whether it is possible to have an abstention button but it is something we could explore further.
I was unaware of the problem with regard to publishing Bills; I thought Bills were published in Irish. That is something new I have learned today. I am aware that semi-State bodies must publish all reports in Irish. I had thought that, if requested, a person could get a copy of a Bill in Irish. I realise it is an extra financial burden on the Houses of the Oireachtas and we should bear that in mind when making any decision on publishing Bills in Irish.
I join the Government Chief Whip in congratulating those who took part in the RTE programme. They succeeded in giving the public a useful insight into the work of a parliamentarian. While it may not have been all positive in terms of how the public viewed it, it was realistic and generally helpful.
A Cheann Comhairle, you are to be complimented on the fact that you brought the RTE cameras into the House earlier in the year and gave the public throughout the country, many of whom have never visited Leinster House, the Dáil or the Seanad, an opportunity to see the House in all its glory and to build some understanding of how the place works. That was very positive.
Reference has been made to Dáil reform and the work of the Whips. When I was re-elected to the House and appointed Whip by my leader, I joined the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, Deputy Catherine Murphy and others in the task. There was a certain sense of enthusiasm on the part of all of us about our ability to do something. I had a sense that for the first time a group of people were working together who would get their teeth into the whole area of reform and do something about it. I have been disappointed with the outcome not because of any shortcomings on the part of any of the individuals, but because I believe the Government Chief Whip has found himself having to report back to Government. Whereas the Government Chief Whip may have been willing to try new ideas and go down new avenues, the Government has been inordinately conservative in how it has approached the whole area of reform. Its reform agenda is obviously particularly limited.
The Government Chief Whip made reference to the difficulties he had in his previous nine years in the House. There were many talks about reform during that period and there was in fact some meaningful reform. During that period Leaders' Questions were introduced for the first time and that in itself has been a substantial reform giving as it does the opportunity for party leaders to question the Taoiseach. I am also given to understand that one of the impediments to achieving overall agreement during the course of those years was a major reluctance on the part of the Labour Party to enter into agreement on the type of reforms discussed. Whatever about that, the reality is that when the Government was elected it referred to a democratic revolution. What we have gotten so far is far from that and all the indications are that what we are going to see is minimal tokenistic change and change that is being presented to the media as of far greater significance than it is in reality.
The Government Chief Whip has done a fine job with the Topical Issue debate. It worked well initially, but then it began to go into decline when Ministers ceased to make themselves available. Since the matter was highlighted before the summer break, we have seen an improvement. I hope that improvement continues and I hope we continue to get meaningful responses from Ministers.
The question of committees was raised. The Government reduced the number of committees when it was elected but total control rests with the Government to appoint the chairpersons. If I am not mistaken, only two Members of the Opposition are chairs of Oireachtas committees and neither of them chairs a legislative committee. The Government Chief Whip and the Taoiseach have adverted to a package of reforms. They have said they are going to use the d'Hondt system for the appointment of chairs in future. That is all very well but it really is a case of "God make me pure, but just not yet". We will have to wait until the next Dáil for that significant change and God knows which of us will be here, if any, when that eventuality takes place.
The Government published an eight-page document on Dáil reform last September. While elements of that reform obviously had been discussed by the Dáil reform committee, the Taoiseach gave specific undertakings to the leader of my party, Deputy Martin, and to the leader of Sinn Féin, Deputy Adams, to engage with them on that matter. However, such engagement never happened. Thereafter, a meeting was held in the run-up to the Seanad referendum and while I do not consider myself to be a particularly cynical person, it would be hard not to be cynical and not to regard that meeting as a box-ticking exercise that was carried out simply and solely to be able to assert that the Government maintained its commitment to reform, had met the Opposition and everything was hunky-dory. However, an alarming feature of that meeting was that the Taoiseach told those present that none of the reforms that had been discussed with the Opposition leaders were going to change. Anything the leaders had to say about future reform would be welcome and could be considered in the future but this did not apply to the current package of reforms. Consequently, our scepticism about the process that is in hand is understandable.
Deputies have referred to the Friday sittings and considerable credit is due to those who have initiated the Friday sittings. It is a highly positive development whereby backbench Members, the bulk of us, can produce Bills and can introduce them into the House. However, for this to be truly meaningful some of that legislation and some of those Bills must find their way into law. The Government must agree that at least someone on the Opposition has had a good idea, even if by accident, and has come up with a good proposal the Government is willing to take on board. To date, that has not happened and I believe I am correct in stating that not a solitary legislative item that has been discussed on Friday in this Chamber has as yet found its way into law. Moreover, I dare suggest there is considerable likelihood that few if any of those proposals will become firm items of Irish legislation between now and the end of the term of this Government. If that is the case, then Members are involved in nothing more than a process of self-delusion. They are coming into the Chamber to discuss proposals and are telling the people they are great because they are present for two Fridays each month and have increased their sittings accordingly. However, what is the point of it all, if ultimately, the legislation discussed is not enacted, not put into force and not given the effect of changing and improving the lives of the people?
I suggest there is a correlation between the sittings of this House, their duration, as well as Friday sittings and Members' capacity to make this House and a career therein something that is attractive to younger people and to women in particular. In the course of the debates that took place at the Constitutional Convention, I was struck forcibly by the public perception of this House, of politics and by the reasons one hears that people do not wish to become involved in politics. They perceive, among other things, the type of life involved to be anti-family and anti-marriage. Moreover, for both men and women - it is important to stress this is a matter for men just as much as for women - the type of lifestyle Members have is perceived to be not conducive to raising a family and spending the time one should spend with one's children. This is something that also should be taken into account as it affects the Friday sittings and the time of sittings. As for being in the Chamber until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., as was the case during the last term, apart from such practices clearly not being family-friendly, how, for the love of God, could one be effective in dealing with legislation if one finds oneself in such a predicament on any sort of a regular basis?
Finally, Deputy Ó Snodaigh has raised a simple but valid point. From time to time, legislation or motions will come before the House and for whatever reason, Members will come to the conclusion they should abstain on such legislation. All Members are now subject to analysis by the media in all shapes, including social media and whatever, but when one abstains there is no record of this. Consequently, a Member with a number of conscientious abstentions finds his or her participation in the process, such as it is by way of abstention, is not recorded. As a matter of principle, some methodology must be found to record those who do so. A system already is in place that records those who vote in favour or against a measure but it is reasonable to suggest, as has Deputy Ó Snodaigh, that some form of registration of abstention should be found.
I offer those few thoughts and would appreciate the opportunity later on to revert, if time allows.
As I already have mentioned it, I will not mention the RTE programme again. However, the Deputy mentioned the Ceann Comhairle allowing RTE's cameras into the Dáil Chamber to facilitate the "Nationwide" programme that is broadcast after the news at 6 p.m. It was highly effective and worthwhile because it is an honour for any visitor to come into the Dáil. If one considers the number of schoolchildren who do so, both primary and secondary, only a small percentage of the total number of schoolchildren nationwide have the honour of visiting this Chamber. If they are not going to come to the Parliament, Members must bring the Parliament to them. Moreover, it should not only be about the Parliament but more programmes similar to RTE's "Looking After No.1", should be televised.
I agree with Deputy Ó Fearghaíl that there is an undoubted willingness on the part of all the Whips to bring in and to implement change. It is the Government's job to make such change happen and I understand the Deputy might bring forward proposals which Fianna Fáil would not have brought forward when it was in government. It is understandable that its members might wish to bring forward such changes while in opposition. The Government parties would have done the same thing when they were on the benches opposite and they would not have got their way. However, there is give and take on all this debate and on bringing in changes, reforms and so on. I do not wish to be negative about the changes, as one should also be positive about some of the reforms the Government has introduced. They include additional Leaders' Questions, the Topical Issue debate, the Friday sittings, the instruction of Members to enable them to introduce their own Bills, the restructuring of the Oireachtas committees and the new pre-legislative stage. Moreover, this year a number of reforms were introduced in recent weeks. Therefore, quite a number of reforms have been effected if one compares the reforms that have been introduced within a very short time with the preceding 15 years and one should not be completely negative.
The Deputy observed the Government had promised a democratic revolution but when one refers to such a revolution, it is not simply about what happens here in the Dáil. There have been a great number of changes and while I am unsure whether the Deputy is a member of the Constitutional Convention, it is a part of that democratic revolution.
The Deputy said it was refreshing to listen to some of the contributions made at the Constitutional Convention. The number of referendums that are due to be held in the coming period are part of a democratic revolution and part of the change in that respect. I would have been critical of the Constitutional Convention when the idea was first mentioned but I have changed my mind about it. A great number of issues would not have seen the light of day were it not for the Constitutional Convention. Therefore, it must be welcomed. Some of the issues that are brought forward can be a political hot potato but people are being given an opportunity to have their say on them in terms of a referendum. That has been happened as a result of the Constitutional Convention and that is part of the democratic revolution. It will not be possible to change everything in a short period. We are in office two and a half years and we have made a stab at bringing in a fair number of changes inside and outside this House.
The Deputy spoke about the Topical Issue debate. The only issue Members have raised with me about that debate is that not enough Topical Issue matters are selected each day. They would like more of them selected. They have told me that they have submitted a request to the Ceann Comhairle on three or four occasions and he has not granted their request, but he has a difficult job to do. I do not know the number of requests, on average, the Ceann Comhairle would get each week but he has a number in terms of the requests he can select. He must try to accommodate everybody and be mindful not to select all the issues from Members on this side of this House, or from the members of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Sinn Féin Party or from four Independent Members on the one day because he would ridiculed if he were to do that. He tries to share the requests selected among the groupings to the best of his ability, and that is a difficult job to do. I congratulate the Ceann Comhairle on the way the business is being run. It is extremely positive and it has been successful. Also, the debate takes place during the heart of the Dáil day. The Minister or the Minister of State from the relevant Department must be present in the Chamber to listen to the backbencher's contribution, and that is important.
The Deputy mentioned those chairing committees. I remind him that he was a member of previous Government when there were 26 committees. No member of the Opposition chaired any of the sectoral committees and nothing has changed in that respect. The only thing that has changed-----
The Government promised changed. That is the point.
We plan to introduce the d'Hondt system after the next election. We will do that and we have outlined that. That will be a sea change compared with what has happened in past where €20,000 was paid to 26 Members who were chairmen of committees. I remember there was only one member of Deputy Ó Fearghaíl's party from 2007 to 2011 who did not have an extra paid position. I will not name the Deputy but I felt sorry for him and wondered what he did on the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern not to get a paid position. There was only one such member. The Deputy should check up on that.
The Taoiseach promised that before any future reforms are brought forward, we will meet the party leaders, receive submissions from the Sinn Féin Party and the Fianna Fáil Party, examine those and bring forward as many of them as possible.
I thank the Deputy for acknowledging that the Friday sittings have been successful. What must ensure some of the Bills that have been accepted are moved further along the legislative chain and incorporated into Bills and brought to the House in terms of enactment. An important development is the consideration of committee reports, and we dealt with the first such report last Friday. The committees do a great deal of work in compiling reports, having brought in representatives of groups and organisations, namely, those with vested interests in an issue, and having often spent money on having people draft a report, although a number of them have been compiled in-house. It is important that those reports are seen to be debated on the floor of Dáil Éireann. It is opportune to have them debated on a Friday bearing in mind the legislation that has to be debated in the House on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and that we will try to reduce the number of guillotines applied.
On the Deputy's point regarding family friendly sitting hours and getting the right balance, I do not think there is any parliament in the world that has the right balance in terms of family friendly hours. We have to take into account the Members who travel from constituencies as far away as Limerick, Kerry, Donegal or Mayo. It is not as simple as getting into a car at 8 o'clock in the morning and being outside the gates of Leinster House at 9 a.m. or 9.30 p.m. or leaving here at 5 o'clock in the evening and being home with one's family at 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock. That does not happen and that is not going to happen, but we have to take into account that Members are here, that we sit for as long as is appropriate and look after the Members who go home to their constituencies on a daily basis. I do not believe some of the Dublin Members realise the hours rural Members spend away from their families. Some Members travel to Dublin on a Monday evening or leave home at 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock on a Tuesday morning and do not get home until very late on a Thursday night, they meet their constituents on a Friday morning and may not be home until late on Friday night and, on occasions, they work on Saturday and Sunday. I do not believe that the Members who live near the Dáil realise the sacrifices a great number of rural Deputies make to work in the Oireachtas and keep their Dáil and constituency commitments.
The Deputy raised the issue of a Member who wishes to abstain from a vote having an opportunity to press a button indicating they are present in the Chamber but abstaining. That is a matter we can take up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I do not have a problem with it. We should definitely consider that proposal when we are considering future reforms.
To respond to the Minister of State's point regarding the work of rural Deputies, Dublin Deputies deeply appreciate the lifestyle the Minister of State and his colleagues must pursue to do the work of a Deputy. It is very fair that the Dáil should be organised to recognise that. On the other side, sometimes rural colleagues do not understand the way Dublin Deputies and those who live close to Dublin are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Meetings will be scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, 5 p.m. on a Thursday and so on. We have the issue that we are always accessible. I accept the amazing incredible journeys rural Deputies make and the hardship on their families is something of which the House must always be cognisant.
I believe the decision of the people not to vote "Yes" for the abolition of the Seanad was regrettable. Its abolition would have focused attention on the reform of this House and making it much more effective. The Ceann Comhairle is an experienced Member of the House. I often wonder if it is possible to have a very democratic Dáil while the Executive is in the House. We can look to other parliaments such as France and the United States where the executive is outside the parliament. In some respects, that type of parliamentary system has advantages over the old Westminster system to which we have adhered since Independence.
I congratulate the Ceann Comhairle on Standing Orders relative to public business of 5 November last and on some of the new practices introduced in the Dáil including, as the Minister of State mentioned, the Topical Issue debate, the new arrangement for parliamentary questions and his work in trying to ensure Deputies get responses to their parliamentary questions.
I echo colleagues' views that a good deal of what has happened in the past two and a half years are fairly minor adjustments. We still have a situation, and the Minister of State has admitted, where important Bills, as in the case of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill recently, are just rammed through the House with minimum debate and a minimum attempt to elucidate the views of the Opposition Members.
The d'Hondt system could be a huge step forward in electing committee chairmen following the next election, but who will be in power? It may not be the Government parties.
The powers of the Ceann Comhairle should be strengthened and enhanced. The House is constrained during Friday sittings from making its own decisions and clearly the Ceann Comhairle and Members who are present should be in charge of what is happening under amended Standing Orders. With regard to the independence of the Ceann Comhairle, perhaps we should follow the House of Commons precisely and provide for a free vote for election to the office when a Dáil assembles.
I refer to the position of the Other Group of Members, particularly Deputies Shortall, Nulty, Keaveney and myself - the social democratic group of the "Others". There are one or two others from the "Others" present who may be social democrats and who are members of the reform alliance.
The unsocial democrats.
The anti-social democrats.
We have managed to secure speaking time through the tremendous intervention and good offices of the Ceann Comhairle and we have a slot during debates but we have motions tabled regarding committee membership. The Tánaiste has said on a number of occasions that we can attend committee meetings but if we want to take a real part in the committee, we must be voting members. That is denied to us. We are also denied time during priority questions. We must until all the other groups' questions have been taken. We cannot table priority questions and we cannot ask Leaders' Questions. Given the calibre of some of the "Others", we would have a beefed up and spruced up Leaders' Questions debate if a voice from our benches could raise issues directly with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. If this was a seriously reformed Dáil, provision would be made for this large group of Members who are outside the current party or group structure.
I welcome the comments on the budget and Estimates debates. It has been a farce for a number of decades. We used to discuss the Estimates for a budget that had been announced eight or nine months previously, which was ludicrous. In other parliaments such as the Dutch Parliament, all members or groups are involved in discussion and have an input before a Minister comes forward with an outline budget. We are a long way from that, particularly this year because of the two-pack. What will Europe and the Bundestag say about our budget? Will the Bundestag be happy with next year's budget? Would we have even had the changes that were made this year to the budgetary process if we did not have the two-pack?
I support my colleague regarding the abstain button. I have abstained once or twice when I could not vote in favour of something and that should be logged.
With regard to the earlier sitting times, I appreciate what the Minister of State said. We appreciate the work rural Members do and the life they have but perhaps the late sittings, even until 9 p.m., could be examined given that many Members living within a reasonable radius of Dublin have the opportunity to return to their families at night. I agree with the Minister of State that he must strike the correct balance in order that every Member has a proper opportunity.
We must also return to the issue of holding effective Oireachtas inquiries. I look forward to the banking inquiry getting under way so many years after all this damage was done to our country perhaps under the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform but we need to revisit the referendum on the Abbeylara judgment because a small group of legal and corporate vested interests mounted a vicious campaign when the country was otherwise engaged to defeat the will of the people and the House, which was to thoroughly investigate major scandals and issues of the day.
I remind the Deputy that all rural Members are on call 24-7 as well.
They do not have to be in two places at once.
The people made their decision known on the Seanad but the Government gave the public the opportunity to vote on its abolition. It was a commitment in the programme for Government. I respect the democratic decision of the people and the Taoiseach outlined to the Seanad the week before last that he will bring forward proposals regarding the House in consultation with the Leader and all other Members of the House.
I take the Deputy's points on the Topical Issue debate, the d'Hondt system and the Friday sittings. Fridays are working well but after a Member introduces a Bill, each political party or group spokesperson should then outline his or her position. That should be the form of the debate. If, for example, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl introduced a Bill, I would not like to respond immediately as a backbencher. I would like to hear the position of Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Sinn Féin, the Technical Group and Independent Members before I partake in the debate.
Why are Ministers not present?
That would give every Member an opportunity to participate.
Why are Ministers not present?
Will the Deputy stay quiet?
I will not because what the Minister of State is talking about is a joke.
Do you mind?
I am sorry.
It is amazing that Members partaking in a debate will not come to the House for the beginning of the debate and participate properly in it. They have to interrupt. That shows a person's ignorance.
We were watching on our monitors.
The Minister of State went down that road before with me and he had to apologise.
Will the Deputy desist, please?
He is not right to make that comment. There is such a thing as a person being too smart.
Deputy Broughan referred to two new parties, the social democratic party and the reform alliance, and speaking time during Leaders' Questions. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he is selecting a leader for his party. The issue regarding Leaders' Questions will form part of future reforms. I will take on board any ideas he has. I do not say they will be implemented but I am open to discussion on them.
I take his point regarding financial scrutiny, an area in which the House has been found lacking over recent years. Each committee will have an opportunity under the most recent reforms to scrutinise the financial matters relating to the sector over which it has oversight. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste and all other Ministers will have to outline to the House their financial and social policy issues once a year. This will give the committees and Members an opportunity to examine the national reform and stability programmes we submit to the EU annually. Members will also have an opportunity to debate the Estimates around budget time. We have fallen behind in this regard during this Dáil. Perhaps we can blame the financial circumstances in which we found ourselves because there was not enough scrutiny by all Members.
The Deputy also referred to Oireachtas inquiries. We gave the people an opportunity in a referendum a number of years ago to strengthen the inquires powers of the House.
I take on board the decision of the people but I regret that decision. We could have had far stronger committees and inquiries if that referendum had been passed. The banking inquiry is coming up and I can assure the Deputy that it will be given the full backing of the Oireachtas and I have met Oireachtas staff in regard to it. It will be given every resource required to ensure we have a meaningful banking inquiry run by the Oireachtas.
A witch hunt.
The Government was given a good kick in the teeth.
I acknowledge the Government has brought forward some measures, and albeit some ones in the past couple of months. There is a kind of inverse relationship between the length of time one has been here and the amount of time one speaks which would indicate that the longer one is here, the more one realises speaking in the Chamber is futile. In fairness to him, Deputy Durkan is probably one of the honourable exceptions.
The Minister of State touched on a very important point. He mentioned that in the last Dáil, the Government, with the exception of one member, was on an allowance. Some 50% or so of the Opposition were on allowances. This gives rise to one of the great corrupting forces in our political system, namely, the concept of patronage. Every Member of this House and the Seanad should be on a similar wage. Perhaps there should be a small ministerial allowance but there should be wage parity because that would stop patronage, whether one is in government or in opposition. Clearly, it has been a reason for patronage and corruption of a sort in the past.
In regard to the Dáil, there are two fundamental issues when we strip everything away. One issue is the position of the Ceann Comhairle. We are fortunate the Ceann Comhairle has an independent and strong voice. I do not say that lightly and I do not seek to patronise him with those comments but it is true and I think it is acknowledged across the House. However, it is important that from here on in we elect the Ceann Comhairle, that it is an independently elected person who has responsibility for the administration of the House and offices so that everybody has confidence in the Ceann Comhairle. That needs to be done.
I refer to the second thing that needs to change. I am not targeting the Minister of State or any of the Chief Whips over the past years but unless the mindset of Government changes, we will not have change in this House. I am neither a Government nor an Opposition Member - I am in a twilight zone - so I think I can look upon this in a fairly neutral manner. Prior to the last general election, a commitment was given that all important announcements would be made in the House. I do not know how many announcements there have been on job creation and I know the Tánaiste attended many of them. Virtually every one of them was made outside this House. We started a debate on jobs and job creation in this House and it is still on the Order Paper as it has not been completed. I acknowledge it is in the Government's interest to down-play the importance of the House and that is why the mindset must change.
I will give the House a classic example. By and large, I support the Finance Bill but there was no lead-in to it. The debate on Second Stage of the Bill will finish tonight but I will not have the opportunity to speak on it, notwithstanding the fact the others have been facilitated with some time. Will the Government try to comply with the spirit of the direction issued by the Ceann Comhairle in respect of the allocation of time because it has not been complied with?
Somebody brought up the issue of a button where one can abstain from a vote because of a concern about the analysis of the Oireachtas. What about a button for those who want to speak on measures but who cannot do so? Can we have some way to facilitate that because there are many Members who would like to speak on measures? The most important legislation will go through tonight but many Members will not be able to speak on it. Will the Minister of State take those messages to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste?
Reference was made to the Seanad referendum held five or six weeks ago. That had the potential to bring about the most fundamental change to the Oireachtas since the foundation of the State but we have not had a debate on the issue, which is a disgrace.
Will the Minister of State, in conjunction with the other Whips, do something about walk-through votes? They are a reflection on the Opposition more than on the Government and we were guilty of calling for them when in opposition. If the public saw what we do when we call for a walk-through vote, they would see it is infantile. Could we cut that out? I do not know the purpose of a walk-through vote.
I am glad Deputy Timmins said he is neither in government nor in opposition but in the twilight zone. There is scope for me to bring him back into the fold.
Give me a bit of speaking time. I am not looking for a trip to Australia.
I am glad Deputy Timmins said that and I will sleep soundly tonight as a result. I take his points on board. The position of the Ceann Comhairle is a matter for Government. If the Opposition wants to bring proposals forward, they will be taken on board and will be considered by Government. I will consider a debate on the Seanad. Perhaps we can include that in a future debate on Dáil reform. Walk through votes are a matter for the Opposition. I never called one when in opposition. I was always very practical.
The Minister of State encouraged me to do so.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.