Brendan Howlin
Question:7. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach the status of the commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government on political reform. [9663/18]
View answerTuesday, 6 March 2018
Questions (7, 8)
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:8. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the status of commitments in A Programme for a Partnership Government in respect of political reform. [11221/18]
View answerOral answers (49 contributions)
I propose to take questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
A Programme for a Partnership Government, which was published in May 2016, contains a number of commitments on Dáil and Seanad reform.
The most recent report setting out the progress made in implementing the commitments in the programme for Government was published on 19 December last. An annual progress report will be published in May. On Dáil reform, this Government continues to build on the Oireachtas reform packages introduced between 2011 and 2016 by the previous Government.
Since the 2016 general election, a number of additional reforms have been introduced. These include: the establishment of a new cross-party Dáil Business Committee to discuss and agree the Dáil schedule; a new Committee on Budgetary Oversight was established to allow the Oireachtas play a greater role in the budgetary process; committee chairmen are now appointed using the D'Hondt system; there is more time for Private Members' business in the Dáil; and votes are now grouped to encourage a more family-friendly environment and workplace.
Since September, there is now more proportionate speaking time for all Deputies, additional time is provided in the Dáil for Government business to make progress on the Government's extensive legislative programme, staffing for the new Parliamentary Budget Office, which will be a source of financial and budgetary intelligence for Oireachtas Members, and, in particular, for the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, chaired by Deputy Colm Brophy, has been provided.
Within my Department, there is an expanded role for the Chief Whip's office, alongside the new parliamentary liaison unit, to support these arrangements, including supporting good communication between Departments and the Oireachtas, particularly in the context of progressing legislation through the Houses.
There is now more proactive communication between Ministers and their Departments and Opposition spokespeople and Oireachtas committee chairpersons and members. The new budgetary procedures and the new use of pre-legislative scrutiny by committees give the Oireachtas greater input into significant policy matters.
As I outlined in my recent speech in the Seanad, I have decided that an implementation group on Seanad reform should be established and given an eight-month mandate to consider the Manning report and develop specific proposals to legislate for Seanad reform.
I propose that the implementation group comprise Members of the Oireachtas and should have the assistance of outside experts, including the franchise section in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, as appropriate. It is important that all groups in the Oireachtas be represented on the implementation group and also that it be representative of the groups' different sizes in the Houses. I will be writing shortly to party and group leaders inviting them to nominate members to the group.
This is the third time the Taoiseach has told the House that he is writing to us to ask for nominations to the Seanad reform group. I look forward to receiving the letter. Subsequent to the referendum held on the future of the Seanad, the agreed position across the House was that reform of the Seanad was needed. The Taoiseach referred to the reform group. I understand that a chairperson for the group was suggested and this was to be Senator Michael McDowell. It is the understanding on this side of the House that the nomination was blocked by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether this continues to be the case? Is the Minister continuing to block the nomination of Senator McDowell to chair the Seanad reform group? In a truly reformed situation, would this not be an appropriate decision for the Seanad and the Dáil to make?
On the previous occasion on which we discussed these issues, I also referred to town councils. I acknowledged, and even admitted, that one of the mistakes we made when in government was the abolition of town councils. I am most anxious that we restore these councils. A tier of local democracy has been lost. The Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Phelan, has said he plans to introduce town districts to replace town councils in the 28 largest towns. How does the Taoiseach see those town districts operating? Will they be analogous to the powers that town councils formerly had? Would the Taoiseach agree that the urban focus is a really important part and would he consider returning to that?
On that note, the programme for Government contains an important commitment on local government. The programme states:
As part of the next wave of local government reform the relevant Minister, having consulted widely with all relevant stakeholders, will prepare a report for Government, and for the Oireachtas, by mid-2017 on potential measures to boost local government leadership and accountability.
This report has not been published but reports at the weekend suggest that the Government is considering establishing town districts, as Deputy Howlin said, to compensate for the abolition of town councils in 2013. It seems that the proposal arises from a report submitted to Cabinet last week by the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Phelan. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether this is the report that was promised in A Programme for a Partnership Government? If it is, why has it not been made available to the Oireachtas? Can the Taoiseach please make arrangements for Members to see the report?
The programme for Government also contains a range of other commitments on political reform, such as those relating to Ministers of State playing a more substantive role in policy formation and the re-examination of their functions within departmental structures and their relationship with Cabinet Ministers. The programme for Government also contains a commitment to examine the creation of unpaid roles of parliamentary private secretaries and, crucially, an examination of the balance of power and responsibility between Government and the Civil Service - a matter that looms large at present. None of these has happened. Can the Taoiseach tell us why?
There are many commitments in the programme for Government in respect of political reform. One of the disappointments has been the lack of progress for many Opposition Bills going through the House and the abuse of the money message. At the beginning of the lifetime of this Dáil, Members were told that a reasonable approach would be taken in using the money message with regard to certain Bills. I am of the view that there has been an abuse of the money message by the Government. This needs to change. I refer to three examples of Bills that could go through, namely, the Mortgage Arrears Resolution (Family Home) Bill 2017, the Parole Bill 2016 and the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill.
On page 150 of the programme for Government, there is a commitment to "examine the balance of power and responsibility between the Government and the Civil Service." Will the Taoiseach confirm whether this review took place and if not why not? In light of the current debate on the strategic communications unit, would the Taoiseach agree that it is a very opportune moment to conduct such a review? In this context and going back over the freedom of information material, the Grangegorman campus of Dublin Institute of Technology, DIT, was part of the budget campaign promoted by the strategic communications unit. The campus was part of the national development plan campaign, as were the projects relating to the national children's hospital, the National Maternity Hospital and the Central Mental Hospital. All of these projects have been on the go for eight or nine years. The Grangegorman campus was conceived by Bertie Ahern and a lot of work was done in decanting the health services there.
I was on the original steering committee.
Various Governments brought that project through. I visited DIT recently and buildings have been constructed. It has the makings of a fine campus. It is being advertised, through the use of taxpayers' money, as though it was something completely new that Ireland will get in 2040. All the time, the project is rolling on. There is a very legitimate question to be asked. Why are civil servants engaged, wittingly or unwittingly, in promoting and inputting into campaigns of this sort, which are paid for by the taxpayer, about projects we have all known about for the past five or six years?
The national children's hospital-----
The Deputy's time is up.
-----will have its own campaign shortly.
Please, Deputy. I call the Taoiseach.
It is bizarre, absurd and wrong.
The Seanad implementation group - and it is an implementation group - is designed to implement the Manning proposals. There had been a few suggestions for chairman and I am open to it being a decision of the House rather than my decision. I do not feel it needs to be an appointment that I make-----
The Minister, Deputy Ross, has had his way then.
-----so I will certainly take Deputy Howlin's suggestion into consideration. It is supposed to be independent. I do not see why it has to be an appointment made by me and I am not sure how that came about in the first place.
There is no decision to restore town councils.
Sorry. I am being distracted.
The Taoiseach said he was not sure how it came about that the nomination of the chairman - anyway, we will talk about that again.
The procedure must be that one asks the question and then, having asked it, one lets the person answer it. If there is-----
I know, but sometimes one is taken aback by the answer.
Wait until we hear what the Taoiseach has to say about town councils.
I know, but if there is an opportunity for supplementary questions, we can-----
As I said, the Government does not have any plan to restore town councils. The matter has been examined. It would cost approximately €40 million a year to do so, and we do not believe that is how ratepayers and people who pay the local property tax would like to see their rates and local property tax money spent.
The Taoiseach might give us a briefing note on that-----
Deputy Howlin, please.
The Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, when he is ready to publish proposals, will do so. He proposes that town districts and borough districts would essentially function as area committees do now but could have the ceremonial functions that previously town councils and borough councils had. This would be a kind of restoration of their ceremonial functions. He is also carrying out a separate piece of work, which is nearing completion, on directly elected mayors for Dublin, Cork and perhaps other counties and the relationship between chief executive officers and county cathaoirligh.
The Ceann Comhairle will be aware that discussions about the lack of progress on legislation are ongoing. There is absolutely a delay in progressing Private Members' Bills. It is not as simple as money messages. We have a difficulty in that there are different standards for the ways in which legislation passes through this House. For Government legislation, in the ordinary course of events, it is necessary to produce the heads and general scheme of a Bill, go to pre-legislative scrutiny, talk to the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, publish the legislation, leave a gap for people to consider it and then take the legislation through the Houses. What we allow from Private Members, including those from my own benches as well as those from the Opposition benches, is for legislation to be produced on a Thursday, discussed in the Dáil the following week and passed through Second Stage, and this is not a good way to do legislation. We need a better process to ensure that legislation that comes through from Private Members is of equal quality to that of what is produced by the Government. If we are serious about getting some of these Bills through - and there are some good Bills there - we need to reform our procedures. I know under the Deputy's leadership some good work is taking place in this regard and I hope we can make some progress on that.
I would have to check up on the review Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned. I do not think it has been done but I may be mistaken. In any case, I very much believe in the separation between the Civil Service and politics. It serves us well. This is part of the reason I was so disturbed by Deputy Martin's comments on "The Last Word" last night, on which he alleged that the Government - he said "the Government" - refused to release information under freedom of information, FoI. He said those making the FoI request were first refused and then went to the Information Commissioner. He asked why the Government refused to release the information and what it had to hide. He said it should release all material. I have not been in this House for as long as some Deputies have been, but we all should know how the FoI legislation works. There is a deciding officer in each Department or agency. He or she decides what is and is not released under FoI. It is not permitted for politicians to try to influence or interfere with civil servants when it comes to the FoI Act. That would be a very genuine and legal breach of the separation between civil servants and politicians. I am therefore very confused when I hear allegations thrown at me that I have blurred the line between the Civil Service and politics yet I hear Deputy Martin claiming that an official function is a Government function and suggesting I should somehow interfere with the Civil Service. I will come back again and again to this and the other allegations he has made and seek the evidence for them every time these issues are raised because the double standards in this regard are a matter of concern to me, as are allegations being thrown around without evidence and the real double standard in this regard.
On a point of order-----
There are no points of order on questions.
When it comes to DIT's Grangegorman campus and the national children's hospital, the fundamental difference, I would have thought, from a very practical point of view, is that these projects were promised and promised and promised by previous Governments; now they are actually under construction.
We built them in our time in government.
We will move on to Question No. 9.
On an important point, the Taoiseach talks about allegations. He made an allegation about someone who is not a Member of this House last week. This is a very important point regarding Standing Orders. He has not withdrawn the allegation he made about Mr. Flaherty in the Dáil. He is the last man to be lecturing anyone about casting aspersions on people's characters. He repeated the allegation-----
Deputy, please.
-----again today when he said he has his own conspiracy theories. I am giving him an opportunity-----
Please, Deputy.
-----to reflect on what he said today and last week about Mr. Flaherty and to withdraw those remarks.
A Cheann Comhairle, I never mentioned the man, for a start.
I do not even know what the Deputies are talking about, so will they please-----
Second, Deputy Martin has made any number of allegations against people not in this House and will not produce evidence to support them.
May we move on to Question-----
Do we have time for a supplementary question?
We have no time for supplementary questions.
Deputy Martin has made any number of allegations-----
We move on to Question No. 9.
-----about people that he will not support with evidence.
Taoiseach, please.
The Taoiseach does not like criticism.
Deputy Martin does not like his own standards being applied to him.
It appears to me that neither of you likes abiding by the rules of the House-----
I am happy enough.
-----which provide limited time-----
Deputy Martin is happy enough to make allegations about unnamed people and not produce the relevant evidence. It is not right.
Will the Deputies please stop this bickering?