I move:
That Dáil Éireann resolves that its procedures should be reformed to improve efficiency and its control over the public finances.
It is, I think, appropriate that the first item for discussion in Dáil Éireann in 1983 should relate to Dáil Reform. The commitment of the Government to the reform of the workings of the Dáil has been expressed in a positive way by the creation of the position of Leader of the House with specific responsibility for Dáil Reform. However, I must also state that the present Opposition have publicly expressed desire for such reform through the comments of Deputies both here in this House and in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Furthermore the fact that both Government and Opposition Whips readily agreed to a debate on this topic at the beginning of the session is an indication of the commitment on both sides.
Our discussion today and tomorrow is a reflection of a growing feeling both inside and outside this House that the procedures under which Dáil Éireann operates are in need of substantial reform. The parliamentary model on which the Irish system operates, indeed like many other democracies, particularly English-speaking ones, is based upon procedures evolved at Westminster in response to specifically English historical circumstances. While many of these procedures have served us well, some have become irrelevant to the needs of modern day Ireland.
We have seen over the past 60 years a dramatic change in the economic and social life of the country, which is reflected in the major institutions of State, in particular in semi-State bodies. But the Dáil and the Seanad have not kept pace with change elsewhere.
To get this debate under way I wish in this speech to outline a number of ideas on how the Dáil should be reformed. Some of these are based on the already published Government discussion document A Better Way to Plan the Nation's Finances, but others are opinions of a personal nature.
I think it is better that the Dáil should have an opportunity to discuss this subject on a general basis before it or the Government come to final conclusions on the line of action to be pursued. Under our Constitution, the Oireachtas is given the "sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State". The question arises as to the extent to which the Oireachtas really exerts influence on the legislative process. Government Departments prepare and draft the laws which are eventually passed by the Oireachtas, often completely unchanged by parliamentary debate. This happens because we have a very tightly disciplined party system. Thus, while there is ample procedural opportunity for detailed examination of a Bill, it is often not availed of because it has little effect. This phenomenon also may be due to the fact that there is no facility for Members of the Dáil to take evidence from technical experts or interested groups on Bills coming before the Dáil. Added to this is the fact that Oireachtas research facilities are limited by comparison with those available to Government and outside organisations.
The growth of the State sector of the economy has tended to increase the power of the Government vis-à-vis the Oireachtas. In most cases the State sector is accountable to the Dáil only after major decisions have already been made. The result is that the Oireachtas often does not have a constructive input.
There has also been considerable growth in the power and influence of extra-parliamentary bodies, such as trade unions and employer organisations. They seek to bring pressure on Governments, before decisions are taken, thus by-passing the elected representatives of the people. There has even been a tendency for the links between major interest groups and the Government to become formalised in an institutional framework which further diminishes the input from the Oireachtas. The Government are now engaged in working out new institutions for economic and social planning, so it is timely that the Oireachtas reform its own procedures so as to contribute effectively to this process.
Dáil Éireann must reform its procedures and the Government must ensure that accountability to the Dáil is strengthened. Given its proper role, the Dáil would provide the Government with a counter-balance to pressure groups pursuing sectional interests. This would make this elected assembly a focus for lobbying by interest groups, and confirm its role as the primary representative of the people.
The public are relatively unaware of much of the work of this House. In these days of instant news, the reporting of debates in Dáil Éireann tends often to be obscured by other items. Experience in other countries has shown, that where parliament is broadcast directly to the people, respect for and knowledge of the institution has been greatly increased.
I should now like to turn to the specific areas of reform which this House might consider. For back-bench Deputies, the opportunity of making a contribution to the major issues of the day is limited. The two principal procedures open to them — apart from the Order of Business which we spoke about — are the Parliamentary Question and the Adjournment Debate. Under the present system governing Parliamentary Questions, the subject matter of many questions has lost both relevance and urgency by the time they are reached. This delay in the answering of Parliamentary Questions means that Question Time in Dáil Éireann is not being effectively utilised. The House might usefully consider, in this debate, how the system might be improved.
The Adjournment Debate is by its very nature brief, topical and has the advantage of giving a Deputy a good opportunity to raise a pressing matter. This process has served us well and should be continued. Consideration should be given to an extension of the facility to Deputies to raise matters of urgent national importance in this House. A possible way of doing this would be to permit more Private Notice Questions to be answered. Clearly, there are drawbacks in that Ministers cannot always be available at short notice to answer such questions. However, it is essential that we consider this issue in this debate.
In recent years, the issue of greatest concern to Governments and the electorate has been economic policy. Unemployment, national debt, and export performance are no longer topics discussed only by economists and academics. While the Dáil does consider the budget, the Finance Bill and the Estimates each year, its input tends to be one of reaction to specific measures, rather than a more profound discussion of the economic circumstances behind them.
In the case of the Estimates, these are not normally discussed until most of the money has already been spent or committed. In such circumstances, debate is almost useless. Nothing can be changed, no amendments can be put down and even if they could they would be meaningless because the discussion takes place after the event. Furthermore, the format of the debate is not suitable to a detailed examination of the provisions of the Estimates. A more appropriate format might be that which I referred to in the discussion on the Houses of the Oireachtas Supplementary Estimate on 14 July 1982. This system, which operates in the New Zealand Parliament, allows Members to speak many times, but for no more than five minutes on each occasion, during an Estimates debate. This allows for a type of committee stage discussion, with people speaking on a point, getting a reply and being able to contribute on a further substantive point later. It allows Estimates to be examined on a line by line basis. It does, of course, place an extra strain on the Chair both in terms of timekeeping and in keeping track of the number of times which a Deputy has contributed. However, I believe it is worth looking at in practice, and perhaps the House might consider holding an experimental debate under this framework suitably refined to discuss some of the current Estimates.
The Committee of Public Accounts examines the expenditures of Government Departments to ensure that money is spent in accordance with correct accounting procedures. But it does not set out to analyse the underlying philosophy behind the expenditures, or the results expected from them. There is really no assessment of the long-term impact of Government spending by the Members of this House. For example, Deputies here have shown a consistent interest in the provision of an adequate health service. Yet the facility has not existed for an examination of the service in terms of the resources it consumes and the level of care which it provides. It is important that procedures be changed so as to allow Deputies to make this kind of examination in a constructive spirit rather than simply criticising whoever the incumbent Minister may be.
Furthermore, there is a vast area of the public service outside of Government Departments which depends upon the taxpayer to finance operations. It is essential that a system be devised whereby Deputies can investigate non-commercial as well as commercial State bodies, without interfering with their day-to-day administration. One must maintain a balance between effective management on the one hand and public accountability on the other.
It was in the light of these considerations that the Government, following my statement as Minister for Finance in the Supplementary Budget of 21 July 1981, issued the discussion document entitled "A Better Way to Plan the Nation's Finances". This discussion document outlined a number of ways in which improvements could be made. A central feature of this was the reform of Dáil procedures so as to allow for more debate on the pivotal financial questions of the day. Among the proposals was provision for a debate on the Public Capital Programme. This programme incorporates the Government's annual building plans together with public investment in roads, sewerage and other capital investment projects. In view of the controversy often surrounding items of capital expenditure I believe it is high time that Dáil Deputies were given the opportunity of specifically debating the capital programme. Allied to this is the question of borrowing and whether or not the finance raised through borrowing is achieving the right return.
To increase accountability for public expenditure generally the discussion document proposed that a Committee on Public Expenditure be established backed up by the services of a Public Expenditure Commissioner. It was envisaged that the committee would review public spending on a continuous basis and analyse the philosophy behind that expenditure. The committee would be assisted in its work by the Public Expenditure Commissioner who would have fairly wide powers of investigation. It was envisaged that the Committee on Public Expenditure would analyse programmes in detail over an extended period. For example, it could examine the area of education spending in detail and then move on to other areas of Government expenditure going right through the Departments of State over, say, a five-year cycle. I should point out that this type of examination would be quite distinct from the normal Estimates debate which is done on an annual basis and where one is concerned, usually, with one year ahead. The idea behind the suggestion of an examination by a committee on public expenditure is that it would take a long-term view of expenditure, looking at the type of trends that would not necessarily arise in a debate or be analysed in a discussion on an Estimate.
It was also proposed that additional information be made available on financial matters, including the provision of an annual report on the budget deficit situation, if there is one, and a statement of expenditures likely to be incurred or to accrue from any new legislative proposal.
In my view the most important proposal of all in the document was that debates on Estimates for public spending take place before the money is committed or spent.
The discussion document "A Better Way to Plan the Nation's Finances" contains proposals that range over a wider area than merely reforms of this House and I expect that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, will outline some of his thinking on these matters in the debate.
I should now like to turn to aspects of Dáil reform outside the financial area. Experience abroad has shown that a parliamentary committee system can be very effective. The Dáil might usefully address itself as to how committees might work better in an Irish context. There are, of course, limitations. The Dáil is a smaller Parliament than many, and thus the number of members available to serve on committees is less. The House might consider the formation of committees with a smaller membership than has been customary to enable more work to be covered. It might also consider giving members who are not on a particular committee the right to contribute, but not vote, at committee meetings when they are discussing a matter in which he or she is interested.
Committees not only strengthen accountability but they provide valuable experience for future office holders. In order that a committee system would work effectively, and that Members would be prepared to give the necessary time to committee work, a way must be found to greatly enhance the public profile and prestige of committee work here.
In this connection, the House might usefully consider if the introduction of broadcasting could be used to facilitate the establishment of a better committee system by giving committees particular attention in broadcasts.
Another question that might be considered is whether chairmen of committees should receive some small extra remuneration for the extra work they must put in. A study of experience in other countries might give us an indication of what would be appropriate.
We must examine whether committees could play an enhanced role in the passage of legislation. I have myself advocated the idea that the House establish investigating committees on some Bills. Such committees could, for instance, receive written or oral evidence from interested parties outside the House. This would assist Deputies in their consideration of legislation. Obviously, some time limit would have to be placed on the deliberations of investigating committees so that the legislative process would not be held up unduly. Deputies might usefully consider how this could best operate. In this context we might also look at how best to keep an eye on delegated legislation.
Perhaps I could elaborate briefly on the last point about investigating committies on legislation. I have in mind that, where it has been decided by an all-party committee that Bills before the House were of such an important nature that the House would not be able to consider them adequately without receiving evidence from outside bodies who had done an amount of research on the subject matter of the Bills in question, the committee might decide, over a relatively short period and obviously not a period of such length that it would interfere with the parliamentary timetable, to investigate the possibility of conducting hearings on those Bills.
These hearings could receive written and oral evidence. Possibly the best way to proceed would be to invite written evidence from anybody who wished to contribute. When that was received, the committee might decide they wished to interview some of those who had submitted written evidence on the basis that the written evidence was of such a nature that further oral elaboration would be helpful to Members of the House. This has happened before in regard to other aspects of committee work in the House. For instance, we had deliberations of the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, but such a hearing procedure to my knowledge has never been contemplated in regard to legislation.
With regard to controversial or fundamental legislation I would see merit in allowing some such input to be made. An additional benefit would be that it would allow members of the public and interest groups to identify in some way with the legislative process. By so doing they would feel a greater affinity with Parliament and with the Dáil than is the case at the moment. We need to get away from the situation in which interest groups do not pay enough attention to the role of the Oireachtas in the making of national policy. A proposal along these lines, which I concede is rather novel in the Irish parliamentary tradition, might be of help in this regard.
The parliamentary question system might also be reviewed. The aim should be that the time devoted to them be utilised to maximum effect. Since the parliamentary question is such an important element in the democratic process, a system might be devised to allow a limited form of parliamentary question during the Dáil recess. Obviously notice of questions during the Dáil recess would require to be significantly longer than is the case during sittings. This might be worth considering in the House from every point of view.
One obvious difficulty with the Dáil Session is the lack of hours available for debate. It is my hope that they will be extended, possibly to Friday sittings, for an examination and debate of, for example, Private Members' Bills. It is important that we do not simply extend the debating time as an end in itself. In theory, if we could make our proceedings more efficient we might be able to do all our business better than we do it now, and in less time. We should not simply extend the sitting hours to show how hard-working we are. The objective should be to achieve results within the number of hours necessary to achieve them. An examination could be made of the restrictions on the number of Private Members' Bills in circulation at any time.
Another area which the House, together with the Seanad, might consider is the implementation of reports of the Law Reform Commission. These reports are largely non-controversial in nature but provide the necessary basis for the updating of laws. Given the expertise in both Houses, it would seem appropriate that a joint committee be established to consider Bills based on these reports. I would be interested, not only in the views of Deputies on this, but also of Members in the Upper House, many of whom have shown a keen interest in reforming their own procedures.
Finally, I should like to turn to what might be termed as the "profile" of the Dáil. If Dáil Éireann is to be seen to be relevant, it must be as readily accessible as other modern institutions. One of the reasons why Dáil Éireann has become less relevant is that other groups and institutions make considerable use of the electronic media — radio and television. This House has depended on older and more outdated means of reporting its deliberations.
One way to bring Dáil Éireann closer to the people is for us to open our doors to broadcasting. The Government have indicated their desire to do this along with implementing a number of other reforms in the joint programme. It is important that the Dáil consider the most effective way broadcasting can be introduced. I personally believe that the introduction of broadcasting would not alone make the work of this House more relevant in the public eye but would offer a considerable opportunity for the public to be aware of the less well-known and often more valuable work of the House. In particular, it would provide an opportunity to raise the profile of committee work in the House.
There is one other matter which, as a longer term reform, the House might usefully consider, that is, the application to its operations of the advances which have been made in information technology in recent years. I am not as familiar as some Members of the House may be with the possibilities of information technology. In many ways the function of this House is the exchange of information and opinion, and I am sure there must be many ways in which the House could do its work more expeditiously by using the most modern means available.
I am sure also that technology could be of assistance to us in matters such as voting, and speeding up the decision-making process. That is something on which there will be many and varied opinions. Some may feel that, even though the existing system is slow, it has many merits. I heard a Minister in another Government say the only time he ever saw the back bench members of his party was when they were in the voting lobbies. I am sure that back bench members of Government parties would be very keen that any means of getting the attention of their Ministers would be retained by them. However, there is no doubt that voting in the House does take a good deal longer than decision-making of that type takes in other organisations. It is something the House might look at in this debate. I do not have any preconceived ideas on it. I do not see anything especially wrong with the existing system but, like all our existing procedures, it should be reviewed from time to time with a view to applying the best available ideas for its improvement.
I also believe it is important that new Members of the House be given the opportunity to become acquainted in a formal way with the procedures of the House at an early date. Speaking from my own recollection, it must have been only after ten years' membership of this House that I felt fully confident that I understood Standing Orders and all the procedures that were available to me to make my views known. I understand the Ceann Comhairle is investigating the possibility of providing some form of introduction to parliamentary procedures for new Members. If that is so, it is a very welcome development.
I hope that this debate will range far and wide. I am quite sure that there are many possibilities for reform and improvement in this House that have not even been adverted to in my speech. I know that other Members will have much to say about it. During the term of the last Dáil, when we had considerable discussions, though not many conclusions, in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the need for Dáil reform, I was particularly struck by the very positive attitude displayed on all sides of the House on the need for reform. In this regard I wish to refer to the positive attitude shown by the then Government Chief Whip, Deputy Ahern.
I now look forward to Deputies making their views known as to how the Dáil might reform itself. For my part and on behalf of the Government I can assure the House that the reform process will be pursued with speed and determination.
