I would like to express a welcome for the opportunity of making a contribution to an important discussion. The whole concept of Dáil reform is increasingly coming into focus by virtue of the wide acceptance that we have real and fundamental problems within our Dáil system in the House. The public view at present would be that in general Dáil Éireann is failing and in recent times has failed the people. It has not met the real needs of our people. As a Dáil it shows little interest in meeting the day-to-day challenges and difficulties confronted by the people and, generally speaking, Government — that is the Cabinet — operate outside the Dáil and in many cases have viewed the Dáil as an irritant to the functioning of the Government. That is the way it has been. Any facility which this House is being afforded to consider how best we can improve that situation is very timely and welcome.
The present parliamentary system we have is a direct carbon copy of a system inherited from Westminster, as are so many of our practices and procedures, and is in urgent need of overhaul. I would like to advance some suggestions in this respect, not all of which, I have no doubt, will be welcomed by the Members of this House or the members of my party. I am particularly saddened by the fact that in general terms little or no leadership function appears to be exercised by the Dáil. It is very rarely innovative, very rarely affords inspirational leadership to the people and is generally preoccupied in dealing with semi-relevant legislation long outdated, in some cases decades beyond the era in which such measures should have been considered.
Prior to this discussion I went to the trouble of getting a list of the business we transacted in this House in the last calendar year. Among the measures were some proposals dating to the last century updating Acts of Parliament which had become so archaic and irrelevant as to be ludicrous. Unfortunately, either in our day-to-day functioning or in our longer-term objectives within the Dáil we rarely get to grips with the issues of the moment. To give a concrete example, it is a long time since we had a meaningful, inspirational discussion on the problem of jobs in this House or one that could lead the public to believe that as a group, a House, an Assembly, we cared or that we had solutions. We have gone through the ritual posturing and ritual cock-fighting we indulge in and we have gone home satisfied that we have done our bit, but that is not the kind of meaningful Dáil I am talking about. We are reactionary in the literal sense of that word.
What should we expect from this House? Among other criteria we should expect six characteristics. It is reasonable to expect leadership, that is the ability to bring people with one in pursuit of good objectives. Again, it is a long time since we have heard any new ideas of a historic or significant nature advanced, and when such ideas are loosed usually nets are thrown at those ideas to keep them from flight both in this House and outside. Secondly, we expect from this House reasonable and accurate representation of public views. I distinguish that from the echoing of strong or vocal lobbies many of whom are unrepresentative, and the ability to withstand the increasingly vocal and vehement challenge of sectional interests outside the House. That will be a major challenge for this Government in this House.
Thirdly, we expect this House to be a true democratic forum in which all Deputies can participate in some degree in Government in the day-to-day contribution which they should be able to make to the work of Government. That does not happen. Deputies do not see the Bills until they are tabled in front of them, and it is expected from Deputies on the side of the Government, whichever Government are in power, that they will all nod their heads in a vertical direction, and Deputies on the opposite side of the House are expected to do the opposite, regardless of the content of the Bill. Many of us on both sides have struggled now and again with reasonably sensible amendments which are, in Pavlovian fashion, opposed by the Government of the day simply because it is not considered within the ambit of the Opposition ever to offer constructive ideas, or it might be an irritant to change the Bill. Perhaps that is leaning in the direction of caricature but generally it is true.
Fourthly, we expect this House and the Seanad to be an intrinsic part of Government and not an appendage or irritant out there on the wing which must be placated or humoured and to which now and again a bone has to be thrown for it to chew on. Rather it must be something vital right at the heart of the governmental process through which the collective wisdom, aspirations and expectations of the Irish people are reflected and which should, therefore, ennoble and strengthen the legislation emanating from this House. That does not happen.
Fifthly, it should reflect and be an example of the very best of the Irish people. It should be able to show standards of courage, inspiration, example and dedication and of all the virtues which many believe the Irish people possess. I do not remember, certainly as a common feature, acts of physical courage being the norm in this House. Under those criteria this House can reasonably be said to be failing. Therefore, a fundamental review should be taken not just of the structure of this Dáil but as to whether this Dáil in its present shape, the Houses of the Oireachtas or a one-forum Dáil is any longer the appropriate answer. In other words, there should not be a question of dealing cosmetically with the way this House functions. It should be to ask a very fundamental question: is this House in its present form able to deal with the problems now confronting it? That major review should be undertaken at two levels and at both of those levels it will be found to be wanting. One level is that fundamental area, the ability of a Government to ask the basic question: is the answer, some new type of participative forum different from what we now have? At the second level, in the day-to-day mechanics of the way we run our business here, unquestionably many improvements are possible.
The House is failing because it is wrong structurally in many respects. We assume — on many occasions aping slavishly example from other countries — that a model which is appropriate for a different type of society in a bigger country — an industrial country, for example — is appropriate for us. That assumption must be questioned. Let us look for a few moments at the House we have and see how we can make it more effective even within the terms on which it presents itself. A number of things seem to cry out for reform. One is the fact that every bit of Government business must go in linear fashion through all Stages in this Chamber. It is patently nonsensical that a long queue of Bills needing attention should have to be dealt with at all Stages in this Chamber. Clearly, it is acceptable and possibly necessary that the introductory stage and the final Stage of a Bill should have discussion and consideration in the main Dáil forum. However, it is no longer important or appropriate that Committee Stage should be dealt with here.
I see two advantages of proposing a change in that respect. One is that much more business would be done, assuming, for example, that there could be three, four or more Bills being dealt with simultaneously in separate chambers elsewhere by the specialists, the spokes-people and others interested in the matters involved. Secondly, this would mean much more genuine and much improved legislation because it would get in those other chambers the consideration that is possible where the pressure of time, the pressure of the Order of Business and the pressure from other Ministers who wish to have their Bills put through the House is removed. That operation could be improved by a procedure of this kind. At this point in time it should be reasonable to expect that in different parts of this House — assuming there is space, but that is another issue — there would be a number of Bills under deliberation. There is no reason for a Bill to be processed here in every detail.
While my next point may not be universally popular, the truth of it will be forced on us eventually, that is, that we should look at the quality of the TD's work. If we do so we will find that in many cases it is preoccupied almost exclusively with what is a vast charade of writing letters to Ministers and Departments or to local authorities or private institutions appearing to seek preferment or advancement for constituents or for clients but in truth probably doing very little about it. That charade is based on the public assumption that we as politicians have in some way an inside track whereby we can obtain for our constituents benefits which otherwise they would not achieve. The result of this is that most of us are engaged in frenzied activity, writing letters to which we receive standard type answers. The fundamental concept of this is both offensive and unethical. It is particularly offensive in respect of some Departments rather than others. I suggest that if we are anxious to improve the quality of the House and of the TD, we should consider making it an offence to seek preferment or advancement through a public representative especially in the area of justice and in general in any other area where the criteria on which a TD seeks a response to his constituent is one where he seeks advancement for the client simply because a client has approached a TD. I would stress, though, that we must exclude from this cases in which a TD acts as a type of local ombudsman where there is reason for believing that clients have not been given fair treatment. In such circumstances a TD would have an obligation to make inquiries.
The majority of the letters that all of us write amount to no more than our participating in a massive deceit on the public — that we are engaged in some type of procurement of an advantage for them which otherwise would not come their way. It is wrong to suggest that we have outstanding results in that respect. It is wrong because it damages what we should be doing here and also in the sense that it is offensive to all right-thinking people. Those who gain advantage in that way do so in the knowledge also that it is wrong. Therefore, I would consider it a very healthy step that a Bill be introduced making it a criminal offence for anyone to seek such advancement or interference particularly in relation to Garda matters. Such a Bill would not need to relate exclusively to Members of this House but should refer to anyone else seeking such advancement. I consider interference with Garda matters to be particularly offensive. I would be quite happy to have it made a criminal offence to write a letter or to make a phone call or any other form of representation seeking the dropping of charges or seeking any other type of interference with the normal course of justice. Enough damage has been done in that area. It is time that we took a step forward in that respect.
I would not see anything wrong either with the outlawing of similar seeking of advancement in any other area of Government activity. Why should somebody seeking a medical card or a house grant or a job in the civil service or with a VEC come to me or to any of my colleagues on such a matter? Some of these representations can be extremely offensive. Blatant offers of financial reward have been made to me in some instances. I find that offensive. First, it is offensive to me that anyone should be under the impression that a TD could be bought in that way and, secondly, because it causes grevious damage to the integrity of the Members involved. Until such time as we have the maturity to say that this sort of thing must stop it will continue to be the practice and the only way we can call a stop to it is by way of an all-party agreement to the effect that from a certain day forward such requests will not be entertained and will be considered an offence.
As I said earlier, I would exempt from such an approach genuine areas where there is some degree of evidence that someone was dealt with unjustly and, consequently, is entitled to the services of a public representative to further his case. Undoubtedly there are some — and I suppose I fall into this category to a substantial degree — who depend on clientism for votes and who may find my suggestion peculiar if not downright politically naive but I am willing to take a chance on that in the belief that the net effect would be that our attentions could then be focused on issues above and beyond the procuring of the maximum vote for ourselves and on dealing with the issues of the day.
I say that the sort of representations I am talking about are a charade because by and large they are recognised for what they are and treated accordingly. They are responded to automatically by way of standard replies which in many cases are less satisfactory than are direct representations by the clients themselves to the Departments concerned.
Another major area of reform would be by way of a genuine attempt by the party leaders — the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Leader of the Opposition — to do whatever is possible to ensure that there are no artificial polarisations or extremities of views in respect of issues on which there are no significant or meaningful differences. In a sense we are all prisoners of the civil war politics which unfortunately even cloud the politics of our own day. Therefore, we are programmed, Government and Opposition, to oppose each other on all issues. It is nonsensical to suggest that there are differences between Government and Opposition on every issue. We should work constructively at seeking common ground where such exists. That is not to blur any ideological difference that might exist between parties but genuinely to depoliticise those areas in which that would be possible and to work constructively on such areas for the common good. Some of these areas are relatively minor ones but others are major areas. Whether the issue be one such as the restoration of the Irish language or should it be concerned with the desired unity of the peoples of this island, an all-party or a non-party political approach would have achieved a great deal more than what has been achieved in those areas and others like them so far by this adversary system from which most of us are unwilling to break.
As a child I could never understand why adults on one side considered everything to be wrong while those on the other side considered it to be right. Then, when we would have an election and if there were a change of Government the yeas would become nays. This was a case of the child being wiser than the adult. A constructive and determined all-party attempt should be made to remove from party and adversary politics those areas where there is common ground, to build on that, thereby giving public example and restoring credence and integrity to the public perception which at present, so far as I can judge, is at an all-time low in relation to how this House is managed.
Unquestionably, there should be a committees system in this House and I am confident the Government will introduce such structures. It is very important that any such committees should be set up in the context of a genuinely new approach to the business of Government rather than as a possible out for responsibility. If these committees are set up they should be meaningful, accountable, publicly accessible and should be doing their work openly and subject to scrutiny. They should not be a forum into which a recalcitrant Minister can kick an issue simply to evade responsibility or accountability in this House. I am sure no one will quibble if I raise that point because many committees in the past, whether they were of the all-party or the House variety, were unfortunately consciously or otherwise used to some extent to achieve that end. Time and again people's queries were frustrated by the fact that somewhere a committee was working without a time scale or in some cases without terms of reference, which, for some reason or other, could be argued as a basis for not answering a particular query. A committee system yes, but qualified along the lines to which I refer.
I truly believe that there is on all sides of this House a resource, expertise, potential and talent in Deputies which have not been utilised properly. The Taoiseach picks a Cabinet and his Ministers of State, but outside that all other Deputies appear to be somewhat alien to the whole process. Despite the fact that there are Deputies with long years of service and vast experience in this House and other walks of life, none of those resources seems to be galvanised into a positive contribution to the way we run our affairs. Every Member of this House should be afforded an opportunity to make that contribution and specific responsibilities should be entrusted to virtually all Deputies willing to accept them, whether they be to assist in a particular area or to take another area of responsibility for which there is not a portfolio as such but for which there is, nevertheless, a need. Greater emphasis on the talent available is important rather than seeing the TD outside Cabinet or Minister of State rank as being cannon fodder or lobby fodder, which is the standard perception of the TD in the House and it is even worse than that outside the House on occasion.
I mentioned earlier that we should try to diminish as far as possible the need for TDs to run each other off their feet by this frenzied activity of writing confetti letters day in and day out. If that is to be done, however, it has to be recognised that many constituents come to a TD because they can get no satisfaction or no accountability of a satisfactory nature from many areas of the public service. Another proposal the Minister might consider is the possibility of introducing a statutory time limit within which all replies would have to be answered satisfactorily. The civil service will quail to hear such a suggestion, but whoever introduced the two-month time limit in relation to planning applications to a local authority had the right idea, and the system has worked. Ironically in that regard, the whole thing is negatived by the fact that if you appeal to the Planning Appeals Board you can be waiting for ever. Therefore the spirit is not carried through.
The principle within which a member of the public should be able to obtain from the public service — who are there to serve the public — reasonable responses to their queries within a given time, should be introduced whether by statute or otherwise. If we put more emphasis on the up-dating of our information system — and the technology is available to do this — to ensure prompt, courteous and efficient replies, we would have an automatic de-escalation of the frantic letter writing we are all involved in. It would be no harm if the public servant drafting this letter took time out to learn basic good manners. I have seen extraordinary letters written to recently bereaved people in respect of their widows' pensions and to people who were retiring after years of service, few of which showed any spark of humanity or interest in the person's plight or difficulty. I think it is appalling that the public service should be able to treat its masters, the public, in that way. Today's public servants have inherited that approach from their forebears, but I do not thank anyone for writing a courteous letter with an understanding of the individual's plight. I realise that reform of the public service is another area but one of the reasons there are standard letters is that anybody might, by some chance, take the initiative and put a comma in the wrong place or allow a human gesture to escape into a letter which would rock the civil service to its foundation.
I take the view that it is time we over-hauled our present communications system. That could be extended in another reform to the measures we introduce in this House. There is no reason why Bills, particularly in respect of the Explanatory Memoranda, should not be written so that laymen could understand them. In my darker moments I have been prone to the suspicion that perhaps these documents are written so that we do not understand them. I have seen extraordinary convoluted attempts at writing as many words as possible for what could have been said, and in fewer words, more plainly. In some cases I challenge Members of this House and members of the public to understand what is really said. If something can be said in three words — perhaps I should apply this dictum to myself even in the context of this speech — let us say it in three words rather than three paragraphs. The material produced here is obviously not for the layman or for public consumption, but for a small group of specialists and in many cases a small group of lawyers. In my view Bills introduced are public property and wherever possible the language contained in them should be seen in that light.
Another way we might de-escalate this clientism which runs through our daily work which beggars the work we should be doing here, is by changing our system of election, introducing a roll-over type system, by which I mean that a certain number of Deputies would be elected in a specific election and mid-term there would be another election to elect the balance. In this way, there would be a continuance and at any given time at least half the House would feel they did not have to be frantically concerned about the next election because they would not be involved. That sounds a little desperate but it is an attempt to remove from people the increasing fear which understandably we have had in recent times that an election is just around the corner and, whatever about standing up in this House at this hour of the evening talking at length, it would be much more important to be upstairs attending to my correspondence. I do not denigrate that work because I am one of those who believe the clinic is a good thing. It earths us and keeps us in touch but it should not take the place of the central forum of this House.
Unquestionably, our rigid system of whip voting is wrong. It is irrational and leads to a very blinkered approach to improving the quality of our work. I agree with previous speakers who said there is no reason why we should be whipped into every vote or why we should be expected to respond in a certain way on every issue because we are either Members of the Government party or the Opposition. In truth, that has come about because of another extraordinary anomaly which has developed. If by some chance an unfortunate member of a Government party with a slim majority got ill or was abroad and could not catch a plane home, an embarrassing vote could bring about the downfall of the Government. The day will come when people will look back at that type of concept and laugh about it as something outlandish. To imply that a Government had forfeited confidence because one of their Members had broken his foot or because there was a fog at London Airport is about as sensible as the most ludicrous possibility anyone would consider. There is no sense in such a proposal and, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing whatever wrong with a Government introducing an issue in the context of the innovation and the leadership which is spoken about, being defeated in the House and not feeling obliged to have an election. It is nonsensical to presume that any Government have a monopoly of wisdom in this House or that they should be right all the time, at least numerically. That kind of thinking has, to some extent, brought us to the present situation.
I am not suggesting that a Government should make a habit of being defeated in the House. After a certain number of defeats it would become positively plain that they were incapable of governing. However, there are issues which are non-confidence measures and, unfortunately, at present in those cases a defeat for the reason mentioned earlier is a source of enormous embarrassment, usually responded to by the proponents suggesting a vote of confidence. This is, if one thinks about it, slightly nonsensical. We should have a more flexible approach to voting in this House, whereby Members could speak their minds and give the service which they can best give, which is to be true to themselves, without fear that they will embarrass their Government, or bring about its defeat. Nobody would want that, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
Another suggestion which could be introduced at local level immediately would be for individual Deputies in each constituency to take courage and, in consultation with their colleagues, Deputies of all parties in their constituencies, discuss — particularly now, at the beginning of what I hope will be a period of stable Government for the next four or five years — the possibility of introducing a code of practice for themselves which, in so far as it is possible, will remove this frenzy of clientism which is at present demeaning the running of this House. I see nothing wrong with one Deputy in each constituency calling together his colleagues and saying: "We all know that this is not what we should spend this portion of our time at. Let us see if we can come to a sensible agreement to refer certain queries to the agencies to which they should be referred, to agree not to pursue such queries and to tell the people jointly that we will not pursue them." I know that such a proposal is fraught with difficulties. The mere agreement of all the Deputies does not mean that the job will not be done by some aspiring Deputy. However, Deputies should consider such an approach, pending the measures of reform which we are discussing. Certainly I intend to take that initiative — and have met with a very encouraging response, thus far, from my colleagues — of a local code of practice and procedures whereby we can bring some rationale and order back into our daily affairs. We should insist on standards and ensure that we are not prey or prone to having to make inquiries or representations of a nature which we all know are less than ethical. A restoration of standards, or indeed any improvement of present standards, would be very welcome and is very badly needed.
Further, it would be appropriate that this Government begin the process of ensuring that, when a Minister wishes to introduce a new Bill or measure in the House, he circulates to all Deputies the concept of the Bill or its heads, seeks genuine participation or contributions from such Deputies and says "We want to hear what you have to say". Such a proposal would lead to a better quality Bill and better politics. Unfortunately, the present system, whereby the first sight the Opposition obtains of the Bill is on the date of its publication, means that the Opposition, to justify their existence, believe that they must automatically adopt an adversary posture. They must go into the fighting cock approach. It has been made too easy for them to do so. The Government, for their part, believe that they have now to put themselves into a foxhole and defend, at all costs, every line and every scintilla of the Bill. Whether or not there is wisdom in the Opposition's opposition or the Government's staunch defence does not arise. It becomes a question of numbers, of confidence. A sensitive approach by the Prime Minister in circulating the idea of the Bill, not just to Members of this House but to people outside the House, saying "We believe that the Government of the country can benefit from the best of all the resources which all the people have to offer", would be a lot more enlightened than the present system and lead to better legislation, less polarisation in this House and to a speedier approval or endorsement of the measure coming through eventually, because less tension would surround its discussion. That would not breach any major barriers of protocol.
In passing, I refer to a minor but archaic aspect of business in this House — the voting system where by we, sheep-like, troop up the stairs, turn left and right into two pens. Surely it is possible to improve on that system and vote by means now utilised in parliaments throughout the world, either by pushing a button, or by some other indication from one's seat. This is a symptom of how archaic and outdated our methods have become.
Standing up on the morning of the day of business and announcing an Order of Business for that day is no longer acceptable. It is, of course, an accurate reflection of the respect traditionally granted to Deputies in this House by successive Governments, by whom a Deputy is seen as no more, in most cases, than fodder for votes in the lobby. There is no reason, by and large, with possible exemptions and exceptions, why the Order of Business for this day fortnight could not have been circulated today. I know that this would require a little more effort, discussion and agreement, but there is no reason why it could not be settled now, thereby affording would-be speakers and contributors to the debate generally a much greater opportunity of preparing their remarks and considering the matter seriously. Once again, we have an example of the way in which we treat our business and our Members, by throwing the bone to the House on the morning in question.
Question Time is another irritant. I will not delay on this point, but it has been pointed out that under the present system it is conceivable that some Ministers never get to answer questions. One simple proposal — and I cannot understand why it has not been introduced until now — is that questions be taken in chronological order. On today's Order Paper, without reference to it, the Minister for Finance is presumably first after the Taoiseach. If I am cute enough and have my question in before 10.30 or 11 o'clock in the morning, it will mean that my question, tabled today, can be answered next week, whereas questions to the Ministers down the line which may have been tabled since before the Recess will not be answered for many months yet. Why should my question, tabled today, go in this section of questions to the Minister for Finance down for answer today? It should obviously go at the tail end of the agenda, in its chronoligal order.
Much more time, also, could be given to Question Time, although even Question Time has a certain degree of artificiality. It appears to be largely a device exploited by willing Oppositions — and I did enough exploitation of it in my own time — in order to embarrass, if possible, Governments and Ministers. The more embarrassment, the better. It did not seem an area in which one genuinely sought information or enlightenment. In fact, the best questions that one could ask were ones to which one had already the answers, but, in the full knowledge that the answers were not quite in accordance with standards which would reflect well on the Government, one persisted in asking the questions anyway.
I agree with suggestions which have been made that we should consider the possibility of introducing a time limit on speakers. Any such time limit would, undoubtedly, mean that I would have stopped speaking some time ago. I would suggest to the House that many of us come in with a great deal to say but, if a time limit were imposed on us, this would mean that we would condense our remarks. However I have one rider to add to that. I believe that in the interests of democracy it should be allowable that a speaker would go in and speak and speak again if necessary — in other words, that a 15 or 20 minutes limit could be put on each contribution so that a Member could put his name down at the tail end of a debate again. In practice very few would do this unless he or she felt there was something particularly weighty to be said. In most cases it would mean more efficient debates, a word which in the context of this House is a complete misnomer because there is no debate except on Committee Stages of Bills.
With reference to many of the set pieces we have in the House, whether it be an adjournment debate or a budget debate, there is a great degree of artificiality about them sometimes because of the fact there is not the cut and thrust which one might expect of such a debate. An adjournment debate is a catch-all debate: the primary interest is the vote at the end with very little attention being paid to its content. The Minister involved should examine the possibility of getting a much more pungent and meaningful debate, avoiding if possible a general catch-all debate, whether on the economy, on jobs, on the adjournment or on the budget. Issues for debate should be as specific and precise as possible except on rare occasions where that general approach is necessary.
The suggestion has been made that we should work longer hours. I would not disagree with that in principle except to say the following. It is a matter of indifference to me and, I feel sure, to the people of this country how many hours we work if the quality of that work is not to be improved. There are circumstances in which we in this House could work fewer hours but do better work. By and large we should give public example and a House closed more often than open, a House which is closed for six months of the year, is giving bad example. But I stress that quantity is not the primary criterion and that it is quality with which we should be concerned. For example, merely to have Friday sittings to start immediately "discussing" Estimates — by which we mean that Opposition spokesmen would stand up and, in some cases exchange prejudices or opinions — is not in any serious fashion working longer hours. It is simply filling in the time and will have very little to do with improving the quality of our work.
It seems to me that a major problem of this House is our inability, because of these constricting structures we have inherited, to deal with the issues of the day. Time and again I have seen Members frustrated in endeavouring to deal with an issue arising at this moment, in the morning or in the afternoon. There is no mechanism at present under which a public representative can stand up and ask to have that matter dealt with immediately. Perhaps that is a little unfair because there is the possibility of an adjournment debate, but that is a matter at the discretion of the Chair. Therefore, apart from the possibility of an adjournment debate, or of a Private Notice Question being accepted, there is no automatic procedure whereby an issue of importance and immediate relevance can automatically be discussed in the House. It is extraordinary that, for example, we can on the one day be discussing a Bill perhaps about bankruptcy, dating back in terms of its need to the last century while, if you like, Rome burns, while factories are closed down or while there are major issues to be dealt with at national or local level and we are apparently unable to deal with them. That is the essence of irrelevance. Some formula must be devised whereby immediate issues causing concern or interest to one or perhaps a group of Members can be dealt with and must be dealt with on that day or within a day or so.
When considering this debate I would ask the Minister to ascertain whether the fetish that this House appears to have with the secrecy of budgets is any longer relevant. It is not acceptable, particularly to backbench members of a Government, that the first time they will hear of any scintilla of information about a budget is on the day it is read in this House, on budget day, and that they must wait with bated breath hoping there is nothing in it which will conflict with or offend very important principles for them. I know there are good reasons why certain specific tax proposals cannot appear before then. But I see no reason why, in the same way as I proposed earlier a discursive approach to Bills, a similar attitude could not be taken with regard to options for tax-raising, revenue generation or other fiscal measures. I do not believe that this obsession, with the whole community suddenly buying stocks of booze in fear of an increase in the price of the pint, should allow us to be backed into a position in which nobody in this House, bar the Cabinet, has any inkling whatever of what is going to be in a budget. Not alone is it offensive to all Members of this House to be treated in this fashion but is also politically precarious because the insight and wisdom on all sides of this House could help a Government in a difficult situation to keep a proper perspective, a sense of political perspective and perhaps a socially just perspective, which they might otherwise lack in those respects if the opportunity to make that contribution was not afforded.
I would ask the Minister, in the context of this debate, to consider to what extent we could have a pre-budget discussion on what should be or might be in the budget in the same way as the Green Paper issued last year by the Fianna Fáil Government presented some options for revenue raising, though obviously it was not clear which proposals precisely were being put forward. But at least one had some indication of the kinds of measures then in the Minister's mind.
I feel very strongly that any proposal to change our approach in this House should lay strong emphasis on the need for open Government. Unfortunately those two words have become a cliché and, I suppose, are the subject of derision in many respects by the people now. I believe there should be broadcasting of the proceedings of this House, that there should be broadcasting of committees with the ability of either the House or committees to go into camera, when appropriate, without apology to anybody. If there is to be broadcasting of this House or of the committees it should be thought out carefully and preference given to the committee work. All of us know from our committee work that that is where the real business of politics is often done. Nobody wants to encourage a Star Chamber here which would be prejudicial or detrimental to the solid and constructive work being done in private behind committee doors. Therefore, if there is a choice I would choose the broadcasting of committee work where I assume people would see public representatives giving of their best in a non-party political atmosphere and with the good of the people uppermost in their minds rather than the public posturing which goes on in this House, again of which we are all guilty.
Such an open Government approach should emphasise the importance and entitlement of the public to have access and scrutiny. I know that at present the public are somewhat disinterested. Who can blame them? But, if we galvanise our systems in here, we can gather momentum in terms of public interest. We should insist that the business of the House is conducted in public, in the open wherever possible. Indeed this brings one to the point of whether or not some of such work could be done in other venues around the country. I see no reason why a Committee Stage of a Bill or the deliberations of a select committee of the House could not be dealt with in, say, Galway, Cork, Limerick or Tipperary where there would be the possibility of the public seeing how it worked and bringing with it a decentralisation of all things in Dublin as at present. I should like the Minister to consider that suggestion.
It is appropriate to refer briefly to the possibility of reforming the Upper House because after all, that constitutes an intrinsic part of our business also. One of the areas of the Seanad and its performance which should be looked at is the voting system, which is clearly unjust. Some councillors have a disproportionately large weighting in terms of their vote compared to other councillors. We should review whether councillors, Deputies and outgoing Senators are the correct electorate. There is no justification for a councillor representing 1,000 people having the same weight to his vote as someone representing 40 times that number. The Minister should end the nonsense whereby good men and women have to go haring around the country at enormous personal expense to try to meet every councillor on the register. He should consider regional elections where we might be able to give candidates some degree of proximity to their electorate. This is not just for the convenience of Members but because at present those with most resources are in a position to do best, although this is not always the case.
There is no justification, if there ever was, for the retention of the university seats. I find it offensive and obnoxious that a small elite echelon of our educational system should have the right to nominate one-tenth of the Upper House. It is not justified particularly in the light of developments in other areas of education and walks of life. Although it will result in some bellowing and opposition, it is an aspect of Seanad reform which should be brought about.
The count is similarly ludicrous. It seems to have been devised by sadists who were never Seanad or Dáil candidates. It takes a week for a Seanad count to elect 60 Senators whereas the presidential election in America is decided in a matter of minutes. Unless Senators and would-be Senators have a great desire to be masochists we should introduce some whiff of a modern system into the count system. Perhaps we could also do this in relation to the Dáil.
We should look again at whether the concept of the Taoiseach nominating 11 people is a reasonable prospect. It may be. However, I am not convinced that it should be automatic because it is designed to give the Government of the day a majority. That majority may be desirable and essential but I should like to see the case put for retaining that measure.
Another innovation I should like to see is the removal from the House of the offensive mechanism of TDs having to approve their own salary increases. I make no apology for regular, systematic and genuine improvement in the salaries of Members of the House. At present salaries are disgraceful. What is particularly odious is the perception of the public that we increase our salaries at regular intervals. All we want and all we are entitled to is the same treatment given to any member of the public or private sector, that is, increases in reasonable line with inflation and perhaps automatically index-linked to wage agreements, inflation or other economic norms. A mechanism should be devised outside the House for that. It should not need discussion in the House at all. That is not to say it cannot be brought up in the House if a Member so wishes. The impression that we come together every six or eight months in a cabal and grant ourselves an enormous increase is wrong. It is an offence not only to TDs but to their wives and families. We could diminish that greatly by removing from this forum the right to fix our own salaries and make it an automatic increase where appropriate in line with other economic indicators.
I should like to add to criticisms which have been voiced in relation to the working conditions of Members. They are a disgrace. They are in breach of the norms which local authorities set down for employees in other walks of life. If one of the clients I spoke about earlier came to us and was running an office in the conditions in which we and our staffs have to work, we would advise him that he was in breach of the law. If we cannot regulate our affairs to ensure that Members of the House and their staff are working in sanitary, healthy and good conditions, we can hardly manage the economy or any other aspect of the country's wellbeing. The purpose of improvements in this area is not to garner for ourselves more office space but to improve the quality of work. This should be the central point of concern in this area.
We should look at areas of work which could be decentralised. I include some areas of grants and other aspects of what appear to the TD to be power broking which could be done at local level and which should only be raised in the House in extraordinary circumstances. I have heard the national Parliament debating at great length an instance where someone was refused a grant or otherwise. I do not wish to disbar that occasionally being brought up if it is important. However, true decentralisation of the work of Government should mean a more productive use of the time of the House.
Another reform long overdue is that of the Ministers and Secretaries Act. I have heard various Ministers and Governments leading with the chin and claiming responsibility for various acts of commission or omission. It is nonsense to think that a Minister is deemed to be responsible for every single act of every single official under his jurisdiction. It is neither factually correct nor politically appropriate that that should continue. There is nothing wrong, particularly in the context of committees, in real accountability being laid at the door of those who take decisions. The converse is that those who make good decisions should be rewarded.
I agree with those who say we should reconsider the possibility of the single seat transferable vote constituency. Such a possibility would improve the probability of a less sectional, less clientism orientated approach to politics and may lead to more responsible representation in this House. In recent times we have seen a sad and somewhat sordid picture portrayed of the House. There are reasons for that. I know I have been critical in what I have said but there is much good work done here and this Parliament has stood us in good stead in many respects. There are aspects of our business which are never given public attention. The Minister should give consideration to the possibility of better marketing and selling of the work we do. There is no reason why we should not be able, on an all-party or committee basis, to put forward to the people, particularly the young, the work we do, warts and all to show that the caricature of the TD as an ignorant gombeen man concerned only with securing votes at any cost is a grave slur and no longer justified, if it ever was, in respect of the overwhelming majority in the House.
The Minister might consider the possibility of utilising the services of public relations consultants who would advise the public and the young people in our schools who are bereft of any kind of political education even about the structures or institutions of politics that there is another side rather than the lurid and sordid one which is presented to them in the more colourful areas of the media. There is another positive, constructive side which must be emphasised. We should put our best foot forward. Members work long and hard in committees and in their own rooms researching and working on issues and this positive aspect should be emphasised.
The Fine Gael Party have a policy document in relation to Dáil reform which is available from headquarters. It is a very constructive and deliberate document drawn up by the Minister for Industry and Energy, Deputy Bruton, who was then spokesman in that area. It is a thought-provoking document which anticipates much of this debate and contains extensive proposals for radical reform in areas which have been mentioned and in other areas which have not been touched upon in this debate. He refers to the need to set up select committees with extensive powers. The document endorsed by our party in June 1980, also adopts a much more sensible approach to the discussion of Bills. Very few things are more ludicrous than the sight of adults discussing Estimates when the money has already been spent. It is difficult enough in discussing an anticipated action to change the inexorable outcome. A prior discussion of Estimates does not appear to be a radical or earthshaking innovation but apparently it must be spelt out as desirable.
The document refers to the need specifically to the debate borrowing and capital budgets of Government and would be in line with my earlier suggestion to have discussion on the budget prior to its formation. I am suggesting an open, healthy discussion which would allow the shape of the budget to be perceived in general terms by the House and the people prior to its introduction. The document also refers to the need for a review of Question Time and states that State-sponsored bodies should be subject to scrutiny of some kind. I entirely concur. I see no reason why agencies which are increasing in number and receiving ever larger amounts of public money should be beyond public accountability in this House merely because they are semi-State and therefore outside our direct aegis. There is a proposal for special committees on delegated legislation with motions to amend orders to be allowed under the 21-day rule. There are also proposals to increase our working hours and change the recess times in order to achieve a more productive and constructive Dáil forum.
There is also a proposal to institute joint committees on non-commercial State bodies and to draft Bills on the subject matter of the reports of the Law Reform Commission. This work, although important, is not usually seen to be a priority and needs attention. I also agree with the suggestions that more time should be allowed for Private Members' Business and I do not think that backbench members of the Government party should be excluded from the possibility of introducing a Private Members' Bill. Obviously this would need detailed consideration but I would argue that there should be more flexibility to ensure the full participation of all Members.
There should be provisions to prevent the abuse by Deputies of any new powers. Unfortunately, we have recently seen alleged examples of behaviour which none of us would wish and which Members when first elected would not have foreseen themselves becoming involved in. There should be specific sanctions and powers to ensure that such abuses are not possible. There should also be power to compel witnesses to appear before committees.
Reports are presented to this House far too late for any meaningful consideration of discussion. There should be some type of statutory inducement or encouragement to ensure that, finished or not, interim reports are brought before this House in regard to any annual report to which this House is entitled to have access or witness. I would extend that to include some kind of capacity for the public to scrutinise certain files in Government Departments. An Act dealing with freedom of information is badly needed which would allow reasonable access to the public, our ultimate masters, with the security of the State being protected. At present there appears to be an absolute refusal to disclose even the most mundane details. We could all cite examples of innocent requests being refused and officials in this House have told me of the possible interpretations of the law to which they are open if they discuss particular matters. A new approach to the business of the people — Government business — is necessary. There should be as much emphasis on assess as is consistent with public order and security.
Many speakers in this debate have concentrated on the need for improvement and we may have given the impression that those here before us were acting in a fashion less than satisfactory and did not stand the country in good stead. That is not my opinion. We are talking about a Dáil which must face the challenges of unemployment, deep international recession and the uncertainty of the next 20 or 30 years. The traditions of this House and the wisdom which has been passed on from previous administrations must be combined with an open, fresh and radical approach to reforms where they are desirable. Much about this House is still healthy and good and we have recently seen evidence of that. Despite the occasional skirmish, we have a democratic system, a free Parliament and a people who, if properly motivated and led, can rise to great heights. This Dáil has a role to play in that inspirational process. I do not think it can realise that potential in its present form but I would like to think that some of the points I have touched on might be conducive to that end. I offer those thoughts respectfully to the Minister and thank him for the opportunity of contributing to this important debate.
