Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Apr 1986

Vol. 365 No. 10

Estimates Debates: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Barrett,

Dún Laoghaire): I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the debating of the Estimates for the year 1986:— (1) (a) The first speech of the member of the Government or of the Minister of State opening the debate on an Estimate and the first speech of the first speaker from a group [as defined by Standing Order 85 (1) (a)] in Opposition shall not exceed 45 minutes in each case.

(b) The first speech of any other member shall not exceed 20 minutes;

(2) When no further members entitled to make a speech in accordance with paragraph (1) offer, there may be further interventions by members, provided that any such intervention shall not exceed five minutes, and a member of the Government or Minister of State may, by way of interventions not exceeding five minutes in each case, reply to points raised earlier in the debate;

(3) The speech of the member of the Government or Minister of State replying to the debate shall not exceed 15 minutes.

This motion proposes the introduction of new procedures for debating Estimates for the Public Service. They are designed to improve the quality and exchange of information in such debates by bringing them closer to a "committee style" examination. The new procedures will take effect immediately, on an experimental basis, for the 1986 Estimates and have been approved by the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The traditional format for debating Estimates is not conducive to the type of searching scrutiny that should be made by this House. The practice of making "set piece" speeches means that, while general policy issues are often addressed, not enough interest is shown in the specific details of Estimates provisions. Far too often, an entire Estimate's debate can be a series of monologues which are overlong and repetitive. Furthermore the Minister responsible, in reply, need not address in detail any of the points made during the debate, some of which may have been made weeks before, thus leading to unco-ordinated and superficial debates.

The present proposals have been formulated with a view to remedying these defects in the actual procedure and conduct of Estimates debates at present. Under the new procedures the time available for individual speakers to make "set piece" speeches will be greatly reduced. At the conclusion of speeches, Members will be allowed to make a series of short interventions which should result in a "question and answer" or committee style debate. I believe that this approach will encourage Deputies to probe more deeply into the detailed provisions of Estimates.

It was agreed, in the course of consideration of the new procedures at the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that the party Whips would arrange, where practicable, that a minimum of one and a half hours would be reserved at the end of each debate for the interventions to which I have already referred.

The motion before the House today is a practical step in overcoming the defects in the present procedures and it is my belief that it will lead to a form of debate which is more businesslike and cohesive. The new form of debate will be based on contributions, which because of the limits on their duration, will be succinct and to the point.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. V. Brady

This motion is presumably part and parcel of the Dáil reform that was promised by the Government on coming into office four years ago. This motion is very paltry. The fact that the Minister used only two pages in recommending the motion speaks for itself. This is only the second proposal, as far as I can recall, for Dáil reform which has come before the House. The first was the proposed change a year ago on the new Question Time. That change was recommended by all sides of the House and was welcomed in particular by the Opposition. We saw it as a very major and constructive change towards making Question Time somewhat more relevant and more interesting. The whole purpose of Question Time is to seek information. We felt that the new system would succeed in doing that. Alas, that system has not worked too well. It is difficult to know why. It is obvious that one of the main reasons is that too much time is taken up with various questions. Some, such as supplementary questions, are irrelevant. This is a matter for the Chair. We are quite pleased with that proposal but obviously it needs some changes. I hope and expect that they will be made very shortly.

As I indicated, this motion is the second proposal to come before the House. It is rather ironic that this motion should deal with Estimates. Three and a half years ago one of the major platforms of the new Government coming into office was that Estimates would be introduced in the House in September and that the House would have an opportunity of having full debates on the contents of each Estimate. That has not happened. We are just about to commence debating the Estimates at the end of this week. The Estimates as far as I can recall, were published at the end of January, four months after the date promised by the Minister responsible at the time, Deputy John Bruton. That is very unsatisfactory. I agree with the Minister of State that the whole question of not only debating Estimates but introducing them to the House is most unsatisfactory and does nothing whatever for the House or for the information of the Members. It is obvious that a major change is necessary. That change is not the type of change that is proposed in this motion. The change that is needed so badly is the introduction of the Estimates at a much earlier date, as promised by the Minister for State's predecessor. Unfortunately, it was never carried through. The Minister has not made any reference as to whether there will be any further attempts in the future to bring Estimates into the House at an earlier stage.

Some of what happens in the House has at times been described by the public as being irrelevant. I regret that very much as I am sure all other Members of the House do. As far as we are concerned as elected members it is very important that we discuss relevant and topical matters as they arise. The Ceann Comhairle is only too well aware of the problems and difficulties which arise on a daily basis on the Order of Business. It is impossible for Deputies to raise very important and very urgent matters in the House. It is impossible to seek information or to have particular reports clarified in any respect.

Recently there was serious violence in Northern Ireland. It was debated in the House of Commons within a matter of hours. When we, on this side of the House, endeavoured to raise it on the Order of Business or to seek a debate we were ruled out of order. The Ceann Comhairle had no option but to rule it out of order because he acts in accordance with Standing Order. That is the relevancy of the position as far as topical and urgent matters are concerned. There were also serious issues such as Dublin Gas, Irish Shipping and other areas which were reported in full in the newspapers. We get quotes from Ministers through the media but we cannot get them here in the House. That is one of the reasons which makes this House somewhat irrelevant as far as debates on matters of interest and urgency are concerned.

Unfortunately, no real reform has been attempted so far. What we have here is a very minor type of reform. I do not call it reform at all because it is totally unnecessary. We all know that debates on Estimates have over the years been organised by the party Whips. We would have only two hours to debate the Estimates of a particular Department. We have had to come to an agreement, for instance, to allow the Minister to speak for 20 minutes or 30 minutes, with other contributors being given ten minutes. That has been the reality and, as a former Chief Whip, the Minister of State knows it. Not long ago we had to make such an agreement to debate the Estimates. That is no real reason to have this kind of motion before the House. What we have here is an endorsement of the type of arrangements and agreements made in the past but the reality is that when we come to debate the Estimates the Whips will have to come together once more and agree on arrangements, notwithstanding what is contained in Standing Orders.

That is why I say this motion is irrelevant and unnecessary. If it is being put forward here as part and parcel of Dáil reform it is very misleading to the House because it is anything but that. It is meaningless and nothing will really change. The situation will be much the same in the future and I am sure that what will happen next Friday will also be the same notwithstanding this motion.

I should like to see much more co-operation between the Government and the Opposition parties, particularly the main Opposition Party, in bringing forward various measures to reform the Dáil. At the Committee on Procedure and Privileges we have occasionally discussed some proposals. I regret that on a recent occasion a proposal which we considered was not of great value to the House was forced through on a division at that committee. If the Minister responsible for reform of the Dáil intends to carry out his business in that way, I do not think it is the best way of obtaining the co-operation of everyone in the House. This is essential if we are to have proper reform and to make changes to Standing Orders that would be beneficial to all.

I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister responsible for Dáil reform what will be the back-up facilities and what number of civil servants will be available to investigate the type of Dáil reform that should come before the House? As I have pointed out, nothing has happened and I am interested to know what has developed in the past three to four years, particularly with regard to the Estimates. There was a positive promise made by the Minister at the time but like many other promises it has been shelved and forgotten.

We all accept that, for instance, where Estimates and other moneys are concerned good accounting methods and systems are necessary. There is little point in this House debating moneys already spent. During the years this has been a very serious charge made in this House, irrespective of the party in Government. I do not think moneys should be spent until the House has had an opportunity of looking in detail at the major proposals. We were told three years ago it would be possible to do this if the Estimates were introduced in September and it was promised that they would be brought forward then.

The motion before the House is irrelevant and will do nothing for Dáil reform. It will change nothing but a Standing Order and that change will not be adhered to because the Whips will have no alternative but to come to their own agreements and arrangements when it comes to discussing the Estimates. Normally this House concludes at 8.30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and does not sit on Friday. Considerable publicity was given to a statement by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, some time ago that the House would sit on Fridays to discuss Estimates. In the past the House has occasionally sat on Fridays in order to get the Estimates through in a hurry. That is no way to do business. Estimates are part and parcel of our business and it is bad for any Government — or for an Opposition who have no alternative — to rush through Estimates allocating perhaps one hour to the various Departments. We should use the time on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings between 8.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. to discuss Estimates and, if necessary, to sit on Fridays. However, it is necessary that the Estimates be published and produced in sufficiently good time to give the House an opportunity of digesting what is contained in them and to examine them in detail. In this way we would have a much better debate and one that would be more relevant.

I repeat that as far as we are concerned this motion is totally irrelevant and unnecessary. I cannot see any point in agreeing to a meaningless motion. I cannot see any point in agreeing to a motion just for the sake of changing a Standing Order when I know only too well it is absolutely unnecessary in view of our past experience and unnecessary in that it will be totally irrelevant in future unless positive changes are made to bring Estimates forward at a much earlier date for full discussion. In those circumstances, we do not intend to support this motion. Therefore, we have no alternative but to oppose it.

Mr. Connolly

It has been my experience during the long time I have been a Member of this House that invariably Estimates are rushed through this House, mainly in June and July. Millions of pounds are voted through on the nod or with very little debate. Many of them are voted through in a block vote. Our Chief Whip has pointed out the practice up to now. We have also established the committee system. The committee dealing with legislation have not met at all this year. I do not know whose fault it is. Some members of the committee want to know whether they are quietly being pushed aside. I was a member of the committee and I can tell the House what they did. The Radio Bill was brought before the committee. Members of Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil discussed it in great detail and met many interested parties. They reached a consensus on the matter and presented their report to the Minister for Communications. He subsequently introduced a Bill which was completely different to the one discussed by the committee and many good suggestions made by members of his own party were thrown out. There was a tug-of-war between the Labour Party and Fine Gael on the issue and the Bill will never see the light of day in this Dáil.

Some of the other committees have also been meeting. I suppose the most successful was the Committee on Marriage Breakdown. The Committee on Public Expenditure has been interesting but all they have been able to do is point out defects here and there, many of them in the semi-State arena. As a public representative I cannot ask a direct question relating to a semi-State body at Question Time. Today two questions relating to Bord na Móna were disallowed under the rules of the House. Any other person in the Chair's position would have had to make the same decision. I cannot ask about negotiations concerning pricing, staff or the rental of buildings where any semi-State body is concerned. I am told that these matters are the responsibility of the board, but there is also the responsibility to the taxpayer to be borne in mind. We cannot ask any questions about An Post or Telecom Éireann.

Mr. V. Brady

We cannot ask them directly either.

Mr. Connolly

They seem to have autonomy and we dare not ask a question. However, when they get into difficulty through their own fault they are very good at lobbying us and giving us piles of correspondence. They shed crocodile tears and look to us to prop them up with taxpayers' money.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does not think that a general discussion on Dáil reform is in order.

Mr. Connolly

It concerns procedure in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is only one facet of it before the House at present.

Mr. Connolly

It could lead to other things which we could couple in as well. The matter before the House means nothing much to me. It is a procedural matter to do with the Estimates debates. It is the same as screwing off a nut and putting it back again. What is the difference? I understand that procedure because I have been a long time in this House. We must look at ways of raising matters of major importance.

An Ceann Comhairle

The proposal before the House deals only with the Estimates debates. It does not deal with semi-State companies and nothing more than a passing reference to them is in order.

Mr. Connolly

I was making the point that we are handcuffed if we want to raise a matter of great importance — for example, Northern Ireland. It could be raised in the House of Commons and they could have a debate within two hours. We could not do that under our rules.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with what is before the House.

Mr. Connolly

Yes, but I would like to bring this into the arena.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would not be in order.

Mr. Connolly

Journalists and others are very good at pointing out that the Dáil should meet on a Monday and a Friday but the Minister would agree that many of us have other commitments on a Monday.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting into detail.

Mr. Connolly

I am talking about the day on which we can debate the Estimates.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is nothing in this motion confining the debates on the Estimates to any specific day. This motion governs only the type of debate which will take place on the Estimates, whenever that debate is held.

Mr. Connolly

If you had let me alone, I was finished. You could go home.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would rather the Deputy would take some time and finish in order rather than finish in a blaze of glory out of order.

Mr. Connolly

In my opinion there could be a debate on the Estimates between 8.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. on a Tuesday.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): That has nothing to do with this motion.

Mr. Connolly

It is being said outside that we do not meet often enough and that when major debates are taking place many of us are not here. Of course we have a heavy burden of constituency work, as well as serving on committees. Luckily or unluckily, the committee of which I am a member has not met at all this year. It must have been abandoned.

This motion means nothing. It is a piece of window dressing. In previous years we have been voting millions of pounds at the end of term following very little debate. If we could get the Estimates from all the Departments by October we might get over the problem. We were promised that but it has not come about.

Mr. V. Brady

The new Minister will look after it.

Mr. Connolly

I presume there may be difficulties. It means nothing to spend just a few minutes dealing with the Estimates.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Barrett,

Dún Laoghaire): I am extremely disappointed at the negative attitude adopted by the Opposition to this motion. Of course it is not changing the world. Nobody suggested that. What disappointed me was the type of contribution. First, I was criticised for the short delivery. I believe that one should say what one has to say and not waffle for a long time just to clock up time. I think I dealt with the motion and presented the motion adequately.

In regard to things like Question Time, of course we can meet and discuss the difficulties that have been experienced. We are due to review that. Various allegations have been made that nothing has been done and that committees have not been meeting and so on. When one introduces Dáil reform and introduces a committee system it is a reflection on the members of the committee if they do not insist that the committee meet. We lay out the conditions under which the committee can meet — they can meet as often as they like. We set out their terms of reference and they are entitled to discuss and debate and examine certain proposals and it is up to the members of the committee. I would suggest to Deputy Connolly that if he feels the Committee on Legislation has not met he should report this to his Whip and insist that the committee meet. There is a procedure for that. It has nothing to do with Dáil reform. We introduced the committee system as a reform. Some of these committees are working extremely well; others are not. But again, when this new system was introduced, it was introduced on the basis that it would be experimental to see how it would work and I can see straight away, in my short time in office, that there is a need for some changes and, with the co-operation of all parties in this House, we can change this structure. We have also dealt with the Order Paper. We have proposals before CPP — Deputy Connolly is a member of that committee — in relation to Private Members' Bills, and the production of explanatory memoranda for Bills. Broadcasting of the Dáil proceedings will be coming in shortly. In relation to this proposal I am sorry that what went on at CPP was raised in this House because my understanding was that the workings of CPP were traditionally held in private and that the proceedings of those committees were confidential. But since certain statements were made it is only right that I should answer those statements. I would point out that this motion went through CPP and was accepted without a division. Here we have the Opposition coming into the Chamber this evening and opposing it despite the fact that it was with CPP for nine months for consideration. So it is rather unfair for people to say that there was no consultation or that something else was rammed through CPP. At the end of the day if the proposals are brought forward one would always try to be reasonable and get agreement and resolve problems. We cannot avoid having some reforms because, as Deputies Connolly and Brady pointed out, many things need changing. I bow to the experience of Deputies Connolly and Brady because both are longer in this House than I am but I would remind the Deputies that they were in Government for a long time and no changes took place either. So the change we are bringing about should not be criticised because it is small.

This motion does not deal with the length of time that should be devoted to Estimates. That is a matter for the Whips and when I was Whip we dealt with that. What we are talking about is the quality of the debate, not the length of the debate. All this motion is trying to do is to help Deputies extract from Ministers further information so that we do not just have long speeches with nothing at the end of the debate. At least with this procedure a Deputy can make his or her point; the Minister can make his point; the Opposition Spokesmen can make their contributions and when they are finished we can then have across-the-floor debate and questioning on the various points on the Estimates to deal with the very thing that Deputy Connolly is complaining about. If a Member of the House wants to know why money is being spent here and has not got a satisfactory answer he should be able to ask the Minister. What is wrong with changing the procedure to enable a Deputy to do that? It certainly is not in the Government's interest that that should happen. It would be far easier if the present system continued. But it is affording every Member of the House the opportunity of finding out more and questioning the Minister. I cannot see the logic of opposing a measure that gives greater power to a Deputy to ask questions and get answers on the floor of the House, the very thing that the Opposition have been complaining that they could not do on other occasions.

Mr. V. Brady

The Minister is putting the cart before the horse. The Estimates should be in before September or October as promised.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I will deal with that issue in good time. I can see a situation in the future where the debates on the Estimates would take place before they come into the House to be formally passed. I have not examined the matter in detail but I am considering that perhaps the Committee on Public Expenditure should look at these. If we are going to have a viable committee system operating here the committees must be seen to have real teeth and be debating important issues. Why should everything come onto the floor of the House? We can use the committee system and I am looking at that proposition and will be discussing it with the Opposition as soon as I have some concrete proposals to put.

In relation to matters of special importance, I am surprised that the Deputy should say there is no co-operation on the part of the Government to allow the Opposition to raise matters of urgent public importance.

Mr. V. Brady

On the Order of Business.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The Order of Business is not the place to raise those matters. It is for the Government of the day to order the business of the day.

Mr. V. Brady

Only two weeks ago I wanted to put down a question and could not get it.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Only today the Government agreed to a three hour special debate on the farm situation. That was not business that was agreed last week. It was done at the request of the Opposition. The Government immediately gave time. In my time as Whip I always agreed to give special time if a request was formally made. Indeed, I recall on one or two occasions when time was offered and the Opposition said they had changed their minds and they did not really want it. So the Deputies cannot complain that they have not been given an opportunity to raise matters of urgent public importance while this Government are in power.

In regard to time afforded to Estimates, it is a matter for the Whips to decide what time they allocate for a particular Estimate. I would remind the Deputy of the time spent on Estimates, including Votes on additional Supplementary Estimates. In 1977, 18 hours were spent; in 1978, 65 hours; in 1979, 51 hours; in 1980, 113 hours; in 1981, 41 hours; in 1982, 42 hours; in 1983, 77 hours; in 1985, 94 hours. The latter was the second highest in ten years.

Mr. V. Brady

What was the highest?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The highest was in 1980. But it is fairly miserable to think that in 1977, 1978 and 1979 we had 18 hours, 65 hours and 51 hours. It is not all on this side of the House that time was not given. We gave 94 hours last year for Estimates and it was one of the few occasions when all Estimates were debated on the floor of the House even though some of them did not get adequate time.

Mr. V. Brady

Our argument is that there was a promise to have Estimates here by September or October.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): What we are talking about is providing a new format for the debating of Estimates. We are not talking about the length of time which should be allocated. It is up to the Whips to decide whether it is ten hours, two days or a week. I fail to see how the Deputies can oppose a motion which went through the CPP; it was not divided on and it affords Deputies an opportunity of extracting more information, getting answers to their problems and so on. I fail to see the logic in opposing this.

Mr. V. Brady

It was not agreed at CPP.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): We should not be seen to be negative. This may be small progress but it is some progress. In the not too distant future I will be coming into this House to move motions enabling Private Members' Bills to be taken. An individual Member can move a Private Members' Bill then. I will be coming in with a proposal to broadcast which will give the public an opportunity of hearing what goes on in this House. I will be bringing in new measures on many other items which we are examining at present.

Deputy Brady asked if I had the staff to back up my efforts and I am glad to say I have probably the best staff available at this time. We have people with practical experience in the Whips' office and I am sure their expertise can be availed of. This is not an inter-party dispute. This measure is being introduced to make this House more relevant and more important and to give Deputies an opportunity to ask questions. It is important that we have staff with qualities who will be able to bring forward constructive proposals, but ultimately it is the Members who should decide what they want. It should not come from the Government side only.

I am asking Fianna Fáil not to sit back and wait for me to bring forward all the new proposals. If they have constructive suggestions on how to change procedure I will be only too delighted to meet with them any time to discuss them and, if we can get agreement, come in here and change procedure. I will be delighted to discuss such matters with any Opposition speaker at any time because this is vitally important.

It is a shame that at 9.15 p.m. on a Tuesday evening there are very few people in this House. Maybe we should be asking ourselves questions.

Mr. V. Brady

That is where reform comes in.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): It is in the interests of every Member to come into this House and express their views. If the Deputies had put down a constructive amendment, I would have been only too pleased to consider it but instead, they opposed the motion and there was no logic to their argument.

The only criticism I heard was that the Estimates procedure has not been changed, that some of the committees have not been working properly and that Question Time is not very satisfactory. I have dealt with the comment that there has been lack of co-operation with the Opposition, and I have proved that that is not the case. Deputy Brady said that never before had ther been a division at CPP, but that is not accurate. He asked about back-up facilities and I satisfied him about that. He asked about the Estimates being taken on Friday——

Mr. V. Brady

What about the Estimates in September?

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Certainly, if we can come up with a constructive proposal which will deal with that type of scrutiny of Estimates I will be only too delighted to debate it with Deputies.

Mr. V. Brady

Four years ago the Minister said he would do that.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I will be looking at all these issues and will deal with them as quickly as I can. It would be in the interests of this House if we constructively debated the Estimates. It need not be in the Chamber; we can use one of our committees.

I think I have dealt with the bulk of the points raised by the two Fianna Fáil speakers and I ask them to reconsider their opposition because it would be a terrible shame to oppose a motion which enables a Minister to make his contribution in 45 minutes——

Mr. V. Brady

We always had that.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire):——and the first Opposition speaker had 45 minutes.

Mr. V. Brady

There is nothing new there.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Under the old system a Minister had unlimited time to introduce an Estimate and the first Opposition speaker had 90 minutes. Under the old system if two hours were available for an Estimate, a Minister could speak for two hours and nobody could stop him.

Mr. V. Brady

The Minister knows that has not been the case for a number of years.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Now we are limiting the Minister and the first Opposition speaker to 45 minutes.

Mr. V. Brady

The Whips always dealt with that.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): We are providing 20 minutes for other speakers; surely that is enough for anybody, and when everybody has made his contribution, we are allowing five-minute interventions for speakers to ask questions across the floor and the Minister will have five minutes to reply.

Mr. Connolly

I could always do that. I could always ask the Minister a question and he would answer it. This is only a wording procedure.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Not in accordance with Standing Orders. Under Standing Orders it is clear that Deputies could not have an across-the-floor debate. Do not let us make fools of ourselves by opposing a motion which is trying to improve the way in which we do our business.

Question put and declared carried.