John Bruton
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans for fundamental Dáil reform in view of the increased use of the guillotine to restrict debate on Bills and Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Reform of Dáil Procedures.
The reform of Dáil procedures is, of course, a matter for the House as a whole.
The Government have been referring their reform proposals to the all-party Working Group, appointed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to report on such proposals. The group have already produced two valuable reports on reform.
Is it not the case that the Taoiseach has just given a misleading reply in so far as the Government have tabled no proposals of their own before that group and have simply agreed to consensus ideas emerging from the group without tabling any proposals of their own?
I have nothing further to add, a Cheann Comhairle.
Is it not the case that the Taoiseach was quite simply stating an untruth when he said——
The Deputy should be slow to use that term against any Member of this House.
Is it not the case——
The Chair will not permit that.
Even if it is true?
This is not a court of law, Deputy.
It is not a court of fact either on occasions.
Is it not inaccurate for the Taoiseach to say that the Government have tabled their proposals before that group when in fact the Government have not tabled any proposals before that group and have simply sought ideas from other parties and then agreed to proposals where there was a consensus? Would the Taoiseach not agree that in failing to table any proposals of their own the Government have directly breached one of the conditions in the Programme for Government agreed with the Progressive Democrats where there was a commitment to table proposals on Dáil reform within six months? The Government have tabled no proposals at all on Dáil reform other than agreeing to consensus proposals emerging from a working group mostly consisting of Deputies of other parties.
I do not agree at all. The report on Dáil reform which was approved by the Dáil last Christmas had the following main recommendations, all of which have been implemented: there is no need for a general imposition of time limits on the length of speeches; the present practice whereby the Whips decide on time limits of individual items should be retained; the new Adjournment Debate on topical matters procedure introduced experimentally last October should continue; the procedure for circulating tabular statements relevant to speeches to be incorporated permanently in the Standing Orders; the session orders allocating Private Members' time and priority questions to remain in force for the duration of the present Dáil. A number of other changes have already been made.
Can we take it therefore from the Taoiseach's reply that it is not the intention of this Government to bring forward any specific proposals of their own as a Government in relation to Dáil reform? Is the Taoiseach telling us that what he is going to do is take on board proposals from other parties in this House and bring them forward as Government proposals? Is that what the Taoiseach is planning?
I think Deputies should be clear on what is involved here. The reform of our procedures in this House is a matter for the House. Deputies opposite would be the first to rebel if the Government sought to impose reform. Second, when we do try to expedite the proceedings of this House there is uproar from the Fine Gael benches consistently. I think therefore the right way to proceed is through all-party agreement on the committee, and the Government will, from time to time, put forward their own proposals in that regard and will also listen to proposals put forward by other Deputies.
Would the Taoiseach agree that after a year of the existence of this committee the recommendations and report adopted by this House on foot of the work of that committee are minimal? Will he further agree the actual reform element that has taken place in this House is virtually unnoticed by Deputies and by the public at large, and that most Members still feel totally frustrated in dealing with matters of urgency which are the focus of attention outside the House but which cannot be raised within? Will the Taoiseach use this opportunity now to indicate his own thinking in relation to Dáil reform, because it is clear to us who work on the committee that, unless the Government, and in particular the Taoiseach, put their own weight behind it, no meaningful reform will occur? I would specifically ask the Taoiseach what his attitude is in relation to committees of the House. The work of the committees has been spectacularly good. Could more of the legislative work of the House be channelled through these committees?
I certainly agree that legislative committees are excellent and we will use them to the greatest extent possible. The Deputy will understand that this House must always have its own functions. One of the major reforms in any House of Parliament has been undertaken by this Government in conjunction with the other parties, that is, the televising of the House. Let us not be too selfdenigrating. If the Deputy is implying in his questioning that I have some sort of magic wand which I can wave in this regard, I will certainly look around and see if I can find it.
Would the Taoiseach agree in view of the fact that in the Programme for Government agreed between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats there would be Dáil reform within six months of taking office, that there is a clear desire in the Dáil for real reform and that the House, despite what the Taoiseach says, simply does not have the machinery to carry out the reform the Taoiseach suggests? Would he, therefore, agree to lead the attack on reforming this House before we are laughed out of it by the public who are well ahead of us and who have long been seeking reform of this institution?
I could not accept all that and the Deputy should not denigrate this House too much. The House does a great deal of useful, constructive work. For instance, Question Time in this House is equal to the Question Time of any parliament in the world.
Answer time is not as good.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that his view of this House is that of a debating chamber where Members can comment freely after the Government have made up their mind and that the Taoiseach does not see this House playing any useful role in shaping Government decisions in the areas of legislation, Estimates or European policy? Is it not the case that the role of this House could not be more exactly typified by the fact that we are having a debate on the European Summit after it took place, whereas in Westminster they had the debate on the European Summit before it took place so that they could influence what their Prime Minister said? We could only listen to what our Prime Minister did. Would the Taoiseach not agree that that juxtaposition of debates shows that he sees this House as a place to be given a bit more time to do a little bit more talking——
A Cheann Comhairle, that is a speech.
——but not a place which should——
There is a tendency towards debate.
——be taken into the confidence of the Government at any time?
The Deputy picked a very unfortunate illustration when he compared the debate here with the debate in the House of Commons. I do not want to go too far down that road, but——
Do.
——the outcome of the Luxembourg Conference would justify the procedure I offered to this House as being more beneficial. Deputies now have something very concrete to examine and discuss. A meeting before the Luxembourg Conference would not have been of any value to this House. The fact that a debate took place in the House of Commons had, I suggest, a different motivation.
(Interruptions.)
Order, I want to bring this to finality.
I have been trying to get in for some time.
A number of Deputies are offering. I will facilitate the Deputies, providing they are brief. Otherwise I will proceed to deal with Priority Questions.
Would the Taoiseach outline to the House what he believes the Progressive Democrats had in mind when they insisted on Dáil reform being in the Programme for Government?
The Progressive Democrats, as always, had the purest and best of motives in mind.
(Interruptions.)
This is Question Time, not comedy time.
That is the sort of patronising nonsense the Taoiseach is very good at.
This question might well have been ruled out as a repeat. In endeavouring to help the House I have taken the question but it is now developing into a sort of marathon debate and I really have nothing more to say on it.
He had nothing to say at all.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that a basic part of the problem is the fact that the number of sitting days of this House per year compares very unfavourably with the number of sitting days in other parliaments in the EC and elsewhere?
That is the most common false allegation made about this Parliament. I have made it my business during the last year or so to see what other parliaments do and this Government, this Parliament, are more directly responsible in this House than practically any other Government in Europe, except perhaps the Westminster Government.
That was not the question. I was asking about the number of sitting days.
The Deputy could come in more often.
I am here all the time.
Could I bring the Taoiseach's mind back from the red herring conveniently provided by Deputy Taylor? Does the Taoiseach seriously consider that what will happen this afternoon will be a debate on the future of Europe? Would he take a leaf out of the book of other EC Governments and produce a White Paper which could be debated in this House, and not a series of limited statements which is all we will have this evening?
I do not agree.
I am proceeding now to deal with Priority Questions.
I asked a question and the Chair allowed it.
The Deputy asked if I agreed and I said no, I do not agree.