Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Oct 1996

Vol. 469 No. 6

Dail Reform: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion.

(1) That, in respect of the First Report of the sub-Committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Reform of Dáil Procedure (T. 291) dated 19th June, 1996, and with effect from Tuesday, 15th October, 1996—

(a) the amendments and additions to the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business and the sessional orders recommended in Appendix 1 to the Report be adopted; and

(b) the proposals set out in Appendix 2 to the Report, including the amendment to the Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies set out at paragraph 1 thereof and the amendment to the Orders of Reference of the Committees set out at paragraph 10 thereof, be adopted.

(2) That, in relation to the Orders of Reference of the Select Committees on Enterprise and Economic Strategy, Finance and General Affairs, Legislation and Security and Social Affairs—

(a) the provisions of paragraphs (17), (18), (20), (21) and (22), inserted by Order of Dáil Éireann of 1st March, 1995, shall be deemed to apply to, and to have always applied to, a sub-Committee appointed by the Select Committee; and

(b) paragraph (19) of the Orders of Reference of each Select Committee be amended by the insertion of `or a sub-Committee thereof' after `taken before it'.".

(Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Mr. J. Higgins).

Mr. Connolly

Before the adjournment of the debate I was dealing with matters on which many Members have spoken freely. I am delighted they have done so because Governments have not improved the facilities here. I do not blame the Civil Service because Governments decide what they will do just as they decide other matters. To set the record straight, it is 16 years since any refurbishment was carried out in the Dáil bars. What room in any household would last 16 years without some kind of refurbishment? Money is being well spent now. When foreign members of Parliament visit here we will have a respectable place to bring them.

No one would deny that the improvements in Government Buildings are a credit to the country. It was the Government of the day who decided to carry out that work, and the work at Dublin Castle and the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. We had to fight hard for improvements in this House and it is a pity we did not have the courage to do more. I was part of the committee that had to do that and, with the Members of the committee and the party Whips, I did that fairly and honestly. If we are to be a modern Oireachtas and move with the times, we must be prepared to provide proper facilities. There seems to be no problem finding money to pay lawyers to work for the State — I do not know how it can be said that there are people in this country who are entitled to £2,000 a day.

The newspapers say that Deputies and Senators are not entitled to a penny extra a mile, but we never ask questions about their pay or subsistence rates. I do not begrudge them, but I do not like backhanded remarks. The Members I have known in this House for many years have all been honourable people doing the best they can.

There are 22 committees operating here, and I cannot see why we should have so many; ten would be enough. Many committees have to adjourn because they do not have a quorum and Members must go from one committee to another to make up a quorum so that meetings can commence. Of the 22 committees the Opposition have only three chairpersons. Deputies can make what they like of that. There are far too many committees and this is seen by many as a way of handing out jobs in an effort to please some people, but it does not please others.

During the Bord na Móna saga the chairman of the committee read out a statement which, as far as I know, came from the Ceann Comhairle's office stating that we should be careful about what we said at the committee because there were doubts about privilege. Perhaps the Minister could tell us if there is a doubt about privilege in speaking at committees. That should be cleared up because there were many questions Members across the political divide wanted to ask but could not because they interpreted that four page statement as meaning that privilege did not apply at the committee in the same way as it does here.

If that is the case it should be rectified. The semi-States live in a world of their own but when anything goes wrong and they are short of money, they come to the politicians and the Government of the day to bail them out. Questions tabled about them are ruled out of order as not being the responsibility of the Minister but when anything goes wrong the Minister and the Oireachtas is responsible and must give subventions on behalf of the taxpayers. I am pleased we are making progress but I would like to see more progress being made. I hope the Government will have the courage to improve facilities for all Members to put us on a sound operating basis. In the long run the public will appreciate it.

Mr. J. Mitchell

With your permission I wish to share my time with Deputy Nealon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I have no doubt the package of proposals from the Government Chief Whip is intended to make the Dáil more effective and relevant. However, frequent Dáil reforms in the last number of years have made the Dáil less effective, less relevant, less reported and more boring than ever before. All of the boredom and the irrelevancies cannot be attributed to Dáil reform. The all-party consensus on almost everything, although it has plus points, certainly contributes to the general torpor. However, the way the Dáil and its committees are organised has contributed to a diffusion of focus which has reduced the accountability of the Government, reduced the reporting of Dáil proceedings and at the same time is exhausting Dáil Deputies.

Apart from the committee structures being half-hearted and ill-considered they are chronically under resourced. The worst feature of Dáil life today is the excessively tight whipping system through which all different or new ideas are siphoned. This creates an atmosphere in which Deputies are discouraged from researching and expressing their own ideas. The irony is that all tranches of Dáil reform have been instigated by the Government Chief Whip whose overriding concern is to protect the Government. It is not surprising therefore that the sum total of Dáil reform has had a comatose effect on the Dáil.

There are seven Deputies in the Chamber now, not even a quorum. Scarcely, if ever, is there a quorum in the House. The Taoiseach's Question Time today was a case in point. There was not one single Government backbencher in the House and there was not a quorum. There was a time when because of the incisiveness of the Opposition it was always necessary to have Government Deputies present in large numbers to "protect" the Taoiseach or the Minister, who was answering questions. In turn, the number of Opposition Deputies present was always significantly higher than it is today.

Overall changes in Question Time whereby a Minister responds only once a month for a fixed period has deadened Question Time. Priority Questions, ruling out supplementaries from other Deputies has been a significant backward step when it was supposed to achieve the opposite result. Every day the Dáil sits, it causes a scandal among voters who watch "Oireachtas Report" as boring speech after boring speech is delivered to an arena of empty seats. Most voters think we are on holidays all the time.

Another bone of contention is that Estimates are being nodded through. A cursory consideration of the Estimates in a few hours is the best we can expect and frequently the Minister responsible for a Department does not sit through the Estimates. This was unheard of many years ago. Worse still, many Estimates which involve spending hundreds of millions of pounds are nodded through here without debate. Is it any wonder there are scandals such as the Blood Transfusion Service Board scandal and the beef scandal? Wholesale reform is needed and it cannot commence until there is an all-party review of the whipping system. Without it the balance of power between parliament and the Executive will remain unchanged.

The principal function of the Dáil is to hold the Government to account. The English version of the Constitution states: "The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann". The word used in the Irish version of the Constitution is "freagrach"— answerable. If the Dáil is so tightly controlled under the whipping system by the Government which is supposed to be answerable to it, it is easy to understand why dullness and mediocrity is the order of the day.

In considering the terms of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunity of Witnesses) Bill senior counsel with raised eyebrows advised the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, of which I am the chairperson on the constitutional propriety of what is proposed and on existing mechanisms and procedures.

On resources available to committees and the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas depends on the Government for resources. Committees are frustrated in holding the Government to account because the Government will not approve the expenditure required by committees. Other parliaments have what is called an ear marked vote where a certain proportion of the total national budget is ear marked for parliament, under parliament's control alone and not subject to the sanction of the Executive and the Minister for Finance. This is a fundamental requirement and it should be considered.

The ultimate enactment of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunity of Witness) Bill, is urgent even though it is clear from the consideration given to it by my committee that many substantial amendments will be necessary.

The committee system needs an urgent overhaul. We have at least seven House committees: the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, the Broadcasting Committee, the Joint Services Committee, the Liaison Committee etc., all of which should be abolished and replaced by two committees: a committee on procedure and privileges and a Houses of the Oireachtas committee that would deal with services, broadcasting etc. All other committees, with the exception of the Committee of Public Accounts, should be abolished and replaced by 14 portfolio committees each one of which would shadow a member of the Cabinet, other than the Taoiseach and each member of the Cabinet would report to the relevant committee in respect of all his obligations and answer questions other than Special Notice Questions. Ministers would also be required to introduce the Estimates for their Departments in these portfolio committees so that they could be considered in detail in advance of the financial year to which they relate.

No Deputy should be a member of more than one committee. At present we have to endure the spectacle of Deputies running from one committee to another in an effort to contribute adequately to both but failing to do so. We also see them running across the road from a committee to the Dáil which meets at the same time. This leads to a diffusion in focus. The Dáil should not meet in plenary session as the same time as committees. We should so organise our business that committees meet for a few hours in the morning and the Dáil meets in plenary session for no more than four hours in any one day, thereby allowing committees to resume after the plenary session is completed. The long-winded Order of Business and Taoiseach's Question Time on Tuesday and Wednesday should be merged so that there is a half hour for questions to the Taoiseach at the commencement of the plenary session of the Dáil. This streamlining of business would greatly increase the effectiveness of the Dáil and improve the use of time by Deputies.

As I said, no Deputy should be a member of more than one portfolio committee. If I have done my arithmetic correctly, each of the 14 committees would have nine members, excluding officeholders. I do not have time to develop these points in detail but I hope to have an opportunity to do so in the near future.

Mr. Nealon

We can tinker around with Dáil reform, Standing Orders and various procedures but there will not be much improvement until such time as there is a fundamental change in the manner in which Deputies are elected. As long as we operate the single transferable vote system in multi-seat constituencies, our form of PR, then Deputies will be mainly constituency workers. Unless Deputies devote 90-95 per cent of their long working week to constituency work they will not be re-elected. What is the point of being an excellent legislator and wonderful parliamentarian if one cannot attend Parliament? The public have been asked twice by way of referenda to change the system of voting but they have turned it down on both occasions. They like the PR system. As long as this is put to them as a single issue they will never agree to change it and perhaps it could be made part of a package. I am very sorry it is not part of the brief of the constitutional review committee.

The biggest problem with the Dáil in so far as the transaction of business and its perception are concerned is the lack of a clear-cut system for raising important developments as soon as they occur. We had an example of this on the Order of Business this morning and nobody can be too happy with the way it was resolved. Every morning we have a programmed farce whereby Deputies, responsible politicians, party leaders and party spokespersons seek to raise important matters under the guise or pretence of promised legislation. This is demeaning to the Dáil, embarrassing for the politicians involved and unfair to the Opposition. It should be possible to raise important matters on the floor of the House in the same way as they are raised in every other democracy. There should be no great mystery about this. The existing system was devised as a defensive mechanism by past Governments and wholeheartedly embraced by successive Governments. Something must be done about it.

The most significant improvement in recent years was the setting up of the improved and enlarged committee system. However, the system is not working and is a failure. I would even go so far as to say it is a disaster. This goes back to the burden of constituency work. No Deputy can devote two days each week to committee work at the expense of constituency work. I am a member of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs which has carried out excellent work on prebudget submissions. It should be possible for us to be present at the committee all the time so that we can distil the wisdom within it and present it to the Minister. However, we cannot do this as we have to look after our constituencies in order to ensure we will be re-elected. The committee system will be doomed unless the number of members is reduced or more time is made available.

The most necessary improvement is electoral reform, which we will not get, but there are other improvements which can be introduced immediately. The first improvement I would recommend is that every Deputy should have a full-time researcher in addition to a secretary. This would make an enormous difference as far as the burden of work is concerned. I have been a Deputy for 16 years and I can remember only one occasion when I was satisfied with the level of research I carried out on a speech — I visited the National Library and other libraries and carried out much work on it. If Deputies had researchers available to them it would greatly improve the system.

Another improvement would be to give Deputies adequate pay for the work they do. As the larger parties have discovered in the past few weeks, it is difficult to find candidates of the necessary calibre to fight an election because of the costs involved. If we do not deal with the issue of pay this will continue to be a problem.

It is important that we also improve facilities. If we continue to treat ourselves as second rate members of Parliament who can blame the public for treating us as such? We are entitled to improved facilities and we should make no apologies to anyone for having all the necessary facilities.

Miss Quill

I wish to share my time with Deputies Kirk and Browne.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is satisfactory.

Miss Quill

I welcome the report of the committee. If its recommendations are adopted a small number of minor improvements will be effected. I commend those who put a good deal of work into bringing the report before the House. I am at one with other speakers on the need for real and fundamental root and branch reform of the House. I only have time to deal with this reform under one heading, that is the way in which questions are dealt with in the House and taken or not taken by the Government.

During my ten years as a Member of the House. I have witnessed a steady erosion of my role and function as a backbencher. The position is worse now than it has been at any time during the previous ten years. One of my functions as a Deputy is make the Government accountable and answerable to the Dáil in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. However, if I ask a question about an element of the national roads programme it is disallowed by the Ceann Comhairle and I am told it is a matter for the National Roads Authority. If I ask a question about the Blackpool by-pass in my constituency I will not get an answer. The National Roads Authority has an annual budget of approximately £200 million. This is taxpayers' money, yet that body is not accountable or answerable to this House for the manner in which it spends its funding or orders its priorities. Is that accountability? Where does it leave people like me?

A similar situation arose in my constituency regarding a new scheme initiated by the Minister for Education entitled Breaking the Cycle. When I attempted to ask the Minister the basis on which certain schools were chosen for inclusion on that scheme and others were excluded, I was informed that it is not the Minister's responsibility, she has no function in the matter and decisions of that nature are carried out by the education research group based in Drumcondra. There is no accountability to me on that issue.

Yesterday I tabled a priority question to the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht regarding the withdrawal of UTV from the consortium that was to make up TV3. The question was disallowed on the basis that it was a matter for the Independent Radio and Television Commission. There was no accountability for that issue in this House. I tabled another question to the same Minister yesterday regarding whether he would make a subvention to RTE to enable it to host the 1997 Eurovision Song Contest in Ireland. The question was again disallowed because the Minister has no official responsibility in the Dáil in relation to the matter. The responsibility lies with RTE. I tabled a third question about a proposal the Minister mooted in the context of his releasing the Green Paper on Broadcasting. Part of that proposal involved moving Network 2 out of Dublin and to establish it as a publisher-broadcaster similar to Channel 4 in Great Britain. I inquired when, how or if that will be done but the question was again disallowed. The explanation given was that "The Minister has no official responsibility to the Dáil in relation to this matter which is one for the RTE Authority."

This has happened in connection with every other Department. It also occurred in relation to the responsibility of the Blood Transfusion Services Board and accountability for the actions of that board in this House. The same answer is repeated time and again and we are informed that the Minister in question has no responsibility to the Dáil. If the cumulative effect of this is not to erode the function, role and what ought to be the responsibility of the Dáil, I do not know what is. Unless we can remedy and rectify these matters, put in place accountability and oblige Ministers to enter the House and provide answers to the Opposition or to backbenchers of any party regarding bodies which are spending vast sums of taxpayers' money, the Dáil will become a talking shop.

One of the most demoralising things which has occurred since I became a Deputy is that I cannot obtain essential information regarding the way decisions are arrived at. That has eroded the role and function of this House. This Government stands condemned. I had enormous expectation that there was a certain reforming zeal in the present Taoiseach when he was in Opposition. I expected that we would bring about real Dáil reform and reclaim the respect of the electorate for this House and its Members as a result. I also believed we could engage the enthusiasm of backbenchers and reassert the rightful position of the Dáil as a place which makes Government answerable. To date, we have failed to do so. I ask that my comments will be taken into account when further reforms are being contemplated.

Mr. Kirk

I thank Deputy Quill for affording me the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I propose to share time with Deputy Browne. One requires at least 15 to 20 minutes to tease out and develop the different points which must be considered in relation to this important motion. During the morning session I had the opportunity to listen to many of the contributions which were very worthy and touched upon relevant points. However, the most telling contribution was made by Deputy Nealon. The competitive position that obtains within the multi-seat constituencies and the electoral system dictates and determines the role of Members of this House. That is the reality. As Deputy Nealon correctly stated, unless Members are prepared to devote the necessary time to constituency work on a daily basis of 12 to 14 hours they will not be returned at the subsequent election.

I do not make these observations by way of complaint but by way of analysis of the motion under discussion. There is not enough time available for Members to spend on research, deliberation and checking every issue necessary to making a worthwhile contribution. Consequently, the quality of contribution suffers.

I wish to consider the issue of Question Time. New arrangements have been put in place regarding priority questions. Effectively, this minimises the time available to ordinary backbenchers on all sides of the House for tabling questions. There is a need to reconsider this matter.

A number of Members referred to the accountability of the semi-State sector and the fact that parliamentary questions have been ruled out of order because Ministers claim they have no responsibility. That is not good enough. Billions of pounds are being spent yearly by the semi-State sector and there is a need to have a direct political responsibility at Question Time in the House. That matter must be addressed. I am sorry that I do not have more time to develop these points.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I thank Deputies Quill and Kirk for sharing time. It is somewhat ridiculous that, in discussing Dáil reform, we are confined to three or four minutes per contribution. Approximately 4 hours 30 minutes have been spent on a debate to which perhaps 130 to 140 Deputies might wish to contribute.

I have been a Member of this Houses for almost 14 years. Despite the fact that there has been some Dáil reform in the past, the House has become more irrelevant than ever to the outside world. For example, Irish Ferries are threatening to pull out of Rosslare for the winter months with a consequent loss of between 200 to 400 jobs. However, if I want to raise that issue on the Order of Business tomorrow, I will be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle and directed to find a more suitable time to raise it. That is the most important issue to the people of County Wexford and the rest of the country at present but I cannot raise the issue and request that it be debated immediately. I must raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House or at Question Time a week to ten days after it arose.

Salaries, the committee structures, facilities, staffing levels and research are areas which affect Members. We are to blame for the fact that adequate facilities are not in place. We have run from the media and criticism. We have been afraid to bite the bullet and provide proper and adequate facilities. In the time available I wish to comment on the issue of facilities. With other Deputies, I am based in the old engineering block which we also call "the bunker". This is a dark and dismal dungeon where Members are completely isolated from the daily operations of the House. Deputies and secretaries are cluttered up in a building which is an absolute disgrace. The rooms are far too small. The sheepdog I keep at home has more space to run around than is available to Deputies and secretaries in the engineering block. Entry to the building is through a long glass tunnel which is more suitable for growing tomatoes or flowers than access to Dáil facilities. There is no wheelchair access to the building. It is amazing how it passes the fire officer's annual inspection.

If there were a fire in my office, which is on the bottom floor, I do not know how staff would get out. Members are there only two days a week, but our secretaries work there five days a week in deplorable conditions. I invite the Minister of State to visit the building to see the disgraceful conditions in which Members have to work. Something should be done quickly to provide more suitable offices for secretaries and Members. Those working in the private sector or elsewhere in the public sector would not accept similar conditions.

Members in three or four seat constituencies have a heavy workload, but I come from a five seat constituency and I have only one secretary and do not have a research officer. If Members do not fulfil their constituency duties, they do not get re-elected. We must provide more staff for Members so they can give the people they represent a proper service.

We have failed to reform the Dáil. We set up committees to pretend to the public and the media that we are here on a more regular basis. I am a member of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security and I seldom, if ever, attend meetings of that committee other than when a vote is taking place. There are three Ministers in my constituency with all the necessary backup facilities, but I find it almost impossible to attend committee meetings and carry out my constituency work. I have no difficulty with large amounts of money being spent on improving the bar or restaurant facilities, if the offices in which Members operate are also upgraded. It is deplorable that a section of our Houses of Parliament is not accessible to wheelchair users. Will the Minister ensure that wheelchair access is provided to the engineering block?

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. J. Higgins)

I thank those who contributed to the debate. The fact that 19 other Members contributed since 11 a.m. this morning shows that there is great interest in Dáil reform. As some Members had to share time, more time should be allocated to future debates on Dáil reform. We believed we had provided adequate time, but that does not appear to have been the case.

I acknowledge Members' contributions on the work of the committee. The chief whips, Deputies Dermot Ahern, Brian Fitzgerald and Eric Byrne, played key roles on that committee and I will reserve my comments on the Progressive Democrats until later.

We must put this matter in context. This is the first report on Dáil reform published by the sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. This is only the beginning. For the duration of our term in office we will apply ourselves assiduously to improving Dáil structures to make them more relevant and meaningful in the interests of democracy. I also thank the officials who were involved in the tedious discussions and, finally, devised this constructive framework. We owe them a sincere debt of gratitude.

Deputy Ahern kicked off the debate with a constructive contribution. I am sure many of us share his views on the tyranny of the script. One does not get publicity unless one produces a script. A hallmark of parliaments in the past was the capacity of Members to speak off the cuff. Members of the Seanad are not allowed to read from scripts, but if a member of this House wants to be reported in the media he or she must produce a script.

I was heartened by Deputy Ahern's constructive comments about arriving at a consensus and adopting common denominator solutions to problems. We are not discussing this matter merely from a Government perspective, it is in the long-term interests of all Members. Those who are in Government today may be in Opposition tomorrow and vice versa. In pooling our resources collectively, it is in everybody's interest that we adopt a common denominator approach for the betterment of all Members and the House collectively.

It is at that juncture that Deputy Ahern and I depart in terms of agreement. I cannot accept his allegations about the secretiveness of this Government in lumping together questions. I will outline examples of its openness in answering questions and confronting issues. On 24 May, 1995 the Taoiseach made a statement on the Matt Russell affair, following which there was a rigorous question and answer session. On 30 May 1995 we had a debate lasting two hours and 45 minutes on the Attorney General affair involving the Taoiseach, the main spokesperson for the Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party and the Progressive Democrats Party, following which we had an extensive question and answer session. On Tuesday, 30 April thisj year we had statements from the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications about the second mobile telephone licence, following which we had a question and answer session. We had statements on the Anthony Duncan case, followed by questions to the Minister for Justice which lasted one hour. On 3 October a request was made on the Order of Business for a debate on the hepatitis C issue and on that evening after Question Time we had an open debate on the matter. Far from hiding from the political reality, the Government has made itself answerable to the House on all aspects of its performance.

Deputy Ahern said the repeat rule relates to the last century. While Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the other parties were conceived in this century, Fianna Fáil has been in power longer than any other party in this century or decade. From 1987 to November 1994 Fianna Fáil did not show any reforming zeal.

Mr. D. Ahern

There was reform. Members of Fianna Fáil are the best reformers in the House.

Mr. J. Higgins

That party did nothing about the repeat rule, something which Deputy Ahern demanded today.

Under Standing Order 30, or by way of a Private Notice Question, urgent matters can be raised each day in the House. If a Private Notice Question is tabled on an urgent matter, the Ceann Comhairle will examine it and if it is worthy of an urgent debate under the standing order relating to such questions, a debate on the matter will proceed.

In relation to Adjournment Debates, matters that took place yesterday can be raised this evening, for example, by way of four ten minute debates.

Deputy Brian Fitzgerald made a valid point on the need to enliven debates. The Whips are trying to inject some spontaneity into the proceedings of the House, first, by allowing spontaneous interruption and, second, by an automatic procedure whereby ten minutes will be set aside after a debate to allow for questions on the subject discussed. This will make proceedings open to a greater degree of spontaneity and I hope will enliven them.

Deputy Upton referred to the misinterpretation of people's intentions and he has freedom of expression. The Freedom of Information Bill is promised for this session. He also referred to the need for enhanced facilities and rights for Private Members' Business and talked about the frustration of Government backbenchers. This programme of reform will introduce a new procedure, not solely for Opposition Members, whereby five Bills may be sponsored by individuals and the money and wherewithal will be provided to do the research and drafting work. The Whips will develop procedures to set time aside for this. It is a worthwhile innovation that has not received sufficient recognition.

Deputy O'Malley considered the contents to be unimportant and trivial details, issues and procedures on the margins. The subcommittee spent many hours going into the detail of what should happen and trying to distill the collective view in the production of a document that would have unanimous support. There were eight meetings and the Progressive Democrats were present for one meeting in February.

Mr. D. Ahern

On a point of order, the Minister of State is aware of the impossibility for that party to attend all the committee meetings. It is a little unfair——

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

That is not a point of order.

Mr. J. Higgins

Deputy Eric Byrne turned up at most of the meetings and he and Deputy Lynch are his party's only backbenchers.

Mr. D. Ahern

He only turned up to ensure the Government side could veto proposals.

Mr. J. Higgins

I know the Progressive Democrats have to prioritise their time but if they are so upset about the procedures of the House this was a committee that should have been at the top of their list. In terms of a submission we got a reactive rather than a proactive document.

Deputy O'Malley seems to want to completely alter our parliamentary system. If we were to believe him we would accept that the legislature was totally under the heel of the Executive. That is not true. There are elections every four or five years and the people decide who they choose as Deputies. The Deputies elect a Government and it is answerable to the electorate after a set period. There are many procedures and devices for openness, transparency and accountability. The system works relatively well. I am not against refinement or elaboration of some of the procedures. However, that is our system and that is how democracy works.

There is a great deal of work in the committee system, particularly for the smaller parties. The committees afford the ultimate in accountability and participation. Many Members who cannot participate in the House due to time constraints and so on can debate the detail of legislation and reports in the committees. I concede that we may have too many committees and there is a need to rationalise them. That is a matter we will look at in our second report.

Deputy O'Donnell made a point about questions not being answered. I listened to Question Time today and the Taoiseach was pursued vigorously with supplementary questions. That is the purpose of supplementary questions — to get further details from the Taoiseach or a Minister. It is not simply a case of tinkering with the mechanism. Rather it is a case of applying it and making it work.

Deputy Eric Byrne spoke about the difficulties for small parties in attending committees. The committee system is novel and it is not perfect. It needs refining through examination and monitoring. We have to examine such matters objectively. As part of the procedures being proposed, the committees will now be answerable to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. There will be six-monthly reports from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and we will get many of the details about the reservations of the committees in the chairmen's reports.

Deputy O'Dea welcomed the initiation of Private Members' Bills for individual members. Knowing his capacity for work, I am sure he will exploit that facility to the maximum. He referred to streamlining voting procedures and the need for a more time efficient method of voting. It is a matter we can examine. At the subcommittee I proposed that there would be a reserved time for voting; the votes would be confined to a specific time so that people would know exactly when they would happen and the interval between votes would be shortened. However, that proposal was not accepted. We may return to the consideration of that matter.

Referring to the Order of Business, Deputy Creed suggested that the Ceann Comhairle should not have to repeat the details read by the Taoiseach. This is a proposal we are including in the report. Deputy Deasy referred to the need to examine the Question Time system. I acknowledge that it is not perfect and needs examination.

With regard to companies and agencies, the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Commercial State Sponsored Bodies are being expanded to include Teagasc, the National Roads Authority and some of the other agencies like those Deputy Quill mentioned with regard to a lack of answerability.

Deputy O'Dea made the point that the Taoiseach, if he had his way, would like to prorogue Parliament. One of the Taoiseach's attributes is his capacity to handle the Order of Business. One of the Government's hallmarks has been the Taoiseach's performance on the Order of Business from the point of view of his competence in fielding questions thrown at him, his comprehensive grasp of detail and being on top of every aspect of legislation almost without reference to the notes in front of him.

Mr. D. Ahern

Obfuscation.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is disingenuous of the Opposition to try to construe that there is a lack of openness from the Government when it has failed, particularly on the Order of Business, to make any impact on the Taoiseach. Any allegations of secretiveness are unfounded and irrational.

Deputy Foley referred to legal representation for committees and it is a matter I will examine. Deputy Kavanagh welcomed the expansion of the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Commercial State Sponsored Bodies, of which he is Chairman. From the point of view of the Strategic Management Initiative we should wait to see how this develops in terms of the concerns about an overlap between that committee and the Committee of Public Accounts.

Deputy Ring referred to facilities and rights for Deputies. There is a very effective all-party committee examining this issue. One should examine the record of improvements in facilities for Deputies over the years. I concede that from the point of view of office accommodation much has to be done. Within the next 18 months top-class facilities will come on stream and I only hope we are all here to enjoy them. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry staff will move from Agriculture House and it will be available to Deputies. It will provide interview rooms and state of the art office facilities. One of the best contributions was by Deputy Connolly who brought his insight and perspective to bear on this matter. I am glad he defended officials in regard to answering questions. It is not fair to point the finger at them. At the end of the day the buck stops with us in the material we dispense in the House. It is up to us to cross-check it in terms of its relevance — it is not fair to blame officials.

Deputy Jim Mitchell made the point that Estimates are being nodded through. He is chairman of the committee specifically set up to go through the detail of Estimates line by line, chapter by chapter and on that basis to be satisfied that what is being put through is adequate and in accordance with the intentions of Members. One of the functions of the committee he chairs is to concentrate on the minute detail of Estimates. In the past this was not often possible on the floor of the House because of time restrictions.

I thank all the Members, the officials and the members of the committee who helped us to produce the consensus report before us today.

Acting Chairman

We now come to deal with amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 is related and, therefore, the amendments can be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 17, paragraph (3), before ";about arrangements for sittings" to insert ";matters of public importance which may require legislation or a statement from the Taoiseach or a Minister".

The amendment relates to the Order of Business. We had a sermon from the Minister of State on how well he considers the Taoiseach has done in that regard. When our party leader raised an issue of supreme importance to this nation on this morning's Order of Business the Taoiseach of his own volition told the Ceann Comhairle that he did not object to that matter being taken. We were particularly annoyed because the Taoiseach had a printed script on the matter. This business is supposed to be spontaneous and yet the Taoiseach had a written script and was well prepared to respond.

The amendment proposes to add to the matters that can be raised on the Order of Business. I tabled this amendment because of the Government's refusal to allow what it originally proposed when in Opposition. In the first youthful weeks of this Government it proposed that Deputies could raise matters of urgent concern and that they would not be ruled out of order, but it has reneged on that commitment. The amendment proposes to widen the scope of the Order of Business. At present on the Order of Business we can raise legislation promised either within or outside the House, the taking of business which has been promised, questions about business on the Order Paper, questions about when Bills and other documents on the Order Paper needed in the House may be circulated and questions about secondary legislation. I propose that matters of public importance, which may require legislation or a statement from the Taoiseach or a Minister, may be raised on the Order of Business.

I referred earlier to Democratic Left's document "Order in the House", which outlines its proposals for Dáil reform and was prepared when it was in Opposition. Under a heading "Disorder of Business" that document states that the matters which can be raised on the Order of Business have become so restricted during the past number of years as to now render the process virtually meaningless. It further states that the position with regard to promised legislation is particularly ludicrous and that we now have a situation of which Myles na gCopaleen would have been proud whereby a Government Minister can hold a press conference or make several public announcements of an intention to introduce a Bill, but that does not count as promised legislation as the promise was not made in the House and Members are accordingly precluded from asking questions on it. We are changing that now.

Recently the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, announced various tribunals outside the House, but did not come in here to do that. Similarly, the Minister for Justice, Deputy Owen, in all her difficulties in recent months made announcements outside the House, but did not come in here to make them and because of the procedures of this House we were unable to raise them.

Democratic Left's document goes on to state that to cure the problem of disorder on the Order of Business Deputies should be entitled to raise the following matters on the Order of Business, one of which is matters of public importance which require legislation or a statement from the Government, the exact terms of my amendment. I call on Democratic Left to do what it called for when in Opposition and to accept this amendment.

I do not want to exempt other parties by quoting from this document. Unfortunately I do not have The Labour Party's proposals on Dáil reform when it was in Opposition. Labour was in hiding at that time and it may not have put forward any proposals for Dáil reform. Its members were past masters at abusing Dáil procedures to raise issues and red herrings down through the years, which to a certain extent they succeeded in doing.

Fine Gael's document, "Better Laws, Wiser Spending and Speedier Redress of Injustice", refers to raising urgent matters in the Dáil. The document covers a point on which the Minister of State took me up earlier. It states that current parliamentary procedures were designed for the needs of 19th century society, and slower communication meant that in the 19th century Ministers and parliamentarians had greater time to consider issues that arose and make decisions. It further states that nowadays one only has an hour or two in which to react to events which have occurred on the other side of the world. Ministers must make decisions within a very short time and parliamentarians must have an opportunity to influence those decisions within an even shorter time. The document also states that to that end Fine Gael believes we need to have radically improved procedures for raising urgent matters whether they be of international, national or local significance and that this must be done in such a way that it does not interfere with the normal parliamentary business or create a situation in which the Dáil spends its time reacting to outside events and, consequently, fails to set its own agenda for political life.

The document contains a number of proposals to which I will refer later. It stated in regard to urgent procedure that when Fine Gael returned to Government it would introduce a new procedure whereby Members may raise issues of urgency of one half hour each day. My amendment does not go that far; it proposes a period of only 15 minutes. The Fine Gael document states this would occur prior to the Order of Business and during this period Members would be allowed to make a speech not exceeding one minute on a subject of concern to them and the subject would have to be one which involves the responsibility of a Minister or a statutory authority established under law. That goes a good deal further than the Minister of State is prepared to go in the document before us, as I and a number of other speakers have said. The Fine Gael document also states that the Minister will not be obliged to reply to the point made by the Member but if the Minister wishes and is present he may reply immediately within the one minute time limit. Alternatively, the Minister may have the option of replying on a later sitting day during this same half hour period. The document further states that a similar system operates in the US House of Representatives, that it has been successful and that it provides the opportunity for Members to air certain matters while giving the Government some discretion in answering. The proposal Fine Gael made on which it has now reneged was that the Minister would reply by letter. That is nearly as ludicrous as the Taoiseach's suggestion about answering parliamentary questions by telephone. The Fine Gael document also states that the Ceann Comhairle will have discretion in the Members chosen to raise each issue every day, a laudable suggestion. I ask the Minister of State to follow his convictions, those he had when in Opposition, and agree with amendment No. 1 or amendment No. 2. That is not too much to ask.

I was sitting where the Minister of State is now sitting when my party was in Government and I am aware there were proposals about topical matters and reform in this area coming to fruition during the last Government. I know that but for the fall of the last Government this proposal would have been implemented. It had been discussed for a considerable time. Those who called for Oireachtas reform when they were in Opposition have a different view now they are in Government. It is a pity they are now reneging on promises made in Opposition. The Government will be on this side of the House again.

I do not see why Ministers should hide behind procedure. We should not have anything to hide. We should dictate our own rules and be more open in the House. Every Member who has spoken today has castigated the rules. We now have an opportunity to do something about it. I ask the Minister to accept one or other of these two amendments.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. J. Higgins)

I take Deputy Dermot Ahern's point in relation to developing the scope of what is discussed on the Order of Business and raising topical matters. Deputy Ahern knows as well as Deputy Brian Fitzgerald and I that we have discussed these issues ad nauseam. We have had these proposals at sub-committee and brought them back to our respective parties. They have been discussed in detail and it has been decided they will not be accepted. This is only the first report. We will progress to further deliberations.

Regarding the proposal for the Order of Business, the report states:

Following the announcement by the Taoiseach and the disposal of any motion comprehended by paragraph (2), the Ceann Comhairle may permit, at his discretion, questions about business on the Order Paper; about the taking of business which has been promised, including legislation promised either within or outside the Dáil; about the making of secondary legislation; about arrangements for sittings; and as to when Bills or other documents on the Order Paper needed in the House will be circulated; Provided that, the Taoiseach may defer replying to a question relating to the making of secondary legislation to another day.

We have gone further than anybody has ever gone. Until recently, what was technically allowed on the Order of Business was legislation promised in the House. I remember the Government parties when in Opposition asking if legislation promised on a mobile phone could be allowed. Pleas were made in relation to the power to ask questions on legislation promised outside the House. We are expanding what can be asked in terms of legitimate questions on the Order of Business. We are discussing legislation promised inside or outside the Dáil, the making of secondary legislation, the arrangements for sittings and the circulation of Bills or other documents on the Order Paper. In relation to secondary legislation, if may not be possible for the Taoiseach to have immediate information so it is provided that he can come back on another day.

Amendment No. 2 proposed by Deputy Dermot Ahern states:

": Provided further that the Taoiseach may intervene on matters of topical interest and questions thereon shall be confined to the Leader (or his or her nominee) of Parties or Groups within the meaning of Standing Order 90 and shall not exceed fifteen minutes in the aggregate".

If a procedure like this is accepted, it will invariably become automatic. Matters will be raised on the Order of Business every day and it will be claimed they are of topical interest and immediate concern. On the other hand, it may be possible to examine how we can frame something acceptable that would depend on the initiative of the Taoiseach. I will look at it favourably when the committee reassembles, but I cannot accept it in the short term. We have discussed it already in committee. Hopefully we will have a second report before the expiry of this Government's term of office.

Mr. D. Ahern

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I put these amendments down in an effort to prevent a situation which all Members of the House agree is not desirable — the disorder of business at every sitting. I am bemused by the Minister's comment about how we can perhaps examine the Taoiseach bringing forward matters of topical interest on his own initiative.

I cannot understand what the Minister says about this becoming the norm. Of course it will because Members always have issues of urgent topical interest to raise. Because of the procedures of the House, we are unable to do so in an urgent and expeditious manner. I think it was Deputy Nealon who said he felt sorry for the Opposition and the way they have to bend the rules. We will unfortunately have to bend all the rules in relation to Standing Order 25, as it is amended here, in order to allow us to raise topical matters in the future.

The Minister and the Taoiseach are being short-sighted. If they agreed to amendment No. 2, the Ceann Comhairle would have complete jurisdiction to refuse going outside paragraph (3) which details the restrictions on what can be raised. The Ceann Comhairle would have greater authority if amendment No. 2 were allowed. He could say to Deputy Bertie Ahern, Deputy Harney or anyone else who raises an issue on this side of the House that it could be raised under this amendment.

I do not think we are asking for a lot in relation to this. It is not as radical as some of the proposals the Government made when they were in Opposition. I could be as radical in the views I express in regard to Dáil reform as some Deputies. While we are primarily a legislative body, it is necessary that, as practising politicians, we react to issues that crop up occasionally. When I was in Government, I was against what I think was called the committee of urgent matters, which would deal with urgent issues. I thought it was off the wall. In effect we were going to be dictated to by the chat shows. I do not think we are here to do that.

However, there is definitely a need for us to be able to raise issues which are of national and local importance. The proposed reduction of the peace and reconciliation funds was raised today. I had missed the Adjournment time limit, but luckily the Taoiseach was in the Chamber because of Taoiseach's Question Time. Strictly speaking, the Ceann Comhairle should have ruled me out of order, but I was able to make a contribution. This is why we need a system whereby we can raise issues of urgency. I do not think we are asking a lot.

I will press this amendment. I ask the Minister to reconsider because Members and staff of the House also believe that the Order of Business is unseemly and should be changed for the better.

Mr. J. Higgins

The issue of the facility to raise something as a matter of urgency requiring urgent consideration and comment thereon is legitimate in terms of being addressed through parliamentary procedure. I make the point firmly again that there are facilities. I wonder, for example, how many times the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Progressive Democrats had recourse to a Private Notice Question to raise an issue of urgency for which they could not be accommodated on the Order of Business or one that had arisen since the Order of Business, but within the time constraints that would permit them to put such a question. Certain people think that the facility of Adjournment debates are slightly beneath them, that they are for what would be called the ordinary rank and file.

From the point of view of answerability, if a Private Notice Question is put and allowed, the obligation is on the Taoiseach if it is directed to him, or the relevant Minister or Minister of State, to come into the Dáil and answer fully in an open, unrestricted committee style debate, all aspects of the issue which has been raised. It is a successful device and we have seen at times that Private Notice Questions can run for up to half an hour. In our quest for new procedures and facilities we should examine old procedures and existing facilities to see if they are being underutilised. I recall from my days in Opposition that I used the Private Notice Question frequently. Invariably if the Ceann Comhairle allowed them — and generally he was judicious with regard to making a judgement on whether they qualified — a worthwhile debate was had on all aspects of the subject under consideration.

A procedure was introduced by my predecessor as Government Whip, Deputy Vincent Brady, called grievance time where spontaneous issues could be brought up. Eventually, it self-destructed because people simply did not use it. When we did a run-down, we discovered it was dominated by two or three Deputies. Apart from that, most people did not bother to participate. However, in the spirit of openness and generosity, I will look at it again in the context of the reforms that we will be discussing forthwith, subsequent to this report, and perhaps we might be able to arrive at some agreement on what can be allowed. Question put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 October 1996, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 2.

In page 17 paragraph (3), to add the following:

": Provided further that the Taoiseach may intervene on matters of topical interest and questions thereon shall be confined to the Leader (or his or her nominee) of Parties or Groups within the meaning of Standing Order 90 and shall not exceed fifteen minutes in the aggregate".

Question put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 October 1996, in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day.

Mr. D. Ahern

Will all these amendments be put as one question?

Acting Chairman

Yes.

Amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 3 and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 17, to insert the following:

"ADJOURNMENT ON SPECIFIC AND IMPORTANT MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRING URGENT CONSIDERATION (STANDING ORDER 30).

That paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 30 of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business be amended by the deletion of `requiring urgent consideration'.".

Grievance Time was a proposal made by Democratic Left among other parties and Fine Gael might have made it also. It was accepted by the then Government Chief Whip, Deputy Vincent Brady. With regard to the Adjournment debate, Democratic Left made the point that it was buried at the end of other business, often at 10.30 p.m. or later, which meant that the issues raised received little or no media coverage. That is probably the main reason it died a death and why all parties have proposed that there be a facility to raise urgent matters of concern at an appropriate time; that is in and around the Order of Business every day.

My amendments propose to take the word "urgent" out of Standing Orders Nos. 30 and 31. It gives me great pleasure to refer to the Democratic Left argument. It is hypocritical of people to say one thing in Opposition and do another in Government. They should be more careful about what they say in Opposition. Perhaps in the case of Democratic Left they thought they were never going to be in Government. They castigated the situation with regard to Standing Order No. 30. They said the very fact that it was being used and refused all the time was an indication of the frustration of Members.

On the issue of the word "urgent", I took some inspiration from the Fine Gael document of 1989 calling for Dáil reform. It referred to Private Notice Questions. The Minister of State said that he used it quite often, but he put his name to this document which contradicts what he said five minutes ago.

The main problem in raising matters under the procedures outlined which was special notice question and motion under Standing Order No. 30 is that the Ceann Comhairle and his predecessors have tended to take a fairly narrow interpretation of what is urgent and of the matters for which a Minister is responsible. The fact that Ministers do not account for the activities of semi-State bodies also is a particular restraint on the raising of relevant matters. Pressure of time also means that backbenchers frequently are unable to get speedy answers on issues affecting their own constituency or on issues of special concern to them. There is simply too much competition for the available time for questions on the Adjournment.

Every day the Leas-Cheann Comhairle lists sometimes up to 40 notices on the Adjournment and only four are picked. Again, I am asking the Minister to take the word "urgent" out of Standing Orders Nos. 30 and 31 with regard to Private Notice Questions and I am surprised he says that Private Notice Questions could be used more often. We have invariably used them. Deputy Séamus Brennan tabled one yesterday in regard to Iarnród Éireann and the Minister said he did not have any responsibility.

We remember the Lowry affair. All Private Notice Questions were ruled out of order on the basis that they were not urgent or, alternatively, they were not the responsibility of the Minister concerned. A plethora of Deputies have come in and said this House is hamstrung in its ability to go after semi-State bodies. We hear about all this expenditure, quite apart from when we hear about the excessive expenditure in terms of travel expenses and remuneration, it takes our breath away and yet we cannot raise it. It can be raised on every chat show and in every pub in the country and we cannot raise it here. That is ludicrous. The Government professed to work as a pane of glass. I refer the Minister to the honeyed words of the Programme for Government which stated that the Government would reform the institutions of the State in order to make them more relevant to the people. In the spirit of openness, transparency and accountability I ask the Minister to allow the representatives of the people greater access to information from State authorities.

Mr. J. Higgins

The section relating to the Standing Order in question reads:

Where the Ceann Comhairle is satisfied that the notice complies with the requirements of the Standing Order the Member shall be called upon by the Ceann Comhairle at the commencement of public business whereupon the Member shall rise in his place and state that he requests leave to move the Adjournment of the Dáil for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration and shall state the notice given but may not elaborate thereon.

Deputy Ahern is seeking to remove the word "urgent". It is proposed that the Order of Business that is agreed among the Whips, read out by the Taoiseach and confirmed by the Ceann Comhairle, should be set aside. That would be a very serious occurrence. To set aside the proceedings of Parliament and insert another subject matter in its place would be a major step. If ever there was a requirement for the word "urgent" it is in this instance. The words "important" and "urgent" should remain. I acknowledge that it is a considerable period since Standing Order 30 was invoked.

Mr. D. Ahern

I can hardly remember that time.

Mr. J. Higgins

Common sense, compromise and consensus have prevailed in setting aside business voluntarily. For example, when the hepatitis C issue was raised last week in the House the Tánaiste made a spontaneous gesture by making available time after Question Time on Thursday to debate that matter. That has happened on other occasions also. The Taoiseach today agreed to make time available tomorrow to debate the peace process, the bombs in Lisburn and the general position in Northern Ireland. If there is general consensus on the need for debate, time is usually provided for such debates. To spontaneously set aside the business that has been agreed and insert some other subject matter in its place, proceeding forthwith to a debate, would be of major significance. I am absolutely opposed to any attempt to remove the word "urgent" in that regard.

In regard to Private Notice Questions, the presence of the word "urgent" does not seem to be a deterrent. If the subject matter of the question relates to an event that has occurred the Ceann Comhairle frequently allows the matter to be raised if he regards it as sufficiently grave. There is no need to delete the word "urgent" in that case because the Chair is liberal in deciding whether such matters should be allowed.

Mr. D. Ahern

Very few of us can remember the last time a request under Standing Order 30 was granted. It was when the Government was falling down around our ears and it had no alternative but to agree to the request. It was decided that the best way to overcome the debacle was to use the Standing Order 30 procedure. I agree it related to an important matter of public interest, but we propose that "urgent" be omitted. Every politician is aware that the use of the word "urgent" is the problem. I refer again to the document which states that the Ceann Comhairle, as did his predecessors, tends to take a narrow interpretation of what is urgent. Even if the system under which Private Notice Questions are allowed was opened up, perhaps we would not need to raise topical matters at the start of business and we would not witness a debacle every morning on the Order of Business, which is not fair to this side of the House, the Taoiseach and, particularly, the Ceann Comhairle.

The Government should open up the procedures. Perhaps an amendment to Standing Order 31 which deals with Private Notice Questions would allow for urgent matters to be raised even on a daily basis. I am sure Government Deputies would agree to that. It would be open to all Members to raise issues in that regard. Even if the word "urgent" was dropped from the provision relating to Private Notice Questions, many such questions would still be rejected, as happened yesterday. Those questions must relate to issues which are relevant to Government Ministers, public affairs connected with Departments or matters of administration for which Ministers are officially responsible.

The most radical reform of procedures dealing with questions should relate to Standing Order 32, to which there is no amendment tabled. That is the procedure that prevents Deputies from raising issues of urgent concern. The Minister should give some leeway on this issue, particularly in regard to amendment No. 4 which proposes the deletion of the word "urgent" as it applies to Private Notice Questions, so as to free up the system whereby Deputies may raise urgent matters.

Mr. Deasy

I raised earlier the matter of the deterioration of proceedings at Question Time. Is there any hope of improvement in that regard? For instance, given the amount of time devoted to Taoiseach's questions and priority questions, quite often on Tuesday and Wednesday no ordinary question on the Order Paper is reached. The same sometimes applies to priority questions on Thursday. More than 100 of the 166 Deputies are backbenchers and their questions are virtually never answered. That defeats the whole purpose of Question Time. As the Ceann Comhairle is aware, in the case of priority questions only the Deputy who tables a question may ask supplementaries, and it may take up to half an hour to deal with some of them. On Tuesday one hour and 50 minutes is allocated to Question Time while on other days one hour and 20 minutes is allocated to Question Time. In days gone by only one hour was allocated for Question Time. I remember when Charles Haughey was Minister for Social Welfare he answered 40 questions in one day because if he did not do so they would have to be answered on subsequent days.

Acting Chairman

The point the Deputy is raising will arise under the next batch of amendments.

Mr. Deasy

Can the Minister of State give any hope to Members that matters will improve in that regard?

Acting Chairman

We are now discussing amendments Nos. 3 and 4. What the Deputy is specifically talking about arises under amendments Nos. 5 to 9. If we can dispose of amendments Nos. 3 and 4 we will be able to deal with the question the Deputy is raising.

Mr. D. Ahern

I refer to the Minister's document which states:

We will conduct a detailed review of the precedents established by the Ceann Comhairle for the ruling out of Special Notice Questions and Standing Order 30 Motions on the grounds of lack of urgency or lack of ministerial responsibility. On the basis of this review we will seek to introduce a more liberal provision in Standing Orders allowing a greater range of matters to be raised.

Why does the Minister not put into practice what he himself appended his name to in 1989——

Acting Chairman

We are repeating matters here. The Deputy has been over this already.

Mr. D. Ahern

——when this House was not as hectic as it is now and when we did not have fax machines or the Internet? In relation to Private Notice Questions, the Government proposed, as I did also on Committee, that each day at Question Time the Leader of the Opposition would have the right to raise one Private Notice Question without such a question necessarily meeting the narrow urgency definition which limits the present system. Is there any give in the Minister or in this Government of openness, transparency and accountability?

Mr. J. Higgins

Our work is not over, it is ongoing and we will certainly look at it again. The bulk of the proposals that have found their way into this document are contained in the document the Deputy has in front of him. The Deputy himself has acknowledged that quite a number of the proposals in the Fianna Fáil submission were already contained in that document.

Mr. D. Ahern

The vast majority of the proposals in this have already been put in place over the years by Fianna Fáil Governments.

Mr. J. Higgins

The bulk of the proposals we have here are also taken from that document. As the Deputy said, over the years various Governments have by instalments imported various reforms into the procedures of the House. The bulk of the issues the Deputy is talking about are actually contained here.

There are some, however, which we simply cannot accept now. For example, the Deputy makes the point that Deputy Séamus Brennan was in some way restricted by this Standing Order because he was not allowed to raise the proposed cutbacks in CIÉ. That is not so. Deputy Brennan simply could not do so under the existing procedures of the House. He could do so within the competence of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies, chaired by Deputy Kavanagh, but not here according to the procedures of the House. Irrespective of the deletion of the words "urgent or important" under Standing Orders 30 or 31, there was no other way that Deputy Brennan could legitimately have managed to engineer a debate on this issue he sought to raise.

A Private Notice Question offers the ideal facility to raise matters of urgency. It is not something that has to be submitted at 10.30 in the morning; one can submit the subject matter for consideration up to 2.30 p.m. That leaves a very limited time for the Minister and the Department in question to explore the information involved and to prepare the relevant replies. Deputies are in possession of a facility that is effective but under-utilised. It answers the need for a facility to raise something as a matter of urgency. If the Deputy checks the record he will find that people who have sought to raise on the Order of Business something which was considered to be extremely urgent at 10.30 in the morning do not even bother to put the issue down at 2.30 p.m. for consideration as a Private Notice Question.

I regret that I cannot accept the proposal but I am prepared to be openminded. I am prepared to return to the committee to re-examine it on its merits and I am sure I will be reminded time and time again about the commitments contained in that 1989 document.

Deputy Deasy has made a valid point in relation to questions and I will deal with it shortly.

Amendment put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 October 1996, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 19, to insert the following:

"PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS (STANDING ORDER 31).

That Standing Order No. 31 of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business be amended by the deletion of `urgent' in the fourteenth line.".

Amendment put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 October 1996, in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 19, paragraph (1), after "compliance with Standing Orders" to insert the following:

": Provided also that, in the event of any Department making representations regarding a Question put down by a member, that member may also be allowed to give his or her views".

Amendments Nos. 5 to 9, inclusive, relate to questions. Amendment No. 6 relates to a former proposal of mine regarding the repeat rule, but this was fairly well thrashed out in a previous debate when the Minister refused to allow a total relaxation of this rule. In that proposal I said there should not be a repeat rule in relation to any questions, either written and oral, to Ministers. However, in the case of the Taoiseach there should be an in-built repeat rule covering the six previous weeks so that there is some protection of the Taoiseach regarding the continuous tabling of repeat questions as he is on his feet twice every week to answer questions.

Amendment No. 5 relates to the way in which questions are ruled out of order. In the event of any Department making representations regarding a question, the Member who tabled it must be allowed to give his or her views. I accept there is a huge difficulty for the staff of the House but a lot of the pressure put on them by Departments relates to the Departments' views as to whether a question is urgent or not or whether it is within the Minister's responsibility. That is why it should be formally put in our Standing Orders that the person tabling the Question should be given an opportunity to put his or her views as to whether the matter is urgent and what the Department says about it.

Amendment No. 7 relates to parliamentary questions during the Dáil recess. I refer again to the Democratic Left document which states:

Another useful reform would be to provide for replies to written questions when the Dáil is not in session.

This would prevent the backlog of questions on the resumption which we experience at present. A special Order Paper would be published once a week during the recess giving the written questions and the supplement to the Official Report provided with the replies.

The Fine Gael document states:

Fine Gael proposes that Members would have the right to put down parliamentary questions during the Dáil recess. These questions would be answered in the form of written replies within four weeks of their being put down. They would be published as soon as they are answered in Iris Oiffigiúil and they would appear in the next edition of the Dáil debates published on the resumption of the sittings.

Apparently the Labour Party did not see fit to issue a document on Dáil reform during the years but I expect it would have been of the same view when in Opposition.

The matter is much more pertinent now. We are saying to the general public through the media that we now sit 11 months of the year. As we know, committees, sit during the months of July and September. The break this summer was very short. Despite the Minister of State's honeyed words about the Taoiseach's performance as a Dáil reformer, the Taoiseach was put under extreme pressure to allow written questions to be tabled during the recess. The only date on which he allowed written questions to be tabled was 25 July, the date of the special sitting. It is necessary when the House is not in plenary session for Members to be kept fully informed to allow them to make a contribution at committee meetings. I therefore ask the Minister of State to accede to my request.

Amendment No. 8 reads:

In the event of a proposal by the Taoiseach or a Minister to transfer a Question put down, the Member involved will be given an opportunity to put his case on the matter: Provided that, in the event of a dispute, the Ceann Comhairle shall have the final decision.

When Deputy O'Hanlon wanted to find out if the Taoiseach intended travelling to attend the Washington Conference he put down a question which was transferred to the Tánaiste whom he knew was travelling. We subsequently found out that he did not go. This is the height of stupidity,

The Fine Gael document states:

It is important that the Taoiseach be seen to answer to the Dáil for issues of overall Government responsibility. A practice has grown up whereby Taoisigh transfer questions put down for answer by the Taoiseach to other Ministers. Fine Gael will introduce clear and transparent rules governing this practice so as to ensure that questions may not be arbitrarily transferred to other Ministers. The Minister of State should put his money where this mouth is and do what his party called for when in Opposition, no more, no less.

Amendment No. 9 reads: "Replies by Ministers should only relate to the Question involved and shall not be overly long". Recently the Taoiseach lumped 19 questions together and made a Second Stage speech on the North. That is not what Question Time is about. It should be like Question Time in the House of Commons where there is toing and froing. Whenever we ask questions we groan because of what has been referred to as the Taoiseach's drone. Perhaps his handlers have told him to use the system which is falling apart to frustrate the Opposition which has a duty and an obligation to ask questions. Fianna Fáil Ministers also tended to do this but no Taoiseach has done it as much as the present one. It is a surreptitious abuse of the system. I exhort the Minister of State and the Taoiseach to ensure that it does not continue.

The Democratic Left document states:

At present Ministers regularly provide vague or partial or overlong answers in reply to oral questions. Similarly, the Ceann Comhairle regularly seeks to restrict the number of supplementary questions from individual Deputies. There should be no restriction. In the interests of ensuring a full response to an oral question the Ceann Comhairle should also have the power to request a Minister to respond to a question or state why he cannot.

The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, is probably the worst culprit. He has been obstructive in the way in which he refuses to answer valid questions. He hides behind the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who cannot intervene and ask him to respond. The same is true of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communication. Deputy Lowry.

I doubt if in years to come the Minister of State will be able to throw the contents of a document of mine at me because I firmly believe that this House is supreme, that we should not give in to the views of civil servants, that we should be able to dictate our own business and have the ability to question what is in effect the permanent Government. While Ministers have responsibilities, I do not see why they should be hung, drawn and quartered and made to hide mistakes, perhaps of others. We should be far more open to protect ourselves, apart from anyone else.

During the past few hours the Minister of State has had an opportunity to make a name for himself as a reforming Minister. I agree with those who said that many of the proposals contained in this document are only tinkering at the edges. While some of the amendments will help Members, by and large the Government will continue for political reasons to maintain a clamp on this House. One Member eloquently referred to the separation of powers. Unfortunately, the Government has a stranglehold on this House. That is not the way it should be.

Mr. Deasy

I made the point about the chaos in regard to Question Time and I ask the Minister of State to address the matter in his reply. Questions to the Taoiseach and priority questions are dealt with on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and the questions of backbenchers are frequently not reached. For instance, on today's Order Paper 88 questions have been tabled to the Minister for the Environment. None of the ordinary questions to the Minister were dealt with and I understand one or two of the priority questions were not reached either. I have no doubt that will be the position tomorrow when questions are put to the Minister for Education.

Question time should not conclude until all questions are answered because the current system provides Ministers with the opportunity to filibuster and to encourage Members to ask supplementaries to avoid answering a particular question. That is not good enough. I ask the Minister of State to devise a system whereby every question on the Order Paper has to be answered. In previous years only one hour was provided for Question Time but certain Ministers dealt with as many as 40 questions in one day because they knew if they did not answer them that day, the questions carried over to the next day. They knew there was little point in being evasive because the questions would have to be answered some time. I remember the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, who was then Minister for Social Welfare, answering 40 questions in one hour. I should add he was facilitated in that regard because Ireland was playing an important soccer match that day——

Mr. D. Ahern

And I thought the Deputy was praising him.

Mr. Deasy

——and the Chamber was not as full as it might be. The Members who would normally ask supplementary questions were in Lansdowne Road. Answering so many questions in such a short time was not unusual. The Ceann Comhairle at the time, the late Deputy Joe Brennan, did an excellent job. If he saw a Minister or a Member trying to filibuster or ask frequent or irrelevant questions, he would tell them to shut up and sit down. That is the reason so many questions were reached during Question Time, although we may not have appreciated it at the time. A system should be devised whereby all questions are answered, even if it means having late sittings or carrying over questions to the next day. Alternatively, if questions are not answered, Ministers should be required to answer them in committee on the day in question or the following day. If questions are not answered immediately they lose their relevance. There must be a solution to this problem because over 100 Members of this House are backbenchers. We are the majority of Members yet we do not have any input during Question Time as it currently obtains.

Mr. J. Higgins

In relation to the difficulties highlighted by Deputy Deasy, I am committed to examining the whole issue of questions to see what can be done to streamline the system and ensure questions are answered in a timely fashion. I agree if questions are not answered immediately they can lose their urgency. One solution lies in questions being more focused and Members asking more focused supplementaries in the House. It is all very well to talk about the number of questions not reached but many questions on the Order Paper are replications of other questions, some more urgent than others.

There is a great deal to be addressed in relation to Question Time and I will outline some of the changes we intend to introduce. For example, questions to the Taoiseach, which ran for 30 minutes on Tuesdays and one hour on Wednesdays, will now last 45 minutes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Question Time concluded at different times on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and in that regard we are trying to introduce a more standardised approach. Question Time will now conclude at 4.15 p.m. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays with an additional 20 minutes on Wednesdays to allow the questions of ordinary Members to be reached.

I am aware of the frustration of Deputies whose ordinary questions are taken with priority questions. That is a legitimate grievance because priority question time is the exclusive domain of the party spokespersons and Deputies do not get the credit for tabling these questions. That system is being changed. If a Deputy's question is the same as a priority question but is No. 10 on the Order Paper, the Minister will be obliged to answer the question separately and take supplementary questions from that Deputy. In that way Deputies get a second bite of the cherry. I agree with the Deputy that the entire PQ system needs immediate and radical examination and we will treat that as a priority. It remains to be seen whether we can return to the system whereby questions not answered on a particular day were carried forward to the next day. The way the system currently operates leaves much to be desired.

In regard to the points made on the amendments by Deputy Ahern, I am amazed at the enlightenment which has suddenly hit Fianna Fáil in respect of major changes in the functions of the House. Two years ago the Deputy's party sat on this side of the House and we are told that if that Government had not self-destructed, a major Dáil reform package would have come before the House. I cannot take that seriously. I am not aware that such a major tome was in the process of being written but collapsed because the Government went out of office.

Mr. D. Ahern

Does the Minister of State want me to quote from it?

Mr. J. Higgins

Is the Deputy telling me that if his party had managed to stay in Government, we would have had a major proposal on Dáil reform?

Mr. D. Ahern

There was a major proposal during the time of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government.

Mr. J. Higgins

We certainly did not see it.

Mr. D. Ahern

It was debated in the House. It set up the committees.

Mr. J. Higgins

The issues being pressed by Deputy Ahern was dealt with in committee, and I indicated I was not in a position to accept them. I may look at them again because I am sure some of them are worthy of further examination.

As to representations on questions, there are already consultations with Deputies. Regarding the relaxation of the repeat rule for parliamentary questions, if it were done away with there would be constant recycling and regurgitation of the same issues week in week out. The same questions would be asked of the same Minister by the same Deputies and the same replies would be given. There would be gross abuse of the system. Rather than doing what Deputy Deasy wants, it would further clog up the system. We went along with a proposal to relax the repeat rule for written questions on a trial basis by reducing the time limit from four months to two weeks. I cannot agree to the total abolition of the repeat rule — the proposal in regard to questions to the Taoiseach is that the time limit be six weeks — because it would result in gross abuse with constant repetition and debates on hepatitis C morning, noon and night even though we will already have debated it in the House on several occasions. Such issues would tend to come up again and again. They would have a monopoly and many other legitimate issues which Deputies would like to raise would never get a look in.

We discussed in detail at the committee the question of having written parliamentary questions during the recess. Underpinning the objection to this is that a Minister may be away on holidays, and a question asked of him must be replied to within a specific period of time. The answers to such questions carry the same weight and import as an answer given on the floor of the House. It would be tantamount to misleading the House to give an inaccurate answer to a written question. A parliamentary question, written or oral, is a serious instrument in its own right and all answers must be checked and factually correct. Otherwise they cannot be given. The blame would lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister if there were an inaccuracy. Also, parliamentary questions relate to plenary parliament, the main forum in which parliament discharges its functions although it may be argued that parliamentary questions should be allowed while the committees of the House are in session. Meritorious as the committees may be, they are not the House proper. The fundamental argument in relation to not allowing written questions during the Dáil recess is that parliamentary questions, by their nature, are directly linked to parliament. This is the Parliament. The committees are committees of parliament, but they are not the parliament. That should be understood and the link between parliament and parliamentary questions should be protected and preserved rather than trying to introduce a new device which is untrue to the title "parliamentary questions". It is only in plenary session that a direct link can be made between the parliament and parliamentary questions, written or oral. I do not see this being changed in the foreseeable future, although I take the Deputy's point regarding the document.

One of the features of this Government is that we have had special sittings of the House in July and September on different occasions. At times we were castigated for that because it was felt it was just a way of focusing attention on the fact that we were on holidays and were back for a day or two. During those special sittings we discharged quite considerable and important business. I do not accept Deputy Ahern's assertion that the Taoiseach "grudgingly" allowed written questions. The suggestion was put to him and he readily acceded to it. It happened in 1995 and again in 1996.

In regard to amendment No. 8, Deputies may feel aggrieved about transferring parliamentary questions. However, they must realise that an individual member of a Government cannot be held responsible for an area which is the funcational responsibility of another Minister.

Mr. D. Ahern

Such as whether the Taoiseach is going to Washington.

Mr. J. Higgins

Each Department has its own term of reference, its own brief and to hold one Minister responsible for another Minister's Department would be an abuse. I agree there have been anomalies but, generally speaking, there is little transferring of questions. Most questions are answered by the Ministers to whom they are put.

Mr. D. Ahern

Questions are transferred daily. There were four or five yesterday.

Mr. J. Higgins

The question of transferring questions arises because Deputies have tabled questions to the wrong Minister.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Minister of State should check the record.

Mr. J. Higgins

In my capacity of Government Chief Whip I frequently have to adjudicate between Departments. For example, a Fianna Fáil Deputy tabled a question on the Adjournment to a particular Minister who was not responsible in relation to the subject matter of the question. This happens frequently and, as the Deputy knows from his experience as Government Chief Whip, the Whip has to adjudicate and decide which Department should take the question. I do not want to split hairs but there is often a minor distinction between one Government Department and another, often because there has been a change of ministry or because of the manner in which Ministers are appointed after an election or during a reshuffle. There was an example of that in regard to the Office of Public Works and the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The result of such changes is often a misconception as to where responsibility for a particular area lies. Ministers should answer questions relevant to their own Departments and Deputies should pose relevant questions to Ministers and know their area of responsibility.

On amendment No. 9, relating to long replies to questions, Deputy Ahern, in arguing for a restriction, made the point that the Taoiseach lumps questions together. The bracketing together of questions has been the practice in this House certaintly for as long as I have been here, and I have been here since 1987. Similar and related questions are taken together, a composite answer given and thereafter supplementary questions are taken in the order in which Deputies tabled questions on the Order Paper. One can imagine what would ensue if, instead of bracketing the questions together, questions that were related to each other were taken individually. Every question would be a rehash if, for example, Questions Nos. 2 to 19 were similar but were taken individually. If questions are broadly similar it is appropriate to take them all together — otherwise Question No. 19 would not be reached — and try to dispense justice in terms of calling the Members fairly as the Ceann Comhairle does, in the order in which they appear in the Order Paper.

In regard to the answer given by the Taoiseach, I cannot subscribe to the view that there is a filibuster. An analysis of the Taoiseach's replies will show very little repetition or ambiguity, and most of his replies have substance. If the complaint is that he is giving too much information we can certainly deal with that. However, if sufficient information is not given he is accused of evading the truth and not facing up to the question.

Mr. D. Ahern

He said we did not ask the right questions.

Mr. J. Higgins

Today there were six or seven related questions and the Taoiseach agreed to go into the House and adopt a new procedure to roll over the supplementaries. Far from any rigidity or lack of flexibility we have openness, transparency, accountability, availability, answerability etc. There is no better exponent of that than the Taoiseach. Every week, since he became Taoiseach he has come in here and answered questions for half an hour on Tuesdays and an hour on Wednesdays. There is no evasion. One of the enhancement factors with regard to the Taoiseach's political image is that he is up-front, and does not attempt to elude questions. Long may it continue. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about.

Mr. Deasy

I am satisfied the Minister is making a serious and positive attempt to be helpful and taking on board the points made during the debate. However, I would like to make a further point. Will the Minister enter into discussions with the Chair on the manner in which questions are answered so that Ministers are told that lengthy initial replies and lengthy supplementaries will not be tolerated? Some days Ministers may have seven, eight or even ten pages of an initial reply to a straightforward question. That is defeating the purpose of Question Time. In addition, people are allowed ask lengthy supplementaries which become more like Second Stage debates than a supplementary question. Brevity would solve many of the problems and would allow more questions to be answered. If Ministers were instructed that their answers to questions could not exceed more than one page in length it would give the desired result.

What about a one page limit and no more than five supplementary questions on any one question? The person who put down the question should not ask more than two supplementaries. This is a suggestion to speed up Question Time.

I put down Question No. 40 on today's Order Paper. I am a betting man — as Deputy McGahon might say — and I could have bet heavily today that Question No. 40 would not be answered because it would create problems. It was a straight question about moneys for the Tramore sewerage scheme. I put it down in the name of Deputy Godfrey Timmins because he went on holidays to Tramore as a child and loved the place. I knew that question would not be answered. We must stop that from happening. No ordinary question was answered today and that is becoming more and more frequent. That practice must be eliminated otherwise Question Time for the vast majority of people in the House has no relevance.

Mr. Nealon

Unlike Deputy Deasy I will be extremely brief. I am intrigued with this discussion. The Minister of State seems reasonable and is willing to take on board many of the ideas put forward by Deputy Ahern and others, including me. Would it have been better if this report had not been presented to the House at this time but when further progress was made instead of having the inevitable long delay before we make progress?

Mr. D. Ahern

The committee had been meeting literally week in week out on all of these issues and we came to an agreement on a number of matters. We had to come before the House with the matters on which we could not agree. The agreements on the issues to which the Minister referred — 45 minutes for Question Time for the Taoiseach on Tuesdays and Wednesdays — would take care, to a certain extent, of the issue raised by Deputy Deasy whereby ordinary questions tend not to be answered, on a day like today when the Taoiseach's Question Time continues for an hour and only one or two of the environment questions were taken subsequently. That is the reason we wanted to get it on the Order Paper immediately. The Minister of State complimented the Taoiseach on his openness in the House. By contrast with the two previous Taoisigh, his answers are overly long. They are designed to allow the least participation by the Opposition. That is not the way it was with his two predecessors who invariably answered promptly and gave short replies. The Taoiseach is renowned for the way in which he answers questions. The Minister of State may say that is why he is doing so well on the Order of Business. However, his answers are not being critically analysed by observers outside the House.

An issue raised by Deputy Deasy and which had been a practice when we were on that side of the House, is that civil servants prepare answers so that the Minister can read them out. They do not really answer the question tabled but go into a dissertation about how great is the Minister and his Department. That is wrong. There should be specific answers to the specific questions tabled.

The only rationale for retaining the repeat rule — four months for oral questions — is to protect the Minister against supplementaries. The system whereby we have done away with the repeat rule for written questions has worked reasonably well. As I have stated at a number of Whip's meetings, due to the frequent repetition of questions under the two week rule, very often Departments reply to a question by stating it was already replied to on, say, 25 July. If another Deputy put down the original question the Deputy must look up the reply in the Official Report for that day. When a Department refers to a previous reply it should append it to the answer. The Minister for Social Welfare comes in for most criticism in this regard. On a number of occasions the Department of Social Welfare has stated that questions tabled by me were replied to on a previous date. In one case it did not answer the question, it referred to an answer which was supposed to relate to the same topic but which did not.

I was surprised to hear the Minister imply that committee meetings are not plenary sessions of the House and that there is a distinction. There should not be a distinction, but perhaps the committee system is bringing the entire system into disrepute. When I was in Government I was against the committee system — I made my views well known — because I felt it would let the Government off the hook by enabling it to park many issues on a satellite so that no one would pay much attention to them. This is happening all the time and it is not in the interests of Parliament. This Chamber should have primacy, but whether or not we like it, we have a committee system which we must use. This is why it is important for Deputies to be able to raise issues by way of parliamentary question during the Dáil recess when committees are working. Based on what he said in Opposition, I exhort the Minister to accede to our request.

Mr. J. Higgins

Deputy Nealon asked why we did not wait and produce a more comprehensive document. I take his point but it has been well answered by Deputy Ahern. The other reason is that much of the earlier part of the document contains technical amendments to Standing Orders which we wanted to implement. These amendments were there for a considerable period and while they were working in practice they were never codified. We wanted to get this part of the document and the initial work into the House and agreed so that the new procedures could be put in place as quickly as possible. We also managed to recify other anomalies in regard to the procedures of the House which have not been referred to.

The repeat rule applies only when there has been no change in the circumstances, that is if the question and answer are the same. However, if there has been a change in the circumstances since the original question was asked then there is no problem. The problem arises when the same information is sought and the same information is given.

I agree with Deputy Deasy on the need to keep answers as brief as possible. This matter has been raised at Government level and it has been agreed to keep answers as short and relevant as possible. Hopefully, the benefits of this will be seen in due course. We must also seek to ensure that supplementary questions are as short and relevant as possible.

Mr. Deasy

Would it be possible to impose a five minute rule on questions?

Mr. J. Higgins

It may be possible to have a one page rule. We intend to return to the issue of questions which will form a substantial part of the next tranche of reform. The Government has agreed that replies should be as short as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 21, to delete paragraph (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) Only Questions put down for answer to the Taoiseach may not seek information provided orally in the Dáil within the previous six weeks in response to an oral Question or in response to a matter raised under Standing Order 20: Provided that, where an oral Question is not reached and a written answer thereto is provided in the Official Report of Debates, the provisions of paragraph (4) of this Standing Order shall apply.".

Amendment put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 October 1996, in accordance with the Order of the Dáil of this day.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 21, after paragraph (6), to insert the following:

"(7) Questions may be put down for written answer on Tuesday and Wednesdays during the period in which the Dáil does not sit during July and September."

Amendment put.

A division being demanded, the taking of the division was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 October 1996, in accordance with a order of the Dáil of this day.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 25, to insert the following:

"Question and Answer sessions to be limited to Opposition spokespersons (New Standing Order 41 A)

41A. Where the Dáil, by order, agrees to take a question and answer session at the conclusion of a debate, questions shall be confined to a spokesperson nominated by a group (within the meaning of Standing Order 90) in Opposition."

This amendment deals with the proposed question and answer session at the end of Second Stage debates. This has already been the practice at the conclusion of some statements. I am not suggesting that people should be muzzled but on occasion, for example, during the Lowry affair, this Government of openness, transparency and accountability allowed backbenchers to ask questions in a concerted way when it was patently obvious that the question and answer session should have been reserved for the Opposition spokesperson who demanded the debate in the first instance. I regard this as a breach of faith. This did not happen when we were on the other side of the House. The question and answer session was not orchestrated in such a way as to allow Deputies to filibuster. If the Minister does not accept the amendment I ask him to ensure that future question and answer sessions are confined to the Opposition spokespersons and the people nominated by them.

Mr. J. Higgins

I accept that the Opposition might have a legitimate expectation that it should dominate the question and answer session, whether on Second Stage or at the conclusion of statements. However, I am sure the Deputy appreciates that there is no way I could legitimately try to prevent a Government or Independent Deputy who has an interest in a matter from asking a question. They already complain that they cannot contribute to certain debates because the allocation of time is set down rigidly in the Order of Business and is confined to the spokespersons of the parties which conform to Standing Orders and are recognised by the House. It is often the case that the only opportunity available to Independent Members or individual Deputies is to become involved in the question and answer session. I agree that, by and large, it should be reserved for Opposition Deputies and I believe that is the spirit behind it. However, it cannot be nailed down. There is nothing to stop a dissident, critical or constructive Deputy on this side of the House from asking a specific question of a Minister. To set it down in hard terminology and confine this section to Opposition Members would fly in the face of the rights of ordinary Deputies. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment. I believe Deputy Ahern accepts it cannot be enshrined in Standing Orders and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Deasy

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges has the authority to control the operation of the House and ensure that Members behave correctly during debates and Question Time. Am I wrong in believing that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is not as active and dynamic as it should be? Should it not meet on a weekly basis to ensure that the business of the House is dealt with correctly? Will the Minister of State comment on this issue? I made a serious complaint against the procedure adopted by a Minister about nine months ago which has not yet been attended to. I suspect that the committee responsible for overseeing the procedure of the House is not operating as it should. Is the Minister of State of the opinion that the workings of this committee, the frequency of its meetings and its decisionmaking could be improved?

Mr. J. Higgins

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges was to meet this week but it cannot and will meet next week. The committee met last month and does so quite frequently. It is chaired by the Ceann Comhairle and normally has a long agenda. I do not know why the Deputy's individual complaint has not been dealt with but I will pursue the matter on his behalf. Meetings of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges invariably deal with several issues of grievance on the part of Deputies regarding the manner in which business is discharged, the abuse of privileges of the House or matters such as Members breaching guidelines by making facilities available to them available to people outside the House. It meets on a frequent basis and its meetings often last several hours. It is an all-party body. I will pursue the Deputy's particular complaint at the next meeting.

Mr. Deasy

My particular query relates to a question I tabled to a Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are deviating from the amendment before us which is all we should be dealing with. Regardless of that fact, it is time to put the question.

Mr. Deasy

The information was released to a Member of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What are Deputy Ahern's intentions regarding amendment No. 10?

Mr. D. Ahern

I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. D. Ahern

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 51, to insert the following:

"POWER OF SELECT COMMITTEE TO REFER ESTIMATE BACK TO MINISTER (NEW STANDING ORDER 76E)

76E. A Select Committee to which an Estimate for the Public Service has been referred by Dáil Éireann may refer such Estimate back to the Minister concerned."

The content of amendment No. 11 is suggested by the Minister of State's document. He commented on statements by Deputy Jim Mitchell but the fact is that the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs is merely rubber-stamping many of the Estimates. For that reason I request that the committee be given an opportunity to refer back to a Minister.

Mr. J. Higgins

This matter was considered by the Government but, having regard to possible constitutional difficulties, it was not accepted. Such a provision was withdrawn in 1974 on the recommendation of an ad hoc all-party committee on Dáil reform. We would, therefore, be reintroducing something which was withdrawn 22 years ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 6.45 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby negatived and the motion is hereby agreed to.".

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 61.

Tá

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bhreathnach, Niamh.
• Bree, Declan.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Joan.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McDowell, Derek.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Upton, Pat.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Hilliard, Colm M.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, James.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Sargent, Trevor.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.

Question declared carried.