Trevor Sargent
Ceist:67 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on plans he has for reform of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13615/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Dáil Reform.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:68 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his plans for reform of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15288/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 67 and 68 together.
As the Deputies are aware, the matter of Dáil reform is essentially one for the House itself, which under the Constitution has responsibility for making its own rules and Standing Orders. Responsibility for promoting Dáil reform is shared by all parties in this House and the Government will play a constructive part in exploring with those parties opportunities for improving procedures.
These questions need considerable debate because there is a huge amount of reform needed, as the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, will agree. Are there plans to bring about the reform we continually talk about on this side of the House? For example, in the last election, six Deputies were returned for the Green Party, yet we could not form a group. If that number increases to seven in the case of a Green victory at a by-election, those seven Deputies will still be denied the democratic right to form a group.
Is consideration being given to allow further debate on Dáil reform? Such matters as the promise of crèche facilities in the Houses have been around for years. It is now more appropriate to plan for a retirement home because by the time the crèche is built, those who intended to use it will be looking for the former.
It should be required that Ministers reply to a "Yes" or "No" question with a "Yes" or "No" answer. That is a matter that has given rise to tribunals, including the beef tribunal. This is a necessary requirement to Dáil reform rather than have the Ceann Comhairle continually saying ‘he has no control over a Minister's or Taoiseach's answer. It makes a mockery of the Dáil if we are not able to insist that questions are answered in a straightforward fashion. Those three points cover a range of reform issues. Will the Minister of State indicate when we can make decisions on these?
The matter of the size of groups has not come up previously in considerations of Dáil reform. The Deputy will be aware that in the previous Dáil, the Whips agreed to a programme for changes in procedures in how we carry out business in the Chamber. At the first meeting of the Dáil reform sub-committee, of which all the Whips are a party, it was agreed that a number of those proposals would continue for further consideration, while others were thrown out. There have been ongoing discussions at the Whips' meetings to see how we can promote various ideas which can lead to better working processes in this House. We all recognise elements that need to be changed. There is time-wasting that needs to be avoided and more time should be available for legislation and debate. These are all issues that need to be agreed by all parties. It is not simply a matter for Government and Opposition.
The provision of a crèche facility does not exactly fall under the heading of Dáil reform, but it comes under the facilities available within the House. More than any other party, the Green Party is aware of the ongoing developments in Kildare House, as it has been uprooted from there. Half of the building has been vacated for development and the crèche will be included in that.
The third question is one for Ministers and the Ceann Comhairle to address.
When will it be addressed?
Is there any appreciation in Government of the damage being done to the standing of Dáil Éireann by the manner in which we organise our business? Is there any appreciation on the Government side of the irritation caused to so many Deputies by the constant sniping in the media about the manner in which we organise our business? The irritation is due, at least in part, to the fact that we know it is true. For example, how can the Minister justify the House not sitting next week? Is it not the case that there are 111 Bills on the Government's schedule of promised legislation, yet the House rises next week?
At least irritation among those of us who seek to do the job as best we can is a more understandable emotion than the cynicism that appar ently afflicts the Government, which believes there is no need to pay any attention to what the media say as they would say that anyway. As a result, it does not do anything and goes on as before. While there have been many changes in this society since the First Dáil, if the Members of that Dáil were to come back they would be perfectly comfortable with the procedures we apply.
Any change Members bring about in the way in which we operate this House will be done because it is the wish of the Members, not because anybody else dictates that to us. This is why the responsibility for this lies not with Government or Opposition but with the Whips of the various parties. Anything we do must be done by agreement between us.
Deputy Rabbitte may be right. Perhaps there is a lack of appreciation among some elements of the media about what we do. I am sure Deputy Rabbitte would agree that does not apply to the political correspondents who operate within the confines of this House and see exactly the amount of work carried out by all Members and the dedication and commitment they apply to their work.
The same can be said of the legislative process. The Deputy referred to 111 Bills which have to be produced. Those Bills will constantly be produced by the Parliamentary Draftsman's office, working in conjunction with my office, which in turn works with all Ministers to ensure we can pursue our legislative programme and have Bills published. There is a huge amount of pressure on the legislation programme with a view to having legislation prepared. Time can be allocated to this so that it will go ahead next week as always.
The committees will also meet next week. Members of this House constantly ask that increased recognition be given to the work of those committees and a good time to do that is when the Dáil is not sitting in plenary session.
We can do some things to address efficiency. Last week 20 Members raised 20 different issues under Standing Order 31, all of which represented nothing more than time wasting. There are adequate ways at various times of the day when these issues can be raised. From a Government point of view, less than half of the time spent in this Chamber is allocated to special debates and to legislation. If we want to progress legislation we need to allow more time for it.
Each week since we returned, we have allocated time for special debates. I would be the first to accept those debates are hugely important. We spent a full day debating the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. We had special statements last week on the Intergovernmental Conference and the proposed European constitution. There will be statements this week on the European Council meeting. We will debate the tobacco regulations and the Hanly report. While all these matters are important, they also take from the amount of time we spend dealing with legislation in this Chamber.
If we are serious about wanting to improve the status and standing of this House in the eyes of the public or the media or if we want to change our methods to be more efficient, then we must do so as a group and agree it together.
I am sure the Ceann Comhairle is like me in that, every time I see the words "Dáil reform", I become concerned. There have been a number of reforms since I was first elected to the House which appear to have left us worse off in the eyes of the public and the media.
A question, please.
I am delighted to hear the Minister of State indicate what has taken place at the Whips' meeting. I circulated a paper last April concerning Dáil procedures, an issue which is more relevant. Procedures and Standing Orders are at the heart of the issue because, as the Ceann Comhairle knows, once they are laid down, they can be operated effectively to give the public a clearer image of what their public representatives do.
Will the Minister of State keep in mind in the reforms, review or changes in procedure that take place the necessity to have Government involved in the proceedings of the House as much as the Opposition and backbenchers? It is of critical importance to conducting business to have the Government ready and responsive. Will the Minister of State take into account and incorporate in the proposals the need for simple matters such as Ministers answering matters on the Adjournment relevant to their Departments? That is critical. There is no sense in one Minister answering several such matters.
I could go on, but it would be a breach of procedures and Standing Orders and I do not want to encourage that.
Some of the elements of the original reform package agreed between the Whips have been introduced successfully, one of which is electronic voting. Another is that, while the Taoiseach takes current issues on Tuesday and Wednesday, his attendance is not mandatory on Thursday. This was agreed by the Whips in the previous session.
Fine Gael did not agree to it.
No other prime minister in the world answers questions that are not notified in advance or have not been seen beforehand, yet this happens successfully every week in the Dáil. Other issues in the reform package will be progressed.
I have invited each of the parties and Whips to come forward with their proposals.
I did that.
I reiterate that this is not just something for the Government Chief Whip. This is something for all parties to do in the interests of the running of the House. I have yet to see proposals from those who talk loudest.
I am happy to take up the challenge and will submit a document to the Minister of State within the next few weeks. However, is it not the case that, when this happened before, her predecessor launched with great fanfare his proposals for Dáil reform – the Séamus Brennan way forward? We had several sincere interviews with the then Chief Whip about what he was doing to reform Dáil Éireann.
What is the justification for the House not sitting next week? How can the Minister of State say it is the responsibility of all groups when the position taken by the Government, apart from claiming authorship, is that there will be a committee week every month but the House will not be convened? I have no objection to there being a committee week, but the House ought to convene in the morning and the Taoiseach ought to make himself amenable to the House on the issues of the day.
Is it not the case that what the Minister of State referred to as time-wasting is frustration on the part of backbenchers who have no other opportunity to raise an issue of the day that concerns their constituency or a matter in which they have a specific interest other than the Standing Order 31 provision to which she referred?
Is it not correct, as Deputy Durkan said, that one can be in the House coming up to midnight to find that the four matters on the Adjournment will be taken in a desultory performance by one Minister of State who reads out a script from a Department which he has never visited and of which he has never heard? How does sending in a Minister of State dignify this House? Private secretaries make telephone calls to find out if tonight is Ivor Callely's night and they send him the answer on some complex subject that the same Minister of State, Deputy Callely, skilled as he is in the local constituency, will not know anything about. Is that any way to treat this House? Is that what is happening?
Is it not the case that there are 16 Bills published at the moment, none of which has reached Second Stage, and the Minister of State is putting the House into recess next week? How can that be justified?
Under the proposals raised including those for committee week, I had some discussions with the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants some time ago and that was an issue of concern. There are issues that have to be resolved across the board with regard to that. In our discussions as a Dáil reform committee one of the proposals was to have a five-week term consisting of a committee week and Dáil weeks. It was decided as a general rule not to proceed with it on a regular basis. However, there is an opportunity for committees to be given more time.
On the question raised by the Deputy, I agree with him that it is desirable that the relevant Minister be present in the House for all the matters on the Adjournment. Deputy Rabbitte will recall from his time in Government that Ministers receive quite late notification as to when the matter will be taken in the House. Ministers' diaries fill up and they are often informed at 4 p.m. that they are required that night and they may already be committed to attending another function later that night—
They may have to visit the Dáil bar.
One of the proposals for Dáil reform was to move the Adjournment to the morning and notice would be given the evening before. These are very practical proposals and ones which might lead to a better interchange and exchange of views, particularly on local issues which are very important to all Members.
Does a timeframe exist within which a programme of Dáil reform will be brought before the House? We are all aware that the Whips are working on this issue and I acknowledge that it is an inclusive participatory process. Does the Minister of State envisage a timeframe for an end to the debate and when will substantive proposals be put before the House?
The Minister of State will be aware that No. 48 on today's Order Paper is a motion tabled by the Sinn Féin Members seeking the accommodation of Northern representation in this House, with MPs from north of the Border having the opportunity to participate in this Chamber. Notwithstanding any other element or aspect of Dáil reform, will the Minister of State consider providing Government time to allow this motion to proceed before the House in line with the Taoiseach's stated commitment to facilitate this important change?
Other than the document which was agreed by the previous Whips, there are very few new proposals, other than a proposal to do with timing which I tabled and a proposal on parliamentary questions tabled by Deputy Durkan earlier in the year. Until the Whips present other real proposals it will not be possible to present a timeframe in which we can finalise it. There has been much talk about the proposal and much time has been given to it in this Chamber. However, nobody has presented any real suggestions or changes. Deputy Rabbitte indicated that he will submit proposals, as did Deputy Kenny on an earlier occasion. The Government will consider all those proposals. It is in the interests of this House that we work on that issue as quickly as possible.
On Deputy Ó Caoláin's question about Northern representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas, this has been raised regarding a number of issues but for the last while we have been working in a vacuum regarding Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that today's events can allow us to move forward now that a new context has been created. The issue will be examined in the context of Dáil and Seanad reform.
There are three Deputies offering supplementary questions. I will hear them and a final reply on this question from the Minister of State.
Does the Minister of State recognise that she has unwittingly betrayed the Government position on this important issue when she says that Ministers' diaries fill up? This is Dáil Éireann.
They are meant to be here.
The many kinds of fixtures which fill up ministerial diaries are regarded as more important than being in Dáil Éireann to answer the elected representatives of the people. That is what is wrong. The approach of Government is to hold a press conference to launch the Hanly report, far removed from the Dáil Chamber. The last place a Minister would think of announcing any initiative is in the Dáil Chamber. Is that not the problem? I heard what the Minister said about all groups here. The only thing of which the Minister for Transport does not claim authorship is the Luas. He was quick to lay claim to what he termed the "Brennan proposals" in respect of Dáil reform.
What is the justification for the House not sitting next week? The Minister of State has still not answered that question. I do not see the justification for it. There is no point in explaining to the media—
A question please, Deputy.
Is there any point in explaining to the media that we are here until 10.30 p.m. at night and coming up to Christmas we will be here until midnight? That will not be written about, yet there is constant sniping in some sections of the media by some journalists who never set foot in the place. Such people know nothing about the task of being either a legislator or a representative of the people. They only work approximately one third of the hours—
A question please, Deputy.
—that most Members of the House work. There is no point in appealing to their better sense of judgment on this matter. Are they not making reasonable criticisms, notwithstanding what I have said, of the way we order our business? While we take recesses like that next week, it is difficult for us to maintain a credible position in criticising some of the more superficial comment to which we, the Members of the House and the House itself, are subjected.
I understood that the dual mandate was abolished to give more time to legislators to be in the Dáil and that, therefore, Dáil sitting time would be extended, that we would sit for more days than the 66 in 2002, for example. Will the Minister of State clarify this matter? A "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice.
The Minister of State, in conjunction with the Standards in Public Office Commission, published a code of conduct on 3 July 2003. This placed a requirement on Ministers and the Taoiseach to give accurate and truthful information to the Houses of the Oireachtas and to correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Does this still stand and should it be enforced? How should it be enforced given the misleading of the Dáil by the Taoiseach over the meeting between his special adviser, now Senator Mansergh, and the Real IRA? The incorrect information was given on 5 November, yet it was only corrected the following year, on 14 October 2003. Will the code be enforced? Does it mean anything? Are "Yes" or "No" answers required to be truthful?
Perhaps the Minister of State will reassure me in regard to my concerns about the Adjournment debate being taken in the morning. This would release Ministers for some purpose about which I am unclear. Will she confirm that, as Deputy Rabbitte said, during a sitting day Ministers are supposed to be located in either the Dáil or the Seanad, as the case may be? In the event of such a change, I am concerned that Ministers might leave backbenchers from all parties in the House to have a discussion among themselves. I stand to be corrected on this point.
It is fundamental in a democracy that the interaction between Government and Parliament continues to the fullest possible extent. Does the Minister of State accept that there is a general recognition in the media and among the general public that there is a greater need than ever for Government to interact with Parliament? That interaction involves all the elements which have been pointed out by speakers on this side of the House including short, succinct answers to questions rather than speeches. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle is about to point out that I should not make a speech.
Short and succinct would be excellent.
As was the case with the Ceann Comhairle, when I first entered this House a question was a question and there was insufficient time to allow a Minister to give a 12 to 14 page reply through which a Member had to sift for the answer.
The Deputy is making a statement.
Will the Minister of State confirm that we will not continue to do the things we should not, in the way in which various Members have outlined?
The Adjournment is just that and takes place at the end of the Dáil's business each day. All Ministers are here at all times when the Dáil is sitting unless officially paired for Government business and they are accountable throughout that time. It is only because the matters are being raised on the Adjournment and late notice is given that Ministers are sometimes not available late at night. If, as Deputy Durkan has said, the debate were to move to the morning, it would no longer be the Adjournment but the "commencement". It might be a better way of doing things as people would have advance notice of topics and could commit to attending.
Regarding Deputy Sargent's point, I did not launch anything this July and I am not aware of the codes he spoke about.
The Minister of State distributed the report of the Commission on Standards in Public Office.
Deputy Sargent must allow the Minister of State to speak without interruption.
The Deputy said that I launched a report. I did not.
The Minister of State distributed it.
It was not I and it was not this July.
While there were many reasons for the removal of the dual mandate, the main ones were to increase locally based representation, to strengthen local democracy, to ensure a larger pool of representatives and to encourage people into both processes. The removal of the dual mandate gives us the opportunity to find ways to use time which Members did not have up to now.
However, we must also be cognisant of people who have to travel and of family-friendly policies. That feeds into Deputy Rabbitte's point. Various issues have been raised and while some Dublin-based Deputies argue that the Dáil should sit between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., rural Members say it absolutely should not. Those Deputies do not wish to find themselves in Dublin with nothing to do for days on end. Our profession is particularly unfriendly to family life but the standardised school calendar, which means that all schools are off next week, might be an opportunity to adopt family-friendly policies. We could, for example, ensure that next week Members have more time to spend with their families.
We are looking at, perhaps, longer sitting days. There are issues relating to that. It is unfortunate, as Deputy Rabbitte says, that the media will not look at the length of time we spend here but will simply count the sitting days. In that case, if one spends an hour here on a Friday, will one get more credit for spending an extra four hours here on a Tuesday or Wednesday? That would be wrong. It is true, however, that the way we do our business can be improved by proper discussion among Whips and by the committee considering Dáil reform. We can only make real progress when this matter is debated by people who have genuine ideas and are willing to consider it neutrally rather than as members of the Opposition versus the Government to ensure that the House conducts its business efficiently, thereby improving Members' standing in their own eyes and in the eyes of the public.
Is there to be an answer to the "Yes" or "No" question?
Deputy Sargent, we have spent over half an hour on this question and given it a good airing. We are moving on to Question No. 69.
I did not launch the report.
It is very revealing.