Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

As someone who was absent from this House for five years, what I find most depressing is that nothing has changed. I listened and read with some interest the speech delivered by the Government Chief Whip. The proposals described as relating to Dáil reform do nothing other than tinker around the edges, dealing with mechanics and procedures as opposed to substance. I have reached the conclusion that we are rapidly becoming a dysfunctional democracy as a consequence of one party, Fianna Fáil, having dominated Government for the past ten years. This House is no longer regarded by the Government or the main Government party as truly a parliament or a legislative assembly. It is seen as something to be controlled, to be organised and, in so far as possible, something to be politically neutered. The best way to describe the current function of Government backbenchers in the eyes of the Government is simply "lobby fodder". They are seen as individuals whose support is necessary to keep Ministers in office.

When dealing with the Opposition an attempt has been made by the Government of the past ten years to ensure that the Opposition ceases to act, behave or exercise a role as legislators but instead becomes simply a protest movement. As the Government sees it, the role of the Opposition is to raise issues and questions but never to be allowed play a meaningful role in the legislative process. This is having an extraordinarily bad impact on politics. It is undermining democratic principle and it is holding Members of this House up to disrepute in the eyes of the general public.

The statistics relating to legislation are extraordinary. I researched the number of Private Members' Bills which had been introduced in both Houses of the Oireachtas in the period beginning 1 January 2002 to date and the number which had succeeded in being enacted into law. A total of 70 Private Members' Bills were published during that period by various Members of this House on behalf of their parties or by Independent Senators in the other House. Of the 70 Bills published, 69 have gone no further than initial debate. They have been blocked and stopped as early as possible from making any real legislative progress. Many of them have been to do with issues that badly needed legislation or required public debate and where reform was required. There is an absolute need to recognise that Members of this House have a role to play in the legislative process. It is very disappointing that in the proposals suggested for Dáil reform, no special place is being given to the enactment of Bills of an important nature dealing with issues that need to be addressed but which Government does not have the time to address. It should be open not only to Opposition parties but to backbench Deputies to publish legislation on issues of importance and it should not be regarded as a form of betrayal of the party if a backbencher from a Government party does so. Legislation is enacted in other parliaments as a result of this system.

In my past life in the Dáil I published a large number of Private Members' Bills and was successful in having a small number of those enacted and many others adopted by Government. However, I regret that the clock seems to have been turned back in that area rather than forward.

I agree with previous speakers on the subject of Dáil questions. It is a sterile ritual dance located within a timeframe that undermines all concepts of accountability. A specific time is allocated and the Minister gives a reply. The Minister knows that the Opposition Deputy might succeed in asking one or two brief supplementary questions but the time is talked out. There is no real concept of accountability and Dáil questions have become largely a meaningless exercise outside Leaders' Questions. There is a need to reform the way Dáil questions are being dealt with to ensure that a Dáil question can truly make a Minister accountable and issues can be adequately explored. The general public will be subject to more tribunals being created because it is only within tribunals, with lawyers asking questions, that real answers are given on issues of public importance if the system is not changed in that area. This would undermine democracy.

On my return to this House I am astonished to discover that a Member cannot get answers to serious questions about the running of the health service. The HSE is an extra-parliamentary quango that operates within its own sphere and carries out about 75% to 80% of the functions that were formerly the functions of the Department of Health and Children. The Minister's answer to most Dáil questions is that it is not her responsibility but rather that of the HSE. The HSE has a parliamentary office that may eventually send a written reply to a question. However, the way to achieve parliamentary accountability for service failures is not with the initial reply but with the capacity to pursue questioning and the capacity to force Ministers, who are often reluctant, to give the full story of where things have gone wrong or what new action is required to be taken. Receiving written responses from a huge, over-bureaucratic quango that cannot be furnished with a supplementary question or reply to same is an utter and complete waste of time and an undermining of the function of this House.

The tyranny of the whipping system needs to be examined. I agree this is easy to say from the Opposition benches. The whipping system has turned Government backbenchers into what could best be described as parliamentary and legislative eunuchs. They can talk about issues but they dare not do anything. What happened in the case of the Shannon issue is a classic example. There is a need to give and allow Government backbenchers a real parliamentary role as well as appreciating that Members of the House on the Opposition side should pay a real legislative role. There is a need to take off the shackles. It should be possible for Government backbenchers to support a Government of a particular complexion while legitimately proposing amendments to legislation or bringing forward new legislation or being critical of and voting against the Government on issues that are not fundamental to the Government's survival. There is a need to re-appraise our political ethics but there is an utter failure to do so because Government is comfortable with maintaining the current system.

Many of the proposed reforms are simply about mechanics rather than substance. The Ceann Comhairle has spoken of the need to provide greater information to the public about how our parliamentary system works. He has committed himself, "to encouraging further reform and modernisation of parliamentary services for Oireachtas Members and the public". He cites a three-year strategic work programme. However, this will not transform the public's view. We need to transform our political ethics to allow Members of this House to play a real and true legislative function and to date there has been an abject failure to do so.

The committees are seen as playthings of Government as a means of handing out political Smarties and Dolly Mixture gifts of chairmanships. We required that in the Northern Ireland Assembly the committees and their officers would reflect the proportionality of the different parties. It is a system that applies in many European parliaments. The reason Government wants to appoint Chairs of committees is not to ensure that committees work properly but rather to ensure the Government of the day controls the committee system. This was admitted by one of the Fianna Fáil speakers. The committees should be an arm of Parliament and not an arm of Government. They should initiate legislation. They should hold debate which is critical of Government and should not play the role of an arm of Government.

In the dying days of the Twenty-Eight Dáil, before the 2002 general election, a Private Members' Bill passed Second Stage in the Dáil. Instead of it automatically being dealt with on Committee Stage in the relevant Oireachtas committee, the role of the Government-appointed chairman was to ensure it was never rostered. It was never heard of again but disappeared into some type of parliamentary vacuum. That is not good enough.

Committees should be given a real role. Let us establish a committee system in which the chairmanship of a committee is not about the support the Taoiseach of the day gets from backbenchers as a result of them being paid an extra €10,000 or €20,000 per year on being appointed chairman or vice-chairman of a committee. It is not about the Opposition parties sharing in the largesse. It is about the committees and the officers of committees truly reflecting the proportionality of party and independent representation in the House and exercising a parliamentary function free of the control of Government.

If we do not fundamentally reform how our Parliament operates, it will continue to be viewed cynically by the general public and seen as incapable of responding to issues of national importance in the expected way. Committees will remain largely the same talking shops — let us not pretend otherwise — in which Opposition and backbench Deputies engage, on occasion, in political-personal psychotherapy with each other about issues, knowing that the Government will, by and large, take absolutely no notice.

See this speech in context