Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I pay tribute to my colleagues, the other Party Whips. There has been real engagement at the meetings of the sub-committee on Dáil reform. Many of the proposals emerging are coming by way of agreement. I hope we will have another meeting in the week after the Lisbon treaty referendum to progress further the areas we discussed in July and come quickly as near as we can to agreement. My preference is to work towards agreement, as far as possible.

A number of areas of agreement are emerging. There is general agreement, for example, that the Dáil year should be about 35 weeks and that the Dáil should start earlier on each sitting day. Everyone agrees on supplementary questions to what we now call Adjournment Debates. Several other issues were discussed and others have been tabled in the meantime.

The working group has met three times and reported to Cabinet earlier this year.

With regard to televising Dáil debates, previous committees, such as the broadcasting committee, have gleaned much from what they saw in Canada, Australia and other countries. Practice in other parliaments has been cited as good examples of how we can develop greater engagement with our constituents. It is extremely important that we talk about the efficiency of the House although this is only one aspect of Dáil reform.

Some commentators believe that what we are discussing is Dáil reform, but I am discussing a more efficient and streamlined presentation of the Dáil's activities. In recent months, we have formally or informally discussed more fundamental issues that are in the public domain. Fine Gael has raised the question of the number of Deputies, how they are elected and so on. While that is a wider debate, it merits thought.

We have held summer schools on a variety of subjects and I have informally suggested to colleagues something like a summer school at which academics, constitutional lawyers, practising politicians and those who have left the political arena could make a significant contribution. In this way, the House could develop worthwhile proposals that would benefit and improve the engagement of both Houses of Parliament, although whether the system would be bicameral or unicameral is another debate. This could not be done quickly, but it should be done.

See this speech in context