Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. As a member of the commission, I share the same frustrations as those expressed by Deputies Tom Hayes and Pat Rabbitte on the absence of control over certain areas. There is an expectation that we should be able to make final decisions. In the spring, we produced our report on the reforms which, the commission believed, unanimously, were necessary on the remuneration of Deputies and Senators. However, we are about to enter a new year and nothing has taken place. I share that frustration. I have been in the Oireachtas for 20 years and in that time accountability has been diluted in our role as parliamentarians. We have not been able to achieve the level of accountability which should be restored to the Parliament.

I listened attentively to the remarks of the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche. He made some very good points. Public administration should be a partner of the Oireachtas in serving our people. However, the evolution of quangos and the removal of certain controls or the apparent removal of such controls from Ministers has almost created a conflict between public administration and the Oireachtas. Partnership with public administration should be restored to the Oireachtas. The quangos are interfering with the accountability of the Government to Parliament and it is also interfering with progress on the very many good views and contributions that Members make. Any progress initiated here is being frustrated by the current system.

The discussion on the reform of the Dáil was both very necessary and interesting. I envisage our role in three ways. We should develop national policy in the interests of the people, introduce regulatory statutes to regulate certain matters and represent our constituencies. I do not believe we are developing national policy at the appropriate level. We are introducing some regulatory statutes and we may criticise the way in which this takes place, but we have a role.

The way in which we represent our constituencies is also being frustrated by the operation of the House. Previously, this matter was referred to by speakers. Some people cast a slur on the fact that we come from constituencies and represent issues of concern to our people. I have no hesitation in saying I believe such work is as important as the other two areas of our work to which I referred. Sometimes I will table a question during the Adjournment debate on an issue of importance to my constituency. This is as important a part of our role as any other because the people who sent me here expect me to carry out such work and it is important to respond to the needs of those by whom one is employed. Much of the work we do in the constituency area involves responding to the expressed needs of those who sent us here and I make no excuses for so doing.

Deputy Stanton referred to this as an era of communications. The Oireachtas has improved in this area but we must continue this improvement and continue to communicate with the people more effectively and efficiently. As has been stated already, the means of communication has changed completely since I first entered the House and we are beginning to respond in a small way to these demands. We have a considerable distance to go and we must continue our work effectively and efficiently with due cognisance of cost savings, but we must not ignore these matters. At stake in the long term is the survival of democracy. If we do not communicate what takes place here or if the people begin to turn against their elected representatives or the system something else will replace it, as we have seen in decades past.

I refer to the nuts and bolts of the legislation. Rarely do I contribute on the Order of Business. It is a pointless exercise to ask questions on the Order of Business unless one is concerned about the progress of a Bill related to an area of personal interest. Regarding Standing Order 32, we have begun to laugh at the procedure. Regarding the Adjournment debate, occasionally I raise issues of national concern. However, a Minister of State comes to the House with four scripts and does not know what I intend to say or the points I intend to put. The question is already answered by a civil servant. It is daft.

See this speech in context