Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I second the motion proposed by the Minister. I welcome the opportunity to debate this crucial issue. I am clear on the mandate the people gave our party, me and others. In the first instance, it is a mandate to sort out the dreadful economic mess and legacy but, equally, it is a mandate for genuine and radical political reform in this country. If we are to introduce all the elements in the amendment tabled by the Minister, we will have a democratic revolution in this country. That will take a lot of work over a four or five-year period because much of the change is constitutional. However, much of it is parliamentary and legislative change, which can happen. If we are to fix this broken country, in terms of the economic struggle we face, we must lead on the question of radical political reform in this House and outside it.

Two weeks ago, along with many other colleagues, I was privileged to attend the State funeral of Dr. Garret FitzGerald. It was a wonderful occasion in many respects, not because of the dignitaries in attendance but because of the people in attendance. As Ministers and Ministers of State travelled from Donnybrook to Shanganagh in a bus, it was extraordinary to see that at every major intersection on the road, thousands of people came to clap and acclaim Dr. FitzGerald. They marked out territory that this was a man who had done the State great service. I thought that was the natural, ordinary respect people should hold for their politicians in any republic. That case is an exception because the great majority of people in this country do not hold politicians in respect, nor do they hold the political system in respect because of what happened to this country. Our task, collectively, over the course of this Dáil, which we are privileged to be in, is to do what we can to improve the standing of politics in this country in the same way as those people who stood and clapped the remains of Dr. FitzGerald two weeks ago recognised his enormous contribution to life in this country. I know the mandate we have to fix this country and to fix our broken political system.

The numbers on the Government of the House side mean that approximately two thirds of the membership of Dáil Éireann support the two biggest parties and the two Government parties. Every voice must be heard, on Government and Opposition sides. We should encourage the fact that people speak out. The Government itself must act as a collective being. Collective responsibility is there for all to see in the Constitution. However, those behind me in both parties have a responsibility to speak out as they see fit and to take a stand as they see important. They are members of political parties and have signed up to our programme for Government but there is space to have their voices reflected within political life. I spent 14 years in opposition and what is stifling about this place is the over-centralised control of the Executive. We must address that. This Parliament is one of the few in the world where the Punch and Judy performance occurs every day, pretending and exaggerating matters of no consequence as a cheap line for headlines on the news at six o'clock.

That happens on both sides. If we are really serious about constructing a new politics in this country, we must see the central role of a parliament. This Parliament has never stood up for itself, and it has always been seen to be a plaything, as it were, of the Executive. That idea must be broken down if we are really serious about advancing political reform. Every voice is important and every Member has a role to play.

One of the great opportunities we have is the fact that close to 50% of the Members in this House are new. I hope they will bring an opportunity to reform this place in a measured and constructive way rather than through a political polemic used by people on television screens because they believe it sounds trendy and cool. That is our ultimate task if we are serious. If we are not serious and we are just play-acting, that is fine, and the public will see through that kind of hogwash. A serious attempt will have a role for each Member, and those who are new in particular, as they have much to offer.

The beef tribunal occurred in this country, with the enormous costs attached to it, for a solitary reason as outlined by Judge Hamilton in his final report. It was because Ministers did not answer questions honestly in Dáil Éireann. The most important function of every Deputy, either on the Government side or that of the Opposition, is the right to ask a question and properly interrogate a Minister. Our system is far too weak because the Ceann Comhairle cannot direct a Minister to answer a posed question or intervene because the time is set out in intervals between the Government and Opposition. The most fundamental reform, as far as I and the Government are concerned, relates to parliamentary questions and how to utilise that time.

The time for these questions is allocated but we would have ten times as many people attending Question Time if questions were taken only if Members were here. In other parliaments, members are called based on whether they are within sight of the speaker rather than the lottery system which developed here over the years. More people would attend if they did not know whether their questions would be answered.

We should immediately introduce such a process because people would attend the Chamber if they believed they could participate in a debate; currently the debate is time-allocated and takes place between key players such as the Opposition spokespersons and Ministers. If the lottery system were abolished and questions were taken from the Order Paper with the people present in the Chamber, there would be 50 or 60 people present looking to contribute to the debate. That is an important question for the Opposition and Government sides of the House if we are to be honest about the process. It is crucial that we change the system for parliamentary questions.

One of the best innovations in the three months I have been part of the Government is that all major statements on policy occur in Dáil Éireann. That has not happened in the last decade, and I was a vocal critic of the fact that major Government announcements in the past decade emerged in the Government's press section at an appointed occasion outside the House. A debate may have occurred a week later, which is absolutely outrageous. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, made the announcement on bank restructuring plans in Dáil Éireann. The Speaker in Westminster would chastise a British Government for making a statement outside the House of Commons. As such, we have started well with this and every Minister must continue in that vein. There should be no more press conferences to the great and good in order to manufacture news. We should have statements in the House and proper questioning from colleagues on all sides. We have begun this process and should continue with it.

Too often there is a kind of high-handed attitude from Members opposite about those people outside parties and political parties. One of the great strengths of this country, and a reason we emerged from civil war so quickly, is the ability to have moderate politics in our country. If we are really serious about recognising the role of political parties, we must encompass that within the Constitution. There is no reference to political parties within Bunreacht na hÉireann, but they play a vital role in the country.

I do not object to anybody being an Independent or outside a party but, equally, I ask them not to object to members of my political party, who make extraordinary sacrifices and come to extraordinary compromises because they believe in a greater good. They believe that in coming together in solidarity behind a number of simple, discernible objectives, they can advance their political cause. There is a kind of condescending attitude among some, although not all, Independents about political parties. Their argument is they serve no useful purpose and are all grubby. That is a patronising view which is not based on fact. One of the great strengths of this country has been our political party system and the way it can change so radically, as we saw in the last election. We should not underestimate that process and we must give it constitutional recognition within Bunreacht na hÉireann.

One of the most fundamental reforms outlined in our motion is a complete rethink on the Abbeylara judgment. The high point of Irish parliamentary processes was the late former Deputy Jim Mitchell's Committee of Public Accounts. With that process, the late former Deputy and that committee produced a report, investigated the work and got money back for the public without the lawyers being there. This was done within six months and there was a genuine sense of public satisfaction. There was a problem of the non-payment of deposit interest retention tax exposed in the media but we did not hive it off to a tribunal or commission of investigation. We dealt with the issue head on and established a committee on a non-partisan basis that worked as a group and quickly deduced a solution to get the money back and produce recommendations.

That was a high point to which we must return. It seems that as long as parliamentary committees cannot make findings of fact against individuals, we will be in a very difficult space. That is why it is crucial for us to revisit the Abbeylara judgment and give power to Oireachtas committees to make findings of fact relating to individuals and events which have some meaning. That will mean that in future we will not have to hive off significant issues of public concern to tribunals of investigation which have become unsatisfactory. That is understandable because of associated costs. To do this we must change the way committees work, and a new internal dynamic is required where people can leave party political baggage outside in coming to a conclusion. That task will be difficult to achieve but we must pursue it. Committees will be central in a changing role.

It is crucial to have fewer committees and that they become meaningful. I fully agree with the Deputies opposite who argued there should be absolute scrutiny of budgets in advance by committees so that alternative proposals of expenditure can be examined. This is in preference to the "Punch and Judy" process that goes on here on a daily basis. There should be genuine work done with serious consideration of issues rather than a polemic, which is just a narrative used for commentary rather than serious work. It is crucial that we have fewer committees and that we change the way they work.

We are a small country and we are over-governed. There would be no need for Seanad Éireann if this House did its work and we had the kind of reforms outlined in our amendment to the motion. We would not need a bicameral system if everybody in the House contributed to the parliamentary life of the country. That is the task ahead of us.

We can consider some of the biggest decisions in the past decade in the House. They were not taken as a result of initiative from Members but rather because the Government plucked an idea from the sky. Decentralisation is an example. That idea would be rammed through the House, leading to appalling consequences. One could also look at the bank guarantee scheme, which was rushed through the House without proper consultation, consideration or the time to examine matters properly. That is the legacy of the past, which is pretty rotten but which others will defend, as is their right.

It is also a legacy of how bad this Dáil and parliamentary democracy became and we must never allow it again.

That is why it is crucial we implement these reforms on a cross-party basis. I agree with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan that it should be on the basis of agreement but we need to act swiftly. This is one route out of the difficulties we face.

See this speech in context