Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Is ait an rud é go bhfuil an rún seo ar an gclár an tseachtain seo, os rud é go mbeidh díospóireacht againn ar an gceist chéanna amárach. Ag an am céanna, measaim gur mhaith an rud é go bhfuil an ábhar seo á phlé againn. Tá roinnt smaointe breise mar gheall ar athchóiriú na Dála á nochtadh ag na páirtithe difriúla. Is féidir linn díriú isteach orthu. Tá sé tábhachtach go ndíreoimid isteach ar conas gur féidir linn a chinntiú go bhfuil gnó na Dála - Parlaimint na tíre seo - oiriúnach don aois ina bhfuilimid. Tá éileamh i measc an ghnáthphobail go seasfaidh an Dáil chun díospóireacht a dhéanamh ar na gnéithe éagsúla is cúis leis an tinneas atá ag cur isteach orthu faoi láthair.

I have two issues with the motion proposed by the Technical Group. The abolition of the party Whip system would, in some ways, put me out of a job and there is a lack of understanding in that regard. Those of us who are elected as members of a political party believe we have a mandate to uphold party policy as the party directs us, having stood on a platform for that party. Therefore, the party Whip system should stand because it reflects democracy and the vote the electorate has cast. I am not suggesting people should not stand on an independent platform but when the electorate elects a Member to the Houses of the Oireachtas, who has stood as a member of a political party, the electorate understands the outline of that party's policy.

There is, and should always be, a role for difference in the Dáil and Seanad. That difference should be encouraged as much as possible to ensure many voices are heard in this House and that it reflects more and more society as a whole. One of the issues I have in terms of Dáil reform is not the technicalities or the changes to Standing Orders but the need to try to ensure the people elected to the House reflect society so we need more working class Deputies and more women. There has been quite an encouraging debate for the past number of years on how this institution can attract more women to be Members of Parliament. Whether that is done on the basis of quotas or by penalising parties through the Leaders' allowance, it is an issue we need to tease out.

We must ensure the people enacting legislation for our society reflect it. The Dáil should not be dominated by people from a certain profession or class, as has happened in the past. I will try to ensure that my party sees to it that the people representing it reflect the society in which they live and work. To date, we have done so.

A proposal in the motion is to provide legal advisory capacity to the Dáil. There is some legal capacity in the Dáil through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the committees. I presume what is intended there is that legal capacity should be available to Deputies in order that they have access to the advice of a legal team about legislative proposals they wish to make or to answer queries about legislation coming before the House. I do not believe that would be a problem and it would be a welcome development.

There are some welcome elements in the Fianna Fáil and Government amendments to the motion. That is why it is strange that there is a motion. The motion and the two amendments form the basis for Dáil reform. The Chief Whip has been trying to engage with the other Whips to try to set the wheels in motion on a package of Dáil reform measures. Some of what is contained here can be looked at in that context.

I find it interesting that Fianna Fáil has belatedly come on board in regard to the Dáil reform challenge. Movement from the previous Government in regard to Dáil reform was quite slow. I sat on the Dáil reform committee for nine years and progress was slow, if there was any at all. That was not only because of Fianna Fáil - in fact, among the worst in terms of blocking Dáil reform was the Labour Party which did a deal with Bertie Ahern when he was Taoiseach to allow him to absent himself from the Dáil on Thursday but quite soon afterwards, it said we could not have a Dáil reform package unless the Taoiseach attended the House on Thursdays.

It is good that there are new Members in the Dáil who have a different outlook because sometimes one can become institutionalised and it is hard to take criticism of the institution. Just because a debate in the House is staid or stale, it does not mean one must change things because change for the sake of change will not work. The Dáil has developed over time, as have other parliaments. If one goes to any country, one will hear parliament is out of touch or does not reflect what the public wants. That is a failure to understand the role of parliament. It is not only a debating shop; it has quite a valid job of work in dealing with legislation, holding government to account and so on. There is a balance to be struck between having a debating shop, whether at Leaders' Questions, and so on.

The only time one sees a full press gallery is when there is a bit of a row between the Opposition and the Taoiseach or a Minister but the normal day-to-day work, which is the most important, grinds on. When legislation is published, it is introduced in the House, goes to a select committee and then comes back to the House. That can be most frustrating and laborious work but it can also be the most rewarding because one gets a full understanding of the legislation. One can sometimes win over a Minister to one's point of view and legislation is changed and one manages to protect someone who is less well off or some group in society which will suffer the consequences of legislation which might be rushed.

I found it frustrating that the document, Regulating Better, produced by the last Government was not implemented. It called for regulatory impact assessments, which is included in the motion. In all my time in the House, I believe I only saw that mentioned in two Bills. If nothing else comes of this latest push for Dáil reform, an assurance that we will, in future, have legislation published in time to allow us properly to analyse it would be welcome, together with an undertaking that all legislation will be accompanied by impact assessments. Without knowing the full impact of a Bill, or at least having some idea, it is difficult for Members on either side of the House to assess it. A requirement to provide a regulatory impact assessment would also encourage those who are drafting legislation to have a greater regard for its effects.

See this speech in context