Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I welcome this package of changes to the operation and running of the House. As a Member of the Oireachtas committee on Dáil reform for nine years, some of these ideas have been long sought and awaited. It was not always possible to get agreement at that committee, sometimes for party political reasons. The first Dáil reform committee from 2002 to 2007 was specifically held up because at the time the Labour Party and Fine Gael opposed any movement on Dáil reform unless the Taoiseach would make himself available in the Chamber on Thursdays to take Leaders' Questions. How times have changed; in fact, the Labour Party released the Taoiseach from that duty in a deal to overtake the Technical Group.

We can play politics with this issue, but that is not the point; the aim is to ensure the Dáil is as effective as possible and that Members' time is used as constructively as possible, allowing as many Members as possible to participate in debates and play a role in the parliament to which they have been elected. Some of these changes will have that effect, but there also problems. That is why I welcome the commitment givenby the Chief Whip that this issue will be revisited in order that we can tinker with the mechanism, if required. It is a shame we did not have a longer debate as a group prior to today's presentation. That is the nature of this Dáil since it was elected; everything seems to be done in a rush. A programme was set out that insisted this must be passed now in order that it can take effect in September, but another one or two meetings might have been needed to ensure the proposals would deliver what was needed.

There are other issues that should be addressed in a Dáil reform package and which I will continue to push for inclusion in the next reform package. I encourage all Deputies, particularly newly elected Deputies, to continue to submit ideas to the relevant Whip or the Ceann Comhairle in order that we can ensure all ideas are taken on board.

When we contemplate major change along the lines of that presented, we must bear in the mind the implications for industrial relations and workers in the Houses. Because of the embargo, the staff of the Houses are working flat out and stretched to the limit and we are imposing additional sitting days on them. That was included in the programme for Government and we do not oppose it, but there are problems if we continually stretch out the number of hours the ushers, porters and transcribers all must work. We must recognise this issue and ask the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to deal with it, if need be by seeking an exemption from the embargo to ensure the Houses can work effectively. It is not just Deputies who are needed to run this House, we need the support of the staff also.

I have no problem with the change to an earlier sitting time of 2 p.m. on Tuesdays; I have argued that the House should sit at 10.30 a.m. and that the work proposed to be done on Fridays should be done on Tuesday mornings. That would not require the attendance of a senior Cabinet Minister, taking the Cabinet meeting held on Tuesday mornings into account. That would allow us, if required, to sit on a Friday. It would also allow Deputies, especially rural-based ones, to continue the other work they must get on with on Mondays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. It is not the case that TDs do not work on Fridays.

My major concern is that the time for the Taoiseach to attend the Chamber has been substantially reduced. It is a reduction of nearly 25% of the time during which the Taoiseach is accountable to the Dáil, other than on the Order of Business. Even though on Tuesdays the time for Taoiseach's Questions has been increased, there will be no such questions on Wednesdays. The programme for Government stated the Taoiseach would be more accountable, so we need to address that matter. This may only be a temporary measure, however, so we need to discover whether there will be a second round of Leaders' Questions which might solve the problem.

I welcome the change to have topical issues discussed during the day, rather than having an evening Adjournment debate. I am concerned, however, that it should not be dominated by key spokespersons. It should not take away from the opportunities that currently exist for backbenchers to raise matters on the Adjournment. They are often local issues, which are important nonetheless - not about potholes, but major issues that may arise locally. There is no other mechanism to have such a debate with a Minister. I welcome the changes which mean there will be more of a debate with Ministers, rather than the stale exchange that now passes for a debate on the Adjournment. While the proposed changes are welcome, I sound that note of caution.

I welcome the promise by the Government Chief Whip that a senior Minister will engage in the proposed topical issues debate. Hopefully that will avoid having a Minister reading scripts back to a Deputy. While that is absolutely pointless in some respects, one does need to have a debate sometimes. I have attended Adjournment debates to raise points, but a Minister has then read out a script that has no relationship to what I asked. The Minister may then apologise and say "This is what I have been given". The proposal for a debate on topical issues is welcome, particularly as it will be in the middle of the day. In addition, a senior Minister will be present who, hopefully, will be on top of the brief and thus able to engage with the questions posed.

There are other proposals for 30 second issues and matters like that in future. We should examine them because they might provide a mechanism that would compensate for the loss of matters raised under Standing Order 32. Even though it may sometimes look like a waste of time, it is a vehicle that has been used quite effectively both by Government and Opposition backbenchers to raise issues of local or national importance. In that way, a Deputy can put on the record the fact that he or she attempted to raise a matter in the House. We should re-examine that proposal.

I welcome the proposal concerning Private Members' Bills. Anything that gives greater opportunities for TDs to present their own, or their party's, agenda is welcome. We are legislators so it might get some Members into the mode of examining legislation and producing their own legislative proposals. Since first having been elected to this House, I have produced a number of pieces of legislation so I know how arduous is that work. I have produced some single-line Bills which are easy, but I also worked on a substantial Bill last year concerning the control of head shops. It took an awful lot of work because I wanted to ensure the Bill was correct. I did not want to present something that could be shot down straight away.

While that proposal is welcome therefore, we should not oversell it because it amounts to an extra 28 hours a year, which is not a huge amount. It only comprises nine such Private Members' opportunities per annum of three hours each, which is not a substantial amount. In addition, it is shared across the board, so it is not just an Opposition facility but is also available for Government backbenchers. I know that many Government backbenchers are eager to use this facility when it is presented.

The proposal for Friday Dáil sittings is welcome, but it should not be used just to deal with Private Members' business. If the Chamber is full, we should also transact other business on that day, such as reports or other legislation. If the House is in session on Fridays, it should be open for the full day rather than three hours.

While I want to give a guarded welcome to the proposals, I look forward to working with the Committee on Dáil Reform and the Ceann Comhairle in dealing with other proposals that will be forthcoming for the second phase of Dáil reform, hopefully before Christmas.

See this speech in context