Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Minister. Unfortunately, those warnings proved accurate and the report was indeed left on the shelf.

I do not wish to be partisan on the last day of business in the House, but I must point out that the only movement we have seen from the current Administration in the area of parliamentary reform was the effort before the election to garner votes on the basis of a commitment to abolish the Seanad. In fact, that became the tag-line for parliamentary reform for the Government, the be all and end all of its ambitions in this area. That was most disappointing at the time and I suspect that disappointment might well now be shared by many of my colleagues on the other side of the House. It was certainly an eye-catching slogan which attracted a great deal of media attention in the run-up to the election. I am convinced, however, that the abolition of the Seanad would not enhance democracy in this State. We should bear in mind that if a referendum were put to the people at this time to abolish the Dáil, it would probably succeed. We must be careful and considered in our approach to reform and any action in this area must be strategic. As others have said, we must consider best practice in other jurisdictions, while also heeding the positive aspects of our own culture and developed parliamentary practice. That tradition has served us reasonably well, notwithstanding some considerable failures along the way. In that context, I hope there will be a more broadly-based approach in respect of efforts to reform how we do business in these Houses.

The Oireachtas Commission has done important work since its inception, but a great deal remains to be done. Likewise, there is further work to be done by the parliamentary service reform group that was involved in bringing forward proposals for this particular Bill. The Minister of State has indicated that there will be further amending legislation relating to the modernisation of senior management. Everybody who works in Leinster House recognises the need for new structures suitable for the modern era. These Houses could very easily become bedded in the past rather than looking to the future. We must keep pace with technological developments, which requires having people with expertise in that area. There are fantastic individuals working in the Oireachtas who have sought external support in modernising the workings of the Houses. Whatever the Government is prepared to do in this regard will be most welcome.

We have a very dedicated staff in the Oireachtas who have worked tremendously well against very difficult deadlines. Many people do not appreciate that when parliamentary business runs late into the evening, certain staff are obliged to stay on to prepare amendments and so on. That is often lost in the commentary about the cost of operations of the Oireachtas, which can look high when consolidated over a three or five-year period. These are fundamental aspects of the running of a democracy. There is certainly scope for tightening up, perhaps through a greater emphasis on technology. That is something we all support. It is important, however, not to undermine or detract from the phenomenal work done by Oireachtas staff.

There is an onus on elected Members, both in government and opposition, to find better ways of doing our business. Observers of proceedings in the Oireachtas who are sometimes irked to see only three or four Members in the Chamber at a particular time may not understand how business is ordered on a daily basis.

That is why we must give a more extended period of time to Leaders' Questions and to the Order of Business, when parliamentarians get the opportunity to discuss current issues of national importance. That is ultimately what the news programmes carry and what people look at each day. It would be nice, perhaps, if they spent more time tracking the more mundane legislative proposals that might not apply to them for years to come, but they do not. They look to Parliament to hear about the current issues of the day. We have much work to do with regard to giving appropriate time to allow issues to be discussed and thrashed out a little more, even if that takes half a day for three days per week. We would achieve better engagement with the public. I accept that is not something the Government agrees to easily, regardless of who is in government, and it is easy from an opposition perspective to identify and highlight the advantages of such an approach. I am also mindful that business must be done and what might be considered more mundane tasks, such as debating, amending and processing legislation, is important work that must be scheduled as well.

I hope the Minister will fulfil his commitment in the new year to introduce legislation to deal with the modernisation of the senior management structure of the Oireachtas services, based on the work of the parliamentary service reform group. If that amending legislation is brought forward, we will have an opportunity to discuss in more detail the type of expertise and access to information that is required to ensure the Houses of the Oireachtas remain in step with the public and have access to the latest technology and the greatest capacity to communicate with the electorate. I welcome the progress made in broadcasting the proceedings on one of the television channels. Unfortunately, it is not freely and widely available. I urge the Government to enter into negotiations with the transmission providers, be it RTE or TV3. We were led to believe that the arrival of digital television would mean a far greater capacity to deliver a greater number of channels. The Ceann Comhairle has done a considerable amount of work on this and I hope the challenge will be met by TV3 or RTE or whatever broadcaster can provide that facility to the greatest number of people, as happens in other jurisdictions. There is, for example, C-SPAN in the United States, and I am sure there are similar facilitators in other jurisdictions. I will conclude on that point.

See this speech in context