Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We have a list of changes to Standing Orders that are hardly earth shattering. In fact, it is an extension of the superficial changes that, in reality, change very little. The changes were announced by the Government in advance of the autumn session of the Dáil, yet Article 28.4 of the Constitution makes it very clear that the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann. Deputy Joanna Tuffy is correct; it is not the Dáil that is making the announcements, it is the Government. Article 15.10 states each House of the Oireachtas shall - not may - make its own rules and Standing Orders, with the power to attach penalties for their infringement and shall have the power to ensure freedom of debate. In that regard, reference has already been made to equality. This and previous Governments have commandeered the role of the Dáil. It is a power grab; one that has been ongoing for a very long time.

If there are to be fundamental changes to the way in which we do business and if we are to learn from mistakes, we must realise that democracy needs checks and balances. This was envisaged by the drafters of the Constitution and the people who approved it, yet there is nothing in the Government's reform programme that addresses this. More democracy is needed, not less, yet there is a greater concentration of power at the centre.

There is a proposal to increase the number of hours and sitting days but sitting on the second Friday of each month will not be meaningful. We propose that there should be one Friday sitting with votes rather than two half days so as to be meaningful. The reform proposals move around times, such as the time for ministerial questions. We believe the new time proposed will make Question Time less effective, not more effective. Some changes have been made regarding Topical Issues. The Government says it wants greater diversity and to encourage women or people with young families to enter politics, yet it is providing for a sitting day on Wednesday from 9.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. This kind of development really flies in the face of the kinds of developments that should be occurring. Sittings should be over five days and there should be a more normal arrangement.

What would a functioning Dáil look like? It would have checks and balances. What went wrong at the time of the crash was related to the concentration of power in a very small number of people. We are told the committees are where the work will happen. There is much talk about the committee system but committees are not terribly well attended, despite what it said. This is because it is impossible to be in two places at the one time. There are fault lines associated with committees. Since one is not allowed advice at the pre-legislative stage, one is often told on sending one's document to the Government that the Attorney General says one's proposal will not work. The fault line must be addressed. I have been saying that for some time now.

Nowhere in the Constitution are political parties referred to. Article 40 confers the right to form associations and unions. It states laws regulating the manner in which the right to form associations and unions and the right to free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination. Some of the rules in the Standing Orders are quite discriminatory. Equal recognition is not afforded to various groups in the Dáil by comparison with political parties. My saying this might be inconvenient for those who are institutionalised in the political party system but the reality is that the mandate was given by the people and it should be respected.

This morning, we could not even stand up and object to the time that was being allowed under Standing Orders despite the fact that my group has 16 Members, which is more than Sinn Féin. We could not stand up and make a point on the Standing Orders and the ordering of business because we do not constitute a political party. For months on end, we have on the Order Paper a motion suggesting this needs to be addressed. However, there is no commitment to address even that. It flies in the face of how the Constitution sets out how we should do our business.

Most members of the Technical Group, including me, will be opposing the changes to Standing Orders because they are superficial, will cost a lot more and not deliver anything meaningful in return for the investment of time. Essentially, they do not go to the heart of what is needed. If we are to have radical reform and a democratic revolution, it is about time that we recognised the aspects of that revolution that are more than about ticking boxes, which is what is occurring.

See this speech in context