Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is good that we are having a debate on how to change our way of doing business to become more efficient, transparent and accountable. As everybody in the House, except Deputy Adams, knows, this was discussed at length over a long period by the Dáil reform committee. It was discussed by the Parliamentary Labour Party at our think-in in Carton House. I thank Deputy Tuffy for her very positive contribution at that meeting.

I do not propose to address the detail of this tranche of reforms or earlier reforms that have been put in place as it has been adequately covered; suffice it to say that the transformation since I was first elected some 25 years ago has been very marked. Twenty-five years ago, Government backbenchers were to be seen and heard only under instruction. Now Government backbenchers raise matters through Question Time, the Order of Business and Topical Issues as regularly as the Opposition. That is a very positive development in holding the Executive to account. Backbenchers can no longer be regarded simply as cannon fodder.

This is a democratic Assembly elected by the citizens of this democratic Republic. I, for one, am very proud to have been chosen to be a Member. Our job is to make law and hold the Government to account. With regard to holding the Executive to account, a large part of our sitting time is actually devoted to that objective. As stated, it is not only the Opposition Deputies who do this but also the Government backbenchers. During a normal working day in the Chamber, the Government is made accountable by use of Private Members' time, Leaders' Questions, questions to the Taoiseach and Ministers, Topical Issues, the Order of Business and debates on legislation and motions. The space for legislating is restricted but the new extended sitting hours and days, outlined in the motion, will provide some balance in this regard.

On legislation, it is a reality in all democracies that the government proposes the vast majority of legislative measures. There will be enhanced opportunities under the proposals before us to extend the time and space for the consideration of legislative proposals by backbenchers and Opposition spokespersons. Regardless of who introduces legislation, the Members of the House debate it, parse it, amend it and either support or oppose it. Making law is a complex matter. First, a policy to be made law has to be decided. Heads of the Bill are then prepared and sent to the Government. There is then pre-legislative consultation. The Bill then proceeds to full drafting and is sent to all Departments for their observations. It is then subject to final Cabinet approval. It then passes through five separate Stages in the Dáil and Seanad and it is then sent to the President, who can sign it or refer it to the Supreme Court. There will now be a post-enactment report to the relevant committee. This is part of the new procedure proposed today.

There are, rightly, severe checks and balances and that is how it should be, as the lives and welfare of citizens who elected us are affected. They deserve no less. I do not foresee any significant change to the procedure, which has been tried and tested over time.

The biggest issue to be resolved is the time to be provided for the passage of a Bill through its various Stages. It is not possible to allow debate to continue indefinitely but it is necessary to ensure that all aspects of a Bill are scrutinised and debated. Where the legislation is urgent or required to be law by a set date, agreement should be reached on the maximum time available and how this can be applied so no section is passed without debate or scrutiny. We do this already through the Financial Resolutions arising from the budget so we do not have to reinvent the wheel to do so. The proposal, if accepted, would remove the possibility of political play-acting, whereby all the time available is spent debating the Title of a Bill, for example, resulting in the Government being accused of bulldozing the Bill through the House. I urge all sides in the House to examine this aspect of our legislative activity to ensure legislation passed is properly debated and scrutinised.

There have been rather frantic calls in recent times for what has been described as "far-reaching reform". I have heard no substantial proposals from either the Opposition or the commentators who made the demands. The only constant demand is for a free-for-all that would lead to the regular defeat of the Government. The reality is that the Government in power has in Parliament majority support without which it would not be the Government.

The Whip system is described by the commentators in question as dictatorial and curbing freedom of expression and action. I have been a Whip for many years and the only power I have is that vested in me by Labour Party parliamentarians, my colleagues. The Labour Party meets once per week and makes decisions on how it will vote on various issues. This is usually by consensus, but sometimes a position is arrived at by majority decision. All members of the group who have accepted the decision are expected to vote accordingly, as would be the case in any organisation. If anybody does not accept the decision of the group, he or she is free to act contrary to the group's wishes, and some have done so.

A great deal has been done since I first came to the Dáil to make the working of this House more effective but there is still room for further action on the various proposals from all sides. As has been said in another context, a lot has been done but there is more to do. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context