Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I join the Government Chief Whip in congratulating those who took part in the RTE programme. They succeeded in giving the public a useful insight into the work of a parliamentarian. While it may not have been all positive in terms of how the public viewed it, it was realistic and generally helpful.

A Cheann Comhairle, you are to be complimented on the fact that you brought the RTE cameras into the House earlier in the year and gave the public throughout the country, many of whom have never visited Leinster House, the Dáil or the Seanad, an opportunity to see the House in all its glory and to build some understanding of how the place works. That was very positive.

Reference has been made to Dáil reform and the work of the Whips. When I was re-elected to the House and appointed Whip by my leader, I joined the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, Deputy Catherine Murphy and others in the task. There was a certain sense of enthusiasm on the part of all of us about our ability to do something. I had a sense that for the first time a group of people were working together who would get their teeth into the whole area of reform and do something about it. I have been disappointed with the outcome not because of any shortcomings on the part of any of the individuals, but because I believe the Government Chief Whip has found himself having to report back to Government. Whereas the Government Chief Whip may have been willing to try new ideas and go down new avenues, the Government has been inordinately conservative in how it has approached the whole area of reform. Its reform agenda is obviously particularly limited.

The Government Chief Whip made reference to the difficulties he had in his previous nine years in the House. There were many talks about reform during that period and there was in fact some meaningful reform. During that period Leaders' Questions were introduced for the first time and that in itself has been a substantial reform giving as it does the opportunity for party leaders to question the Taoiseach. I am also given to understand that one of the impediments to achieving overall agreement during the course of those years was a major reluctance on the part of the Labour Party to enter into agreement on the type of reforms discussed. Whatever about that, the reality is that when the Government was elected it referred to a democratic revolution. What we have gotten so far is far from that and all the indications are that what we are going to see is minimal tokenistic change and change that is being presented to the media as of far greater significance than it is in reality.

The Government Chief Whip has done a fine job with the Topical Issue debate. It worked well initially, but then it began to go into decline when Ministers ceased to make themselves available. Since the matter was highlighted before the summer break, we have seen an improvement. I hope that improvement continues and I hope we continue to get meaningful responses from Ministers.

The question of committees was raised. The Government reduced the number of committees when it was elected but total control rests with the Government to appoint the chairpersons. If I am not mistaken, only two Members of the Opposition are chairs of Oireachtas committees and neither of them chairs a legislative committee. The Government Chief Whip and the Taoiseach have adverted to a package of reforms. They have said they are going to use the d'Hondt system for the appointment of chairs in future. That is all very well but it really is a case of "God make me pure, but just not yet". We will have to wait until the next Dáil for that significant change and God knows which of us will be here, if any, when that eventuality takes place.

The Government published an eight-page document on Dáil reform last September. While elements of that reform obviously had been discussed by the Dáil reform committee, the Taoiseach gave specific undertakings to the leader of my party, Deputy Martin, and to the leader of Sinn Féin, Deputy Adams, to engage with them on that matter. However, such engagement never happened. Thereafter, a meeting was held in the run-up to the Seanad referendum and while I do not consider myself to be a particularly cynical person, it would be hard not to be cynical and not to regard that meeting as a box-ticking exercise that was carried out simply and solely to be able to assert that the Government maintained its commitment to reform, had met the Opposition and everything was hunky-dory. However, an alarming feature of that meeting was that the Taoiseach told those present that none of the reforms that had been discussed with the Opposition leaders were going to change. Anything the leaders had to say about future reform would be welcome and could be considered in the future but this did not apply to the current package of reforms. Consequently, our scepticism about the process that is in hand is understandable.

Deputies have referred to the Friday sittings and considerable credit is due to those who have initiated the Friday sittings. It is a highly positive development whereby backbench Members, the bulk of us, can produce Bills and can introduce them into the House. However, for this to be truly meaningful some of that legislation and some of those Bills must find their way into law. The Government must agree that at least someone on the Opposition has had a good idea, even if by accident, and has come up with a good proposal the Government is willing to take on board. To date, that has not happened and I believe I am correct in stating that not a solitary legislative item that has been discussed on Friday in this Chamber has as yet found its way into law. Moreover, I dare suggest there is considerable likelihood that few if any of those proposals will become firm items of Irish legislation between now and the end of the term of this Government. If that is the case, then Members are involved in nothing more than a process of self-delusion. They are coming into the Chamber to discuss proposals and are telling the people they are great because they are present for two Fridays each month and have increased their sittings accordingly. However, what is the point of it all, if ultimately, the legislation discussed is not enacted, not put into force and not given the effect of changing and improving the lives of the people?

I suggest there is a correlation between the sittings of this House, their duration, as well as Friday sittings and Members' capacity to make this House and a career therein something that is attractive to younger people and to women in particular. In the course of the debates that took place at the Constitutional Convention, I was struck forcibly by the public perception of this House, of politics and by the reasons one hears that people do not wish to become involved in politics. They perceive, among other things, the type of life involved to be anti-family and anti-marriage. Moreover, for both men and women - it is important to stress this is a matter for men just as much as for women - the type of lifestyle Members have is perceived to be not conducive to raising a family and spending the time one should spend with one's children. This is something that also should be taken into account as it affects the Friday sittings and the time of sittings. As for being in the Chamber until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., as was the case during the last term, apart from such practices clearly not being family-friendly, how, for the love of God, could one be effective in dealing with legislation if one finds oneself in such a predicament on any sort of a regular basis?

Finally, Deputy Ó Snodaigh has raised a simple but valid point. From time to time, legislation or motions will come before the House and for whatever reason, Members will come to the conclusion they should abstain on such legislation. All Members are now subject to analysis by the media in all shapes, including social media and whatever, but when one abstains there is no record of this. Consequently, a Member with a number of conscientious abstentions finds his or her participation in the process, such as it is by way of abstention, is not recorded. As a matter of principle, some methodology must be found to record those who do so. A system already is in place that records those who vote in favour or against a measure but it is reasonable to suggest, as has Deputy Ó Snodaigh, that some form of registration of abstention should be found.

I offer those few thoughts and would appreciate the opportunity later on to revert, if time allows.

See this speech in context