Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the Government has brought forward some measures, and albeit some ones in the past couple of months. There is a kind of inverse relationship between the length of time one has been here and the amount of time one speaks which would indicate that the longer one is here, the more one realises speaking in the Chamber is futile. In fairness to him, Deputy Durkan is probably one of the honourable exceptions.

The Minister of State touched on a very important point. He mentioned that in the last Dáil, the Government, with the exception of one member, was on an allowance. Some 50% or so of the Opposition were on allowances. This gives rise to one of the great corrupting forces in our political system, namely, the concept of patronage. Every Member of this House and the Seanad should be on a similar wage. Perhaps there should be a small ministerial allowance but there should be wage parity because that would stop patronage, whether one is in government or in opposition. Clearly, it has been a reason for patronage and corruption of a sort in the past.

In regard to the Dáil, there are two fundamental issues when we strip everything away. One issue is the position of the Ceann Comhairle. We are fortunate the Ceann Comhairle has an independent and strong voice. I do not say that lightly and I do not seek to patronise him with those comments but it is true and I think it is acknowledged across the House. However, it is important that from here on in we elect the Ceann Comhairle, that it is an independently elected person who has responsibility for the administration of the House and offices so that everybody has confidence in the Ceann Comhairle. That needs to be done.

I refer to the second thing that needs to change. I am not targeting the Minister of State or any of the Chief Whips over the past years but unless the mindset of Government changes, we will not have change in this House. I am neither a Government nor an Opposition Member - I am in a twilight zone - so I think I can look upon this in a fairly neutral manner. Prior to the last general election, a commitment was given that all important announcements would be made in the House. I do not know how many announcements there have been on job creation and I know the Tánaiste attended many of them. Virtually every one of them was made outside this House. We started a debate on jobs and job creation in this House and it is still on the Order Paper as it has not been completed. I acknowledge it is in the Government's interest to down-play the importance of the House and that is why the mindset must change.

I will give the House a classic example. By and large, I support the Finance Bill but there was no lead-in to it. The debate on Second Stage of the Bill will finish tonight but I will not have the opportunity to speak on it, notwithstanding the fact the others have been facilitated with some time. Will the Government try to comply with the spirit of the direction issued by the Ceann Comhairle in respect of the allocation of time because it has not been complied with?

Somebody brought up the issue of a button where one can abstain from a vote because of a concern about the analysis of the Oireachtas. What about a button for those who want to speak on measures but who cannot do so? Can we have some way to facilitate that because there are many Members who would like to speak on measures? The most important legislation will go through tonight but many Members will not be able to speak on it. Will the Minister of State take those messages to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste?

Reference was made to the Seanad referendum held five or six weeks ago. That had the potential to bring about the most fundamental change to the Oireachtas since the foundation of the State but we have not had a debate on the issue, which is a disgrace.

Will the Minister of State, in conjunction with the other Whips, do something about walk-through votes? They are a reflection on the Opposition more than on the Government and we were guilty of calling for them when in opposition. If the public saw what we do when we call for a walk-through vote, they would see it is infantile. Could we cut that out? I do not know the purpose of a walk-through vote.

See this speech in context