Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will speak through the Chair. I do not wish to be in any way controversial on this. I did not go into the committee with the expectation that we would have the degree of co-operation there was. Everybody from all sides of the House went into that committee in a spirit of co-operation. I pay tribute to the Ceann Comhairle and to all colleagues who worked on the committee for their positive engagement on the issue in recent weeks. I was about to say then that it is a pity we stumbled in this debate because part of the transformation was to have members of the committee in alphabetical order giving their views on it.

The debate has been constructive and useful. Much of what was discussed and agreed is technical. Many people who talk about Dáil reform, particularly those looking in from an academic perspective, do not think we are really talking about the timing of taking votes, grouping votes or disaggregating plenary from committee. In fact, most of them have no idea what we are talking about if we talk in those terms. These are what might be described as organisational issues. They are important but probably do not represent the reform people have envisaged when talking about fundamental Dáil reform.

Many of the things we did in the previous Parliament are much more reforming in that sense, for example, deepening freedom of information, having a register of lobbyists and regulation of lobbyists, giving overarching protection to whistleblowers and so on.

The provision of these technical matters is important. Committee time has to be organised in a way which will allow Deputies to be usefully engaged in the process of debate. We cannot be in two places at the one time. This crossover has been driven by the volume of business that the House needs to conduct. When I first came into this House, all the work was done in the Chamber, including all Committee and Report Stage work. All the press watched the Dáil in one manifestation doing its work. The fact that now one can have four committees, as well as the plenary sitting, means we are four times more productive. However, that is certainly not the perception. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, we need to do much more explaining of this. Using this Chamber, as well as the Seanad Chamber, for committee work will be part of that.

We have a comparatively small number of Deputies, with a reduced number in this Dáil than in the previous one. When we compare ourselves to the European Parliament, or even to the House of Commons with close to 700 members, for us to develop the skills-sets to ensure the sort of expertise which is a matter of norm in other parliaments, the scale involved is much different. We have to be, by definition, jacks of many trades to function here and make useful contributions on a variety of issues.

Committee proceedings, by definition, receive less media attention. Often, the technicalities of Committee and Report Stage debates are too complicated for people to follow. If we are not sitting in plenary, the detailed work and minutiae of committees are not properly represented. Accordingly, I welcome the proposal for the establishment of a business committee which will broaden and deepen the old Whips system, which sets the business of the House, in a much morecommunautaireway. The critique of the system up to now is that it has been controlled by the Executive. Undoubtedly, the new proposals will allow for greater visibility and input into how the House does its business. It will, of course, prove effective, or not, in the way it operates in actuality as opposed to in theory.

We have challenges we need to resolve. The Constitution is clear in its framing of the responsibilities between the Executive and Parliament, particularly in money matters. The new arrangements must ensure the Executive - I do not envisage myself long being in the Executive - must be able to function in dealing with the people's business as well. That is why I was a little annoyed and discommoded by Deputy Micheál Martin's contribution on this issue. He talked about the budgetary process needing reform, a point on which there is a consensus.

See this speech in context