Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I was a Member of this House for a year and a half and, without trying to bring a very sour note to these proceedings, there were many very low points in that time in terms of how the Dáil functioned. One of those low points, which I remember well, was myself and Deputy Coppinger being told to toddle along because we asked a very simple question about payment figures for Irish Water. We subsequently asked for those figures in five different ways but we never got them. The reason was that at that time 70% of people were refusing to pay, as we subsequently learned from freedom of information requests.

Another low point was when Deputy Catherine Murphy had to ask 19 times, to no avail, different questions to try to get information about Siteserv. Another low point was the repeated shutting off of Members' microphones whenever, for example, they mentioned a very rich and powerful individual in Ireland connected to Siteserv. The reality is that many of the very important issues raised by the left, by Independents and by small parties were not heard in the previous Dáil. That has to end now. That is one of the purposes of the Dáil reform process we are undergoing. The two and a half party system is over. It was finished off by the electorate 40 days ago, finishing off a process of a long-term secular decline of the two big parties. That is also part of a European-wide process, which is seeing a rewriting of political landscapes. There is a new political landscape still to be created but that means the Dail has to change. It has to change from a system dominated by the two and a half parties.

This must be reflected in the work of the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform and what is ultimately agreed in terms of such reform to allow the opinions and views expressed by the people through the election of a wide variety of representatives, including a number of small parties and Independents, to be reflected and given a proper voice and a proper hearing in the Dáil because what happened in the previous Dáil simply cannot happen again. We welcome the formation of the sub-committee and the progress in its work so far. It has been productive. The staff involved in the production of papers at short notice should be complimented on and thanked for their work, which has been essential to the work of the sub-committee so far.

Some of the issues that have been provisionally agreed and are included in the interim report are important. The reduction in the number of Deputies necessary to form a group is essential to reflecting the reality of the changed Dáil. The agreement to allow the formation of more than one other group - let us not call them technical groups at this stage - is very important again to reflect the new Dáil we have. A provision of fair distribution of speaking time and slots to reflect proportionately the new Dáil we have is essential. The provision for the Ceann Comhairle to be able to point out when questions are not being answered is important.

There are many other issues we still need to address, even within the limited framework of the Dáil reform process.

One is the proper discussion of legislation, eliminating as much as possible - and it is a lot more possible than it has been - the use of the guillotine and allowing proper time for discussion and consideration between Stages. Strengthening parliamentary questions is a key issue that we must address. The answers we get, regardless of where they come from or what agency is involved, should be put on the Dáil record. The point is that questions should be answerable to the Parliament through the Minister. It is essential that questions have a similar standing to the freedom of information provisions.

The Dáil should be able to set its own business. The business committee is an important step in that direction, but we still have the problems we see at the moment whereby, effectively, the Taoiseach is the only one entitled to propose the business of the Dáil.

The last specific point on Dáil reform is that we should talk about the Prayer. We think the Prayer should go. It is anachronistic that we start every day here with a prayer. We have an increasingly secular society. We want a secular society. We want a complete separation of church and State and in that sense we believe that the Prayer does not belong here any more.

See this speech in context