Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----particularly those who served their time on the sub-committee. This Dáil should be the forum for that committee to continue its work throughout the lifetime of this Dáil. If we ever get a government together, it is something that we should take forward and consider very much in the context of what exists in other parliaments. I want to look at some points the committee has addressed, which I think are good and are moving in the right direction, but I will also spend time on some things that the committee has not considered but that we have a unique opportunity, at this juncture, to spend some time on. It is a fact that instead of a scenario in which the Dáil controls the Government, providing accountability, the Dáil has really been a creature of the Government, which has set the agenda, run the committees, and rigorously – in a vicious manner, in many ways – implemented a Whip system. The very odd Opposition amendment that gets through is entirely at the Minister’s discretion and is really just lip service rather than anything substantial. One of the key things that needs to be examined, which is linked to the Constitution, is the Whip system. In Finland and Germany, Members of Parliament are constitutionally guaranteed freedom to vote whatever way they want. Article 38 of the German Basic Law says that Members of the Bundestag shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience. That should be the case here, albeit in such a way that, if one likes, members of political parties or groupings are required through the discipline imposed by their political parties to support undertakings they gave in a general election. The reality is that we have a Whip system here which, rather than forcing people to stand by the mandate which they contest at elections, whips them into line to make sure they do not stand by the promises that they put to the people. The provision that exists in Germany and Finland should be provided for here. It is an essential democratic provision. This is also linked to the right to recall mentioned by Deputy Brid Smith. If somebody patently stands before the electorate on a certain promise and then comes into the House and does the opposite, it is not good enough to say that the people should be expected to put up with that person for five years or however long it is without the right to recall. That is a very important provision.

The issues of independent scrutiny and investigation were raised in a number of areas in the previous Dáil.

We saw it in terms of Garda accountability, NAMA, the foster care scandal in the HSE, which was set up by the last Government, IBRC and so on, much of which was stalled and held in the hands of the Government.

This Sub-committee on Dáil Reform should look at a provision, which exists in the German Parliament and particularly in the Danish Parliament, that in areas affecting the governance of the country, if 20% of the Members of Parliament seek a commission of investigation, it is required that it will happen within a certain timeframe and a declared budget. It should not only be a creature of government, it should be mandatory that it is undertaken. In situations where such an investigation may infringe on the entitlement of persons to their good name, there should be an independent judicial investigation. This is something that happens in Germany and Denmark and should be adhered to here. If the Dáil reform group is to continue, we should look at the best examples from Europe and the rest of the world. Other areas of democratic accountability should be built into the powers of the Oireachtas. The Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, should be answerable to Dáil Éireann in the performance or lack of performance of his or her duties. If 20% of Oireachtas Members or Oireachtas committees require that person to come in and answer, he or she should be obliged to do so.

There are a huge number of issues and we are only beginning this task. I like some of the measures that have been put forward and I very much agree that we need to change the way questions are directed. I am glad that some measures will be imposed in that way but we have to go further. We spent the lifetime of the previous Dáil trying to get answers to questions on the US military use of Shannon only to be kicked from Department to Department in a very deliberate manner by civil servants who seemed to be hell bent on not giving the answer that was genuinely sought. Not only should the changes being put forward by the committee be suggested but sanctions should be imposed on Ministers who deliberately do not answer questions. The guillotine has to go and we need to look at measures. Essentially, when we talk about Dáil reform, we are talking about democratic accountability. An amendment to the Freedom of Information Act providing for full disclosure of all materials, for example, concerning NAMA, IBRC, all other State agencies and agencies obtaining State funding, should be part of this.

Who knows what will happen or if we will have a Parliament in which we can advance some of these issues. One thing is very clear in all of this - it cannot be divorced from our Constitution. It cannot be divorced from the fact that our Constitution is completely out of touch with the reality of a modern Ireland. It was somewhat ironic that the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, convened a housing meeting last week given that he was Minister for a number of years during which he blamed the Constitution for why he could not deliver on many of these matters. All of us have experienced issues on which we wanted to bring change and have been told that the Attorney General has said it cannot be dealt with. We need a proper, accountable Constitution for the modern age. That should be part of the discussions.

In deference to others who took part in the sub-committee, I will not take my full time.

See this speech in context