Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the work the sub-committee is doing. I am a member of the sub-committee and the engagement at it has been very useful and frank. It has been a very open and refreshing approach. There are many things on which we differ but the approach has been a good one. Arguments have been made today on replicating what we are doing with regard to Dáil reform in a number of other issues in the interim, such as housing. This would be very beneficial.

It is unfortunate that we did not start out today with the order that was agreed. That shows a difference in approach. It was possible to change the order earlier by reducing the amount of time that some of us got to speak. It was possible to change the order for this so there is a question about that and we need to get answers on it tomorrow.

One of the aspects of Dáil business of which I have been very critical is that it does not reflect what was set out in the Constitution in that there is no separation between Government and the Dáil, something that was what was envisaged by the Constitution. When people talk about a strong Government, what we really need is a strong Dáil. That is what we are mostly aiming at. Some of the proposals have been talked out and we have come to a consensus. It will be one of a series of draft reports that collectively will make a difference with the proviso that there will be a review in six months time to see if things worked and to tweak or change the things that did not work. That is a helpful approach.

In terms of Oireachtas reform, it is essential, and it feeds into some of the points that have been made by others, that we have political reform and not just Dáil reform. That goes beyond and, in some ways, intersects with what we are doing. The issue of transparency is becoming a more critical one. A recent example is the Panama papers. I have had my own struggles and am still having them in terms of getting answers under the Freedom of Information Act. Without transparency, there cannot be accountability. If one is on the Opposition side of the House and is holding Government to account, there has to be the prospect of transparency to do that job. If one can get more information by way of Freedom of Information than by way of parliamentary questions, I would question the value of parliamentary questions apart from a timing issue.

There are many other things about which we will need to talk once we go through the issues that will affect Standing Orders and that we can bring in pretty quickly. The Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, spoke about the previous Government being very productive, with 250 Acts passed. The problem is that 249, which is almost all of them, came from the Government side. We had a Friday sitting which was a superficial change. It did not matter because of the size of Government. Irrespective of the size of Government in the future, there is a unique opportunity now to change the nature of politics and to stop the Punch and Judy, offensive type of politics that sets a tone which is really offensive to the majority of people who are interested in watching how the business is done. More powerful, properly resourced committees where legislation can be introduced would make a difference.

The issue of the Whip and the sanctions is important. People who lose the Whip can lose their office, be taken off committees or have no prospect of being able to speak on issues. In some cases, we have seen people sanctioned for things their own party had advocated in advance of the general election.

Would we have had the crash had we had a functioning Dáil operating in a transparent environment? Would we have had institutions such as the HSE designed in the way they were? Would we have had Irish Water at all if the process had been thought out and people's inability to pay had been examined?

This, for example, was one item that came up repeatedly. Including people and this more polarised Dáil in decision-making better reflects precisely what people intended by their votes. I argue that strengthening transparency in decision-making includes vetting all Government appointments and independent judicial appointments in order that there is separation. In addition, it includes replacing the Official Secrets Act, which is inconsistent with freedom of information. I have argued for an anti-corruption agency that would have a single approach to co-ordinate anti-corruption measures. This is about examining the institutions because while it is one thing to have legislation, there is another side to ensuring such legislation can be delivered properly, be it in this context or in respect of services to be delivered. Moreover, the establishment of an electoral commission would mean doing things in an entirely different way.

While many matters concerning political reform could be added to Dáil reform, I am quite positive thus far regarding the behaviour of the sub-committee and how it is acting. I am hopeful this first group of meetings will be sufficiently productive to show there is the possibility of delivering something that is meaningful, rather than superficial reform in respect of the manner in which Members conduct business in this House.

See this speech in context