Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I wish to echo the earlier comments of Deputy Catherine Murphy and a number of other speakers. Those of us who are members of this sub-committee on Dáil reform have pretty much common agreement that it is working well. Nothing could illustrate this better than the contrast with this Chamber which, in the first three days on which it has been sitting has not had the same sense of collaboration or of getting business done in a timely and effective manner. That is a pity in some ways and if there were television cameras inside the room off the main entrance hall in Leinster House for the meetings members of the sub-committee are having, it might restore a little public confidence in a political system that people can share experience and ideas and that politicians in particular are the right people to be making these decisions. Unlike anyone else, we have certain expertise in how this place works and it is absolutely right that it falls to politicians, rather than bringing in academics or outside experts as some have suggested. No outside expert could have relayed some of the detail that came out of the discussion held earlier today on the nature of how this Parliament works by those who are within it. To confirm what the Cathaoirleach has heard from others on the sub-committee, it is working and during this hiatus in the political system, Members should avail of this opportunity over the next three or four weeks to get as much out of the system as they can. I wish to have its remit broadened, as other speakers also have noted. It is a pity that such a collaborative sharing of expertise in the nature of Dáil business is not being applied to resolving what must be done with the Seanad. Members on all sides would acknowledge the method for electing the Seanad is not working and is neither an open, transparent, participative process nor a fair process. I refer to how some people have five votes, whereas other people have none I regret the sub-committee does not have the ability to take items such as Deputy Zappone's previous Bill or other Bills to establish whether it could agree, in the same collaborative fashion, on some mechanism for the Seanad, that is, of recognising the decision by the people in the referendum four or so years ago, which I read to mean they did not seek to remove the Seanad but did wish to reform it. Once members of the sub-committee have finished their business with the Dáil proceedings, why would they not look to ascertain whether they can get common agreement on how they would proceed on that issue? I do not suggest the precise measure here but why not use the same round-table process involving 14 or 15 Deputies to ascertain whether success can be achieved in this regard?

I also believe Members agree, pretty much across the House, on the need for radical reform of local government. I refer to many of the ills to be seen in this Chamber and many of the problems Members have in giving out that they are engaged in localism or clientelist politics here. Perhaps it is because sufficient power is not being given back to local government or, I would argue, to regional government. Doing so would free this House to be what it should be as a much more strategic centre of thinking for the State. I certainly would welcome the same process in this regard or, as the sub-committee finishes this process on how the Dáil is reformed, to examine whether cross-party agreement can be reached on how local government can be reformed. As some Deputies from the Anti-Austerity Alliance also noted earlier, that should be extended yet further to ascertain whether there are mechanisms of direct democracy in which one could engage citizens in a referendum process that would restore or strengthen that sense of civic engagement with the Republic. I would move on to this third tier of reform, which I believe to be necessary.

If I may, I will consider briefly reform within this House. It is interesting that when one gets into an honest and open debate about it, one recognises that one needs a stronger Opposition and a stronger Parliament. However, if Members are being honest with one another, they do not wish to kill the goose or to create a system in which the Government cannot function. Much as people might dream up elaborate systems in which parliaments, like Athenian congresses of old, could run the Government and run the country in some interesting way with Aristotle on one side and Plato on the other, within the Constitution we need an Executive. We have a mechanism whereby a Cabinet is appointed and that has Departments. I do not believe this Parliament will overthrow completely the working mechanism of the State for the past 80 or 90 years and suddenly succeed without a government. Consequently, in whatever form, we need to get a system in this House that works for Government as well as for Opposition or which gives the ability for Members to do what is their core role, which is to hold the Government to account. Those who are in government need this as much as do those in opposition. As a Minister, sometimes one actually welcomes that as a way of bringing one's Department with one and of organising it. As the Acting Chairman himself is aware, there is a responsibility here in how this is managed, in order that Members receive proper replies to questions from Departments. In addition, Members have a responsibility, if I might draw the Acting Chairman's attention to this point-----

See this speech in context