Dáil debates

Wednesday, 6 April 2016

6:55 pm

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Acting Chairman. It has been said by other Members that the way this debate has developed shows how difficult it is to get the culture of change in through the Parliament. The Dáil subjects itself totally to the Taoiseach when he happens to be in the House and is offered the first opportunity to speak, which is what caused the whole problem in the first place. The order of the day was to be that the members of the committee would speak in alphabetical order as the first contributors to this debate.

As stated by other Members, the committee on Dáil reform is working well and a lot of consensus has been reached at the committee meetings. That has been very positive but it is a pity it did not transfer through into the operations of the House today. We have to live with that for the time being and hope it will work much better in the future and that the new changes will filter through to the workings of the House. The report before us deals with a number of issues and I wish to deal with some of them. On the formation of groups, Deputy Howlin mentioned earlier that we cannot deal with this until we know the make-up of the minority Government or whoever it is will make up the numbers of the Government. It is important to remember that the work of the committee will affect future Dálaí as well. We, therefore, need to get this right at this stage. We cannot focus solely on the make-up of this Dáil when deciding on how groups will operate. The principle that a grouping of five will be agreed to through the reform process is the right principle. Along with that principle, how those groups will be resourced and structured so that they can participate within the workings of the Parliament needs to be addressed. That is vitally important. It has been brought up at the committee already but it needs to be concluded as part of the process.

The proposal on abstentions in the voting process is a positive one. A suggestion that Members would be able to explain the reason for their abstention and that this would be facilitated through the record in some way was made at the committee. This should be allowed. It will be interesting to see how the proposal relating to the business committee, which is very welcome, develops and works because that will change definitively how the business is ordered in the House. However, it is important that the business committee would assert itself over the Legislature and the independence of the Dáil in terms of deciding the business of the House.

It is vitally important that the Dáil does exert itself. As I understand it, this House, during this interim period when there is a caretaker Government in place, could and should be taking decisions by way of votes and resolutions and instructing the caretaker Government to do certain things rather than allowing the current situation. There are massive, pressing issues outside this House such as the homelessness crisis and the water taxation issue. We have no opportunity to debate those issues on the floor of the House today because this House, as a result of its standing orders and past rulings of the Chair, has, in effect, suspended itself. This means that this House cannot decide any of those pressing issues while a caretaker Government is in place. That is totally wrong.

I will give an example. The caretaker Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine signed Statutory Instrument 125 of 2016 into law on 1 March. That statutory instrument will have serious implications for fishermen but we have no way of scrutinising it or dealing with any motions that could rescind it. What makes this even more stark is that, in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine admitted that the statutory instrument does not have a sound legal footing. Yet he went ahead and signed it into law. He is a caretaker Minister in a caretaker Government which is taking decisions and this House is unable to scrutinise them. That is wrong. Even in this caretaker situation, this House should be in a position to scrutinise and direct the caretaker Administration to stop doing some of the things it has been doing because they will have serious impacts across the board, not to mention the housing crisis and the rest of those pressing issues which need to be addressed. With that, I conclude and hand over to Deputy Katherine Zappone.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.