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

This has been a very useful exercise. The tone was set by the Ceann Comhairle who chaired and facilitated the reform process. Everybody on the committee made a contribution and it is a rare thing to be able to say that.

I extend my thanks to Mr. Peter Finnegan and the staff of the Ceann Comhairle's office who have worked behind the scenes to present papers, tease out issues and find best practice elsewhere. It was a useful exercise.

Adopting a package of proposals is one matter but living up to them is entirely different. How we use the proposals made in the report will be down to us all. I have been critical of the Dáil not setting its own agenda. Under Article 15.2 of the Constitution, that power lies with the Oireachtas, but there has never been an equal distribution of power. It has resided exclusively with the small number of people who form the Government, following which there are degrees of influence, depending on whether a Deputy is a Government backbencher. Some of it is done in party rooms. For the Opposition, it involves holding the Government to account. This is the first time there has been a redistribution of power between the Government and the rest of the Parliament. That will be expressed, first and foremost, in the business committee which will not just decide the different times at which business will be taken and in what format, for example, in committee or the Chamber. In setting the agenda it will change what is done rather than simply how we do it by accepting and working with the diversity of this Dáil.

I was a member of the Constitutional Convention. During one of the sessions on Dáil reform Professor Michael Marsh of Trinity College Dublin attended to discuss list systems and, among other issues, restricting diversity. He discussed Independents, in particular. How the citizen members reacted was interesting. They wanted greater, not less, diversity, which has played out in the election results. It is not that a particular election result is an aberration, rather it is a deeper expression. I was surprised by how forceful that view was at the convention.

I wish to highlight a number of issues. There have been improvements in terms of freedom of information, but the responses to same have varied, depending on whom one asks. Some Departments and organisations are good; some are all right, while others are terrible. It shows a cultural difference. There is nothing wrong with the legislation, rather it is a question of how it is embraced. Frustratingly, one can obtain more information via a freedom of information request than via asking parliamentary questions. We addressed this issue in the report. There must be a cultural shift to answer questions fully. The appeals mechanism is one in respect of which we will have to be diligent if we are to bring about change. That change is not just about those of us sitting in the Chamber but also about those on the ministerial side and in the Civil Service. The more information we can put into the public arena, the better. The committee debated a matter Deputy Brendan Howlin previously discussed as a Minister, namely, having an open approach to information. Not only must the House move towards this, so too must the institutions of the State. If there is information available, it should be put into the public arena. That would give people a great deal of confidence about issues not being hidden and we would be open to providing information they had a right to receive.

The business committee will be important. It gives expression to the changing nature of the distribution of power. If it does not work well, it will be the greatest failure. There must be a throughput of legislation from the Government, the Opposition and Government backbenchers. This system must work within the general timeframes that have been set out in order that work will not be frustrated but advanced in a timely way and in order that legislation from all sides of the House will be adopted.

I was a member of the former Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht which initially included matters to do with transport, tourism and sport. Its remit was too wide. We undertook two large pieces of pre-legislative scrutiny work, one of which items was climate change. For approximately two weeks Professor John Sweeney of what is now Maynooth University worked with us and we invited various groups to appear before us. It was a useful process. However, the good report we wrote did not shape the legislation that was ultimately adopted. That legislation is flawed, as it does not set targets and will cause problems. There is not much point in undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny unless we include the expertise of organisations and citizens invited to appear before committees in order that we have good engagement and both sides which might propose good ideas. There must be a way of ensuring good ideas end up in legislation. Introducing pre-legislative scrutiny was a good change, but it did not always deliver the results desired, thanks to the Government's size.

Post-legislative scrutiny presents real possibilities. In the case of some Acts, the period involved will be one year. In the case of others, it will be longer because time is needed to show a pattern. Many of our failings are institutional. If we adopt legislation and it does not work as intended, one often finds that there is an inadequacy. Perhaps there is not sufficient support in an organisation or it needs to configure itself in a different way. The purpose of post-legislative scrutiny is to secure a better outcome for citizens and have institutions that work and become citizen-centred. If they do, less will be demanded of us. Many of the issues raised in the House and at constituency level are raised because of failures at institutional level. This will show up during the post-legislative scrutiny stage. That housing is probably the number one issue for all of us lets us know that there is a failure. People should be able to find out about their rights and entitlements, but this can prove difficult and politicians often become middle men or women in a process in which they should have no involvement. The post-legislative scrutiny process can address the issue of clientelism if it is taken to the extent required.

A useful aspect of the process was that, from the outset, we were not concerned about everything being perfect. Matters can be as good as they can be and there is a review mechanism. Not everything will work perfectly or at all. It is useful to accept this from the outset and to have a mechanism whereby one can review what is not working, tweak or change it completely in order that it will work.

Those involved engaged in the process in a very honest way. Most people would want the vast majority of elements to play out as intended.

There are one or two aspects I do not support. If mandates are pooled in a group, this should be reflected in the order of how things are done. Although I am now in a party, I believe the pecking order regarding how Members are called should reflect the mandate as opposed to how the mandate is constituted. This would reflect the diversity, which has been decided on not by us but by the citizens. I expressed my view that I did not support the aspect on mandates.

Budgetary oversight will be really important because up to now, we have had staged pieces of work, very much delivered by the Government, rather than a process. If the process is right, it will be very useful from a citizen's perspective to see what the choices are. I refer to how much money is available and how it might be spent. It should not just be a question of the one year. Consider a scenario in which one would spend a lot more money on youth, communities and diversionary programmes for communities with specific challenges instead of on criminal justice over time. That is the kind of outcome I would like to see. Ensuring our budgets really are equality budgets may well help to bring about what I desire. The question of how we spend money should not just be about a one-year scenario. Good decision-making would entail not just one piece of work over a year but consideration of the outcomes in the lifetime of a Government or Dáil.

One feature of the last Dáil was the guillotining of legislation. The very fact that this has ended is very good. We have ended up with very poor legislation in some respects because Bills did not receive the kind of scrutiny required. While we may see less legislation, better outcomes will benefit all of us, both inside and outside the House.

It appears there will be multiple technical groups. There will have to be support to make this work. This would be in everybody's interest. I acted as the Whip for the Technical Group on the last occasion and noted the arrangement then was a constant source of problems. The Minister needs to be able to telephone one person and not 15 or 16 to impart information. The smooth running of the House in terms of timing has to be achieved and there ought to be support for that. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission should not delay on this — the sub-committee does not have power to do this — because it would set a very unacceptable tone. What I propose needs to happen if the system is to work for everyone.

See this speech in context