Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the House and my colleagues on the sub-committee for being late. I was still on Seanad time because the Order of Business in that House used to last an hour. I recommend to my colleagues involved the Seanad reform or innovation to reduce the length of their Order of Business because half an hour is sufficient. I thank my colleagues for facilitating me.

I thank all my colleagues on the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform for their work and co-operation. Every member, left, right and centre, and the officials worked really well together once the doors were closed. It is fair to say all of us contributed in an astonishingly co-operative and constructive way. All of us worked hard, put forward our ideas and compromised to some extent and accepted, possibly, what other members had to say.

With regard to the lesson on how we did our work, I admit the Constitution requires us to do our work in public in general in this House, as we do, but there will be times when some work will have to be done in private. Certainly, it is possible to do a lot of work in private and much can come out of it. In such circumstances, all Members can talk freely. This is what one gets from it. I am simply referring to the procedure of the House, the way we do business, but there must be lessons to be learned in this regard for all of us across the entire political spectrum. Every possible grouping had representation or some sort of effect on the process. All of their concerns were met, or at least met halfway.

When my leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, proposed this, almost on day one of this new Dáil, there was some guffawing and there were some accusations that it was merely a diversionary measure. This has clearly been proven to be false by the Members, including the Taoiseach and all the leaders of the parties, who took this process seriously. However, the measure was necessary. It has been talked about for many years. I speak for my party in saying we recognised this as a massive issue in 2011 and we also recognised it as a huge issue throughout the term of the last Dáil. We are constantly thinking about and putting forward policies for reform. Fianna Fáil has had a comprehensive policy on Dáil reform.

The numbers, based on those elected to this Dáil, dictated that we really had no option but to change the way we do business. It seems that the Members, and the officials, in fairness, have copped on to the story and know circumstances will be different. Our friends in the media must realise that if the Government loses a vote, or if the Opposition does not win one, as will soon turn out to be the case, it is not a crisis; it is just democracy in action. It is a crisis for a Government if it loses a vote on confidence or stability and there are arrangements in place for that. However, it is not a crisis if the Government loses a vote on a day-to-day policy issue; it is simply the reflection of the democratic will of this House. Constant pressure on the stability of a Government based on this side of the House winning a vote or succeeding in an argument should not be an issue. The media and the rest of us should call the Government to account in terms of how it is running its Departments and the policies it is putting forward but the Government should be held to account when the Dáil decides its policy is wrong. It should simply be reported that the Dáil, as the supreme legislative body in this State, has decided differently. That is the way it should be; it should be ordinary.

This Chamber should be deliberative to get the best possible result and nobody should be imposing his or her will on anybody. I certainly object to the talk of Fianna Fáil vetoing items. We have got 43 Members and are in no position to veto anything. The reality, as with the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform, is that we will have to work together to get the best possible solution for the people. For the moment, we have the best possible solution for this House, which is, of course, the House of the representatives of the people.

For my party's part, we have continually pressed for real Dáil reform. My party and I welcome the measures that the sub-committee has put forward. We need a strong Legislature and it has to be as independent of the Government as possible within the confines of the Constitution. This Legislature must have an impact on policy and must fully scrutinise Government actions. It is critical to democracy and it is an accepted part of the job. We must, and have an obligation to, do it properly. We must create an efficient Parliament. It must be attractive to all walks of life, including families, and also Members who live in constituencies far from Dublin, where the Constitution requires us to meet.

We in Fianna Fáil — the sub-committee would agree with this — are committed to the ongoing implementation of these reforms. Many of the reforms will require implementation and some will require review. If the House has got something wrong or finds something does not work, I will certainly be in no way embarrassed to say it has not worked and advocate that it be changed and that we move on.

I was particularly interested in two aspects of the report, the first of which was my party's proposal to establish an independent legal office to strengthen and change the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser. The office provides very important services to Members of the Oireachtas and the Oireachtas Commission, as was very much in evidence during the banking inquiry when all the boxes were ticked to enable the inquiry to do its work within the parameters set down in the Constitution. The sub-committee recommended that the office be placed on a statutory footing to underpin its independence and states it "would be appropriate for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to play a lead role in the development and initiation of this legislation with a view to early enactment".

What do we want? Twice in the past week and on multiple occasions previously, the Opposition was presented with advice received by the Government from the Attorney General. By its nature, this legal advice cannot be released and my party would not call for its release on the basis that to do so could reveal weaknesses in the Government's case and damage the State. The Oireachtas requires separate, independent advice on the Constitution and this should be provided for by Statute. Such advice was provided in the case of the O'Higgins commission of investigation and the Private Members' Bill tabled by my party this week. While work remains to be done on the details, I envisage that the parliamentary legal adviser would enjoy a position similar to that of the Attorney General and would only provide advice to the Oireachtas. I do not make this suggestion to cause conflict or division but to ensure Parliament can stand on its own two feet and the flow of information no longer comes exclusively from the Government. In the case of advice from the Attorney General, we do not have a flow of information but a Minister's interpretation of advice received. This proposal is a key element of the reforms and would give Dáil Éireann great strength and backbone in its dealings on behalf of citizens.

Reference was made to an independent parliamentary budget office and a budget committee which would be indirectly linked to it. The reason we need an independent parliamentary budget office is to ensure Members have a separate flow of information because practically all the information we receive is from Departments. We need a counterpoint to that similar to the highly respected Congressional Budget Office available to the US Congress. The Houses have a team of researchers and economists who do outstanding work. Under this proposal, this service would be given more status and resources, not to serve Members but to serve the country better. This change would make a serious difference to how we do our work in a collaborative manner.

Deputy Ó Cuív described the way in which this Dáil will work as a partnership, not between one party and another, but between the Oireachtas and Government. This way of working will result in division as well as agreement and it is essential that the Oireachtas side of this partnership has its own resources and source of information in order that it can act on behalf of citizens. Based on strong expert advice, it may also choose to make decisions that differ from what the Government wants, as the House did yesterday.

I took the strong view at the sub-committee that a sectoral committee should be established for every Department. The previous Government merged a number of committees, placing, for example, education and social protection in one committee and transport and arts in another. While this looked good in that it reduced the number of committees and addressed the perception that committees were established for Members' benefit, if we want effective scrutiny of Departments, we must establish a committee to shadow each Department. Last year, I was a member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, which shadowed two Departments. Under these proposals, that committee will separate into two committees, which will mean a new committee on health will focus exclusively on the Department of Health and Health Service Executive and a committee on children and youth affairs will focus exclusively on the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Tusla and associated bodies. This is a good development and should be acknowledged as such.

Those who believe it is better for Members to have more committees are mistaken. A sectoral committee for each Department will mean each Department can be properly scrutinised and each area of policy properly developed by the House, with Members able to specialise in a given field. While some Members will be appointed to more than one committee, the numbers of members of committees will be reduced. Members will also have a greater obligation to play a full role on the committees of which they are members.

Members of the public who have listened to the rhetoric about the Dáil having a strong voice as a consequence of the election result will ask questions at the end of this Dáil term. I do not know if that will be sooner or later but people will ask what happened to the enhanced role of the Dáil and what did the Dáil do. We can start by pointing out that we introduced a Bill on variable mortgage interest rates with which the Government did not agree. When that Bill proceeds to Committee Stage in the new committee on finance and public expenditure, I hope Deputies on all sides will engage in debate and submit amendments. I spoke to Deputy Michael McGrath last night on a particular issue on which no problems should arise if we work collaboratively and take on board genuine concerns held by the other side. Perhaps some people believe the legislation does not go far enough. The passage of the Bill through Second Stage shows that we have a new way of doing business. We must all take responsibility for this and get involved in it.

I am particularly pleased that a new Coiste na Gaeilge will be established. This is an important development because the Irish language is at a critical juncture. As the House debated the Irish language yesterday, I will not dwell on the issue other than to compliment, as I did in Irish yesterday, the former Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Joe McHugh. His level of Irish is astonishing and he deserves great credit for what he has done. He is a great example to anyone who wishes to learn the language. It is incredible to listen to him speaking in Irish and I say this as one of those who protested when a Minister without spoken Irish was appointed to the Department. Deputy McHugh has proved himself worthy of his previous role and I wish him well in the forthcoming appointments of Ministers of State.

If we are to be serious about An Gaeilge, caithfimid an Ghaeilge a úsáid ar na laethanta agus sna díospóireachtaí nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge nó an Ghaeltacht mar ábhar mar cainte acu. Members must use the Irish language on occasions other than debates on the Irish language or the Gaeltacht or during Seachtáin na Gaeilge. We used to speak Irish in the Seanad from time to time. The Houses have translation facilities and Members should speak Irish. Deputy McHugh, who could not speak Irish, now speaks the language at native speaker level, which shows that it is possible for anybody to learn Irish. No one should experience difficulties or feel inhibited in this regard.

Those of us who attended the private meetings of the sub-committee in the weeks after the House agreed to the initiative on Dáil reform are giving their spiel. I am interested in hearing the views of other Members who may have difficulties with the sub-committee's proposals and may point out flaws in them. That is the purpose of this debate and the reason a vote has been scheduled on the matter for next week. I thank my colleagues on the sub-committee and the officials involved. The work starts now. We must do as citizens asked by passing good laws when they are needed and rejecting poor law when it is not needed.

See this speech in context