David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to speak on the motion. I attended all the meetings of the committee and, as other speakers have said, it was a revelation to see how people worked together and listened to each other - I agree with Deputy Thomas Byrne in that regard. I believe we have come up with a historic report. Other speakers, such as Deputy Howlin and Deputy Ó Snodaigh, have, like myself, spent many years trying to get Dáil reform onto the agenda and to make changes.

In fairness to the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, some changes were made in the last Dáil, although once they are made, they disappear into the workings of the Dáil and people do not see them. Nonetheless, a number of important things happened. For example, pre-legislative scrutiny had a major impact on how legislation was developed, although much of it happened in the committee rooms, down in the dungeons, where I spent many hours and days. Topical Issues were brought in instead of Adjournment Matters, and they were brought to the middle of the day so an issue raised by a Deputy got a better time slot. Leaders' Questions were extended to three days of the week. At the same time, questions under Standing Order 32 were sidelined as they were a waste of time.

Much of what we have to do concerns making efficient use of the time we have and making the House more interactive and perhaps less adversarial. This Chamber is set up to be adversarial whereas the committee rooms are not; they are less adversarial and committee members roll up their sleeves and work and listen. I contend there is consensus on 90% of what we debate here because it is needed by the people and the country and we get on with it.

By the way, one change I would like to see is to the alphabetical listing of Members. For example, if someone's surname begins with the letter S, that person is always at the bottom, which can change things.

The business committee is a huge new innovation. This is in vogue in many other countries across the world. The Ceann Comhairle, known as the speaker or president of the parliament in other countries, has been given a very powerful position in the Dáil. This is not before time. The fact the Ceann Comhairle is now elected by majority and by secret ballot and has a mandate from everyone in the House, enhances that position. The position of the Ceann Comhairle should be enhanced as an independent arbiter and we should examine how this can be done in the coming years. I pay tribute to the Ceann Comhairle and to all the staff who worked with us in the committee to bring this report forward.

A package of Dáil reforms was worked on in almost every Dáil going way back but nothing ever happened because it was a case that all was agreed or nothing was agreed - that was the mantra. Then, when an election came, the whole thing was shelved and had to start again and again. In a previous Dáil, the former Minister, Pat Carey, and myself had agreed a package of reforms but, unfortunately, an election came and they did not come about until the last Dáil. This incremental process is part of that. The intention is that other reforms will be needed. Some of these reforms may not work - we will have the unknown unknowns that jump up - and, as others have said, other reforms may have to be tweaked or revisited as time goes on. The budgetary oversight committee is another major reform. My committee did quite a bit of work on that, as did the finance committee under former Deputy Liam Twomey. The OECD was commissioned to carry out a report on this issue, which states:

The relationship between a legislature and an executive goes to the heart of national democratic life. Across the OECD, each country has developed its own traditions, customs and legal frameworks to give expression to this relationship. Similar issues arise from one country to another: How can the parliament best exercise its accountability functions? How should the country balance effective, decisive government action with the deliberative, oversight and control functions of the parliament? How can parliamentary scrutiny enhance trust in the fairness and effectiveness of public policy-making?

The report then looks at specific issues. With regard to the table on page 30, the report states:

The “Index of Legislative Budget Institutions” is a composite metric that compares legislative budget engagement across countries, based on a range of objective criteria. The results ... show that the level of budget engagement by the Houses of the Oireachtas is the lowest observed in any OECD country.

We were the worst when it came to budget scrutiny engagement and oversight. The new budgetary oversight committee and the budgetary office will have major roles to play in changing this scenario. The justice committee engaged in a little of this on a pilot basis and I can tell Members that it will take a lot of time, work and study and involve training for them. This is serious stuff and it will be a whole of year budgetary cycle. It will not be a one-off but will happen throughout the year. The detail is scary. It is badly needed and welcome and we really and truly have to get our teeth into it. Supporting this work will be the independent budgetary office, a major reform which is badly needed. Members and staff will have to be trained for this work. The first point made in the report is on training and the development of Members and staff to strengthen their capacity in financial analysis and scrutiny. It also mentions technical and independent analysis and briefings for committees in scrutinising the budget process. It will also be a major challenge for Departments and Ministers to produce the figures, facts and information in a manner that can be understood and debated in committees. This was one of the problems we came across.

The number required for a group will be reduced to five. When is a group not a group? We probably need to look at this. We have political parties which register as such, with members and councillors, while in the Dáil we have had a technical group which, in the main, was established to enable those who were not members of parties to come together to gain speaking rights. They were mainly Independents and Members representing smaller parties. Now we have another situation developing, where groups are formed which are not technical groups in the House as such. They are political parties in everything but name. We might need to look at this and I said so at the meetings. This is a new departure. They are not parties, but they have the rights of parties. Perhaps if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

A proposal about which we have spoken for quite some time concerns the split between plenary and committee time. It is very frustrating to be at a committee when a vote is called in the House. One must leave the committee and delegates who have travelled long distances must then wait for 20 minutes. This reform is welcome. Many parliaments throughout the world do this, including in Finland. It is something we need to do to ensure committees have their own time. I am not sure whether enough time is being given to committees. There is provision in the report for committees to meet outside the specific times if they need to do so.

Pre-legislative scrutiny has been mentioned and the justice committee did this a lot. It is very useful. I listened to what Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh had to say about Private Members' Bills, whereby something might happen and one might want to table a Bill for political purposes on a particular day. If serious legislation needs to be developed, my advice is to submit it for pre-legislative scrutiny because it is amazing how much one learns. NGOs, citizens and academics can be invited to have an input. I have seen Bills being turned on their head from what the Minister and the Government had initially planned to introduce because of pre-legislative scrutiny. The same could happen with Private Members' Bills. The idea of having a legal adviser giving advice on whether a Bill is constitutional is important. It would be very foolish of the Oireachtas, as can now happen, to force through a Bill, in spite of the Government and the Attorney General stating it is unconstitutional, and then having it shot down in the courts. It might be useful to receive this advice earlier. If the Attorney General states a Bill is unconstitutional, it should be accepted and that should be the end of it. I agree with Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh on post-legislative scrutiny, which is important.

A smaller number of members on a committee is envisaged. In the previous Dáil we had more than 20 members on some committees, which is impossible. I have mentioned attendance at committees. It needs to be encouraged in some shape or form. The working group on committee chairmen will be enhanced and given a stronger role and the Taoiseach will appear before it, which is important. We will have 24 committees - seven thematic, 14 sectoral and three housekeeping. We may need to revisit this number, if there are too many. A proposal has been made that one person could chair a number of committees, but we will still have 14. Perhaps some of the thematic and housekeeping committees could be chaired by the same person.

If I understood Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh correctly, he spoke about raising one issue during Leaders' Questions. The original intention was that one issue, the burning topic of the day, would be raised. I was here when it was introduced, as was Deputy Thomas P. Broughan. For many years there were rows when a party leader wanted to raise an issue which had happened overnight or recently and could not do so because Standing Orders would not allow it. When the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, became leader of Fine Gael, it was one of the first motions he brought forward and it was accepted at the time. It was a big reform.

Question Time needs to be more efficient and we need to work the clock. On some occasions in the previous Dáil only two oral questions were taken. Everybody should have the chance to ask a question and receive a response. It should not just be spokespersons of parties. Backbenchers need to be allowed to do so also. Questions should be snappier. We should not have long drawn out questions and answers and speeches before questions. Question Time is not the time for Second Stage speeches; a question should be asked.

The powers of the Ceann Comhairle have been mentioned with regard to written and oral questions and Topical Issues. An appeal or complaint can be made to the Ceann Comhairle if a Member believes he or she is not receiving information. I draw attention to one caveat. A Minister should have a chance to correct the record. If someone makes a complaint to the Ceann Comhairle, for instance, where a question was asked about how much had been spent on a particular item and an answer was not given, this is a clear breach and the Minister should have an opportunity to correct it and should be sanctioned afterwards, if necessary.

Tabling questions during the summer recess has been mentioned for years, decades in fact, and now it will happen. Members will be able to table written questions during the summer recess, which is useful.

Many State bodies and local authorities are not as accountable as they should be to the democratic process. Let us get this done because it is important. We need to revisit this issue.

I suggest everybody be reminded of the protocols in the Chamber. It is very distracting if someone walks in front of the person speaking. We should all address the Chair and not each other across the Chamber. Questions and comments should be made through the Chair. That would lead to a far more efficient way of working and doing business.

I wish to speak for one moment about the rise of populism. Churchill or someone said it had been said of democracy that it was the worst form of government, apart from all of those others which had been tried. I worry a little when I hear people speak about getting rid of and taking down the establishment. What would be put in its place? Does anywhere in the world have the perfect system? I challenge those on the extreme left to tell me where it is. Where is this utopia about which they always speak? I would like to see it.

There is talk of wider political reform. Fianna Fáil has made a very interesting proposal in its document, that when a Member becomes a Minister, he or she resign from the Dáil, as happens in Sweden and France, and replaced in parliament by a parliamentarian. The Minister would do nothing but Minister's work and would no longer be a parliamentarian. It is an interesting idea and it is done elsewhere. Perhaps it is something we should consider, but I believe it would require a referendum.

As I am at it, I will throw this into the mix. Do we really need by-elections? Are they a complete waste of time and money? Do they make major changes to the overall picture? Do they distract us here for one month or longer? Could we do what is done in the European Parliament and elsewhere and co-opt if someone resigns or passes away and get on with it? I am advised that it would probably require constitutional reform but as a wider political reform, it is something we should probably examine.

See this speech in context