Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

We must take extremely seriously that we are messengers. We are not rulers; we are the messengers of the people, and we must have faith and belief in the wisdom and power of the people to bring change, as has always been the case, as Connolly mentioned.

This is absolutely true about the recent election. To my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever that the changed political landscape in here has to do with a level of popular mobilisation and politicisation of the public. There has been nothing in my experience like the level of political sophistication across the public that we have now, and that is a very good thing. The days when anybody could pull the wool over the public's eyes with rhetoric or spin about what he or she does are coming to a close. People are engaging. They are discerning and sophisticated in their understanding of what we do in here, and that is very much to be welcomed. The logic in the long run of this is a much more thoroughgoing democracy that involves direct and participatory democracy and measures like, as Deputy Paul Murphy mentioned, the right of the people to recall Deputies if they do not discharge the mandate given to them during an election. We need to move in that direction.

The specific measures proposed are generally all positive. The new business committee, which will allow the parties to discuss and have an input into the ordering of Government business, is a very positive development. Similarly, the new budget oversight committee and, connected to it, the independent budgetary office could be potentially very good. They would give all parties, those in opposition and in government, serious input into the budgetary process and, hopefully, in line with what I said earlier an opportunity for the public to engage in a serious way with what we do in the process of putting together the budget and to influence our priorities.

Although this is an improvement, I agree with earlier comments on the question of the Opposition still not being able to put forward proposals that involve a charge on the State as being problematic. Notwithstanding the constitutional limitations there, we need to push that envelop as far as we can so that there is that opportunity to put forward suggestions on tax and revenue raising and other matters that could be a charge on the State. There was nothing more frustrating for me in the past five years than when proposals of that sort were ruled out of order.

The pre-legislative stage is positive and can potentially offer the opportunity for the public to engage more in the process of putting together policy and legislation and for us to be conduits for the public to engage in that process.

The abstention proposal is positive for reasons that have already been outlined. It creates the possibility at least for everything not to be adversarial where there is not a necessity for that. Regularly, there are Bills where one might agree with some elements of them while disagreeing with others. I sometimes think the Government has done that deliberately in order to make it difficult for the Opposition to say it opposes one aspect but not another and try to put members of the Opposition in a difficult position of having to be in favour or against, even though they have mixed views on the legislation. Hopefully, that can change.

I raise a couple of questions about some aspects of the reforms that I generally welcome. The issue of Leaders' Questions highlighted by Deputy Ó Snodaigh is potentially problematic. On one level, proportionality is important but it is a problem if we have groups having multiple Leaders' Questions on the same day as a result of proportionality. We have never had that. It does not make a great deal of sense, particularly when it will be the case that as a result others, either in the smaller groups or in the technical groups that are likely to be formed, may not get a chance even in the entire week to make a comment on issues of important topical interest. We need to look at that. Fairness requires that groups, such as Fianna Fáil, which is bigger proportionally, should have a bigger share of these but reflecting the diversity of the Dáil also requires a little rebalancing of that to ensure all voices at least get some chance in any given week to contribute to those leaders' debates.

I would also make a point about Taoiseach's Questions, which has not been touched on at all. Taoiseach's Questions has to change. It is crazy. Often these are not questions and they go on for too long and the answers are nothing but exercises in winding down the clock. There can be answers of up to 15 and 16 minutes for questions. That is bonkers. To be honest, it takes completely from the value of Taoiseach's Questions, which could be a valuable exercise, for it to merely be an exercise in rambling and - what is that expression for just talking to-----

See this speech in context