John Halligan (Waterford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform, whose members were drawn from all political parties, on the wonderful job it has done. It is interesting that some people claimed the election would result in chaos in the Dáil on the basis that too many small groups and Independents had been elected and the variety of Deputies from the right and left was too great. It was argued that this would lead to instability and the Dáil would not be able to function. It should be noted, however, that if one or two parties had secured an overall majority, we would not be discussing Dáil reform today or proposing to give everyone who was elected the right to have a say in the House. Democracy is not so much about the will of the majority but the rights of the minority and that is what is important in this Dáil reform.

Dáil reform was not an issue on the doorsteps during the general election campaign. While people wanted to know what was happening in the Dáil and if it would be reformed, their focus was on other, more substantive issues such as health, education and housing, and rightly so. However, Dáil reform was an issue for many Deputies who believed they were not being treated properly with regard to speaking time and their rights, as individual parliamentarians, to represent their constituents and serve as legislators. The establishment of the sub-committee was important for these reasons.

I have some difficulties with certain aspects of the report. I note that some members of the Technical Group believe the proposals undermine their speaking rights on Leaders' Questions. That would be disappointing and wrong if it were the case because the Technical Group has a substantial number of Deputies and is an integral part of the Dáil. I understand it has ten members, making it a much larger group than the Labour Party. As such, it should have more speaking rights and time on Leaders' Questions and Priority Questions than the Labour Party or any other smaller group, including the Independent Alliance. We must be up-front and honest in that regard. If the Technical Group has ten members, it should be treated as a larger group. This issue should be revisited before a final decision is made on the proposals.

I have always had a problem with Priority Questions. It is an affront to Deputies that we are allowed only 30 seconds to introduce a priority question. These questions are taken in prime speaking time and address issues such as housing or the hospital crisis that affect the entire country. I will be very disappointed if the 30 second period for introducing a priority question is maintained. It is unfair to provide speaking time of only 30 seconds, followed by two one-minute slots for supplementary questions, for a priority question. Alongside Leaders' Questions, this is the most important aspect of Dáil business.

I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of the Technical Group on Leaders' Questions on a number of occasions. It was frustrating at times to be rushed along when raising serious issues in prime speaking time. This sense of frustration was not related to the publicity associated with Leaders' Questions but arose because I was raising important issues that affected us as legislators and the country. The Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle and Acting Chairmen must give some leeway on Leaders' Questions because there is nothing more frustrating than being rushed when raising a serious issue, as happened to me on a number of occasions. I recall speaking on the abortion issue when a number of women who had been raped or had pregnancies involving fatal foetal abnormalities were present in the Gallery. I found it offensive that the Chair rushed me while speaking on such an important issue. Some of the women who had come to the House to listen to a number of speakers, including Deputies Clare Daly, Joan Collins and Ruth Coppinger, pointed out that we had not been given adequate speaking time. The procedures in place for Leaders' Questions and Priority Questions should be re-examined.

I have faith in the willingness of spokespersons, regardless of which party or group they represent, to be honest during Leaders' Questions. I do not expect them to hog the floor or speak for ten or 15 minutes. The three minutes provided to introduce a question on Leaders' Question must be reviewed. Furthermore, the 30 seconds provided to introduce a question on Priority Questions is unfair and not good enough. The procedures in place for groups in the Dáil must also be reviewed to ensure technical groups are given adequate speaking rights on Leaders' Questions and Priority Questions and their speaking time is proportionate to their membership.

I do not see much in the document on the introduction of Bills. I do not like the idea of having a lottery for Bills. Legislation should be prioritised on the basis of when it was submitted. Bills should be placed before the House in order of submission. I understand a controversial Bill I submitted on assisted suicide has been lost in the lottery system for the past two months, although I am not sure where it is. I understand Bills can be submitted on any sitting day and several of these are then chosen every second Friday using a lottery system. This is not fair to Deputies who may wait for a long period for their Bill to come before the House. Legislation should be prioritised on the basis of the time at which it was submitted. This issue needs to be examined.

Dáil privilege is not referred to in the reform proposals. This important issue for many Deputies must be addressed. While I do not argue that Dáil privilege is being abused, I am concerned that a Deputy may make a factually incorrect statement in the Dáil that could have terrible or horrendous consequences for an individual or a family.

There must be some balance and checks must be put in place. I believe that if I have something to say in the Dáil, I should be able to say it outside of the House also. I am not saying Dáil privilege should be done away with. It should not be but we need to have some balance and checks. I do not know what these should be but we should think about the issue because of the possible far-reaching consequences of what is said.

Each of the 158 Deputies elected to the Dáil is elected in his or her own right, whatever constituents or ideology they represent, and whatever happens with these reforms, every Deputy has a right to speaking time. We must ensure that right is adhered to. If this means allowing for extra speaking time, so be it. If it means extending hours on a day or sitting another day, that would not trouble me or many other Deputies. Reform will mean nothing if Deputies come into this House and cannot raise or speak on a particular issue, perhaps because they are members of a small group or are Independents who want to plough their own furrow. These Members should have the same right as everybody else to speak, the same right as a Minister, the Taoiseach or any other Member. Dáil reform will be respected and judged on the basis that the person people voted for has the same speaking rights as everybody else. We are in a unique position now and have the ability to make far-reaching changes that will operate to the benefit of not so much Members, but people who pay attention to Parliament and want business and work to be conducted in a businesslike manner.

On one other point, I have noticed that an increasing number of people, like me, have no religious belief or are humanist or atheist. Out of respect, we stand for the prayer here but perhaps we should consider a moment for reflection rather than a prayer. While the prayer is obligatory, it looks disrespectful if a Member remains sitting or waits outside until the prayer is over. We must consider the increasing number of people who do not feel there is a place in this Dáil for prayer. I have nothing against people who want to pray but I do not pray. We should discuss the possibility of a reflection rather than a prayer, based on the increasing number of people who feel this is an issue.

Overall, we should look again at Leaders' Questions and Priority Questions. We must ensure that speaking time on these issues for groupings in the Dáil is not diluted based on the proportionate numbers in the groupings. Speaking time should not be taken from them because they happen to be a technical group or small party. I am disappointed that it appears that time allowed on Leaders' Questions or Priority Questions for the Technical Group, now a group of ten, may be reduced. That should not be acceptable to any of us.

See this speech in context