Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom míle buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Crowe fá choinne a chuid ama a roinnt liom. Cuirim fáilte roimh an tuairisc ón bhfochoiste. Caithfidh mé a rá go n-aontaím le mórchuid de na moltaí atá inti. Má tá athchóiriú Dála le bheith againn, ba cheart go mbeadh athchóiriú intinne againn fosta ó thaobh na daoine a úsáidfidh na struchtúir úra seo.

I am a bit of a sceptic with regard to Dáil reform and political reform. While I welcome the proposals in the sub-committee's report, I do not believe they are groundbreaking measures worthy of taking out our big flags. Some of them are very simple. I refer, for example, to the recommendations that additional time be provided and that Deputies be entitled to get direct answers to questions. In 2004, my party pioneered the campaign for a independent costings unit, which is a big issue for me. We led the charge in regard to that and we received a commitment from the outgoing Government that such a unit would be introduced. We made the point that this was one of the OECD's recommendations in this area also. I think this will be a strong addition to the Oireachtas, as will the provision to us of legal advice.

I welcome the proposal to allow the Ceann Comhairle to intervene when a Minister is not giving a direct reply to a question. I suggest this should be extended to Leaders' Questions. There is no reason to preclude the Ceann Comhairle from intervening when a direct answer is not being given on Leaders' Questions. I cannot understand why Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not want that to happen. That is my understanding of what they agreed at the committee. They want all Ministers with the exception of the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste to be under the threat of sanction from the Ceann Comhairle. This week's events were a good example of why we need to apply this proposal to Leaders' Questions.

At present, there is a ruling from the Ceann Comhairle that a proposal to annul a statutory instrument, which is permissible within 21 sitting days, must be taken in Private Members' time. My view is that this is not accurate. As not all Members of this House have access to Private Members' time, and especially not within 21 sitting days, the effect of this ruling is to deny some Members their right to annul a statutory instrument. We have tabled a motion to annul the statutory instrument in relation to the penalty points issue, but the clock is ticking on it.

As I am mindful that my time is running out, I will be brief in speaking about pre-legislative scrutiny. I believe our legislation must be as fit-for-purpose as possible. I am not convinced that the proposals in this regard will work, although I am willing to be convinced. I will explain the difficulty in this regard. If the finance committee, for example, has to consider ten finance Bills that have been proposed by ten different groupings, how will it be able to engage in pre-legislative scrutiny of all of them? Some of them will not proceed to Second Stage or Committee Stage. If the committee has to go through the pre-legislative scrutiny stage in the case of each of them, it will tie up the work of the finance committee completely. I have yet to be convinced with regard to how this will operate in practice. I welcome the recommendation in terms of how money Bills will be addressed by the committee and I have tabled legislation on behalf of my party proposing a constitutional amendment in this regard.

I listened with interest to what Deputy Pringle said about Leaders' Questions. He said that a shift in attitude within the committee had resulted in a proposal to assign the political parties greater roles in Leaders' Questions. My personal view is that on a single sitting day, as many groupings as possible should be facilitated during Leaders' Questions. It is not on for parties to be given an opportunity to raise multiple matters during Leaders' Questions on a single day, while other groupings are denied the opportunity to raise a single issue on the same day.

See this speech in context