Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Bhí sé mar phribhléid agamsa a bheith ar an gcoiste seo a bhí ag plé le athchóiriú na Dála, agus is obair fíorthábhachtach í seo.

On the Sunday night of the election I spoke to Deputy Micheál Martin and I said that I thought things would have to change radically, considering the numbers. I suggested to him that night that we needed dramatic Dáil reform and an approach that had not only different rules but a different mindset. The acceptance of the new Dáil of the need to consider things differently is very welcome, but we must be careful that, having written quite a good report, one that is like a Lego set that can be built on, we do not think that that will necessarily change people's mindsets if they do not want to operate this in the full spirit of its meaning. We need much greater accountability from Government but we also need greater responsibility from Opposition. I hope that through debate we might be able to come to well teased out answers to quite complicated issues. Very few issues come forward nowadays that have simple black and white answers. One of the great challenges in politics is to look all the time for the unintended consequence.

As I see the report, there are the big issues, the headline issues, such as the business committee which represents a very different way of operating. I accept that it will be a huge challenge for the Government Whip to operate in a situation in which the business of the House is really decided by the House and not dictated by a parliamentary majority. The simple fact of the matter is that, whether we reform the Dáil or not this time, it would not be possible to do that any more.

The second thing is the whole idea of Opposition and Independent Members being able to put forward legislation but, as we know, putting forward legislation that can be enacted is a very highly skilled business. In the old days the tabling of legislation by Members of the Opposition was a way of highlighting an issue, but one did not really expect the legislation to be enacted. Now the challenge for this side of the House is to produce legislation that is of a quality that could be enacted. That is why the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser will be so important. Until now it gave legal advice more or less to committees, the Ceann Comhairle and the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Now we need people who will help to draft Bills, which raises another long-standing issue which we need to address, namely, the lack of trained parliamentary counsel in this country. My understanding from my time in government is that it was hard enough for the Government, through the Office of the Attorney General, to get enough parliamentary counsel. It is very important that we talk to the third level institutions and ensure that there is a stream of trained parliamentary counsel coming forward who can write legislation because being a barrister does not necessarily qualify a person to write legislation, which is a highly technical job.

Maybe the biggest change that will happen - again it is being forced on us regardless of whether we like it - is a whole different approach to the budget. This should have happened long before now. I argued when I was in government with my colleagues that we should change the way of doing business and put it up to the Opposition, I remember saying, to justify the alternative choices that it was saying were there. There is a huge opportunity now with the budgetary committee to do budgets in a different way, a systematic way. It will do away with budget day as we have known it. I hope it will become a pro formaand that all of the major issues will be teased out long before they become part of a budget. The fact that other people will be engaged, rather than just the Cabinet, in the discussion of the options in my view should be a help rather than a hindrance to Government and should avoid some of the pitfalls of the past where a small issue could bring down a Government. I often think of the introduction of VAT on children's clothing and footwear. It is fair to say that if the Taoiseach of the time, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, had known that would be the lightning rod issue, he would have put in another issue or proposal that would have raised the same amount of money, a cent on the pint, for example, or whatever the equivalent would have been in that time. Therefore, I hope we will be able to avoid some of the proposals put forward from time to time that draw the ire of the public. I hope also that this will be a very coherent process. I envisage each Department, sectoral committee and departmental committee considering their requirements and then feeding that into the central budget committee. If one's demands far exceeded any money that was there, that committee would then have to explain how the circle could be squared.

The second part of the report that is very important is the whole issue of our day-to-day responsibility and getting answers to parliamentary questions and to letters. In many cases we should not even have to seek those answers because the public should have been given them in the first place. I believe the Deputy has a role in this regard because we often have expertise in the rules. When people ask, "Why do people go to TDs?" I always say, "Why do people go to solicitors if they are going into a courtroom? They get justice in the court anyway." Of course, people should go to solicitors. It is handy to have one there who understands all the rules and laws. Similarly, I justify the feeling some people have that it is an advantage to be able to go to their local Deputy who, first, can change the law and, second, probably knows a lot about the detail of the various schemes. However, in most cases, if it is a simple query, the person should be given the information in the first place.

When I hear about reform of the Civil Service, I sometimes run cold because we tend to keep changing the structures in this country and we never leave them in place long enough for them to work properly. When I was a Minister I had a rule that if we were drawing up a form in one section of the Department, it had to be given to a clerical officer in a totally different section of the Department, and if that clerical officer could not fill the form with ease, then the form was too complicated for the public. If somebody whose day job it was to create and deal with forms and so on could not fill it out with ease, how the hell could we expect the public to do so? These are simple things that make the world user-friendly.

I believe everybody is entitled to a substantive answer to a letter within a fortnight. I have seen that operate in one of the Departments I was in, and it cut down on the huge amount of wasted time dealing with the reps. Once it got embedded in the mindset that should happen, it cut down on the work. The same goes for the responses to parliamentary questions. It still seems to be the culture in some Departments to try to give as little information as possible and to misunderstand the question if possible. There also seems to be a policy now to say, "I haven't got the information to hand, I will send it on to you when I can." That information should be given and given expeditiously. It is obviously important that Teachtaí Dála only ask questions that are relevant and which they want to use for some purpose and do not ask questions just for the sake of asking questions. That is another big issue.

Sa 54 soicind atá fágtha agam, ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil an-áthas orm go bhfuil glacadh leis an moladh go mbeidh coiste ann a bheas ag déileáil le cúrsaí Gaeilge, ní hamháin i dTithe an Oireachtais ach cúrsaí Gaeilge i gcoitinne, mar níl aon mhaith do choiste de dhaoine nach bhfuil aon spéis acu sa nGaeilge a bheith ag plé le cúrsaí Gaeilge - oideachas trí Ghaeilge, múineadh na Gaeilge, an Ghaeltacht agus na hoileáin. Chomh maith leis sin, caithfimid breathnú ar an gcaoi go gcaitear leis an nGaeilge sa Teach seo.

One aspect I have found most frustrating in this House over the years is that while I have no problem with people not being able to understand or speak Irish - that is their business - Members who do not understand the language do not extend to Irish speakers the same courtesy they would extend in the European Parliament if somebody spoke in a language they did not understand, where they automatically use the earphones to understand what was being said.

See this speech in context