James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing with Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin.

I welcome the reforms in the Dáil. As a new Deputy, I suppose I know no different to the previous arrangements. However, as an observer of the House and being in the political process for some time, I would be familiar with them.

I commend my party colleagues, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív who has just spoken and Deputies Thomas Byrne and Darragh O'Brien, for their part in this, as well as all the parties. I understand it was a constructive collaborative process. As a previous speaker stated, the House works well when it works and the political system has produced a positive outcome in this case.

It always puzzled me how the separation of powers did not appear to work in this House, as it was designed. The machinery of State is designed with an Executive, a Parliament and a Judiciary, each keeping tabs on the others. The Judiciary is certainly independent and the Executive is ultra-independent but it appeared that the Dáil had little role to play in those checks and balances. I have known Deputies of different hues who have recounted experiences of arriving in the House in different terms and finding themselves essentially surplus to requirement and voting when the need arose. Sometimes it did not matter whether they were in government or in opposition. If one was in the Executive, one was all powerful but if one was not, one was cast out into the wilderness where one had little role to play. That is a most unfortunate and undesirable situation and these Dáil reforms are engineered to address that and from my reading of the report, they appear to do so.

We all have individual mandates. All of us, as Deputies, and all of us who belong to groups, parties and technical groups have rights and responsibilities. It is a positive step in that regard to put in place those checks and balances and to enable the Parliament to act in this way.

We saw the first example of it last night with the Fianna Fáil Private Members' Bill on mortgage interest rates. It was good to see that Bill going through and, to an extent, history being made. Let us hope we see many more issues raised by all sides in the House. I am sure there will be agreements and disagreements but each party has the right and the opportunity now to contribute constructively to those.

Other Deputies said it is fair to say this is not a normal workplace. The arrangements in the workplace here take a little getting used to. Having said that, Deputies and the system are accommodated. It amuses me to an extent that it appears that the sitting hours are designed for the pony and trap era more so than the modern day - Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, with a late sitting on a Wednesday. My understanding is it dates back to Daniel O'Connell coming up from the country on his horse and cart but, obviously, that no longer pertains. However, the working arrangements mean that the constituency matters of Deputies, including me, take precedence on Monday and Friday, with legislative duties on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and these complement each other. That same system has appeared to work well - water has a way of finding its own balance.

I would make an observation on the Thursday votes, an issue Deputy Mattie McGrath also mentioned. My understanding of the proposal is that back votes will be bundled together into a Thursday sitting, perhaps a two-hour window when Deputies will come into the Chamber to vote en masseon different issues. I appreciate wiser and more experienced heads than mine have studied this and come up with the formula based, presumably, on experience, trying to minimise time wasted in sessions and trying to be more efficient about operating business. Coming from a local authority background where votes were commonplace as well, I would voice one concern. Sometimes there is a moment in time during a debate when there is a particular drama, there is a particular passion in the chamber and minds are concentrated, and then votes occur. I wonder a little about postponing the votes for two or three days or maybe even a week and voting on maybe 20 items in one slot. It seems a little artificial. I wonder is it overly mechanical and would one's mind be concentrated to the same extent as in the live debate, although time will tell.

I mention the budget review office. This is a welcome and sensible move. My understanding is that the United States Congress has had such an office in place for a couple of decades. Approaching budget time in recent years, it has become a political performance, asking whether one had one's proposal costed by the Department of Finance. This provoked much discussion and the Department became a sort of de factobudgetary review office. Now a formal one is being put in place and that seems to be a welcome, positive and sensible move.

See this speech in context