Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As a former Whip and someone who has been around this Chamber for a couple of years, I should make some comments on the points made in the document. With every turn in the road, there comes a need for change. If one keeps going straight, one ends up in the fence. The general election saw the people bring about change in a certain direction. It is very difficult to figure out what was intended, but the draft proposals encompass, in so far as possible, a means of accommodating the intentions of the people when they voted. The reforms bring much more power to the Parliament than it had but with power comes responsibility. I point this out for everybody's sake. There might have been a suggestion in some of the earlier speeches today to the effect that one could have power without responsibility and blame somebody else if things did not happen in accordance with one's wishes. It is not that way, unfortunately. The reform proposals are a great opportunity for everybody to take responsibility and become involved in the serious and responsible process of governing. There is now a partnership between the Parliament and the Executive, the Government. Neither can exist without the other and neither can exist without the help, advice and support of the other.

Deputy Thomas Byrne mentioned the role of the Attorney General. He is correct in saying the Attorney General is the legal adviser to the Government. Nobody else has this role. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, disclosure of the Attorney General's advice would make his or her position impossible in the event of a court challenge. In fact, that happened some years ago when an opinion was offered that entered the public arena and was used very effectively by an opposing counsel. As we know, the job of the opposing counsel when it has its day in court - no disrespect to the legal profession - is to do the best it can for its client, whoever it may be. Counsel does not get paid to sit down, accept or acquiesce but to do a job, namely, to win. Those of us who have been in court will know this is how it works.

It is no harm to remember that this change brings about power and also responsibility. Reference was made to the tyranny of the European Union. In case we are misleading ourselves, I must point out that the tyranny of control from the European Union is not tyranny in itself but a mechanism put in place to ensure fiscal stability and cohesion. It is put in place to ensure no gdministration in Europe can take off on a tangent that creates the kind of liability we saw created in this country and a number of others in the past ten years. That should never happen again. Those who believe it could not happen need only consult some of the other governments across Europe that have been similarly affected and afflicted. Some governments in other parts of Europe were adamant in the past few years that they had a different and better system than others, that there would be no pain and that they could abolish what has been called "austerity". Unfortunately, it did not work out that way and they had to revert to continuing in the same old way. To protect our interests in the future, it is significantly important that we act responsibly and that responsibility begins in this Chamber. If we act responsibly, these reforms will be very successful. The country will benefit, as will the European Union. While many people have commented on bureaucracies in every country and advocated that they be abolished, all the checks and balances were introduced for a particular purpose, namely, to eliminate potential damage to what some people nowadays call "the system". As the system may mean the integrity of an economy, country or the European Union itself, we cannot afford to be irresponsible. I hold no brief for the divergent views now exploding across Europe on the extreme right and the extreme left. I reminded the House of the consequences of taking this tangent in the past. I will not hesitate in predicting disastrous consequences if these tendencies continue.

Better scrutiny of the annual budgetary cycle by the new budgetary oversight committee should be welcomed. Deputy Brendan Howlin mentioned the pre-legislative discussions in committee in the past. Without a doubt, they were useful. However, because of the smaller number of members on a committee by comparison with the number in the House, it is always possible the committee may be influenced by submissions made to it to an extent greater than represents the total membership of the House and the Government together. We need to ensure in the future that the committee system will not disporportionately drag the House in a particular direction. I have seen pre-legislative discussion result in legislation with which I could not agree at all. If I had been a member of the relevant committee, I certainly would not have agreed with it. That does not mean to say I am right, but if one had the opportunity to debate the subject, one could at least say one had participated, that it had not worked out and that, for whatever reason, better minds had thought differently.

I remind Members that in earlier days in this House, when I was a lot younger, we had much longer debates, but we got through legislation just the same. I do not know whether we had longer sitting hours, but I do not believe we had. There was less time spent dealing with the edges of the debate and we got straight into it. There was a revolving debate across the House as the day passed. The sitting was suspended at lunchtime or not, as the case may be, and Government and Opposition speakers alternated throughout the day. It was a quick way of getting through the various participants. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should copy the European Parliament because, as Deputy Brendan Howlin rightly stated, there is no possibility of addressing an entire issue in any debate in the space of 30 seconds. It cannot be done; one merely makes an interjection. That would do us no great favours.

Speaking of time, as there are only two minutes and 20 seconds left in this slot, I cannot go through all of the bullet points in the paper. I have always believed everybody has the right to speak in the House. I speak as one of those who has probably been ejected from the House more often than others for refusing to accept decisions on information it was believed should have been available to a Member.

Given my experience in the House, I expect my knowledge of what is or is not in order is as good as that of anyone else. I am reminded of the song, "I Fought the Law and the Law Won", because I did not win most of those bouts and spent long periods outside the House. I believed, however, that it was something I should have done at the time and about which I had the right to protest, which I did in the way I believed was necessary. I believe some of the reforms coming to the fore are a response to the issues I raised in my inimitable fashion over the years.

I did not agree with the introduction of Topical Issue Matters in the middle of a sitting day. In the old days, when a Minister was reticent about supplying details in reply to a parliamentary question and the questioner was dissatisfied, the latter immediately informed the Ceann Comhairle that the matter would be raised on the Adjournment that night. This helped to concentrate the minds of the questioner and Minister and an accommodation would generally be found because neither party wanted to return to the House at 11 p.m. The arrangement reached would accommodate all sides, including the House. This was an efficient system that worked and may well return.

In principle, I accept and embrace the need for change and hope the proposals work. If a review is required after six months, I hope it will be done because history shows that a year can be a long time in politics.

See this speech in context