Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

This is the third time I have spoken on this matter in this House. I participated in all the meetings of the Committee on Dáil Reform, so I do not have a whole lot to add at this stage. However, I add my voice to the thanks to the Ceann Comhairle and all the staff involved who did a huge amount of work in terms of turning around papers, proposals and draft Standing Orders at very short notice and translating difficult discussions into concrete proposals in black and white on which we could then decide. It was excellent work on their part. We are nearly finished the process of Dáil reform in terms of this particular set of packages. I agree that it has to continue but even within this package there are other bits and pieces to come in terms of the written explanation of votes and so on being added to Standing Orders.

The Dáil reform committee was extremely limited by the basis on which it was set up. It was set up to examine Dáil reform, but we need something much more substantial. We need a radical change in terms of how our democracy works, with a real transfer of power to people. For example, such change could include an ability to initiate a referendum if a certain number of people sign a document or an ability for people to recall Deputies who break their electoral mandates and so on.

What was attempted in the Dáil reform process? There was a pressure on all the parties, in particular the establishment parties, to reflect the reality of the election, the fact the two and a half party system we had in this country is gone and finished, that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael combined have less than 50% of the vote and the fact a number of small parties and Independents were elected. There was pressure on those people to have their voices heard in the Dáil. This effort was an attempt in that regard and it goes some way towards it, but we will need to review it.

I would like to highlight some of the changes that I believe are important. The change to Leaders' Questions to allow for four questions per day is an important, progressive reform. It means all groups will be able to speak on a rotational basis. While it is not strictly relevant to Standing Orders I believe a time limit should be imposed in respect of Leaders' Questions such that the first couple of questions do not take up an enormous amount of time and thereby result in the third or fourth question not being taken.

The ability to abstain is in a sense a small thing but it allows people to express themselves politically in a way that often cannot be done by a binary "Yes-No" system. People may feel the need to abstain and explain their reason for so doing.

The business committee is important. Given the manner in which it is being set up in the Standing Orders, it is essential that the Government Chief Whip listens to what is being said by others at the business committee and takes it on board. Under Standing Orders as currently drafted, the business committee is required to get consensus on a Government proposal, or not, with dissent on the Government proposal going to the floor of the Dáil. While obviously under the current Dáil such a proposal could be defeated that might not necessarily be the case in future Dáil arrangements.

My next point relates to the business committee. Private Members' motions previously taken every second Friday will now be taken every Thursday, with motions for discussion to be chosen by the business committee. We should strongly encourage the committee to use the lottery system used previously as it is the fairest way of operating. I would like finally to comment on some of the points of controversy that arose at the end of the process. One of the questions that arose was whether it is correct that political parties take precedence in order of speaking to groupings that are not political parties. I maintain that it is correct. I believe that people stand on a political mandate. As a member of a party they stand on a national mandate. As they receive votes from all over the country their mandate is a national one. I do not believe they should get additional time or rights but I do believe they should take precedence over technical groupings of Independents. Linked to that is the question of whether that precedence can be trumped by people moving between groups or from a non-group to a political grouping following an election. I think it is correct for us to place a premium on the expression of the will of the people, be that through a general election or a by-election, and to say that this determines the order of speaking rights. I believe that is appropriate and that it gives due weight to the role of the electorate in choosing on the basis of the mandate that people seek and the programmes on which people stand to order parties in a particular way.

See this speech in context