David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the progress that has been made in relation to Oireachtas reform; when he will be in a position to publish proposals for Dáil reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22286/09]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach his proposals for Dáil Éireann reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30639/09]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach his plans to bring forward proposals for Dáil reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32536/09]

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

The Government established a working group on Dáil reform earlier this year, comprising the Ministers for Transport and Justice Equality and Law Reform, Deputies Noel Dempsey and Dermot Ahern, Senator Dan Boyle and myself as Government Chief Whip. Proposals regarding the length of Dáil terms, the timetabling of business and areas were submitted to the Government in June. Following Government approval they were brought to the Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for consideration. No final decisions have yet been taken but discussion on the proposals is continuing.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Will his proposals for Dáil reform be published at some stage so that the public will know Government thinking in this area? How soon will he do that? It is important that there be a public debate as well as parliamentary debate on this matter.

Can the Minister of State indicate to the House what the proposals contain? For instance, would he agree with Fine Gael motion, which has been on the Order Paper for several months, that supplementary questions could be asked on the Adjournment Debate? Would he be in favour of a commencement debate, whereby Deputies could ask Ministers questions before the day's business begins. Deputies raise matters under Standing Order 32 but they are rarely allowed. Is it not time we changed that procedure? Does the Minister of State not agree that it is archaic?

How many times has the working group met since it was established on 27 January last? What are the Minister of State's views on televising the proceedings of the Oireachtas? What is the Government's current thinking on that?

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I pay tribute to my colleagues, the other Party Whips. There has been real engagement at the meetings of the sub-committee on Dáil reform. Many of the proposals emerging are coming by way of agreement. I hope we will have another meeting in the week after the Lisbon treaty referendum to progress further the areas we discussed in July and come quickly as near as we can to agreement. My preference is to work towards agreement, as far as possible.

A number of areas of agreement are emerging. There is general agreement, for example, that the Dáil year should be about 35 weeks and that the Dáil should start earlier on each sitting day. Everyone agrees on supplementary questions to what we now call Adjournment Debates. Several other issues were discussed and others have been tabled in the meantime.

The working group has met three times and reported to Cabinet earlier this year.

With regard to televising Dáil debates, previous committees, such as the broadcasting committee, have gleaned much from what they saw in Canada, Australia and other countries. Practice in other parliaments has been cited as good examples of how we can develop greater engagement with our constituents. It is extremely important that we talk about the efficiency of the House although this is only one aspect of Dáil reform.

Some commentators believe that what we are discussing is Dáil reform, but I am discussing a more efficient and streamlined presentation of the Dáil's activities. In recent months, we have formally or informally discussed more fundamental issues that are in the public domain. Fine Gael has raised the question of the number of Deputies, how they are elected and so on. While that is a wider debate, it merits thought.

We have held summer schools on a variety of subjects and I have informally suggested to colleagues something like a summer school at which academics, constitutional lawyers, practising politicians and those who have left the political arena could make a significant contribution. In this way, the House could develop worthwhile proposals that would benefit and improve the engagement of both Houses of Parliament, although whether the system would be bicameral or unicameral is another debate. This could not be done quickly, but it should be done.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Minister of State in that there are two issues. If we wished, some of the House's procedures could be brought up to date tomorrow to make the House more efficient and the Ceann Comhairle's job easier. We have been calling for a longer term development for some time. I welcome the Minister of State's assertion that there might be a wider debate on the role of Parliament in the 21st century, the electoral system and so on. We would support that proposal and encourage the Minister of State to table it.

What are the opinions of the Minister of State's Government colleagues in respect of making State agencies more accountable through parliamentary question systems? Does he not agree that many agencies, while called quangos, are autonomous in many ways? FÁS has been mentioned. Does he not agree that the opportunities for Deputies to question, scrutinise and oversee the work of agencies that spend taxpayers' money are limited to the committees? Does he not agree that it would be better for Ministers to answer questions regarding the work and responsibilities of those agencies on the floor of the House? Ministers cannot be responsible for the agencies' day-to-day operations, but surely they could get the information and put it on the floor of the House. This would prevent the types of issue that have caused such recent trouble in many State agencies. For example, I asked a question yesterday about a child with special needs who does not have a school place, but I was told that the Minister for Education and Science had no responsibility for the matter. This was appalling. The Minister should have asked the agencies involved, reverted to the House and answered the question.

Does the Minister of State not agree that we used to ask questions about the HSE and get responses within one week, but that we now get responses privately after three, four or five weeks, meaning that they do not appear on the public record? Many quangos were established to protect Ministers from scrutiny. Is it not time to change the system? The National Roads Authority is another example. When one writes to it, one gets a cursory response. Were our questions to be answered in public in the House, the NRA would be careful about its responses and we might get proper information, particularly if procedures were changed to allow Ministers to be quizzed. Had our procedures been correct, we might not be in our current economic mess. Deputies could have asked questions and scrutinised issues to a deeper level. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's comments on this important issue.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Stanton for raising this issue. As he knows, the Ceann Comhairle advanced some proposals on how the matter of accountability of State agencies to the Houses of the Oireachtas could be further explored. It will be an item of discussion at our next meeting.

We suggested that we would consider amending legislation to allow the tabling of questions to State agencies by Deputies. In terms of greater transparency and accountability, there is significant merit in exploring how some of those agencies could be made more accountable than they appear to be currently. At a previous meeting, it was proposed that one or two of those agencies would be chosen on a pilot basis to determine how the idea would work in practice. To be fair to the HSE, its parliamentary affairs division is improving in providing information, but I take the point that the information is provided directly to the Member who tabled the question and does not appear on the House's record. If we are to move forward on significant reform, this is an area that we need to consider.

We have also been considering the suggestion by virtually everyone in the working group that a mechanism could be found whereby a number of written questions of a relevantly urgent nature could be tabled by Members in July and September. Whenever there is a proposal, there is a knock-on effect on the resources of the Houses and so on but no one is discussing tabling a flurry of questions on a range of topics. The group is exploring this suggestion and I am minded to support it as one of our final recommendations, which I hope will be presented shortly to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Stanton referred to a specialised parliamentary channel, which was also mentioned at our committee meeting. The Oireachtas is only televised on Wednesday and Thursday mornings on TG4 and on Wednesday mornings on RTE, which has its own political programme. One must then depend on the "Week in Politics", "Prime Time" or the news. Other countries have a specialised parliamentary channel. Although we are under economic constraints, we should not forget this matter. The Commission of the Houses of the Oireachtas is paying people to visit schools and so forth to teach pupils about the Houses' workings. This money would be better spent were we to have a specialised television channel for the Dáil, Seanad and committee meetings. Some people outside the Houses do not even know that committees sit or what work they do. Is the Government trying to hide the House's workings? Does it not want the bad news to be televised via a Dáil channel? I would like to see this issue worked upon. Since we have a broadcasting unit, taking this extra step would not cost much money.

Does the Government plan to reduce the size of the Dáil's membership within the realm of the Constitution? It has been discussed in the media and Government circles. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that also.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Kehoe and I, and I suspect most other Members in the Chamber at present, are members of the Joint Administration Committee, which is meeting today at 12.15 p.m. The second item on its agenda is the dedicated Oireachtas TV channel. As the Deputy knows, presentations have been made by two groups on how this service could be delivered. It is recognised it is desirable that it be established. However, it is also recognised that it probably cannot be established at present because of the cost. Most of us are extremely anxious to find a way to ensure "Oireachtas Report" is not broadcast at a time when, as Deputy Rabbitte said, it is of interest only to insomniacs and alcoholics.

While I commend both TG4 and RTE on the way the are covering the work of the Oireachtas at present, I must castigate - that is probably too strong a word - the print media, in particular, for their relative inattention to the work of committees. I have heard some commentators on radio and television programmes dismissing it. Committees, while believed by some to be surplus to requirements, comprise one way, and a good way, for citizens to engage with Parliament. They can lobby on a variety of issues and receive a hearing. In many cases, their insights inform legislation.

On Deputy Kehoe's question, the Government favours the introduction of an Oireachtas channel as early as possible but, in the current financial circumstances in this digital era, it is unlikely that it will be established in the shorter term unless other means are found to fund it.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why did we spend money restoring the lawn when we could have been establishing the Oireachtas channel? That is the sort of nonsense that has been going on here since the establishment of the Oireachtas Commission.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Barrett will get his chance later.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With regard to Deputy Kehoe's question, there is nothing in An Agreed Programme for Government or elsewhere on the size of the Dáil. As I stated in reply to Deputy Stanton, issues concerning the size and composition of the Parliament, and the question of whether it should be an Assembly of one or two Chambers, ought to be explored in a very serious way. This process should not be embarked upon without very significant research involving current and former Members of this House and experts in constitutional and parliamentary law.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no faith whatever in the Fianna Fáil Members in Government proposing to or attempting to reform the Dáil. I have been sitting opposite its members at Oireachtas committees for ten years and they have stonewalled and blocked every single proposal for Dáil reform, even minor ones. Is the Minister of State aware that the Ceann Comhairle used his good offices to bring forward a package for modest but significant Dáil reform and that it was simply blocked and scuttled by the Fianna Fáil Party? It was not blocked by the Green Party or the Government as a whole but by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party in Government. The package covered addressed how the taking of Leaders' Questions might be made more effective and how the Order of Business should be tidied up and made efficient.

It was also proposed that parliamentary questions be allowed on the 200-odd quangos that the Government has set up and on which Members cannot ask questions in the Chamber. Proposals also covered the management of committees of the Oireachtas and the holding of Adjournment debates on topical issues. The package of proposals was simply scuttled. There was agreement among the group that met the Ceann Comhairle but, at the next step, the proposals were blocked.

In the proposals the Minister of State made to us at the committee there was not a word about the inability of Members of this House to ask questions and obtain answers on where public money is spent. I refer to the HSE, the National Roads Authority and the other 198 quangos that have been set up. By setting them up, the Government has removed power from this Chamber, thereby from the people of the country, and has handed it over to so-called independent authorities. I wonder whom they are independent of. We cannot ask questions in this House about the colossal amounts of public money handed over to these agencies.

The Ceann Comhairle had a proposal to address this, as did the Labour Party and Fine Gael, but I now hear the Minister is paying lip service to it. If the Government had any intention of implementing the proposal, it would have done so long ago? Does the Minister of State not agree? Instead of implementing the proposals, every new Bill in the House establishes another agency and removes power from the House. Members cannot even ask questions about such agencies. Major reform is required in this area and it will involve the amendment of several Acts. Does the Government want to achieve this?

The Labour Party and Fine Gael have proposed that, during the summer recess, Members would be entitled to table written parliamentary questions. The Minister of State did not mention this in his proposals to us. I could not find a reference to it. Deputy Seán Barrett sat with me on a committee making the first major attempt at Dáil reform some years ago but the process died a death when it came to the point of making a decision.

The Minister of State must be aware that there are now joint proposals from Fine Gael and the Labour Party on Dáil reform. Proposals have also been made by the Ceann Comhairle. There are minimal proposals by the Government that involve tinkering at the edges without making any serious attempt to effect change. The only changes that are being proposed are to benefit the Government and effectively silence the Opposition.

Fianna Fáil might find itself in opposition shortly. Will the Minister of State consider my points from an Opposition point of view, in which case we might make some progress before he leaves office?

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the unlikely event that Deputy Stagg finds himself on this side of the House-----

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can guarantee it. Does the Minister of State want to take a bet on it? Terry Rogers Bookmaker will give him good odds.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He might also put himself in the shoes of somebody on this side of the House and consider how he might react at that stage. I find it a bit hard to take. Deputy Stagg is a very positive contributor at sub-committee level on the issue of Dáil reform.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For all the good it did me.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He has been a Whip and Member for much longer than I have been and I hope he will be a Member for quite a number of years.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am always facing someone such as the Minister of State at the committee, stonewalling as usual and saying fine words that are not followed up with action.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should hold on. Over the summer period, the staff working with the committee were working on revised Standing Orders in the areas where agreement had been reached or where we were close to achieving agreement. I already addressed the issue of the questions to agencies and written parliamentary questions by Members of the Dáil on other issues. There is agreement on those and it will not take very long for us to bring the proposals forward.

Some of what Deputy Stag says might make good rhetoric in the House and good copy but the reality is that this side of the House, in co-operation with the Opposition, by and large, managed to sit longer last year than in many a long day. It sat for more weeks and for longer hours and put through a greater volume of legislation. There was also a wide range of debates at very short notice and that was to the benefit of the House and of the people we represent. I will not take lectures from anyone concerning the commitment of this Government. The issue of Leaders' Questions is set down in Standing Orders and as far as I recall the Labour Party was a party to those and to the way in which Leaders' Questions were to be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday. If Deputy Stagg wishes to propose a change to Standing Orders, it is open to his party to do so.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I proposed changes repeatedly and the Deputy rejected them.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am simply telling the Deputy what is on the record. I repeat my earlier comments on State agencies. The proposals of the Ceann Comhairle concerning the examination of one or two of those State agencies to establish how a mechanism could be found to have questions replied in written form in the House should be explored. Some progress was made with the HSE and the National Roads Authority in the past year about how that could be delivered.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister of State agree that many people are cynical when they hear the words "Dáil reform" mentioned? It has been discussed for many years and to date there is very little evidence of progress. Does the Minister of State agree that the issue that distracts from much of the important and - I acknowledge - valuable work being done by the Dáil and all Members of the House is the issue of the expenses of Members? Quite frankly, it is the elephant in the room. Would the Minister of State support a system of complete openness and transparency in which all expenses are vouched, fully reported and accounted for, open to scrutiny by the public and reported on an annual basis such that there would be no longer a dependency on freedom of information inquiries by journalists to establish the facts? Surely this is one of the first reforms we should present at this time because, no matter what else one addresses in terms of so-called reform of the institution and its workings, this critical area is the single greatest issue in the minds of the people and we must come to terms with it. This is the only way it can be done and any objection to full accountability, scrutiny and verification is simply not on anymore. I strongly urge the Chief Whip to take on board this point concerning any proposals, and I trust any such proposals would come early in order that we could all agree and have such an approach adopted and implemented.

There was a proposal to abolish certain Oireachtas committees. Where does this stand? I take the view that the committee system with all its flaws, warts et al is still an important part of the workings of the Houses of the Oireachtas and I am not an advocate of the abolition of committees. Would the Chief Whip agree that a much better approach to reform in this area would be the cessation of special payments to the Chairs and convenors of committees? There would be savings in respect of the workings of the committees because all Chairs and convenors are already paid Members of the Houses and are, therefore, remunerated, as we all are, for our participation in committees. The most important thing to be protected is the important work of the committees. It should not be a case of paring by cutting off committees but of facing up to the fact that it is not justifiable for payments to continue to Chairs and convenors for their participation, which is no different from that of any other Member of the Dáil or Seanad in that process. The committees should be retained and they could be reviewed from time to time in terms of their relevance but, critically, the real issue in terms of reform is to get the situation in respect of expenses and payments correct such that the people can have confidence in the system operated within the Houses and with this institution and then notice would be taken of other reforms and other measures to ensure greater efficiencies in the future.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin that this House must do everything it can to reassure the electorate which put us here that everything we do is being done in the public interest and no other. In respect of the issue of committees, I agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin. Allowances to Chairs have been cut in half and allowances to Vice-Chairs and convenors have been abolished and, as I understand it, staffing levels to committees have been reduced significantly by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission by non-replacement of staff who have moved on, been reassigned and so on. The committees carry out very valuable work and they should be allowed to complete their work programme. As I stated in reply to an earlier question, this system is one of the ways in which citizens can engage with Members of Parliament, have their voices heard and put their views across. Very often their views inform proposed and upcoming legislation.

Sometimes we sell ourselves short and it may not be widely known but, similar to every other member of the public service, Members, Senators, Ministers and so on have taken a cut in pay. The Minister for Finance has reduced the level of allowances and expenses very significantly. The budget for foreign travel has been cut by 50% and people are very careful about the trips they make anywhere overseas or outside this city. Some issues should be understood more widely. In respect of expenses, I wholeheartedly agree that the sooner the better both Houses agree that, as a matter of course, on a monthly basis or whatever, the allowances and expenses paid to Members should be simply put up on the website of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Other issues concerning a composite allowance and so on should be also brought to a conclusion sooner rather than later. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility for a system to be found for verification of attendance and to give effect to such a system.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would welcome the Minister of State's immediate attention to those clear requirements.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One does not often get the opportunity to speak on the way in which the workings of this House should be amended or changed. As someone who was a Whip both in Government and in Opposition in the 1980s and 1990s, I have heard much over the years about Dáil reform. I can state honestly, however, that this place is not working any better today than it was 25 years ago when there was no commission or any of the nonsense currently taking place with vast sums of money being spent, but getting us nowhere. The purpose of this Parliament is for the elected representatives to meet and to bring to the attention of the Executive the concerns of the public. That is basically what this is about and all the rest is simply frills. We ask ourselves how we manage this process. I may table a parliamentary question but the quality of the reply has deteriorated significantly, especially if it is an oral question. We decided that we would draw up and use a list but the Departments are aware well in advance the numbers of questions that are likely to be reached. As a former Minister I had to raise the matter with the Secretary General at the time. I realise that if it is unlikely that the question will be reached, the quality of the answer reduces, which is a flagrant abuse of democracy. Any Dáil should ensure the right to ask a parliamentary question and to a proper and full answer.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not happening. All the scandals which have happened down through the years were a result of the inability to get proper answers to parliamentary questions. It is a matter of this Parliament keeping a check on the Executive.

Is the system we are using for parliamentary questions working? For oral questions, a spokesperson has half an hour, which is all right, and there are 45 minutes for backbenchers. Two or three questions may be answered before having to wait six weeks for that Minister to answer questions again. That is a scandal.

Many of us remember a time when if environment questions were scheduled, every question would have been answered. That is the way it should be. If I put down an oral question for answer, I should be entitled to a response. The chance should not lapse only to be replaced with a written reply of two lines. As Deputy Stanton has said, the Department of Education and Science can then tell an elected Member that the Minister has no say in the placing of a child with special needs. Where are we going with that?

Does the Minister of State mean to tell me that as a result of having a commission, this democracy is working far better but we cannot afford to send a signal into the airwaves so people sitting at home or in schools can see the work of this Parliament? Nevertheless, we can afford to plough up the lawn outside and restore it. We can afford to run a commission.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Deputy ask a question?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will do so. We can afford to run a commission costing millions of euro. What is the role of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges? That used to be the committee which decided many of these issues.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was gazumped.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It had a bi-monthly meeting where a group of representatives from all parties could agree on something, and the Clerk of the Dáil would proceed under the chairmanship of the Ceann Comhairle. Issues now go before a commission and unelected people are telling us how to run the Oireachtas.

I fully support the work of committees but there are too many of them. These committees were set up to mark each Department, although there is no need for that. Legislation is being passed in committee rooms with two people in a room, which is not the way to do it. Legislation should be examined in this Chamber and if we must sit on a Friday in order to complete a Committee Stage, let it be so. Every Member should have a right to the debate and it should be broadcast on radio and television.

Every year a finance Bill is examined in a committee room and there would be two men and a dog present except the dog would not be allowed in. Nobody knows what is happening in the debate so it is a complete waste. We should go back to the days when committees dealt with the heads of a Bill and proposals from the Government. People can be invited in for their opinions before a report goes to the Government.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have two other Member offering.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State considering that sort of reform? We are currently struggling to get the Lisbon treaty passed. A very interesting poll was carried out by Eurobarometer which showed that only 40% of the Irish people had any idea how the European institutions work. In other words, 60% of people openly admitted they did not have a clue how that system works. I would bet a similar result would emerge from a survey on the workings of this Parliament. We must use every available technology to educate people on the workings of this Parliament and the European Parliament.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the quality of replies, at a meeting earlier this year a representative from the Office of the Information Commissioner spoke on the broader issue of freedom of information, FOI, inquiries. Some Members complained, as Deputy Barrett has mentioned, that the quality of the information was not adequate. We have been talking about how we can have a better way of dealing with Question Time and so on. The issue of oral and written questions is different.

Are we to expect that the same amount of information would be available in a written question as might become available as a result of an FOI inquiry, bearing in mind that there is a longer period available for that?

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I could interrupt the Minister of State, we ask a parliamentary question of the Minister and not the Department. It is up to the Minister to ensure that the quality of the reply is what it should be.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree and nobody has any difficulty in principle with the Deputy's comments. However, the timeframe for submitting the detail required for all the information is relatively short. We must consider the matter and I am very conscious of the fact that we need to provide far better quality information everywhere we can.

We have been trying to explore other issues. We have questions to the Taoiseach two mornings a week but most people would agree that the current system is not entirely satisfactory. We need to see if there is a better way for the information requested and topics addressed to be processed in a timely fashion and in a way which would add information to the public domain.

Deputy Barrett spoke about the number of committees. As I stated in answer to Deputy Ó Caoláin, the current committees should be allowed to complete their work programme. Every committee feels it is doing a really good job but we should allow the existing committees complete their work, bearing in mind the cost reductions which have taken place. A number of committees are time-limited and will automatically cease to operate anyway.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have some other issues if we get a chance.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am simply trying to answer the questions I have been asked.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State aware of the recent debate at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, when Deputy Ruairí Quinn brought to our attention the fact that Ministers were only answering one part of a question? The committee agreed wholeheartedly that this should change and asked our officials to draw up Standing Orders to effect the change, which they duly did. When the new Standing Orders came before us the Minister of State, as leader of the Fianna Fáil group on the committee, applied a Fianna Fáil whip and voted the matter down without any reason. The Minister of State will recall that on that occasion, all Fianna Fáil members spoke with one voice - as if they had a script - to directly contradict what they said at the previous meeting. That is what I have been dealing with and that is the reason I am sceptical of what the Minister of State is now saying about Dáil reform.

Deputy Ó Caoláin raised the important matter of expenses. The commission has put forward a proposal for a unitary parliamentary allowance to replace the bits and pieces which are now involved in our allowances. It would be absolutely transparent and everybody would know what is received and why. The Dáil has passed a Bill to enable its implementation. Is there any truth in the rumour that the Minister is not doing so because he is afraid some of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers will revolt if he does? Perhaps the Minister of State will confirm whether that rumour is true. If it is not, will he indicate why this is not being done, particularly in view of the fact that the commission agreed to it and the House has already passed enabling legislation?

Will the Minister of State provide an assurance that the package of Dáil reforms proposed by Fianna Fáil, which is very skimpy in nature and the majority of which favours the parties in Government-----

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is correct.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----will not be forced through on the basis of a majority vote in the House or at the committee?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister of State agree that all reform which comes before the House - this has certainly been the case during my time as a Member - favours the parties in Government? The reason for this is that those in Government refuse to listen to the Opposition. If a change of Government ever occurs, the latter will hope to treat the former with the same contempt.

Does the Minister of State also agree that FOI requests should not be treated as being on an equal footing with parliamentary questions? Such questions are the best means of obtaining information in these Houses of Parliament. People with a subjective agenda should not be allowed to equate parliamentary questions with FOI requests.

Does the Minister of State agree that some Departments regard Oireachtas committees as extensions or appendages of themselves? To work properly, the committee system must operate as part of the Parliament. These are parliamentary, not departmental, committees and the Department should do nothing other than preparing Ministers to come before them in order to discuss matters with Members.

When Opposition Members raise matters on the Adjournment, either the relevant Minister does not attend in the House or else a single Minister replies in respect of three or four such matters. Ultimately, this means that the House is being treated with contempt. It would be of major assistance if the Government treated the Opposition and the Houses of Parliament with a little respect. This, in turn, would go a long way towards engendering respect among members of the public for the Houses.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State indicated that Members are being careful with regard to foreign travel. Is he indicating that Members have become reluctant to or do not want to travel as a result of adverse publicity? Is this having an impact on Government and State business? Will the Minister indicate when he hopes the Dáil reform to which he refers will be implemented? Will it be in place when we return from the Christmas recess?

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not regard it as being a Fianna Fáil or a Government proposal. If we cannot come forward with an agreed proposal, there is no point in doing anything. It has been stated that the Government is trying to protect itself. It could be said that the Opposition is trying to gain some further advantage. If matters continue in this vein, we will never get anywhere.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As matters stand, the Opposition has no advantage.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a need for an agreed package of reforms and that is what I am hoping to bring forward.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will do our best to work with the Minister of State on that.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope to introduce these reforms as soon as possible following the Christmas recess.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So we will be coming back after Christmas.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no truth in the rumour that there is any kind of revolt within Fianna Fáil in respect of this or any other issue. We are quite united.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Those are brave words.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about Deputy Mattie McGrath?

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That sounds like Deputy Bannon.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is I.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Stagg referred to the work of the CPP.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What did the Minister of State say in respect of expenses?

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am addressing that matter. The reason I adopted my position - which was not that of other Fianna Fáil members of the CPP - was because, as stated at the time, when one has exhausted the various steps proposed, the Minister would still be in a position to state that what was on offer was all there was and people could take it or leave it. In such circumstances, we would find ourselves in a cul-de-sac and I saw no point in going along with something that would bring the entire process-----

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying the Minister of State is telling lies but I do not believe him.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot convince Deputy Stagg on many matters, so I will not attempt to convince him on this one either.

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State will certainly not convince me on this one.