Seán Conlan (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the Taoiseach on fulfilling his promise to Fine Gael and the people prior to the last election that he would afford them the opportunity to express their views in a referendum on the abolition or retention of the Seanad. It is refreshing to witness a Taoiseach take a political risk in order to fulfil a promise and long may it continue. I also acknowledge the Dáil reforms this Government has introduced since it entered office, such as increasing the length of time that the Dáil sits by 50%, reducing significantly holiday periods throughout the year, reducing the Taoiseach's salary and Deputies' expenses, cutting the number of Dáil seats by eight in the next general election, reforming the committee system, introducing Topical Issue debates and introducing Friday sittings to allow backbenchers to introduce their own legislation. These are all positive steps.

I urge the Taoiseach to drive ahead with the reform agenda. I welcome that the Government has recently committed to further increasing Dáil sitting hours to allow extra time for debate and that Friday sittings will now take place every second week. Back bench and Opposition Deputies will be given greater access to Ministers in order to hold them to account and to raise issues of concern. We are moving from a system in which Bills come to the Dáil as a done deal to one where committees and the public will have a role in shaping legislation from the outset. I welcome the Taoiseach's commitment to make committees more independent.

It is vital that the Dáil is given additional time to scrutinise EU legislation. In regard to continuing reform, it is important for the democratic process that every Member of the Dáil be allowed a free vote on all moral issues. We need to find a way to allow Members to have more input into proposed legislation and introduce measures to give all Members equal access to speaking time in the Chamber.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this topic for debate. While canvassing on the recent Seanad referendum, the issue of Dáil reform was raised on a considerable number of doorsteps. I acknowledge the work on reform that has been done heretofore. From my conversations with Deputies who served in previous Dáileanna, I recognise that considerable efforts have been made to streamline the way we conduct our business.

Over the past several weeks an ambitious schedule of Dáil reform was set out. I want to ensure these reforms are enacted. From the perspective of backbenchers, they will give us more time to get involved in the legislative process and have our voices heard. Some of the reforms were proposed on the basis of a unicameral system but, while I would have liked the vote to have gone differently, I accept the will of the people. Is it still possible to implement these reforms? One of the proposals was to focus on issues of major strategic and political importance, including public accounts, financial matters, the budget, EU scrutiny and social affairs. If this proposal is implemented it will allow us to play a very important role. It was also proposed to involve people from civil society in our discussion of legislation.

I understand the need for the Whip system but it might be relaxed at certain stages of the legislative process, such as Committee Stage, so that people have more opportunity to express their views.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue. In recent weeks there has been considerable debate about the need for Seanad reform. I commend the Taoiseach on putting his political credibility on the line by giving the people their first opportunity in 75 years to make a decision on the Seanad. The people have now spoken and we will have to listen to what they said. However, we should not lose sight of the need for reform of the Dáil. We would not be discussing this matter if it was not for a previous reform which introduced the Topical Issue debate. Important reforms have been introduced under the programme for Government but the process of reform must go further in order to make our jobs more effective and transparent.

From the perspective of a first term backbencher who is enthusiastic about trying to get involved and making contributions, I regard the committee structure as very important. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which deals with matters as diverse as the restoration of the sugar industry in Ireland and fairness in the grocery sector. There is great scope for improvement in this regard because committees do not get the credit they deserve. A week should be set aside for committee business, with a report produced for the Dáil at the end of it. The crossover between Dáil and committee business has a negative impact on those who are involved in committees. They go to the Dáil Chamber to deal with parliamentary questions and other matters and then return to deal with committee business. I would like to see progress in this area.

A range of issues was raised during the debate on the Seanad. Now that debate has concluded, we need to pursue these issues with greater vigour. We can show that we are serious about reforming our system and making it more effective for the years ahead.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for attending this debate in person and I am grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for facilitating us. The Topical Issue debate offers an excellent avenue for Deputies to raise matters of concern.

We cannot take our eyes off Dáil reform. I commend the Taoiseach on his courage and conviction in bringing the referendum on the Seanad before the people. I am proud that the leader of my party and country is a reformer with the conviction to let the people have their say. The people had their say and we now need to act accordingly. The priority for the Government needs to be reforming this House so that the reforms are more tangible and our business can be done more easily. The people want reform. One of the reasons I think voters were reluctant to agree to the abolition of the Seanad is because they did not think this Chamber was capable of holding the Executive to account in its current form.

They want to see an expansion of the Dáil's structures to allow Members to hold the Executive further to account. We must consider every possible avenue in this regard. We could start with something small like the Order of Business, the remit of which needs to be expanded. Limiting it to promised legislation is not enough. Given Prime Minister's questions across the water in the UK, there is no reason for our Order of Business not to include something similar. Every Deputy should be afforded an opportunity to ask the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste about matters of importance in their constituencies or the nation. The possible reforms that were mentioned in recent weeks must be implemented.

I concur with my colleagues regarding the matters that they raised. It is important that, in the course of this debate, we not lose sight of the fact that the Dáil needs to be reformed. I hope that it can stay at the top of the agenda.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for selecting this issue. I acknowledge and thank the Taoiseach and his Government for laying an important referendum on fundamental Oireachtas reform before the people. Our first action in the Chamber should be to respect the people's decision fully. We should also acknowledge that the referendum debate opened up issues other than that which was on the ballot paper, in particular questions on Dáil reform. I am pleased that this issue is being discussed in the Chamber. Obviously, the 20 minutes that have been allocated are not enough. It has been proposed that some of the new fortnightly Fridays could be set aside solely for Deputies to debate Dáil reform and to arrive at conclusions that would make the House more responsive to the needs of the State.

I welcome last week's publication of amendments to the Standing Orders, which I hope will come into effect on 5 November. Particularly welcome is the amendment on referrals from committees to Dáil sittings on fortnightly Fridays. As part of an expanded debate on how we arrange our business, one must ask whether we are going far enough. For example, how legislation is prepared and presented to the Parliament on Second Stage more or less as a fait accompli inevitably cultivates an adversarial environment, meaning that consensus is often more difficult to achieve.

The Whip system must be debated. We do not always agree with colleagues. For example, moral issues could be up for debate. However, a looser Whip system could be applied to committee decisions.

We need to take ideas from all sources. For example, best practice in other parliaments should be examined continually. I regret that we do not have more time, but I look forward to a journey in which we must all participate.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding Seanad reform, a duplication of the Dáil is not required. There is a better role for a second House. For example, the Seanad could play an important role in the scrutiny of EU legislation and fulfil the greater role of national parliaments envisaged under the Lisbon treaty. In such a scenario, the existing Seanad panels could be replaced by new panels organised along the lines of the directorates of the EU, for example, agriculture, innovation, research, health, etc. Senators could be elected for terms coinciding with the European Commission, with every citizen receiving a vote. A Seanad of this type, along with the new EU affairs super Oireachtas committee included in recently announced Dáil reforms, would be an excellent way of ensuring scrutiny of EU law.

Any meaningful reform of the Seanad must have at its basis that every citizen would have a vote. Anything other would not be a real reform.

I wholeheartedly welcome the initiatives taken on Dáil reform heretofore, but we can go further. The number of Topical Issue debates should be increased to approximately eight. Routinely, 25 to 30 matters are raised every day. We also need to increase the amount of time allocated to ministerial Question Time not just for the Opposition, but for Government backbenchers also. I am lucky enough to have asked two education questions today, but that does not happen often. We could do with more time than one and a half hours per Minister.

We must ensure that the welcome plans announced for the pre-legislative and pre-enactment phases are not watered down in light of the Seanad referendum's result. This would be an excellent reform and would allow for engagement with civil society and interest groups on the preparation of legislation. I hope that there will be no alteration to this proposal.

Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for allowing us to raise this topic. I welcome the Taoiseach to the Chamber. That this might be the first Topical Issue he has taken, it shows how much respect he has for this topic.

I wish to highlight two matters, the first of which is Friday sittings. As I have often stated, Friday sittings are just time-consuming efforts. We do not have a vote and we normally only debate one Bill. Proposals have been made to provide for additional Bills to be tabled on Fridays, but it is difficult for a backbencher to get a Bill on which he or she has worked onto the Order Paper. A number of the Bills on the Order Paper, particularly on Tuesdays, have been outstanding since the Dáil's first sitting in 2011. This issue must be tackled. Just as Private Members' business can be used to debate Bills, perhaps we can move back bench Bills from Friday and discuss them in a private Bills session, allowing us to vote at that time. I hope that some consideration will be given to this suggestion.

I wish the reform of the committee structure to continue. It is important that civil society be involved in the initiation of legislation. We saw the success of that process during the abortion Bill. It would give civil society every opportunity to introduce new and different ideas before Bills are published and allow consensus to be reached instead of the Houses debating Bills on Second Stage, by which time Ministers might not be willing to accept backbenchers' ideas.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was disappointed with the result on Saturday. I share in the Taoiseach's vision of a unicameral Parliament with stronger committees and greater independence.

John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The people have spoken.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like the Taoiseach, we have to respect the choice of the people. I was with family members on Saturday. They were trying to console me about the result. As one of them pointed out to me, people came out on a reform question. Whether by voting "Yes" or "No", they were taking part in that process of reform. They just had a different vision of it. Some 40% came out to do that. It is not a large number and we would have liked to have seen more, but 40% of the population are engaged and involved in the question of how we reform our Parliament to make it better. This is a positive that both sides can take away from the referendum result.

As a new Government and a new Parliament, we have a responsibility to rebuild the people's trust in their politicians, their leaders and their political institutions. We do that in deeds, not in words - by their works shall they be known. Putting the question to the people formed a part of that process. We made a commitment on which we followed through. We now have an advantage. With so many interested in reform and willing to spend time and resources in trying to shape that vision and in moving forward quickly, it would be a shame were we to delay the process of Dáil reform because we took time to reflect on Seanad reform. The processes could work side by side. For example, some of the reforms that have been mentioned in this debate - a loosening of the Whip on Committee Stage in the Dáil - would impact on the Seanad because Senators sit on those very same committees. If the ordering of the Dáil's business was returned to its Members in a non-Whipped vote in some instances, for example, the length of time for a Bill to be debated or its scheduling, it would flow down to the Seanad. Many such proposals do not need referendums or new laws and could be implemented quickly. I look forward to the reforms that will be made. We must be willing to test such reforms for a period of six months and return to this Chamber to reflect on how to progress them further.

To echo Deputy Lawlor, I thank the Taoiseach for his presence.

It is a signal of how much he respects this Chamber. It also reflects how seriously he takes his own reform proposals and his own ambition in that regard.

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

I thank all Deputies for the points they raised. This is always about time and the capacity for everybody to have an opportunity to say their piece in respect of Dáil reform. Over the years, I have seen situations where Ministers came in to answer questions. The Minister for Agriculture might be in possession for six months before anybody else because the questions just kept rolling through. Thus, a Minister might answer from September or October right through until March. We have made a lot of changes and there have also been some good suggestions, some of which are already under way. I want Deputies to understand that I am serious about this matter. What we introduce for this session and the next is not permanent. We would like to have a situation whereby we try things and see how they can work in the best interests of all Deputies. When we do make changes they are, of necessity, to be tried and we will continue with those that work best. That is why we have Leaders' Questions on Thursdays, which the Tánaiste takes. Topical Issues have replaced the outdated and outmoded Adjournment Debate. Friday sittings are for Deputies to introduce their own Bills, and we have never had that before, except in Private Members' time. It is a good innovation.

I am open to the question Deputy Lawlor raised about Friday sittings. Who attends and do we have real debates on Committee Stage of Bills? We could always put the votes off until Tuesday if necessary. There is always a problem with Deputies from around the country who are not able to attend the House on Fridays. It is an issue that has always been raised by them.

I assure Deputies concerning the restructuring of the Oireachtas committees that we want to continue with the pre-legislative review. The engagement with civic society is important, as was evidenced in a number of Bills recently. As regards Deputy Kyne's point, that will not be watered down. It will require the engagement of Ministers with Opposition spokespersons. Committee chairmen will ask how many hearings are needed and how long they will last. They are not dictated to by government. The chairman and other members of the committee will decide what organisations and individuals to call to provide experience whatever the case might be. Some Bills are short, comprising a few lines of amendment, so they may not require any hearings at all. By contrast, the Companies Bill had 1,800 sections and was five years in gestation. That was a very different matter. Bills, therefore, can range from being simple to complex. That system of scrutiny will not be watered down. Committee chairs will have a role in engaging with civic society.

We also want to move on so that committees can examine the stability programme update in respect of the budget. When the forthcoming budget is over, I expect the committees will engage with Ministers on departmental Votes and Estimates, as well as what their spending priorities are and how effective that expenditure will be. Hopefully, this will all be televised and streamed live so that the public is fully engaged on what is being spent on their behalf by different Departments.

I would like to think that we can arrive at a situation whereby chairmen and Opposition spokespersons can work with Ministers on Bills. Unless it is emergency legislation, it should not be rushed. I wish to allow for proper debate here but I do not want people to play games and seek extra time just for the sake of it. It must be recognised that this is the Dáil and it is the Opposition's duty to hold the Government to account. We must provide people with the facilities to do that.

We had committee weeks before and they did not work. We may look at that again. We devoted a week to particular committees in the Chamber as distinct from being in committee rooms. People said they liked it but it did not work.

Deputies have raised valid points. Some people mentioned the Whip vote but I have been in Governments where there was a minority situation, or very close to it. One cannot have instability. What might be one person's crisis of conscience is another's political crisis. I see an opportunity when the heads of a Bill are being discussed on Committee Stage whereby people could give their view irrespective of whether it is in accordance with Government philosophy or not. When one signs on for a Government Bill as Government Members, one will be expected to support that. The issue of stability is important for international investors when they look at the country. In a tight future election outcome, for example, people may ask whether the Government will be able to continue in office. Without stability, one cannot have investment.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his response. If we could have given him ten minutes to show the passion he has for this subject, he would have been able to fill that without difficulty. The public are now somewhat engaged in political reform, whether it concerns the Seanad or the Dáil. The sooner we act on as many of these matters as possible, the better. The Government is facing innumerable problems and there are issues we must also face down. While the general population is engaged on the issue of political reform, now is the time to act. We must do so as soon as possible.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Likewise, I compliment the Taoiseach on his positive response. As I said earlier, committees play a valuable part in the work of Parliament. On most occasions, however, much of this work goes unnoticed. I ask the Taoiseach to consider having a separate week only for committee work, with no crossover between committee work and the work of the Dáil. It is encouraging to see the Taoiseach here to take a Topical Issue. It is probably a first. I understand the Taoiseach has many priorities at the moment and while this may not be the most pressing matter, we need to press on with reform as soon as possible in order to have credibility with the public.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his response, particularly concerning the budgetary process. Unfortunately, the input of all Members in the budgetary process historically has been lacking in the Oireachtas. If we can put a better process in place, it will lead to a better country in future. I have only been here for two and a half years but there is a wealth of information, life experience and knowledge across this Chamber and also in the Seanad. Everyone needs to have an input in designing the future of our country. The annual budgetary process is a perfect opportunity for good ideas and inspirational thoughts to be implemented. We really need to focus on that area. There will be much discussion on the budget next week, but it would be wonderful if, in future, we could have a totally open discussion well in advance of the budget. In that way, when budget day comes the public would feel they were part of making it a reality.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Taoiseach's comments and, in particular, his words about the presentation of heads of a Bill before committees. That alone would provide an invaluable opportunity to Deputies and Senators on all sides, and civic society, to be free to express their ideas on the heads of a Bill. It would ultimately lead to a more consultative, less adversarial approach to legislation. It would put down clear markers from parliament to government on issues. Equally, it would show that a government could benefit from earlier positive engagement with parliament and civic society. If that could be achieved in the short or medium term, it would be a significant improvement on our legislative process.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his response. I also thank him for attending the House to take this Topical Issue. I welcome the assertion that the pre and post-enactment phases will not be watered down. While I accept the point concerning the Whip, it should be possible to consider loosening that grip for non-vital legislation. Those of us who voted on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill were, in my view, as courageous and conscientious as some of those who decided not to vote for it. I welcome the Taoiseach's response on that.

Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his response and I am heartened by what he said about committee structures and how he will empower committees in future. I would press him on Members' Bills, however.

Perhaps given the amount of work undertaken by Members in terms of bringing forth Bills the Taoiseach would give consideration to their being scheduled for debate during the week rather than on Fridays. A Bill recently introduced during a Friday sitting, the debate on which I contributed to, has still not gone to committee for consideration. I would prefer if Members who make the effort to introduce Bills are given due respect for doing so and that following conclusion of Second Stage, Committee Stage would be taken as soon as possible thereafter.

With regard to the outcome of the referendum on Seanad abolition, the decision to put the matter before the people was a courageous one and was a commitment in the programme for Government. Those of us who were Fine Gael candidates in the last election stood on the Fine Gael manifesto. Even though the result was not in favour of those of us who would prefer a unicameral system, we must accept the decision of the people.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his response. The Taoiseach will be aware, because we have spoken about this privately on many occasions, that I am quite passionate about Whip reform. I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion in public. It serves politics that we get to have more discussions like this in public.

I do not necessarily agree with the idea of a Whip for conscience votes. I see it more as a principle of a Parliament that is able to hold the Government to account and able to order its own affairs. I believe we should have a non-Whip vote on the Order of Business in regard to the taking of legislation and the amount of time allocated in that regard. However, I take the Taoiseach's point that stability is essential. The programme currently being implemented by Government is based on stability for the economy and stability politically for the country. People want this, particularly given the chaos that befell the country prior to the election of this Government. I believe we can maintain that stability and still loosen the Whip in respect of certain issues on Committee Stage. I believe it is possible to strike a balance between the two.

I welcome the Taoiseach's comments on the Heads of Bill on committee process. It is a good place to start. As stated by the Taoiseach, it is important we first introduce reform and then review it in the future to see how much further we can go.

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

Deputy Connaughton can take it that the Government proposes to continue its general population engagement. We are serious about being a reforming Government, from corporate donations to gender quotas and the perks, etc., of the past, which will ensure Parliament is seen to be more effective. This is about getting the business done here and in committee. I am serious about proving that our committee system can work far more effectively than ever before. This will be done through engagement with the public and civic society, as already proposed.

On Deputy Deering's point, we can look again at the possibility of having a committee week. I favour this but many Deputies do not for a variety of reasons. We have had committee weeks before. We could, for example, take Leaders' Questions, the Order of Business and so on in the morning and then move to the committee week. This is done to great effect in the European Parliament. The process is well controlled there. As I said, while I favour this, many others do not. I will undertake to look at it again.

On Deputy Griffin's question in relation to the budgetary process, the Government submits a stability programme update to the European Commission every April. This allows for it to be reviewed by Members of the Houses in committee prior to the budget in October. The Department of Finance and Independent Fiscal Advisory Council provides briefing to Oireachtas Members in this regard. The budget and spending Estimates are published in October. Members of committees can then between October and Christmas and prior to any moneys being spent engage with Ministers in regard to their priorities in terms of spending. This is also in the public interest.

Deputy Harrington referred to the heads of Bill discussions in committee. We will ensure this happens. I see this as a fundamentally important part of the process. The Deputy will be aware that for years we have had a process whereby a Minister makes a decision to introduce a Bill, which is then prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel's office and returned to Government with nobody having any say on it until it reaches Committee Stage. If we reverse that process and have everybody involved from the beginning, we would probably save a lot of time on Committee Stage.

On the introduction of business hour sittings, many people here have families and long distances to travel, including the staff of the Houses. We must cater for everybody. I thought the introduction of earlier sittings would mean getting home earlier to family members and so on. However, for those of us who have to travel to the Dáil, it is quite a different story. We have to put the time allocated to best effect.

I take Deputy Murphy's point. However, I have been in this House on umpteen occasions when voting was tight and people because of a crisis of conscience voted against the Government, resulting in it falling. I refer the Deputy to the recent rise in interest rates when a Minister for Finance in Europe resigned. Instability is the biggest cause of mistrust by investors. They will not have sentiment, sympathy or memory. They do not react, they anticipate. A country in which there is instability loses that trust in terms of growing its economy. These are issues about which we must be, and will be, serious in the time ahead.