Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill for its rather limited effect in reducing the number of Deputies. I have long called for a reduction. We really need a much greater reduction in the number of Deputies in order to make them work. The taxpayer is paying for backbenchers who say very little - or sometimes, nothing - during the year and who are told how they must vote by their own party. We need to get Deputies to work as legislators rather than purely as the representatives and providers of goodies for their local communities. If we are asking citizens to take cuts we should be looking at making significant cuts in this building - in Leinster House as a whole - which is a double building.

In terms of reforming the system, what is the Government policy with regard to the provision in the programme for Dáil sittings on a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. basis from Monday to Friday or even Monday to Thursday? This is a significant issue because according to the Committee of Public Accounts, it could save the Exchequer a considerable sum in overtime payments to staff. It might also make the system less focused on the local and more on the national interests as politicians would spend less time in their constituencies.

It would also encourage more women politicians, which has been a very apparent deficiency in our system. There has been talk of quotas for women, but that is the wrong approach. We must encourage women to run for office and the normalisation of hours could encourage them to do so. Perhaps by changing to a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. sitting day, citizens would be able to better identify with their representatives, which is always a good thing. Indeed, the Labour Party argued for a 50% increase in the number of sitting days for the Oireachtas. Can some member of the Government give me an update on the position of that proposal? Could it be included in this Bill to show that we are ramping up the work to deal with the crisis?

I believe we need a new system whereby the Oireachtas is more accommodating in its attitude to Members by allowing individual Deputies and Senators to bring Bills forward. The Tánaiste has said that if a legislative proposal has merit, the Government must be open and accommodating to it, even if it originates from an Opposition Deputy. The Construction Contracts Bill has been the exception rather than the rule in this regard. Unfortunately, Private Members' Bills are usually shot down or merely used for grand-standing. This part of the system is very dysfunctional and goes against the need for politicians to act as legislators.

The system for dealing with parliamentary questions in the Dáil is a charade. It is totally outdated. Why do we not publish all Government spending online on a single website? The system of parliamentary questions, especially on spending matters, is a farce in this day and age. The Government ignored my request for movement in this area. There should be a single national public spending website where a citizen can see where every cent is spent. This information is all over the place at present, and Ministers waste their time reading out replies to questions that have already been sent to the Deputies. It must be a little embarrassing for an adult to go through that charade.

We must cut the links between the Government and the Dáil to ensure the Dáil can properly impose checks and balances. Dr. Niamh Hardiman of UCD has written:

The real problem in the way the Irish committee system works, then, is tied up with the role of government parties in deciding the allocation of chairs, and the practice of party discipline within committees. Parties are nowhere mentioned in the Irish Constitution. But they are central to the culture and practice of politics in the Oireachtas. That is where reform efforts need to be concentrated.

That is an area ripe for reform.

There are also significant outstanding issues relating to a register of lobbyists. In the United States companies must reveal what policies they sought to influence on behalf of which clients. We must introduce something similar here. In addition, what about former politicians working for lobbying companies? There should be deadlines and fines for not signing up to the register or for furnishing misleading statements. There must be a far more open system and much stronger freedom of information access, given that it has been eroded in recent years. In Sweden every public sector document is in the public domain so people can check the information and hold the people in power accountable for their actions. I am not sure that would be welcome here.

I purposely concentrated on the overall issue of how the Oireachtas could be made to work better, rather than on the specifics of the Bill. I believe we can do a great deal to improve the operation of the Oireachtas. It is in our hands, and I would like to have seen it dealt with in this Bill.