|
REFORM OF STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT MOTION
Tuesday 9 November 2010
Click here to view Video Clip of Speech
Deputy Brendan Howlin: I am glad to share my time with my colleagues. I am also glad to move this motion on reform in my name and that of the Labour Party Deputies.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Government should be judged by how well it meets its legitimate objectives”. “Good government” he wrote “is that which most effectively secures the rights of the people and the fruits of their labour, promotes their happiness and does their will.” On those criteria, the Government we have that has presided over the debacle of our economic collapse is an abject failure. We will have other occasions to pick over those economic bones, but what we, as a House, must do now is pick up the pieces. We must set our minds and our focus on restoring the people’s confidence in the way that we do the people’s business.
The Labour Party has a proud record in this regard. The last time the Labour Party was in government, we insisted in the negotiations on the programmes for Government on ground-breaking reform legislation, namely, the Freedom of Information Act, the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act - a trilogy of legislation that fundamentally changed the way the public could gain access to information on how they are governed and that introduced transparency into the political electoral systems by having declarations of Members, capping expenditure, disclosure of contributions to political parties and so on. That is the basis on which the Labour Party looks at the next phase of reform.
What is before the House is a reform agenda, a major package of 29 individual proposals, each one profound and impactive in and of itself. It is part of an even larger programme of reform that will be published by the Labour Party shortly. The aim of the 29 separate proposals is to change the way we run our country and to ensure that every citizen feels a much greater sense of involvement in the decisions that shape their lives. That is a critical objective to achieve in the face of the disillusionment that has beset our people. Never has reform been more needed or more urgent.
The range and scope of the proposals before us are great and far-reaching. Some require legislation, some require new orders of this House, others require procedural changes in the way the Government handles its business and others require procedural changes in the way that Departments of State function.
I will take the House through some of the proposals. One of the proposals is on Cabinet confidentiality. It was established by a decision of the Supreme Court and it has been partly rolled back but we must ensure that the doctrine of Cabinet confidentiality is not used as a buffer to protect proper inquiry and investigations. It should be used to allow Government to function but only in so far as it is necessary in the public interest.
We propose the restoration of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, an Act brought in by a Government of which I was proud to be part. It has been the most impactive single Act to throw light on the functioning of Government and to allow people access to the minutiae of the decision-making process to ensure that it is done in a way that is truly democratic and open. Unfortunately, that legislation has been rowed back by the Fianna Fáil administrations and their guises since then. It is our aim to restore it and to extend it to other public bodies, including the Garda Síochána. There is no reason that should not be done.
We will enact whistleblowers legislation, which is essential. My colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, presented a whistleblowers Bill to this House on more than one occasion. The argument against enacting it was that we should not have an overarching Bill, that we should introduce it piecemeal in each operation of Government. It is a great irony that on one occasion when I tabled such an amendment it was defeated by the Government because it does not like the principle of whistleblowing. We must allow people who work and live in this State where wrongdoing is identified to be able, without fear for their well-being, livelihood or safety to blow the whistle on that wrongdoing. I mention a current case that of the Irish Red Cross, which was included in a report by Transparency International published in recent weeks. It is my information that today the whistleblower in that case has been fired. I understand that he has not even exhausted the internal appeals mechanisms but he was fired today. That cannot be right. Somebody who stands up and identifies wrongdoing and causes it to be investigated must have protection and must have the legitimate expectation of protection. I know a little bit about that from my efforts in the Morris tribunal and the lead up to the tribunal. I know how difficult it is for a citizen, even an elected Member of this House, when information is given to him or her about wrongdoing to have that fully ventilated and explored. It should be our objective, as a House, to ensure that is done as a matter of routine and as a matter of course.
One of the proposals we have in the package before the House is to extend spending limits for local and presidential elections in a meaningful way. Another is to set out not only a register of lobbyists but clear rules of lobbying so that those who peddle influence do it in a way that is understood and open. Those who are here to have the ears of Ministers or decision makers should be registered in a way that is normal in developed democracies. Why have we not got such a register? We talked about it for a long time. We should work on these issues to restore confidence in the way we do business that the people demand that we do.
We stated in the proposals we published that we want to make this Dáil more relevant and to give it the capacity to carry out its constitutional duty. To do that, we need to change the way we do business in here. We talked about that for a long time. On the face of it, we have a general consensus that the way we do our business is captured in a bygone age and needs to be fundamentally changed. We seem incapable of moving forward to bring about this change.
The Labour Party proposes a number of specific measures in the package set out in the motion. These form only one element of a series of measures the Government knows must be taken. We suggest the introduction of a petitions system, similar to that which operates in the European Parliament, to afford individual citizens or groups of citizens access to the legislative body to ensure their genuine concerns can be fully ventilated, examined and, where necessary, addressed. Given that the model works extremely well in the European Parliament, why not replicate it here?
We have discussed increasing the number of sitting days in the House. Let us take this step and allow each Member to be placed on an equal basis by turning the House into what it should be, namely, a real Legislature. Every Member knows that only the Government can generate legislation that has any prospect of ending up on the Statute Book. That has been my experience in the House with very few exceptions. It is wrong that the perception has grown that the people who make laws are the Government. This is not supposed to be the case. Under the separation of powers, the body charged with making laws is the Oireachtas, namely, the Dáil, Seanad and, ultimately, the President. However, the vast majority of Members are unable to have a meaningful input into the creation of legislation.
The Labour Party proposes that there would be a set day every week for Private Members’ legislation. Such legislation would be encouraged by the Government because there is a myriad of issues for which the Government will never get around to legislating. Some are important for the nation, while others are important for sections of the community. They should be debated in the House and each individual Member should have the capacity to introduce such legislation. The House should be able to resource this activity through the Library and Research Service.
The Labour Party proposes to restrict the use of guillotine motions and fundamentally change the manner in which legislation passes through the House. The measures proposed in the motion have been discussed ad nauseam. They include publishing the heads of Bills in advance, inviting interested parties to the House to give evidence to committees, using the Chamber for this type of debate and having committee weeks where such debates could take place in open session.
The Labour Party proposes to give a new role to the Ceann Comhairle. How often do Deputies feel insulted by answers they receive to parliamentary questions?
Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Many are non-answers.
Deputy Brendan Howlin: I have seen answers from the Department of Education and Skills, with which Deputy Quinn will be familiar, which advise the relevant Deputy to consult the Department’s website.
Deputy Ciarán Lynch: I received two such replies today.
Deputy Brendan Howlin: That is not a way to deal with elected Members of Parliament. If the Oireachtas is the constitutional body charged with holding the Government to account, as is our solemn constitutional duty, the Executive must respect this role. Why would it do so if we do not assert these rights? These matters are fundamental to having a functioning Parliament. The Labour Party proposes that where, in future, non-answers or insulting, inadequate or evasive answers are provided, the Ceann Comhairle will have a role in determining that the relevant Minister failed to provide reasonable information in reply to a question and require him or her to answer the question. I know from my role as Leas-Cheann Comhairle that Members are at the mercy of Ministers and, more especially, officials in the Departments. Decisions are frequently made by senior officials, without reference to a Minister, to disallow questions that are in order. They seek ways to disallow questions, debates and Adjournment matters. This should not occur if we are to have a functioning Parliament that holds the Executive to account as the Constitution requires.
The motion proposes empowering Oireachtas committees to deal effectively with matters of public expenditure, including value for money issues. The range of proposals in this area is complicated and I do not have time to discuss them in detail. We must do this, however, because it cannot be the role of the House to always look backwards to see what awful mistakes have been made. The House must dip into expenditure on a current basis to ascertain not only whether it has been spent in the manner voted by the House, but also that it is spent effectively and efficiently.
Another of our 29 proposals addresses the profound matter of the aftermath of the Abbeylara judgment. Since the judgment in the Abbeylara case - I confess that I was a member of the relevant sub-committee - the House has backed off taking any investigative role. The Committee of Public Accounts, the only committee of the House that has teeth, has also backed off making any overt criticism of any official because the spectre of Abbeylara hangs over the way in which the House does its business. This is wrong and the judgment must be rolled back.
The Oireachtas is the only Parliament in the world that I have studied - I have also asked the Library and Research Service to examine other parliaments - which does not have the power to investigate and find matters of fact. It is astounding that this level of impotence is tolerated in a functioning Parliament, yet we do so.
Addressing the Abbeylara judgment may ultimately require constitutional change. If that is the case, we must make the necessary change but let us first draft legislation to test the limits of the current constitutional position. I do not believe the very narrow interpretation the House has placed on the Abbeylara judgment to spancil its work was intended in the majority decision in the Abbeylara case. The matter must be put right.
Taken together, the proposals before us would change the way the Oireachtas works, make it more effective and give people confidence that we can hold the Executive and others to account and do business effectively.
On a wider government scale, the Labour Party proposes the complete reform of the annual Estimates process to make it more timely and relevant. It is proposed, for example, to accompany the Book of Estimates with a detailed performance report on what the previous year’s expenditure has achieved. Currently, one is given a list of figures for the current year and a further list for the forthcoming year. One then compares the two lists to determine what changes have been made. Questions are not asked about what money was spent on, whether it achieved success, if the outcomes were those intended or whether the entire sum was expended on the purpose for which it was allocated.
Earlier, the Tánaiste answered questions on how much of the allocation for the capital programme of the Department of Education and Skills had not been spent and the House discussed ways in which the outstanding amount could be spent. This is a hopeless approach to dealing properly with public accounts.
The Labour Party proposes the establishment of an independent fiscal advisory council to perform a monitoring function and provide accurate projections. This would enable Members to rely on independent projections of the macroeconomic position to make important decisions.
We propose to appeal the gagging clause to enable senior officials to express their views on Government policy. Why should we not allow them to do so? Most important, we propose to replace the Ministers and Secretaries Acts and Public Service Management Act with clear legislation - this is extremely important - to set out the functions, powers and duties of Ministers and every official in order that there will be clear lines of accountability and no more talk of systemic failures. Nothing is a failure in this country; the system always fails but nobody makes a cock up or mistake. We need to have accountability for Ministers, Ministers of State and senior officials.
Taken together, this package of measures, which will be part of a much wider package the Labour Party will publish, will change the landscape of public administration in Ireland.
In the past, Oppositions always have sought change and Governments always wanted the status quo. The Labour Party commits itself to profound and meaningful change now, with a real prospect of Government into the future. At a time of crisis for his country and his presidency, Abraham Lincoln stated:
The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise [to] the occasion.
One shall see tonight and tomorrow whether this House is ready for the challenge of change. However, reading the Government’s pitiful amendment that promises more but delivers nothing gives me little faith.
|
