David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

When was the last time the sub-committee on Dáil reform met formally to discuss anything? Is it not true that it last met well before the summer recess and that, despite repeated requests from this side of the House, the Government has refused to engage positively? Does the Minister of State agree that it was understood we would have incremental reform and that an overall package of reforms, which has been the attempt for decades, would not work? Has the Minister of State any concrete suggestion for the House and the public regarding the Government's proposals on Dáil reform? The sub-committee should meet in public in future, not in private, so that members of the press could see what transpires.

Will the Minister of State publish the Government's proposals on Dáil reform that he mentioned so that the public can see them? Does he agree that the procedures under which we work are outdated and inefficient and that longer sittings or more days of more of the same will not help anything? We need fundamental reform of the procedures under which the House operates so that the Executive can be held to account. Does he also agree that the Parliament is one of the weakest in Europe vis-À-vis the Executive and that the latter controls virtually everything that is done in the Houses, from when we sit and what is debated to how long those debates are and when they are held? It also decides whether there will be votes. All of this is fundamentally undemocratic and demands major change.

We should start with the small stuff. For example, Deputies are not allowed to ask supplementary questions on the Adjournment debate whereas Members of the Upper House can. Does this not lead to a situation in which we are just reading scripts at one another? Ministers attend the House with prepared answers, which they read out without having heard the cases being put by Deputies from the other side of the House? Is this also not bizarre and fundamentally wrong? It is called a debate.

See this speech in context