Dail procedure on questions for review

A key Dail committee is to consider a major overhaul of the working procedures of the Dail, including greater flexibility in …

A key Dail committee is to consider a major overhaul of the working procedures of the Dail, including greater flexibility in the questioning of the Taoiseach.

This follows a special meeting this week of the Dail Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider opposition party concerns about how business in Leinster House is conducted.

There have been increasingly disruptive scenes during the Dail Order of Business in recent weeks, with tensions between the opposition party leaders and the Ceann Comhairle, Mr Seamus Pattison and Leas-Ceann Comhairle, Dr Rory O'Hanlon.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges agreed yesterday to refer the matter to the subcommittee on Dail reform, which is chaired by the Government chief whip, Mr Seamus Brennan.

READ MORE

The Irish Times was told yesterday by an Oireachtas spokeswoman that the minutes of meetings of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were "confidential and private".

However, a source said it was agreed at the meeting that the order of business and question time in the Dail needed to be examined and improved.

The introduction of procedures whereby the Taoiseach would be available for more open and flexible questioning, similar to the system which operates in the British House of Commons, will be considered by the committee.

On February 2nd the Fine Gael and Labour whips sent a letter to Mr Pattison, who is also chairman of the committee, seeking a special meeting. In the letter they said that disorder and argument on the Order of Business were not in anyone's interest.

"Certainly members of our parties take no pleasure in finding themselves in conflict with the chair. However, it is the duty of the opposition parties to oppose, to challenge, to question and to demand accountability of government."

They said the interests of democracy were not being furthered if standing orders were framed or interpreted in such a way as to inhibit the opposition unreasonably from fulfilling its role.