Let's talk
The Dáil should be a place of real debate, not a place where deputies read pre-prepared speeches. By Eoghan Murphy.
Some Senators will say in private that the Seanad as it currently stands needs to be abolished. That is why they argue in public that it must be reformed immediately in order to ensure there are checks and balances in our democracy. We could spend the next five years in this Chamber seeking agreement on reform of the Seanad instead of addressing the real problems with our democracy. Our democratic deficit will not be corrected if we do so. The problems for democracy in this State lie in large part in this Chamber. It may be somewhat paradoxical, as Deputy Deering observed, that the greatest reform we could make to this Chamber would be to make reform externally, at the layer of local government. However, we are debating Dáil reform, so I will focus on that.
From my brief time in the House I wish to make some observations that may help to make our time in this Chamber more meaningful. I make these comments in the knowledge that not many people are listening. That is part of the problem. I also make them knowing that they are ideas and need to be fleshed out in debate but we will not be afforded that opportunity in this Chamber. That is part of the problem. It bothers me that speaking time in this Chamber is divided equally between parties and groups rather than between elected Members. It is not right that Members elected to this Chamber should be excluded from the debate because there is insufficient time when it is distributed between the parties and groups. Time should be divided between those who want to speak.
It is not right that people come in here and use certain Standing Orders or rules of procedure to raise issues in the Dáil that they know cannot be addressed just so that they can go back to their constituents and say they raised the matter in the Dáil. It serves no purpose. It is Potemkin politics and it is a waste of everyone’s time. Matters on the Adjournment fall into this category. To be able to raise an issue with the Minister and to receive a reply is no small thing but we cannot question the reply from the Minister. What is the point? We serve as postmen and postwomen. We might as well write a letter or an e-mail. If we cannot question the answer we are given, we are wasting our time because there is no debate.
In my time on Dublin City Council, I often went into the chamber without knowing what way I would vote. Through the debate on the issue, through the power of people’s words and constructive engagement, I was persuaded to move one way or the other. That is a powerful process. I tried to take part in certain debates and to move others with my words and that too is a powerful process. In my time there, through constructive engagement with each other, our decisions and actions were all the better for having a debate. We had to know our material and we had to stand up and defend it. We could not hide behind the party line because there was no party whip. There used to be free votes in this Chamber and we should consider returning to that system, whereby Members can vote on the basis of the debate. Then we would have to take positions and able to defend them in this Chamber. That is important.
We need to transform this Chamber into a debating chamber, where opinions are given but also heard. Through constructive engagement with all sides of the House we can do collectively for this country what nobody can do individually. That is the root of parliamentary democracy and the system of checks and balances we need in Dáil Éireann. Strong, democratic governments require strong parliaments, which require strong opposition. Nothing I see so far in the operation of this Chamber lends itself to that idea.
We have seen this Chamber used in the past as a vehicle for the Executive to legitimise its actions. That serves no one well. I and the Government, including the Fine Gael and Labour parties, are committed to changing that. All Members are. That is why I commend this motion, which gives us time to discuss these issues and to try and find agreement, even though this is not proper debate. It is important that we do it together because the benefits will accrue, not to each of us as individual representatives in the benefits we try to gain from our work, but to the country as a whole because politics will have improved. Better decisions will be made on behalf of the people of this country, who we represent.
We are fortunate to have the parliamentary system we have so I ask that we use it as it is meant to be used. It should not just be a place of great speeches - there have been some great speeches from all sides since I have been here - but as a place of great debate. It should be the seat of responsible, accountable and proper decision-making in this country. I commend the motion because it has afforded us time to discuss this. I wish us all the best in our endeavours as we set out to achieve what so many of us promised in the recent general election campaign, to improve politics in this country. It must start in this Chamber.
Image top: apanoply.