Dáil debates

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

Confidence in Government: Motion (resumed)

 

1:00 am

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

Any exercise in democracy in which there is keen public interest and participation should be a cause of satisfaction. The results of elections on different occasions to different bodies and for different purposes should be equally respected. There are still many parts of the world where, unfortunately, this is not the case.

Three sets of elections took place last Friday. There were two by-elections to this House, and I join in congratulating and welcoming Deputies George Lee and Maureen O'Sullivan. I particularly welcome Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, who carries on the tradition of the late Deputy Tony Gregory. One of my earliest tasks, as a political aid to Mr. Charles Haughey, was to research and collate the text of the Gregory deal in 1982, which focused on the badly needed renewal of very run-down areas of Dublin's inner city, a task I undertook with enthusiasm and which ever since has been a source of pride, even though my role was a modest one. A certain unconscious snobbery underlies the suggestion that such deals are the equivalent of accepting 12 pieces of silver. On the contrary, they are democracy at work.

Only Dublin South was previously a Government seat and no Government has won a by-election since the Galway East by-election of July 1982. I acknowledge and pay tribute to the virtually unprecedented scale of Deputy George Lee's victory, but it would be doing both Deputies a service and a kindness to allow them time to find their feet in the Dáil and as politicians, and not to ask them to go out on the campaign trail immediately again.

The second set of elections was for the European Parliament. Apart from the loss of the Dublin seat and an excellent MEP, Mr. Eoin Ryan, I regard the results with some satisfaction, both from a party and a national point of view. The real line of division was not so much between the main parties as between those who are for or against Ireland's fully committed participation at the heart of the European Union. In the North West constituency, Fianna Fáil Ministers explicitly called for vote transfers to other pro-Lisbon candidates, that is Fine Gael, Labour and Ms Marian Harkin - a gesture not reciprocated in Dublin by Fine Gael. Although it likes to project itself as Ireland's most pro-European party, on this occasion Fine Gael put party before country and failed to reverse what was interpreted as a call to transfer to Sinn Féin rather than Fianna Fáil by its national handler. Former Taoiseach, Mr. Garret FitzGerald had a rather different attitude.

The overall result saw the failure of Libertas to make any breakthrough, marked by its almost complete failure across Europe. The election of 11 out of 12 MEPs committed to Europe is a significant step forward in the context of the vitally important second Lisbon referendum which, as a country, we simply cannot afford to lose. Those whom the cap fits resent the tag of euroscepticism but in most cases are unable, when invited, to list any European treaty they have supported. An EU ambassador I was talking to yesterday also objected to the term on the grounds that it was too mild, and felt that term europhobe more accurately represented the position. The political and electoral price Sinn Féin is paying in the South for its opposition to the Lisbon treaty, part ideological and part opportunistic, should not be underestimated.

The third elections on Friday were to local councils. They saw Fine Gael, Labour and, in some cases, independents make substantial seat gains at the expense of the Government parties, for whom the overall result represented, undoubtedly, a severe rebuff. As the Taoiseach has said, the Government respects the results, the effects of which will be seen in changes in control of many councils. More than would normally be the case, the results were heavily influenced by reaction to the deep economic recession, the Government's handling of it and, partly as a result of relentless Opposition propaganda, perceived responsibility for it. In Ireland and many European countries, mid-term elections often go badly against the Government of the day. In 1985, Fianna Fáil, in Opposition, swept the boards, taking control of 23 out of 27 councils but the result did not precipitate a general election.

The Fine Gael decision to table a motion of no confidence was not well judged in its timing or its justification. I am not surprised at the anger of the victims of abuse groups that the debate on the Ryan commission report was pushed back two days to make way for a petty display of political triumphalism, the only effect of which has been to close ranks quickly among the parties and other supporting the Government.

The rules laid down in the Constitution governing this representative democracy are quite clear. The adult citizens of the State elect the Members of Dáil Éireann and Dáil Éireann elects the Taoiseach, who chooses the members of the Government to be appointed by the President. The Taoiseach resigns from office along with members of the Government upon ceasing to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann. The motion before the House is a test of that support.

The argument put forward from the Opposition benches would have us believe that last week's local elections should be treated as an exercise in direct democracy. It would be wholly undesirable if mid-term local elections were to be treated as a proxy for a general election, as it would mean that Governments might only expect to serve for about two years and, also, it would be a subversion of local democracy. Governments, particularly in times of international or domestic crisis, need to be in a position to take the right difficult and unpopular decisions in the long-term public interest. Subject to retaining a majority in the Dáil, Governments are elected with a five-year mandate. With three years still to run, this Government is well able to take the decisions that are necessary, its members have the advantage of experience in dealing with the current situation and have a common agreed policy platform which will now be reviewed and updated. In terms of immediate preparedness and ability to act, the parties in Government are far ahead of the parties in opposition.

All Governments have the mandate to deal with the unexpected crises and emergencies that arise during their term in office. If the people continue to disapprove of what they have done they have the opportunity to choose a new Government at the next general election by sending back a different membership of the Dáil. Prior to the 2007 general election, it was clearly indicated to the people that the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, would not stay the full term and it was well known that his most likely successor would be the Taoiseach, Deputy Brian Cowen. In December 1994, Deputy John Bruton became Taoiseach without seeking a new mandate from the people and current opposition leaders served under him. The argument that the Government has lost the consent of the governed is wholly spurious. The institutions of the State are functioning as well today and with the same consent as they did last week.

In most democracies, as part of political alternation, the leading position among the main parties changes from time to time. It is highly unusual that for almost 80 years one party has always been dominant. It is not a great boast for Fine Gael that it has taken that long to break back into the lead, albeit for the moment, on local councils, after achieving the same in the European Parliament context as 2004. Even with a 25% result in the local elections, Fianna Fáil retains critical mass, and it is far too early to judge how much long term significance this result has, accepting that the traditional loyalties of all parties have tended to diminish over time.

I find it ironic that parties opposite which during the long years of prosperity denied that the Government deserved any particular credit for the boom should now seek to saddle it with all the blame for the recession. The degree to which any Government is responsible for the state of the economy at any given time is a point on which there is little clarity or consistency in political debate. Between 1987 and 2007, Ireland enjoyed the best years of its history. We had a successful peace process; we joined the euro; huge advances were made in levels of employment, standards of living, infrastructure and social provision; and we brought ourselves up in that period from two thirds of the average European standard of living to 100% or more. Only someone who believes the State is the provider of everything would credit this all to the Government. The Government created many of the conditions which allowed the country to prosper, but so did the European and global economic environment, as did the social partners.

While the national debt was lowered and money providentially put aside in the National Pensions Reserve Fund as well as SSIAs, we all underestimated the vulnerability of our economy and no one could have foreseen the combination of circumstances that hit, not just Ireland but the entire world economy. In 2007, apart from minor proposed variations in taxation and expenditure, parties opposite had broadly the same approach and assumptions to economic policy as the Government. Society as a whole wanted better services but without paying more taxes. Even Deputy George Lee, as well as the Labour Party, kept repeating that the country was awash with money.

When things go wrong people look for someone else to blame, such as over-extended developers, banks and the Government. A case can be made that it is incumbent on some players, including the regulatory authorities and Government, to display superior wisdom, foresight and prudence. The reality, nonetheless, is that a large swath of the better paid members of society bought to a greater or lesser extent into the myth and illusions of the Celtic tiger. This has left Ireland somewhat worse affected by recession than the average among European countries.

If we are wise, we will accept that the need to adjust fairly drastically is a collective responsibility. The lesson for the future is clear, namely, we should be wary of any recurrence of runaway growth and try to smooth out strong swings in the economic cycle. There are also solid environmental reasons for taking the same stance.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.