Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

I would like to point out something without doing so in a spirit of triumphalism. Apart from the Technical Group Members whose motion this is, why are there only three other Members present? What does that tell us about the Dáil and the way we do our business? This is not unusual. This is an important motion about improving the way we do business, yet only three non-Technical Group Members are present. That shows that Members think it is more important to be somewhere else.

It was unnecessary and unfair of Deputy Costello to criticise the Technical Group for tabling the motion because it is constructive. I am proud of that the fact that the group, of which I am a member, can table such a motion; its members can vote differently on issues and hold completely different views while working with each other in the interests of democracy and the workings of the House. Why are so few Members present? It is not just because of this motion. One of the reasons is Members prefer to be in their offices doing constituency work or to be outside the House doing something else. It is in their interests to do so. That is the result of the multi-seat PR system, under which we were all elected. It is in all our interests to keep it that way and, therefore, the incentive is to be on the telephone working the constituency and not to participate in the processing of legislation in the House.

There is a well known phrase that one talks one's way out of the House, not into it. The cynics say if one spends too much time speaking in the House, one will lose one's seat because one is not on the ground. If the system is changed and the number of multi-seat constituencies is reduced, there is a good chance that Members will come to the House and take legislation seriously. I am glad the Minister is present and I hope he will consider this suggestion because it would be in the interests of the House, which is 95% empty most of the time, to introduce a system that encourages Members to be present.

I have long suspected the other reason few Members attend the House is most of them believe the real action is off stage where power is held by Ministers, lobby groups and the social partners, as was mentioned earlier. This is less the case than heretofore, thankfully, but it is still an issue. Members regard decisions made in the House as rubber stamps. Legislation is not likely to be changed in the House and, therefore, we go through the motions. I may be wrong and a finance Bill will be taken next week. Let us see how Committee Stage goes and how many amendments are accepted but my guess is very few, if any, will be because this is a theatre rather than a legislative chamber.

We will have to stop Government backbenchers, in particular, accepting that they should act as lobby fodder, which is their traditional role. Deputy Eoghan Murphy apparently made an enlightened contribution earlier. I am sorry I did not hear it but he is an exception. There has been a tendency for backbenchers to accept a role as lobby fodder and not to participate in the business of the House in a meaningful way because they believe they will not achieve very much. That should end. There is a possibility through the committee system, which the Government has promised to reform and strengthen, of playing a real role and sending a message that Members on both sides of the House can play a real role. However, there are dangers in the Government's proposals for committees. They propose to reduce the number of committees in a concession to public opinion and the need to reduce expenditure but it is a great pity that many of the chairman posts will go to Government Members. Let us not pay the chairmen in order that there can be no accusation that the appointments are being made as sops to members of the Government parties. Let us then appoint-----

See this speech in context