Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)

It will not, that is true. An argument that has been put forward is that it will stop us being more parochial and force us to deal with national legislation in a bigger way. That is nonsense. We could have the best institutions and the best reform packages possible, but unless TDs want to step up to the mark, then it makes no difference. When I started off in electoral politics members of other political parties told me the only way I would get elected in a rural constituency was to attend every funeral and wake. "Not a hope in hell", was my reply. I was not doing it because it is not my personality nor is it my politics. My mantra was I can either attend your funeral when you are dead or try to change your life for the better when you are alive. Thankfully, that viewpoint has resonated with the people. In the last election I topped the poll. In the by-election I got elected as well. It shows that people are not fickle, that they want their representatives to speak on the national issue that affects them locally. That is the point. Having 152 TDs will not solve that issue.

If reducing the number of TDs will not deliver a better system, then the question is why we are doing it. If the only reason we are doing it is to reduce costs, I presented a Bill to the House, which has passed First Stage, to reduce the cost of TDs. For example, if we reduce the number of TDs by 14, the maximum allowed under this legislation, the savings on TDs' wages would be in the region of €1.8 million. If the Minister takes the proposal in the Bill that I presented to the House a fortnight ago, which is to cut TDs' salaries by 15%, which would still leave them handsomely paid at €75,000 per year, which is nothing to shy away from, he would save in excess of €1 million more than what is being presented under this legislation. If we want to save costs, that is the way to do it.

One of the ways we could try to ensure there were more TDs dealing with national legislation is to look at the list system. Many parties argued for a list system or partial list system in their political reform proposals in the run up to the election, and I am disappointed a partial list system is not included in this legislation. If we are serious about political reform, why are we cutting the number of TDs which, while popular, will not make the institution any more effective or lead to better government? Perhaps we should look at the list system for which we all argued beforehand. Many of us had different views as to how the list system would be elected. Sinn Féin favours a mixed system where two thirds would be elected through PR-STV and one third would be elected via the list system. I put that to the Minister as something he may look at in future legislation.

Others have argued against the multi-seat constituencies but I think it is important to keep them because it is the best way of ensuring the minority view in a constituency has a representative in the House. We cannot have a Parliament that is dominated by larger parties. This House represents a more balanced view of the public between the four larger parties and a large number of Independents, and that is healthy for democracy. The limitation placed on the constituency commission that the maximum number of seats in any constituency is five is something that should be looked at. I would like to hear the arguments why we do not allow the commission to look at a six-seat constituency. For example, if there was a six-seat constituency, it would probably mean that Donegal would be one constituency. Coming up to election time, I would not thank the Minister that I would have to travel all the way to Malin Head.

See this speech in context