Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)

I wish to share time with Deputies Kevin Humphreys, White and Moloney. During the last election all parties represented in the House spoke of the need for electoral reform. As reflected in the electoral outcome it is clear there is an appetite for political change. I welcome the proposals outlined in the Bill but I would be concerned were we to consider the job complete if and when the Bill is passed. Otherwise, we would have missed a golden opportunity to make a lasting, effective and positive change to our political landscape and processes.

The reductions in spending limits for the presidential election as reflected in the Bill make a good deal of sense. These reductions should be extended to all elections and to spending prior to elections for a greater period than is the case at present. Political participation whether at local or national level should not be the exclusive preserve of the rich, the well-connected and those in the best position to finance an election campaign.

The introduction a time limit of six months for the holding of by-elections makes sense as well. Never again should we encounter the farcical situation whereby the Government is dragged through the courts at great expense to the taxpayer to force the calling of a by-election, a matter reflected on in considerable detail by Deputy Doherty. I note from my observation of the monitor earlier that he was not behind the door when it came to congratulating himself on several occasions for embarking on that particular journey but in fairness to him, credit is due. I add the caveat that we should consider the wisdom of being required to hold by-elections at all. By-elections tend to be dominated by local issues and personalities. Alternatively, they can become a referendum on a given Government's popularity at a given time. The record of Government parties in by-elections during the past 30 years speaks for itself. Is it sensible to decide the make up a Government following a national general election and then allow its stability to be chipped away by a succession of by-elections? This is not likely to be an issue in the lifetime of this Dáil but it has been in the past and inevitably it will be in the future. There is a strong argument in favour of considering a substitution system following the departure of a Member from the House.

The reduction in the number of Deputies makes sense but it should be tied into the larger scenario of reform of local and national government. In essence reform should redefine the roles and demands made on local and national politicians. Merely tinkering with the number of Deputies is not enough. It is clear from the census results that a significant reduction in numbers cannot be achieved without amending the Constitution. This is a personal opinion but we should proceed and amend it to reflect a different scenario with, possibly, a greater reduction in the number of Deputies. This could be done with relatively little expense and at the time of the presidential election and it is worth considering.

It is imperative that the message goes out from this House that politicians are not seen to be in the business of self-preservation. Everyone will agree this would reflect badly on the business of politics, a profession already badly damaged in recent years. The number of Deputies is almost irrelevant unless we tie it to changes in local government. I realise the Minister is keen to embark on a process of reform of local government which will better reflect the situation in which we find ourselves at present. We have a system more akin to local administration than local government. There is a strong case for potentially halving the number of local authorities, consolidating the number of councillors, giving them real and meaningful jobs to do and providing them with more powerful roles. I imagine the Minister will be keen to get his teeth into these matters at a later stage in this Dáil term.

See this speech in context