Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It was interesting to hear the Minister's presentation of the Bill, particularly his reference to the Articles of the Constitution which pertain to these issues. The Minister stated:

Article 16.2.4° of the Constitution provides that: "The Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in every twelve years, with due regard to changes in distribution of the population". This, in effect, requires that constituencies be revised whenever population changes ascertained in a census lead to population-Deputy ratios in individual constituencies that are significantly out of line with the national average. That is the case at present and the Oireachtas must respond accordingly.

The Minister also referred to Article 16.6.2° which provides: "The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population." I accept this basis for the revision of constituencies and I particularly accept, and why would I not, with regard to my constituency that it will lead to an extra Deputy in County Offaly. However, it is only fair, proper and appropriate as an Opposition spokesperson on political representation and the electoral process to put this process in context. In this regard I wish to paint the picture which existed prior to the most recent election. I want to analyse the utterances of Fine Gael and its partners in government. One would have thought a proposal in this area would be part of a suite of proposals by the Government to address political reform and change the methods by which we carry out the democratic process. It is in this context I believe the parties in government should be measured.

I accept that in an election each party has a right to inform the electorate on the means and manner by which it would carry out its functions if elected to government. From an economic perspective, one must identify ways and means by which the gap between income and expenditure would be met. Significant commitments were made at the time by the parties now in government. It could be argued many of these commitments and aspirations, and the means and methods by which they would close the gap, did not have to contain the number of promises they did. Many commentators would have predicted the result in any case. My party has accepted the electorate's decision and is in the process of reorganising itself on foot of it. It was also patently obvious the impression was given, from an economic perspective at least and also from other perspectives which I will discuss, that there was a softer or easier way, and we had utterances such as Labour's way or Frankfurt's way. People bought into this. Prior to the general election, people saw a budgetary process which took €8.5 billion out of the economy. In budgets prior to that a further €12 billion was removed. When one sees the consternation being caused in government and among the electorate about the forthcoming budget, which seeks to remove €3.5 billion, it puts into context the situation at the time.

As elected representatives we meet our constituents regularly at clinics or party meetings, and in recent weeks and months there has been a perception among the electorate that they almost bought a pup or a pig in a poke. They feel that perhaps the new Government could have addressed these issues in a different way, as was suggested in their election campaigns and manifestos. To put this aside, a great play was also made on the fact there would be substantial political reform with a new way of doing business in the Dáil and new politics. People were very concerned and anxious and bought into this. In recent times it has become apparent to many people this is not and has not been the case. The satisfaction rating of the Government in opinion polls at present has decreased to the early 20s in percentage terms. In these snapshots in time people have not given the impression they are moving en masse to us or any other political party. It will take time for us as an Opposition, and others, to offer credible alternatives and be in a position to regain the trust and support of the public. We and others must work on this, and this will continue to be the case.

We must look at the suite of offers and promises made with regard to electoral reform. It is only then one might identify the litany of cynical electoral ploys which have been abandoned since entering government. In May 2011 the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, stated the programme for Government contained the most ambitious and far-reaching agenda for political reform ever before the House. If the reform being mooted or the minimal reform which has happened since is, in his opinion, the greatest political reform ever put before the House and it is measured only by what went before, it is a harmless virtue to sing about.

It is important in the context of the time available to me to discuss the Bill to put on record the commitments, and the responses having entered government to these commitments, with regard to electoral reform and Oireachtas business. With regard to sitting hours, the programme for Government stated Dáil sitting days would be increased by 50% and that a four-day sitting week would be introduced.

The Government has yet to reach the 50% target. On sitting days, 25% of the increase is due to what I can call the charade of Friday sittings. The Minister will have heard descriptions of freaky Fridays and fiver Fridays recently, but the Fridays we have once a month could be described as farcical Fridays. They are an affront to what was proposed to be real reform.

There is extensive overuse of guillotines to continue to ram through non-emergency legislation, despite promises in this regard from the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kehoe, the Chief Whip, who had made what some might describe as justifiable remarks on the use of guillotine in previous Dála. He had given a commitment to the Members of this Dáil that the matter would be addressed. Far from it, it has not been addressed.

The proposal on the Seanad is being kicked further into touch rather than being addressed in the first year of this Dáil. No doubt the initial setting up of the Seanad and its composition was well meant, and it had a considerable means by which legislation passed by the Dáil could be examined by those with expertise in that regard, but it is unfortunate for us to have to admit that it was the political parties which hijacked that House by virtue of it becoming either a breeding ground for aspiring politicians or a nursing home for those who had passed through this House. The constitutional convention could offer a real opportunity for meaningful debate in this area. There has been no relaxation of the rules on Cabinet confidentiality, no establishment of an electoral commission and no major reform in the role and significance of Oireachtas committees, other than merely reducing their number.

The Taoiseach, while in opposition and indeed on entering Government, stated he would have a report card system. He promised to improve transparency on the performance of his Cabinet and each of the Ministers. He reiterated it on many occasions. After a year in office, he stated that a report on progress on its policies was imminent. He was starting report cards already as far back as March of last year. At Christmas 2011, he stated he would have Ministers' "noses to the grindstone" with this imminent report card system. Obviously, it went by the wayside.

We were promised a constitution day. The Taoiseach stated he would set a programme to allow for a series of constitutional amendments to be decided on what he called "Constitution Day", to be held within 12 months of the new Government being formed, and that was to include the question on the abolition of the Seanad. The Government has failed to hold that much vaunted constitution day and its campaign on the Oireachtas inquiries powers undermined that vaunted overhaul of the committee system.

The constitutional convention talks about addressing some number of topics, such as reducing the voting age to 17 and reducing the presidential term to five years. My party believes this is an extremely limited range of topics to discuss. The challenges facing the State are far too profound to waste time on cosmetic changes such as reducing the presidential term limit. We believe it must face up to more fundamental problems within the political system.

See this speech in context