Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I would like to echo what Deputy Ellis said by pointing out that cutting the number of elected representatives and abolishing democratic forums of various kinds is not the same as introducing reform. I accept that there may be some merits in the Minister's proposals regarding local government. Apart from anything else, the proposals address the issue of there not beng town councils throughout the country. I understand the concerns of town councils that have been in existence for approximately 100 years.

The real reason these cuts are being made has nothing to do with reform. An effort is being made to be seen to save money. The reforms before the House, such as the reduction in the number of Deputies, will lead to a theoretical saving of money that will not be seen in practice until after the next general election. I suggest that the ongoing increase in population makes it likely that this change will be a one-term wonder, as the constitutional requirement to have a certain number of Deputies per head of population is likely to lead to an increase in the number of Deputies before the following election. In other words, just one election will take place on the basis of these new constituencies. As the Dáil does not have to complete a full five-year term, another election could be called within a year or two of that election.

This change is also being made to satisfy the hunger for political scalps that exists. It is very much a red herring in that regard. There is also the ideological basis for this measure. The Minister referred to the idea that cleaner and more efficient government is desirable. I cannot remember the exact term he used, but it alluded to rolling back the State and providing for smaller government. I do not believe smaller government makes for more democracy. If anything, it makes for less democracy. I believe this is an anti-democratic move. I wish we could have had a proper debate on it.

While I welcome what Deputy Ellis has said, I feel that Sinn Féin was very muted on this proposal when it was originally made. The same is true of the Opposition generally. I have been one of the most vocal people on this issue. I would have liked a more thorough debate on the issues I raised. We need a reflective debate about the size our Parliament should be. We should compare like with like when we speak about other countries. Studies have shown there is a relationship between the size of a country's parliament and the cube root of its population. Given that our population is 4.5 million, the cube root rule means we should have exactly 166 TDs. If one is to believe studies that have looked at what works in practice, we have exactly the right number of TDs at the moment.

We should not be compared to countries like India, Britain and Italy that have levels of regional and provincial government that we do not have. Ireland is too small to have regional assemblies - autonomous provincial parliaments - of the kind found in Italy, for example. We are familiar with the assemblies etc, that have been established in Britain. I will not go into all the detail. We have similar levels of representation to countries of a similar size, such as Finland and Sweden. Cyprus, which recently held the Presidency of the EU, has 56 MPs to serve its population of 800,000. Its proportion of parliamentarians per head of population is far greater than the proportion in this country. That is the case because Cyprus is a smaller country. That is the way it has always been in practice.

I have been a Member of the Oireachtas for over ten years. I have been a Deputy since 2007. The workload of Deputies has increased significantly in that time. Obviously, it has increased substantially since the number of Deputies was originally set at 166. The population of this country was smaller by some 1.2 million at that time. Politicians are now much more accessible. It is absolute rubbish to suggest we can move away and tell our constituents to shove off because we are legislators. We are much more accessible to the public now. We are accessible through social media. We can be contacted via e-mails and telephone calls. We meet people on the streets. We represent our constituents just as MPs do in other countries. We do not do a higher percentage of constituency work than MPs in other countries. In fact, MPs in Canada do the most work in that regard. We are not here to legislate in an ivory tower - we are here to legislate on behalf of the people.

I think we will regret the move that has been announced by the Minister because as our workload increases, we will be less able to do our jobs as legislators who are informed by the lives of our constituents. I wish the Minister had engaged more with the silent majority, rather than the elitist commentators, the academics or the advisers who drove this debate, before he announced this supposed political reform. If he had engaged with the silent majority, he would have learned that people want to be in touch with politicians. They believe they have a right to contact their elected representatives about the issues that concern them and the effects of the decisions that are made in here on their daily lives. I reiterate that I regret the move that is being taken by the Minister.

See this speech in context