Dáil debates

Thursday, 20 June 2013

An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: Second Stage (Resumed) - Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

2:35 pm

Photo of Billy TimminsBilly Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am not holding my breath. However, it may be the case that I would not behave any differently in office from other members of the Government. I say this with all due respect to the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, who is one of the more enlightened members of Government and who is unfairly apportioned blame on many occasions for unpopular decisions. I see the Minister smiling; he is engaged in a labour of love. However, it seems generally to be the case that when people cross that tunnel, irrespective of who they are, a certain mindset descends and a sprinkle of dust falls over their grey matter. I observe them from my office every day, which is conveniently located for that purpose. People seem to go into lock-down mode. I concede, however, that there might not be a better system than the one we have.

Maybe we are reinventing the wheel. We could spend a generation here doing things but end up where we are.

To return to the issue of the control of the Executive, Deputy Buttimer spoke earlier about the Oireachtas hearings on the termination of life Bill, about how experts were able to make their contribution, how great it was to hear them and about how there was no need for a second Chamber. I attended those hearings and I must admit I received some good information. However, it seems that was the only purpose the hearings served, because none of the information was acted on. If it was, the legislation would differ greatly from that we have currently. That particular issue is a very emotive and serious issue of concern for me. Since the hearings, I have sought to find out certain information regarding the establishment of the expert group, but I have not been able to find that information, either through tabling parliamentary questions or the use of other avenues. This is totally unacceptable. When a Member of the Oireachtas cannot find out how an expert group on a certain subject was established, there is a shortcoming in the system.

In recent days we have heard much about the freedom of Members to vote "No". Strangely enough, I am a strong advocate of the Whip system and I believe we must have a Whip system in place to ensure coherence and to enable the implementation of certain policies. That said, anybody who needs to hide behind a Whip system should not be in politics. If people cannot face pressure from a pressure group or stand up to those groups, they should not be in politics. They should not need the protection of the Whip system. The Whip system should not exist to protect somebody, but to facilitate cohesion, because otherwise it might be very difficult to implement a policy.

This issue has brought forward the concept of a free vote. My colleague, the Minister of State Deputy Brian Hayes, floated the idea a number of months ago, but it seems to have been shot down fairly rapidly. In this regard, a debate held on 30 June 1993 has come to my attention and is of interest. I do not know whether the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, was in the Dáil at the time, but perhaps he was. It is ironic that I will be quoting my good colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on this. He has a very enlightened approach to many issues and while I disagree with him on some, I must acknowledge that with regard to others he is doing significant work.

The debate in question was on the hare coursing Bill and took place 20 years ago next week. I will not go through all the matters mentioned by Deputy Shatter, but he mentioned Woodstock, the generation of the booming sixties then entering Irish politics and Stephen Spielberg's "Jurassic Park". I do not remember those things, but I will cite what he had to say on the hare coursing Bill. He asked:

Why should grown men and women be forced to behave in such an undignified and demeaning way? Why should they be forced on an issue such as this to let people down and add to the public cynicism of politicians and the workings of this House?
I admit I am being selective in what I am quoting. He went on to say:
There are other issues to which the tyranny of the Whip or indeed the protection of the Whip should not apply. Most people outside this House cannot understand Deputies who say one thing and vote for the opposite. We have heard much about muzzling dogs during this debate. It is time for us to remove the self-imposed political muzzles. It is time for us to allow Deputies of all parties to behave and act on occasion like legislators and not just as lobby fodder. The new Ireland is the politics of free choice and personal responsibility.
This was 20 years ago. Strangely, in the same debate, Deputy Shatter referred to the 1983 protection of life amendment and myself and Monica Barnes voting against it.

In a nutshell, Deputy Shatter finished up by saying: "Put simply, it is about keeping faith with people with whom I have been in contact over the years and it is about fulfilling a promise." On that occasion, Deputy Shatter, now a Minister, and two other Deputies at the time, Deputy McGahon and Deputy Flaherty, voted against the Fine Gael Party position. There was not a free vote on the issue. Strangely enough, although they voted against the party system, they did not lose the Whip. While Deputy Shatter points out at the time that we were unenlightened, it looks like we have become more unenlightened as time has passed. I do not know when the rules changed, but now in our party if one votes against party policy, one immediately loses the Whip. I am an advocate of the Whip system in general, but I think that after the next few weeks, on social and certain other issues and on Private Members' time, we should have a free vote system, where people can come and live and die by their vote, rather than hide behind the Whip system.

The Dáil could be made more meaningful. I acknowledge the job done by the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Seán Barrett. However, the Ceann Comhairle should be elected by Members of the Dáil. The position should not be the preserve of the Government or the Opposition. Equally, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should be elected by the Dáil. That position should not be the preserve of the Leader of the Opposition or main party, the Taoiseach or anybody else. This is where we need to start reform.

With regard to committees, I brought forward a document on the reform of committees which got me into some difficulty in my party, but I will not go into that. I am not the best contributor in the world to committees, but they have not changed much over the years. We go down and sit in the committee room for an hour or two and get the opportunity to contribute one line or so. This system does not work, but I do not have a solution to the problem. I cannot stand here and say I have the solution to improving the system. What we need to change is our mindset. I agree we must be disciplined and must vote here for things we might prefer not to vote for. However, there should be areas where we have freedom of choice and the right to choose. We also need to look at the issue of Private Members time and Bills.

Reference was made to Friday sittings. I have a very poor record for attending on Fridays. Deputy Buttimer said the Friday debates were wonderful and that wonderful contributions are made, but I wonder what concrete proposals arise from them or whether anything is implemented following them. I suggest there is very little result from them. I do not support Friday sittings. If we sat and used the time we have here on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays adequately, that would be fine, because we must also get out among the public. Ministers have a role to play around the country and it is important they do not end up sitting in their offices all the time. On one hand we are accused of not enacting sufficient legislation, and on the other we are accused of staying in our ivory towers. Three days in the House is ample if the time is used properly.

I welcome the fact this issue is being put before the public and hope it leads to a coherent, non-confrontational debate. I hope it awakens all of us to the fact that it is not the institutions that need to be abolished, but the mindset that has accumulated here after decades of government run in the same manner. How we can enlighten people and improve this mindset is easier said than done. It is easy to identify problems, but it is a little more difficult to come up with solutions.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.