Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In Article 15 he mentioned the "power to ensure freedom of debate". Freedom of debate is not enough. Members must have freedom to make decisions based on how they debated in a discussion. I speak as somebody who is not a member of a political party and who is, therefore, not bound by the Whip system. I have the freedom and independence to make up my own mind on votes. It is almost a luxury. In my six years here, there have been occasions on which I have voted with both the previous and current Governments. A major disadvantage of the Whip system is the way it polarises opinion. It is almost like a herd mentality. One must vote a certain way, and there is no outlet for individual thinking or independent thought. It must be very frustrating being in a political party. Given that it is impossible to agree 100% with everything a party decides, there must be times when one fundamentally disagrees with something one's party has proposed. Under the Whip system, one must vote for it regardless of one's beliefs.

When thinking about the Bill, I was struck by two examples of this. During the previous Dáil, there was a vote on a proposed ban on stag hunting. There were people on the Government side who were against the ban being imposed and, equally, some in opposition who had to oppose the Bill and support retaining the stag hunt. There were active animal welfare supporters in both Labour and Fine Gael who had to vote against it. Is that democratic? Some weeks ago there was a Private Members' debate on a human rights approach to budgets and equality proofing. Many speakers on the Government side acknowledged the value and positive aspects of what I was trying to do. Anybody who did not know the system would have thought there was almost unanimous thinking on it. However, when it came to the vote it was a different story.

It always strikes me on Tuesday and Wednesday nights that people come in to watch from the Gallery as their issues are debated. While they come in thinking and hoping the vote will be in their favour, we all know the outcome has been decided well before the topic is even discussed. When one crosses the floor from this side to the Government side, one inherits this all seeing, all knowing persona. While we are all flawed human beings and nobody has all the answers, collectively we might do a better job if we could work in a more collegial and congenial way. If we could all learn from each other it could make a difference.

Why are so few amendments to Bills accepted by Governments? It is due to the assumption that once one is sitting in the Government seats, one has all the wisdom and all the right answers. I do not know if it is something in the air on that side of the House. Equally, Opposition Members are put in a position in which they must oppose, which they might not always agree with. We have a very strong party discipline and a very tight Whip system. Statistics show Ireland has almost a full record of party unity in voting. In the past 30 years, 54 individual Deputies voted against their parties, just 3% of all elected Deputies who were party members. There does not appear to have been any major gain or loss because those people did that.

In the UK system there is some flexibility in the three-tier system whereby there are times when it is absolutely essential to vote with the party and times when votes are less important and it is possible to vote against the party. Most European systems employ a Whip system to a lesser extent than here while, for example, the US, New Zealand, Australia and other countries allow for conscience votes. Deputy Mathews is using the German example.

It is proposed here to place the Deputy beholden to his or her own judgment when deciding the merits or demerits of a Bill. A central issue is representation. We are elected by constituents and we represent them to the best of our abilities. We know the principles, policies and values on which they elect us, whether or not we are members of a party. However, there must be some flexibility. There are many instances in which Deputies on both sides of the House know they are not acting in the best interests of their constituents when they have to vote the way they are told by their parties, and this undermines democracy. What is being proposed would give Deputies a degree of protection from arbitrary party intentions and they would be left freer to vote as they think would best represent their principles and those of their constituents. A recent survey shows that there is an appetite for some reform and relaxation of the Whip.

I was a member of the Constitutional Convention and while this issue was not one of the topics, there was discussion at the Dáil reform meetings arising from the surprise on the part of the citizen members that party members did not have freedom. There was a suggestion that the Ceann Comhairle should be elected by secret ballot rather than appointed by the Government. Although I sometimes wonder about the accuracy and validity of opinion polls, Independent Members are doing very well in the polls and have the highest rating of any block. We vote outside the party system and I wonder if that is part of the reason for the increased support for us. While there are arguments that voting freedom would lead to a weakened and fractured Parliament, we can strike a workable balance. Parliaments can be effective with conscience voting.

I accept lines must be drawn and that a Whip system must be in place for certain Bills. Otherwise, we would have elections several times a year. We should begin with this Bill - with a free vote. Let us test the viability and desirability of the proposal and give it a chance. The question must be asked: "What is the point of having Private Members' Bills and so much work going into them when their passage or progress is totally dependent on one side of the House?"

See this speech in context