Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The notion that one has to be religious, for example, to have a conscience, is nonsense.

I have a conscience about things like poverty, people being on trolleys in our hospitals, the way we manage our services and property being described as something people live in when it is in fact a family home - I see it as shelter. We could mention many issues which could come within the definition of "conscience", but I do not think we should mix up the difference between conscience and a free vote.

I read a paper on free votes and votes of conscience in Germany which was delivered in Dublin. One of the issues was smoking in public and legislation on tobacco consumption in Germany. I was surprised to see such an issue included because it is generally perceived that what is considered in the Bill in terms of conscience tends to be about reproductive rights. There is a free vote in the UK Parliament on the issue of the death penalty. I would certainly have a conscience about that.

The definition of "free votes" or "votes of conscience" has to be part of any debate if one is to consider changing the Constitution. We need changes to our Constitution. In fact, we need a whole new Constitution. The stranglehold the Government places on the Parliament is an issue which was not envisaged by the drafters of our Constitution. The larger the majority the Government has, the less democracy we see. The punitive measures taken when people leave a party result in people being made unelectable, which is probably no accident. It removes many rights, such as the right to be on a committee and table amendments to Bills. In terms of political funding, the party is funded but the mandate is not respected.

The Government talked about reform. I could not be more critical of what actually happened. I remember the night we debated the promissory notes. We had a late briefing and relied on Twitter for information on what would happen that night. When we got a briefing at about 10 p.m. our group discussed what was in the Bill. We were encouraged by all sorts of media outlets to go and talk to them in advance of reading the Bill. There was no shortage of Government Deputies to speak on a Bill they had not even read. The system, as we see it, turns people into sheep. It turns people who are capable of making a greater contribution into Government voting fodder. If we need changes to our Constitution, I suggest they are far more fundamental and go to the heart of democracy.

I reiterate the point that definition is a key issue. I know the Government will not take this Bill. I introduced a Bill which the Government did not oppose. It concerned planning legislation and proposed to rebalance the rights of people who bought houses and found themselves living in unfinished estates which they could not get taken in charge. It involved a litany of day-to-day practical things on which I had done some research and knew backwards and forwards because they have been a staple matter for me for the past 20 years. The Bill went to Committee Stage and I was encouraged to take it off the agenda on the basis that the Planning (No. 2) Bill would come forward and include many of the same provisions.

I did not expect the Bill to include everything. I met senior officials from the Department and went through what was intended in detail. I thought it was a very productive meeting and expected to see something happen. Not even a line was included.

One has to ask about the monopoly on wisdom the Taoiseach said the Government did not have when it gives the impression that these Friday sittings are of value. They give the impression that things are considered, but in fact that is where reform should have manifested itself. The Government would say Friday sittings and increasing the number of hours of debate are reforms, but they are meaningless.

See this speech in context