Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In the proposed substitution of Standing Order 143D(2), to delete:

"Provided further that the addition of a member or members to a party otherwise than at a bye-election or a general election shall be disregarded when determining the precedence of a party."

I do not propose to repeat the points made previously in this Chamber. The general principles in the reform document have been broadly discussed here and broadly welcomed. The initiative of the grouping was positive. On the last occasion this issue was before the House, the point was made that in some ways the reforms go a good bit of the way towards reflecting the new political reality in that they transfer power from the Government to the Oireachtas, which is welcome. Interestingly, during the last debate in the House on this issue a large number of Deputies made the point that they only go a bit of the way because the current system still serves to guard and protect the privilege of parties, which to me is inherently undemocratic. It is inherently archaic and is hankering after an old system that is unravelling not only in Ireland but across Europe.

It is ironic that the people who made the point about an electoral mandate and a national mandate are members of the small groupings which comprise only a small number of Deputies. The larger parties did not tend to make that point because the national mandate was evident in the number of seats those parties got. In that sense, size does matter. In this matter, it is decisive. I am glad that this is being reflected in the concept of proportionality. It is accurate that this be done. What was being put forward by the groups was that in giving parties precedence it was not just parties that were being given precedence but parties with more than five members elected. For example, the Green Party could have a national vote in excess of that of the AAA-PBP but because it does not have as many Deputies it would not get party precedence, even though it could be argued that it has a greater national mandate. It is a nonsense.

The effect of these Standing Orders is to deal with an evolving situation and a new type of politics. I would like in that context to comment on the groupings. A mistake was made, in particular at the last meeting, to rush in changes to Standing Orders based on the arithmetic from this Dáil for narrow, petty, sectarian interests over the interests of what a Standing Order should be, which should be to deal with the business of the Dáil in a fair and transparent manner. I would like to thank the AAA-PBP, Fine Gael and the Labour Party for having such confidence in us that they are bothered to spend time so much time trying to put us down the pecking order. We are flattered. I do not propose to focus on that issue now.

The scenario we are seeking to address by way of the amendment before us is the insertion of a particular section in the last minute of the last committee meeting. It is clear to me that this goes against the slant of Standing Orders, which is to facilitate the formation of groups. It is inherently undemocratic and negative in that it is being put forward to stymie people rather than do anything positive. In effect this means that if a party was to split and a large number of its members were to form a group which is larger than party under the umbrella of which the original party was elected, then the latter group will rank lower and behind a Technical Group in the pecking order because it was not a party elected at the time of the election. Let us take the example of the Labour Party. Many people would argue that the Labour Party broke its national electoral mandate by going into Government on the last occasion. If a majority of Labour Party Deputies wanted to leave the Labour Party and form a larger group than the one they left, the latter group would be behind the original Labour Party which did not adhere to its electoral mandate.

Another unintended problem is the fact that if as Deputies are saying the addition of new members cannot alter precedence then the opposite also applies in that a party cannot lose precedence as a result of it. We could have a situation whereby if a party of 50 people splits and 45 of them go one direction and the remaining five stay with the original party, the latter group will be higher up in the pecking order, which is a nonsense.Let us call a spade a spade. We all know why this proposal was put forward. It is not a good way of doing business. It goes against the grain of the type of approach that was adopted quite successfully on a range of issues. It is petty and it has no place in any Parliament setting or under Standing Orders. It is in that regard the amendment is proposed.

See this speech in context