Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank everybody for being present for the Second Reading of the Bill. It is by providence that we are here today. We have to thank the peoples of Germany and eastern Europe, in particular, who have gained their independence from the Soviet Union in recent times. I also thank the peoples of Armenia, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Span and Sweden who have inserted into their constitutions the principles and safeguards proposed in the Bill. It is providence because this Private Members' Bill was tabled for its First Reading on 18 February 2014 and under the rules, if the Government does not object, it can proceed to Second Stage but only if comes out of the lottery drum. I thank providence that the Bill is having its Second Reading. I am nothing more than the courier of what is an excellent set of principles and an excellent safeguard in the constitutions of the countries I have named. It is through the trauma of history that they came to be inserted. There has been a terrible trail of destruction, loss of life and mutilation in these countries as a result of not having such a constitutional provision.

The wording is taken verbatim from an official translation of Article 38.1 of the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany. It states "The Members of Parliament [in their case, the Bundestag; in our case, each House of the Oireachtas] shall be representatives of the whole people not bound by orders or institutions and responsible only to their conscience". Edmund Burke talked about this principle. The conscience is that of a responsible, thinking human being who has the honour, privilege, responsibility and solemn mandate in parliament to represent the whole people and to be bound as a legate. It is to prevent people from doing anything other than what they have been instructed to do. This rigidity is dangerous; it is what happened when infiltration of democracy occurred in Germany in the 1930s, as the German people are well aware. I lived and worked for 15 months in Lithuania and the former Soviet republics, now the new democracies of eastern Europe, are protected and safeguarded - a word I like - by this principle.

Of what is there to be afraid when the Government talks about political reform? It is a good objective, but the evidence shows that there is nothing happening in that regard. What has happened runs contrary to the principle entailed by this constitutional provision. The red lights are flashing and the alarm bells are ringing. We are in Parliament to serve the people, nothing more, nothing less, and to hold the Government to account, but in my experience that has not happened in my experience, which is a shame. That is why when we engage in a reality check, we visit hospitals to see the queues and people waiting on trolleys. Yesterday schools were closed. In addition, the banks are bust and not working. We were told by the Governor of the Central Bank that €40 billion in losses was put on the people; that is the sum after the fog has cleared. That is wrong. It is a lie and an illusion. The amount is €100 billion, of which €40 billion is official national debt with harps around it that is managed by the National Treasury Management Agency, while €60 billion comprises the debt mountain that private households, families and business are still carrying, which equates to negative equity, pain, sickness, broken families and under equipped schools. That is the reality which no statistics can deny. That is why people are objecting on the streets.

Let us look at how we can safeguard our parliamentary opportunity to hold the Government to account as provided for in the Bill. I thank Members who are supportive of the Bill, some of whom are members of parties, which is good. The proposal to include a safeguard provision in the Constitution would do nothing to change the arrangements or otherwise of parties. Let nobody try to fool people into believing it would because it would not. I invite Members to read the wording of the proposal and to do so umpteen times. It is in plain and simple and does not need any interpretation or calibration. It is as simple as, "You shall not kill," in that one does not have to ask a lawyer how to define the word "kill". Do not insult the people.

Why is it that in recent polls people have said they do not trust parties? The reason is - this has not been articulated - parties are too dominant and rigid. They do not allow for the organic breathing of liberty and democracy, which is wrong. The reason people are saying they propose to vote for Independents is they do not trust parties.

I am delighted to say Fianna Fáil is supportive of the proposal, which is good. I know from speaking to individual Members, including some members of the Government parties, that, personally, they support the proposal. Why is that? It is because it is logically unassailable. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh will be aware that I explained to his leader how it is unassailable. It is very simple. Rather than attribute the following to any party, let us take the example of a new party with 200,000 members from all over the country. It holds an Ard Fheis in Dublin where there are many venues which are large enough to cater for 200,000 people, at which are discussed its proposed policies on health, education and finance-taxation and its desire to be fair to the people in terms of the distribution of the resources available. Following a three-day debate it arrives at a set of principled policies which it will support and which are supported unanimously. This is possible. It also supports a candidate to stand in the general election. We will name that candidate Mr. Keogh who is unanimously approved as a candidate.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is his name Davy Keogh?

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it Paul Keogh?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My surname is "Kehoe".

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The candidate's name is Mr. Keogh. In the general election he secures a seat in Parliament. He may be a member of the Government but for 12 months he represents the new party based on its unanimously agreed principles and policies and everything works fine. Ireland, with its 4.5 million people, is then visited by a pandemic that makes Ebola look simple. This is possible. The World Health Organization and all other governments nearby that are concerned that the global population could suffer come together and decide on the best form of management and principles to deal with the pandemic which are totally at odds with the policy unanimously decided by the new party. Mr. Keogh now has to use his conscience to do what is right as a representative of the whole people. Everything moves up a step because as parliamentarians we represent the whole people. Mr. Keogh must not be bound by the orders, instructions and mandates decided on unanimously 12 months previously so as not to endanger the people of Ireland. In this situation he will be able to rely on what is provided for by this proposal if is inserted into the Constitution. That is the reason Germany has included it in its basic law and it works. It also works in Lithuania. Ten days ago in Paris I spoke about this to Egidijus Vareikis of Seimas, the Lithuanian Parliament, and he agreed with me that this was needed in written constitutions. It is not needed in the United States where there are free votes on everything. It is also not needed in Britain because it does not have a written constitution. Unfortunately, we do need it here.

Let us look at the evidence of what has happened here in the past while. In my experience, our problems started with the recapitalisation of the banks under the troika programme. At the time more than €16 billion was taken from the National Pension Reserve Fund and put into the banks. This was done on the basis of an instruction from the Government parties that had the largest ever majority in the State. Was this good for the people? The answer is no. I sent a text message to the Taoiseach at the time asking that he pause and not proceed and suggesting there were other ways to recapitalise the banks, including by way of creditor capitalisation or through the European Union which should have recapitalised them by writing off ELA.

Let us move forward to February 2013 and the introduction of so-called emergency legislation to liquidate IBRC and, more sinisterly, turn flimsy promissory notes, IOUs, into solemn national debt of €30 billion. With 20 minutes notice we were asked to come pass emergency legislation. However, there was no emergency. How do I know this? I know it because this is the area in which I work. Just like a doctor who knows what an emergency is in health, I know from my work what an emergency is in this area. It was propaganda, which is not nice, as it is misleading and what everybody else calls "spin". I call it "propaganda" because that is what it is. I do not like say it, but it is dishonest. I love my country and my colleagues in this House, but I do not like the avoidance of the truth or a failure to recognise and measure situations properly and honestly, as we serve the people. I am deeply dissatisfied at the level of inequality in the country. This is only happening because the Government has a large majority and is failing to allow backbenchers to express their views. I know this because I was one of them at one time. I note that there are only two Government Members in the House, both of whom will recall that I said when I was a member of the parliamentary party that there should have been levies imposed on corporates that were making profits, while citizens' incomes were disappearing or being reduced. The unfairness of it is blatant. I also say this to the chief executives of the companies to which I speak, who are my peers in terms of age and business experience in the markets and finance sector. There is nothing to be afraid of. While individual Government Members have told me that they support this proposal, they are afraid to say so.

The aforementioned legislation was sinister and unnecessary and I did not vote on it. The Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, will recall that I was paired for that vote following constant badgering of the Taoiseach by text message because I was not going to be a party to that legislation.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will have ten minutes in which to reply to the debate. He must now conclude because there are other Members waiting to contribute to the debate.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make my final points later.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By way of clarification, two hours are allocated for the debate on a Private Members' Bill. There is 1 hour and 45 minutes remaining, of which the proposer will have ten minutes in which to reply, while a Government speaker will have five minutes near the end of the debate. Thus far, 11 speakers have indicated their wish to contribute; therefore, I ask Members to be conscious of the time remaining.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to acknowledge that there is a third member of Government in the House. Deputy Rabbitte is also present. I understand that Deputy Rabbitte is still a member of the Government.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is supporting Deputy Mathews.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to acknowledge the Deputy for the work he has put into drafting and preparing this Bill.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was no drafting.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government will oppose this Bill for a number of reasons including the confusion that such a wording would introduce into our Constitution, the impact it could have on the working of this Parliament and the fact that it would not be in line with the Government's Oireachtas reform policies.

Since taking office in March 2011, the Government has been more committed to reforming the Oireachtas than any of its predecessors. In less than four years in office we have introduced two packages of Dáil reform, restructured the Oireachtas committee system and created an Oireachtas inquiry system. We are committed to introducing more reform to our Parliament before the Government seeks re-election in 2016 and continuing the process of Oireachtas reform in our second term of office.

The Deputy believes that a constitutional provision, such as his, is required to protect the Oireachtas and its elected members from the influence of extreme and perhaps undemocratic outside forces. The Government believes that the Constitution, adopted by the Irish people in a time when extremist politics were on the march across mainland Europe, already addresses this concern clearly and in a robust fashion.

Article 15.10 of the Constitution recognises the protection required to enable members of the Oireachtas to carry out their duties while also allowing each House of the Oireachtas the freedom to make its own rules and standing orders. Article 15.10 of the Constitution states:

Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nonsense.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Surely an individual's conscience is a matter for that individual. Should we risk putting into our Constitution a provision that could force the courts into a position where they must decide what is, and what is not, a matter of conscience for an individual once they are elected to the Oireachtas? Are we going to ask the Judiciary, through the Constitution, to define in case law what is and what is not a matter of conscience for an Oireachtas Member and thereby set the parameters within which the elected representatives of the Irish people can act as law makers?

Are we going to open the doors of our courts to special interests who believe their conscience has been violated by the decisions of elected representatives in fulfilling their parliamentary duties or special interests who litigate about parliamentary actions of elected representatives?

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is rubbish.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe that this Bill and the wording it proposes to insert into the Constitution, while well-intentioned, is not suitable. A sentence from the basic law of the Federal Republic of Germany cannot be transplanted into the Irish Constitution without any attempt to recognise the very different political, social and institutional structures that exist in Ireland.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they not human beings?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill may be read, by some, as an effort to remove the Whip from Parliament.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Whip system has Irish roots. Charles Stewart Parnell took a disorganised group of Irish MPs in the House of Commons and turned them into the Irish Party under a pledge to sit, act and vote together. He perfected the concept of the parliamentary party and Parnell-style parliamentary parties now exist in parliaments around the world. Some commentators, usually those with little or no practical parliamentary experience, comment on the Whip system as a danger to democracy. I disagree. The Whip system is based on a voluntary decision of any individual to agree with like-minded individuals to put their policies before the people at election time and then vote together as a group once elected, so as to provide their country with a stable Government.

Whenever I have put my name forward before the people of Wexford I have done so as a Fine Gael candidate in support of Fine Gael policies. The people who have given me their vote and their mandate have done so in the full knowledge of the policies and political party I support and on the understanding that my party would negotiate a programme for Government on the basis of those policies.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's party did not do a good job.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is my mandate. The same is true of the Members of this House who stood under the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, People Before Profit Alliance or Socialist Party banners. The voluntary nature of the Whip system has been seen repeatedly in this Chamber since 1922. Deputies who have put their names before the public as representatives of a political party have chosen to vote against their own party's position on a number of issues. This shows that every elected Oireachtas Member is free to vote whichever way he or she wants. To be bound by the Whip is a matter of choice. While the voters always have the opportunity to support non-party candidates instead of candidates from political parties, the vast majority choose not to. Perhaps they feel that non-party candidates do not provide the basis for stable Government.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is outrageous.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Instead they choose to vote for candidates they know are going to be part of the type of Whip system that is not unique to the Dáil but is a feature of parliamentary democracy around the globe.

Noel Grealish (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not everyone does.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is rubbish.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Any process of reform of the Whip system must not lose the benefits of our Whip system. Those commentators who claim that a Parliament free of a Whip system would be a utopia ignore the realities that in democracies with very weak Whip systems all too often the loudest and best organised lobby groups hold sway and wealthy interests who can fund their own election campaigns have an advantage. I do not accept that this Bill is the way forward. A constitutional amendment is not in line with the Government's programme commitments on Oireachtas reform and neither has it been endorsed by the Constitutional Convention on Dáil reform. The Bill must be seen in the wider context of Oireachtas reform. The programme for Government sets out an ambitious political reform agenda across a number of Departments including radical reform of local government, regulation of lobbying, steps to encourage more women to run for political office and a programme of Oireachtas reform.

We have introduced many reforms to the Oireachtas. We opened up the law making process by introducing a new pre-legislative stage where Oireachtas committees can consult with individuals and civil society groups on the draft heads of legislation before it has been published. We introduced a system which allows Deputies to draft Bills, introduce them into the Dáil outlining their content and seek to have their Bills selected for a Second Stage debate on a Friday.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For example, this one.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We introduced an additional Leaders' Questions slot each week. We have reformed the Oireachtas committee system so there are fewer committees but they are more effective. We introduced a new Oireachtas inquiry system under which the banking inquiry is now operating. The process of Dáil reform is ongoing and although there will always be the possibility of improving the way our Oireachtas works, this Bill is not the way forward.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá a fhios againn an méid oibre a dhein an Teachta Mathews maidir leis an mBille seo i dtreo is go mbeadh an díospóireacht againn inniu. We must acknowledge the hard work, commitment, dedication and passion Deputy Mathews has shown in bringing the Bill before the House.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?"

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this new and radical legislation, the Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas) Bill and commend and thank Deputy Peter Mathews on bringing it forward. The Bill sets out a clear vision for the Dáil and, above all, for the people. It is about vision, reform, real democracy and respect for difference and diversity. Above all, it is about creating space for different views and about making this House and the broader political area more inclusive and democratic.

Before I go into the details of the Bill, I remind the Government and all Members that one of the reasons so many people and citizens are disillusioned and fed up with bad politics is because of the absence of this type of legislation. Who is afraid of reform, of change and of letting people make decisions on the basis of conscience? These are the questions I put to the Government and this is what this debate is about. We need to focus on that.

The purpose of the Bill is to effect an amendment to Article 15 of the Constitution, by inserting a new section 16 which will provide that all Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience. It is important we look carefully at the detail of the wording proposed by Deputy Mathews. The Members of each House of the Oireachtas shall be "representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience". I would emphasise the words "representatives of the whole people" and "conscience".

The Bill also deals in a strong and effective way with ending the abuse of the whip system, which erodes and undermines parliamentary democracy. We all need to reflect on this focus of the legislation. This would bring a new direction and should be part of any democratic reform or new vision for the country. The Bill is based on the German model and I will go into more detail on the significance of that later. There are ample examples of other countries where this approach towards the Whip system has worked. We have seen how this works in the House of Commons, on issues like the war in Iraq, we have seen it operate in the Netherlands and in New Zealand, where it has operated since 1891. We have also seen it operate in Australia.

The proposed section 16 will provide that all Members of the Dáil and Seanad shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience. The issue of "conscience" is important. Many of us have political differences. I have political differences from Deputy Mathews on some issues, but I will always defend and respect the right of everybody to decide on issues based on their beliefs. I have major conscience issues with regard to the silence of many people on issues such as the fact disclosed this morning that 135,000 children are living in dire poverty in this State. I also had a major issue of conscience when the Government cut the respite care grant by 19% for people with an intellectual disability. I have also major concerns when I see young sick children being denied a medical card or when I see children with disabilities being excluded. These are all issues of conscience and it is important we point that out in this debate.

I support this legislation and commend Deputy Mathews on its introduction. The Bill is about respecting democratic principles, reform and freedom of conscience. Above all, it is about respecting and enjoying the differences and diversity of our citizens.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am an atheist, so I am not here by providence. I am here by choice, because I respect the work that Deputy Mathews has put into this Bill and appreciate his motivation. He has provided us with a good opportunity to discuss crucial issues such as why we are elected, who we represent, to whom we are accountable and, in essence, what is democracy. I would be shy about holding up any role models of democratic states. Be they in Lithuania or elsewhere, I have not seen an ideal system and do not put that forward. However, I am sure Deputy Mathews is correct that the system we have here could be considerably better than what it is.

It is a little rich to have to sit here and listen to the Minister of State talk about Dáil reform, when we have had guillotines and when we have a situation where when people like me who have been elected under a party banner, move away from that party, that party has the option to keep moneys that were associated with our election. The party benefits and wins and I do not believe that is democratic. It is great we have the opportunity to bring forward Bills here, but it would be far better if the Government took some of them on board. I think just one Bill raised in this process has not been opposed, but it is still buried in a committee somewhere. This process is very much token adherence to so-called "democracy". Therefore, with this Bill, Deputy Mathews has given us an important opportunity to look at the party system.

The Minister of State suggested that the reason for the party system is to mould a group of people into an effective unit, that it united the disparate Irish MPs under Parnell so that they could come together and take great strides forward. I do not buy that at all. It is supposed to be the case that if one is dealing with a political party, one knows what one is getting - that people stand for election on a certain ideological basis and on certain policies that flow from that. However, people know that is not the case. In the most recent election, we had a supposed democratic revolution through the ballot box. People voted for something completely different, opposing Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, but they got the exact same thing in Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

In fact, one can be in any party one likes, once one delivers for neoliberal capitalism. It does not really matter other than that. After that, it is a kind of window dressing. This is why we have had a complete alienation of ordinary people from the political system, including the people of Wexford the Minister of State mentioned who voted for him. I am sure many of them voted for him on the basis of the Fine Gael programme which stated Fine Gael would not introduce a home tax because people investing so much in their property over their lifetime or because of the struggles of young couples who could not afford mortgages. Fine Gael also said it would not introduce water charges unless everybody had a meter. Is it any wonder people are alienated?

The Whip system serves one purpose only, to preserve the status quo.It is a mechanism to immunise those in power from the pressure of people outside this House. It introduces rigidity and is inflexible in its operation. How many times have we seen people in this House pretend or claim to represent the people in their constituencies, but hiding behind the decision they made under the Whip system which was opposed to the wishes of those people? We have seen a greater affront in some ways, where people have lost the Whip on a local issue because they do not want "my hospital" closed down. However, they were quite happy to vote for the closure of other hospitals in areas where people did not have an opportunity to vote against them. It is this type of gombeenism and parish pump politics that has people completely turned off our system.

We should be accountable for all of the actions we take. We should be big and bold enough for that. I believe a machine which basically decides through its resources whether somebody gets elected is undesirable.

We have a huge problem here with a lack of genuine debate on issues because of the Whip system. For example, my own Private Members' Bill on the area of fatal foetal abnormalities and the need for provision for abortion in those cases will be up in the next session. There are 50 Deputies in the current Dáil who are on record as supporting the need for reform in that area, Members of every single party and a raft of Independents. Is it going to see the light of day? Are the families affected by this issue going to have their concerns addressed? I very much doubt it, but maybe the Government will surprise me this time around.

If we had a real democracy, there would be an opportunity for the people to have a right to recall midway through. Why should anyone put an X beside somebody's name in a ballot box thinking they are getting some package or individual to fight for them, and have to wait five years before they are able to do anything about it? A real democracy would empower people with the right to recall their representatives midway through the electoral cycle.

We could deliberate over matters of conscience for a very long time. I support the idea of Deputies being given a free hand in all issues, having genuine debate and then standing before the people. However, there are many issues people might deem to be what are termed "issues of conscience" which are really issues that people should be left to decide for themselves. It should not be the property of Deputies to be able to deny somebody in society the right to exercise their human right of expression, privacy or similar. The reality is that sometimes our legislation cuts across human rights rather than delivering them.

It is very welcome that we have been given the opportunity to discuss these issues. I compliment Deputy Mathews for introducing the Bill. We should be spending more time teasing this out because everybody knows that the system we have is completely unrepresentative of the wishes and the viewpoint of the people. I do not propose to have all the answers but it is very good that people in here are beginning to ask the right questions.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Wallace.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too will be brief----

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, my apologies. Deputy Catherine Murphy is next.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is all right, the Deputy can speak.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies. Go ahead, Deputy Wallace.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Looking at this amendment proposed by Deputy Mathews, I would like to focus primarily on two points. The first relates to the role of the politician and his or her duty to the people, and second to the question of issues of conscience and their place in politics.

Ireland's electoral system of single transferable vote proportional representation makes ours technically one of the most open in the world. A study carried in 2012 by UCD academics found that, while more open electoral systems tend to increase the likelihood of politicians breaking party ranks, Ireland has a relatively low rate of politicians voting against the party line. Between 1981 and 2010, 54 Deputies lost the Whip due to breaking the party line. According to the study, 63% of those who lost the Whip in this period never went on to enjoy any further political career advancements afterwards. I am sorry to tell Deputy Mathews that.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Wallace.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the Whip system is not actually enshrined in our legislation, we see here that in practice it disincentivises questioning or criticising the status quo. Democratically elected representatives' principal relationship should be with the electorate rather than with the views of the party leadership. The example of the German system is worth noting in this regard, as it allows for parties to adopt a joint position on issues while also permitting individual MPs the right to deviate from the party line without fear of expulsion from the party. The amendment proposed by Deputy Mathews would help make our system more open and democratic, and as such I fully support it.

However, the real issue we should be examining is the much larger question of what, if anything, should constitute a question of conscience. Unfortunately, in Ireland the term "issue of conscience" is used more often than not in the context of sexual and reproductive rights, a result of the severe hangover still felt due to our repressive Catholic past. We have still not achieved a meaningful separation of church and State. We do not have to look too far back to find examples of this, namely the Eighth amendment of the Constitution. Although we are legally bound by a number of international human rights conventions, the fact that sexual and reproductive rights remain constrained by our Constitution is a disgrace. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that, "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is private conscience.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For repeated violations of this basic human right and the unjust interference of the State in the private lives and decisions of its citizens, Ireland has lost a number of high-profile cases at the European Court of Human Rights, notably Norris v.Ireland relating to gay rights, and more recently A, B and C v.Ireland, which attempted to deal with Ireland's draconian abortion legislation.

Theology and religious concerns must be separated from legislation so that the religious beliefs of one person are not imposed on another to the detriment of their human rights under international conventions. Although I do have reservations regarding the use of the word "conscience", I support the principle of this amendment because in a democratic society, the voices of individual politicians should not be constrained by the party leadership. Politicians should be free to make individual and independent decisions and encouraged to question the status quowithout fear of retribution.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate. There are a number of issues that need further consideration, such as the definition of "conscience". I am trying to imagine a situation where this would be accepted and we would have a public debate. We would have to define just exactly what is meant by votes of conscience. Our Constitution at present only insists on two things regarding the stability of a Government, and those are that if it falls on a money Bill or a vote of confidence, it will force a general election. We do have elements in our Constitution at the moment, but it is not the way party politics operate. It works in theory but not in practice, like many things.

People perceive political parties and the excessive use of the Whip system as being more or less a means of running private clubs. Less than 3% of the population belongs to a political party, a shocking number.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is 1.5%.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Essentially, the view is that party comes first and constituent or citizen second. There was an expectation of ambitious reform, and what we got was superficial reform. That is part of the reason there is greater support for independents now. It is a very deliberate choice that if the party system will not reform politics here, the citizens will force reform by virtue of breaking a system that they see as not operating in their interest.

The system designs outcomes that favour particular classes of people. It is no surprise that people, almost by accident, tend to thrive in that situation - sometimes people who have close associations with political parties and indeed, perhaps, have funded and still fund them. The definition is important. Returning to Deputy Daly's words, I do not go as far as saying I am an atheist but I am certainly an agnostic. I would take the humanist approach.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The American Humanist Association defines this as a progressive life stance without supernaturalism, affirming our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives, capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear. It is meaningless.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government should hang its head in shame when it comes in here to talk about reform. We have not seen it in any kind of a meaningful way.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under Standing Orders, after a debate of 1 hour and 45 minutes, the Minister will speak for five minutes. After that, the proposer speaks for ten minutes. At 11.45 a.m. that process will start. I am warning people who are yet to speak that if everybody takes ten minutes, not everyone will be able to speak.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was conscious of that. I will be quite brief because many things have been said and I am not going to repeat the points which have been made.

I welcome this debate, and congratulate Deputy Mathews on introducing the Bill and having a check on the current situation. The very last point made by Deputy Murphy was that these sittings are supposed to be about reform. I do not want to be in the Chamber for every Friday sitting because sometimes what is discussed does not affect what I am doing. However, the Chamber is almost empty and people will vote on Tuesday on something they have not listened to, debated, thought about or developed an opinion on. That is one of the crucial points regarding the Whip. One comes in and votes the way the Government tells one to vote. It raises the question of parliamentary democracy.

I am also an atheist. I am here by choice. I have a deep conscience. I am not saying anybody else does not; others do. We live in a society where lobby groups put major pressure on people regarding economic issues. At the time of the bank bailout, Timothy Geithner, the ECB and the troika all told the Irish people they had to take on the responsibility and bear it on their shoulders, and they would make sure they did so because nobody else would help them. That was true. Lobbying took place behind the scenes and pressure was put on the Government.

I hate the term "pro-life" because it is not pro-life. There are fundamentalist groups, such as Opus Dei and others, which put significant pressure on individuals in these political Chambers, and that has to be examined. There are Bills on lobbying, but the question of who is going after who in regard to their own agendas needs to be much clearer. In Europe lobbyists work 24-7. Water companies, oil companies and others put major pressure on the European Council to force agendas through, such as the privatisation of services, where they will make their next quick buck and how they can put pressure on, take control of and make money from public services.

We saw that happen with the TTIP legislation. People do not really understand it and there should be a debate on it. A Canadian one has also been developed. These are crucial issues. In the Canadian trade investment programme, it is said that once water comes from the ground it is fair game. Such companies then go to Europe and demand that companies be set up so they can be developed and privatised in the future. That is another issue in the Water Services Act which the Government did not take on. It did not address the significant concerns of the citizens of the State regarding the privatisation of our water. It would not even call a referendum on the issue or take the fact it was an issue on board.

These are issues where parliaments from national level to European and international level do not reflect the consciences of elected people. We were talking about recall. We have one of the most progressive electoral systems in the world, but the key thing is recall. I might stand before the people and say as one of my key planks that if elected I will not go into government with right-wing established parties. Once elected, however, I might say "They are offering me something and I might just take it". People should be able to recall me in those circumstances and say that I stood on a platform. Deputy Ruairí Quinn said he would not increase third level fees if elected and was on Merrion Street with a big cheque. He went into government and did exactly the opposite. The Taoiseach said the home is a man or woman's castle and that he would never bring in property taxes. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, said water charges could not be introduced as every house would have to be metered, which was an impossibility. Those were lies. People go out and say one thing before coming to this Chamber and doing another under the protection of this building. The only time they go back out again is when the next general or local election comes up and they get feedback from the people.

Conscience is broader than just social conscience. I had a difficulty where some Deputies who broke with Fine Gael voted in austerity cuts against respite grants and the other measures that were brought in. It should take a bigger band. If one is elected, one should support the mandate on which one is elected, but in certain areas one may feel very strongly on an issue. In Australia, one can write down why one is opposed to a measure.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is also the case in Germany.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One puts that to the people and it is up to them to decide whether they agree with the stance one has taken. At least, it is a public and transparent way to present where one is coming from. I will leave it at that except to say that in fact we need a new Constitution.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and thank Deputy Peter Mathews for tabling it. The debate brings into focus the repressive whip system we have in Ireland. As outlined earlier from the Government side, the whip system was designed in 1875 by Charles Stewart Parnell. It is not from the last century but the one before that and it was outdated a long time ago. Much of the problem came to the fore during the current Dáil when I sat on the Government benches less than 100 days into its term of office. We had a vote here on the issue of Roscommon Hospital and the commitments that were given prior to the election. On foot of the whip system, Deputies are forced into having to choose between their livelihoods or their consciences, which is wrong. A system that forces people into that position is a failed one.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt that there needs to be a structure and a binding mechanism to implement decisions made by political parties or Governments, but the problem here is the absolute control held by so few. Their position on whatever the issue may be is not open to question no matter how flawed it is. We have a situation in Ireland currently where we have an Economic Management Council, or gang of four, comprising the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. They make the decisions for the whole country. Those decisions are rubber-stamped by the Government and rammed through the Dáil.

An example of how that happens occurred during the passage of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. I read all the submissions, sat through and listened to the hearings over the two separate sessions and made my decision based on the evidence before me. I proposed improvements to the law. The legislation proposed that a pregnant, vulnerable and suicidal woman who sought and was refused a termination under its provisions would be entitled to seek a review of the decision by presenting her case before a three-person medical panel. For any Member of the House to have to go before a panel of three medical professionals to argue any case would be a daunting task. It would be daunting for any professional, never mind for a woman who believes the decision taken by the panel will determine whether she lives or dies. When the legislation came through the House, I sought to ensure that under the law a woman would have a legal right to have someone accompany her when she sat in front of that panel. My proposal was rejected by the Government and voted down by a majority of Members in the Dáil. That happened because the decision was taken by the Economic Management Council - by the gang of four - that it would not accept any amendment whatsoever to that legislation. Even an amendment that was copper-fastening the principles of the legislation and protecting the rights of vulnerable women was forced down in the House because the gang of four had already made the decision that it would not entertain any amendment.

I come back to something the Minister said earlier in relation to my own case and how I was expelled from the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party. My decision to vote against the Government on the issue of Roscommon Hospital has been branded a parish pump issue. The facts are that in June 2009 a written commitment was sought and obtained from the Fine Gael Party on the future of emergency services at Roscommon Hospital by the Fine Gael group of councillors on Roscommon County Council. A revised and updated written commitment was sought and obtained from the party in June 2010. In December 2010, further revisions of that written commitment were sought by Roscommon Hospital Action Committee. It was issued for the third time by Deputy James Reilly in January 2011. During the general election campaign in February 2011, this written commitment was publicly endorsed locally in person by both the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, and the incoming Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore. It was the policy of both parties which subsequently formed the Government that they would retain emergency services at Roscommon County Hospital, but within 100 days of going into government, the Taoiseach, the then Tánaiste and the then Minister for Health reneged on that clear, unambiguous commitment to the communities in County Roscommon and east Galway.

I could not nor would I go back on the commitment that was freely given by the Fine Gael Party and publicly endorsed as policy by the incoming Taoiseach and incoming Tánaiste. It comes down to whether one stands by one's word and by the platform one put forward to the people at election time and which was publicly endorsed by the national representatives of one's party on the ground in the constituency. It is an issue of honesty and integrity. In the circumstances, I had a choice whether to stand by my conscience, my word and the people who elected me on that mandate. That is why I pressed the red button when voting that night in July 2011. I stand by that decision today and I always will. Issues like that should not have to arise. They should be provided for within the Constitution to protect the individual rights of Members. Doing so would ensure that we had a far more effective and accountable democracy which the public as a whole would actually respect for a change instead of distrusting as they do currently every Member of the House.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many more speakers are there in addition to the Minister of State and the proposer of the motion?

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Terence Flanagan, Seamus Kirk, Michael Fitzmaurice, Robert Troy and Aengus Ó Snodaigh have yet to speak. The Minister of State must speak at 11.45 a.m., which is in 25 minutes.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have approximately five minutes.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a matter for the Deputies.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issues surrounding this proposed Private Members' Bill have been well enunciated by Deputy Mathews and I congratulate him on bringing it forward. I am disappointed the Government does not appear to be willing to accept the legislation. It would not have been earth-shattering and would not have changed the political system, but it would have benefited our parliamentary democracy and accountability. I state this as someone who believes in the concept of the Whip system-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but I do not believe in the Whip system for issues of conscience. I believe in it from the point of view of the allocation of resources and broad policy issues, for which one must have a Whip system. When I sat on the Government side of the House I voted for many policies and much legislation for which I did not like voting; who in his or her right mind would like to cut a respite grant? Equally, when I was in opposition for a number of years I voted against many Government proposals which were sensible and logical.

I do not for one moment purport to believe everyone on the Opposition side of the House is of one mind and holds the correct position while all in the Government are of the one mind and hold the incorrect position and vice versa. The House is made up of many diverse views. There are as many differences within political parties as there are across political parties and this should be recognised.

The standing and stock of politicians and our political system has never been lower since the foundation of the State, and there are a number of reasons for this. One is the fact that we in the House have given away power as a body in general. We have many fine organisations but they are not accountable. These include the NRA, Tourism Ireland, Irish Water, the HSE and An Bord Pleanála. We have abdicated our responsibility. We go in front of the electorate and ask it to vote for a strong voice in a constituency in Dublin or Wicklow, but when we come here we hand over power. We go to public meetings and tell people an issue is outside our remit and we have no control. Members of the public then wonder why they vote for us if we have no power or accountability. I would like to see power and accountability come back to the Oireachtas.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Whip is being painted as the big bad ogre, and people wonder what is the point of voting for a Deputy because he or she goes in like a sheep and follows the party Whip. Deputy Ó Snodaigh is the Sinn Féin Whip and I do not believe he is a bad individual who will bring forward draconian legislation and proposals. I am not so sure about the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope you are not saying I am bad person.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure about him.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask you to withdraw it.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we stick to the scope of the Bill?

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am doing so, very tightly. Trying to depict the Whip as a big bad ogre is not correct. Whips generally try to do the best they can. A pet hate of mine is hearing commentators state it suits politicians to have a Whip because it protects them from big business and protects them in their constituencies. A politician who needs the protection of the Whip should not be in politics. If one cannot stand on one's own two feet, and make one's own decision and live and die by it, one should not be in politics.

When I lost the Whip, aside from the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of the legislation what I found most debilitating and depressing was going to a parliamentary party meeting and listening to 20 or 30 individuals advocate a certain policy line very vehemently and strongly - I was not one of them - and when the leadership changed its position the majority of these people came in the following week and advocated a different line. Someone who stands for everything stands for nothing and I found this very depressing.

We can start political reform in the House with a secret ballot for the Ceann Comhairle in the next Dáil. There has been recent speculation about the Ceann Comhairle stepping down. Perhaps he is being undermined by some in the Opposition, which I believe is wrong, or perhaps by some in the Government in respect of who should replace him. It would be damaging to the office, very damaging to the Government and even more damaging to the Houses of the Oireachtas if the Ceann Comhairle were to change before the next election. He is doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances. I hope he stays in the position and that those whispering to the media stop the speculation because it does not benefit anybody. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the Ceann Comhairle staying in position.

Due to the advent of social media, quick fixes and a misinterpretation of what people say, Deputies are often afraid to come here to articulate views or tease out issues, because the soundbite seems to be king at present. Substance is being neglected because of the emphasis on the soundbite and the misrepresentation fed by an uncontrolled social media.

I am in favour of the Whip system. I do not believe in not having a Whip system in the House as I do not believe it would work. The Bill would add to our democratic institutions.

Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wholeheartedly agree with the Bill brought forward by my colleague, Deputy Peter Mathews, and congratulate him on bringing it before the House. Politicians should be able to reach their own decisions and should not have to vote against their conscience out of fear they will be expelled from their political party. If this amendment is introduced, elected representatives will be forced to have better knowledge on the subject matters on which they are voting. They will have to have an informed opinion on a subject instead of blindly following a party Whip and doing what they are told. Instead of putting their party first they would put the country and citizens first. The Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas) Bill 2014 proposes to amend Article 15 of the Constitution to insert a provision to provide that all Members of each House of the Oireachtas shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience.

Since being expelled from the Fine Gael party I have found it liberating to be an Independent Deputy, being able to weigh up each piece of legislation and every important item coming before the Parliament and being able to make a decision based on what is in the best interests of all of the people and not being pressurised by a party whip. Voting in Parliament is a pointless exercise if we know what the result of the vote will be before it takes place. Governments introduce legislation knowing it will be passed because they have an absolute majority. This legislation may not be good for all of our citizens, but because the Government has strength of numbers it will pass and this is not good for society generally.

Too often politicians pander to party loyalty and vested interests. This Bill would make elected representatives more answerable to the electorate, by forcing them to make decisions and take a stand on issues. It is disheartening to see so many good and intelligent people in political parties on all sides of the House blindly following a party Whip considering they have their own ideas on certain issues. Unfortunately, many politicians see their career progression as being more important than the national interest, and if there is a slight chance of being promoted they will keep their mouths shut and go along with the groupthink which can occur within parties. It is not good for democracy that a small number of people decide on policy for a political party and that anyone who dissents from it is thrown out.

If the Whip system were loosened and Deputies and Senators were given greater freedom when voting, it would create a much more interesting and vibrant Parliament with varying contributions and proper political debate.

Everybody would be allowed to have his or her own say, while still considering himself or herself to be a member of a political party. Just because a politician votes against his or her political party does not mean that he or she does not still hold the same policies, convictions and core principles as the party.

As previous speakers stated, political reform was one of the cornerstones of the election promises made by Fine Gael in 2011. After the battering the country had received from the previous Fianna Fáil-led Administration, an overhaul of the political system was much needed. I believed that reform would be at the top of the Government's agenda but, sadly, that has not happened.

Making changes to the Whip system is one area of reform that should have been a priority for the Government, in particular, for the Chief Whip. Free votes are provided on certain issues in most European countries and in modern democracies, such as New Zealand and Australia. Issues of parliamentary procedure or reform have also received free votes in the United Kingdom. In the past 40 years, there have been only three free votes in this Parliament. When one considers the various serious issues that have come before the Dáil, it is shameful that parties do not allow free votes, in particular, on issues of conscience.

The Government should now go back to the drawing board. It needs to assess what is the standard procedure, particularly in the parliaments of our neighbours in Europe, especially the United Kingdom, and adopt a similar approach here in Ireland. Politicians must be able to vote with their conscience.

Deputy Mathews' Bill needs to be seriously considered by the Government. I am disappointed with the response so far by Government. Perhaps it can further reflect on the issue and come back to it at a later date.

As the late John F. Kennedy stated in a famous speech before his election as President of the United States, "I will make my decisions ... in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest". Why should parliamentarians in Ireland not be granted the freedom to do the same?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to the Bill which, if enacted, would lead to the Thirty-fourth amendment of the Constitution. At the outset, let me set out my party's position. Fianna Fáil is not opposed to advancing the Bill to Committee Stage for further debate. Fianna Fáil supports relaxing the Whip on specific matters of conscience and was the only party to do so in the debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013. However, enshrining it in the Constitution may erode the Whip system in other areas, damaging the effectiveness and independence of the Oireachtas. The Bill should be debated carefully on Committee Stage to test its potential consequences before a final decision is taken and I will exhort the Government to seriously consider allowing the Bill to go to Committee Stage for further debate.

Holding a referendum on enshrining freedom of conscience may be unnecessary given the personal rights to freely express conditions and opinions already enshrined in Article 15 - dealing with the national Parliament - and Article 40, which applies to all citizens, including public representatives. Fianna Fáil believes the Whip should be relaxed within the party structure on matters of conscience such as abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research which evoke fundamental contentious issues. Removing the Whip system entirely, as this Bill may do, would be a legislative disaster for the country. Lobby groups would individually pick off members without the broader support of a party leading to policy stalemate and instability. The Whip system maintains group discipline in important policy matters. Relaxing it on specific matters of conscience rather than engaging in a free vote "free for all" is a positive step towards giving representatives more power.

My party believes in a package of broader political reform that will address the deeper issues upon which Deputy Matthews' Bill touches. Members of the Dáil and Seanad must have a greater role in shaping policy. Making decisions in accordance with one's conscience is an essential feature of a liberal democracy. This is enshrined in the Constitution in the personal rights outlined in Article 40. Bunreacht Na hÉireann also protects the right to form political parties or other associations under Article 40.

This legislation may be unnecessary in light of these already existent provisions in the fundamental law of the land. It is important the impact of the proposals upon the Whip system in its entirety is fully debated. The abolition of the Whip system in its entirety may allow for free votes rather than just votes of conscience. This means that the ability of parties to impose discipline on their members would be removed from all legislation that is not consensually agreed. This should be further debated at committee level.

In his classic defence of political parties, the eminent statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke put forward a series of benefits that parties provide to a state, namely that they have an important role in formulating policy in the national rather than geographical interest, engaging candidates, providing transparency in their aims and, critically, providing the state with stability. The Whip system is an integral part of that. It is used to maintain discipline among party representatives to hold a common agreed line on divisive policy issues. This has been the standard practice in the Irish parliamentary tradition and in other jurisdictions.

International experience shows that on issues that split voters, taking any policy decision is unattractive to parties geared towards elections. It leads to policy stalemate. This implies that besides the respect for the inalienability of a legislator's conscience, there is a strategic element for parties not to declare or even form a position on contentious issues involving morality. Removing the Whip will eliminate the strength and solidarity of a party in taking a firm position on ordinary policy and allow for lobby groups to pick off members one by one.

Decisions taken in the legislative arena affect not only the decision-maker but all those subject to the laws being passed thereby distancing the personal element one attaches to concepts such as morality and conscience. When voters cast their ballot in favour of a party, policy platform and representative, the Deputy has an obligation to reflect their views, not only his or her own. This is particularly relevant in non-first principle issues.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Mathews for proposing the Bill, even though I will not be supporting it because it is useful to have a public debate on matters, such as Dáil procedures and party procedures. In many ways, it is up to us to defend whatever position we adopt. I heard many in the Chamber this morning defending the position that they will adopt when a vote is taken on this.

The Bill proposes a bar on the Whip system. Deputy Mathews correctly states the Whip is not mentioned in the Bill, but it states that all Deputies would vote according to their conscience-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Responsible to conscience.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

------and not bound by orders or instructions, that is, the Whip system. Under the Whip system, one agrees a set of principles and policies as a group of people. One also agrees a set of rules. Within that party, one can change that at any stage if one can manage to get others to agree with you. That is the party system. If one does not agree, one can leave. The door is always open. It is like a football team. If one is on a football team and playing a match, one cannot pick up the ball, run the other way and score a goal against one's team. One will suffer consequences. A person can do it if he or she wishes but I guarantee he or she will never play for that team again.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not talking about Stalin or Mussolini-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or Hitler.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----or Hitler, or any other dictators. I am talking about a group of people coming together of their own volition and agreeing-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hitler, Stalin.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----sorry-----

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and agreeing a set of principles. They have a conscience.

Every one of us has a conscience. My conscience, and issues of conscience, are not the exact same for me as for any other Deputy in this Chamber, and are not the exact same as for the 6,700 constituents who voted for me, but they put their trust in me because I went to them with a set of policies and guidelines on which I would vote, either in government or in opposition.

I have stuck by that and I will suffer the consequences, as will everybody else in this Chamber, if and when the next election comes about, because at that stage the public will weigh up whether or not I did a good job and whether I lived up to my promises to them. My promise to them is my manifesto, my political programme. One of the reasons, probably the central reason, that political parties and politicians are held in low esteem is that they have not lived up to those political promises. They will suffer the consequences, as the party opposite them suffered the consequences in the last election. In the next election the Labour Party, in particular, will suffer the consequences of its refusal to stick by the promises it made to the electorate. That is why we have democratic elections. That is why we give the opportunity every five years - maybe it should be every four years, like America - to hold politicians to account. They can also hold politicians and their parties to account at other opportunities, as they did in the local elections. I am of the firm belief that the manifesto a political party produces is a social contract with the electorate. If that is not lived up to, one will suffer the consequences.

The argument behind this legislation is that there should be free votes on issues of conscience. Issues of conscience are different for different people. For me, every single budget is a conscience issue and one cannot run a country if every single vote on financial, judicial or on any legislation is open to a free vote, because then one will be hampered continuously. If every vote was a free vote, the lobbyists - those who have money behind them, extremists, those who are very vocal - would have much more say in what would happen in this Chamber. We have seen what happens in America, for instance - the pork-barrelling that goes on in every vote. Every time there is a budget, it goes on and on and nothing gets done. One need only look at the last two administrations and how everything was held up by that pork-barrelling. I agree that it happens to a degree here, but it does not happen to the same degree, and we should not open ourselves up to that type of influence on the Dáil in the future. That could be one of the unforeseen consequences of this Bill.

Deputy Joan Collins said that party Deputies come to the House on a Tuesday and vote on the legislation that was discussed on a Friday, even though they have not been here - they just traipse in and vote whatever way the Whip tells them. The same is true of the vast majority of Independent Deputies, who are not here on a Friday either. They traipse in, without having taken part in Friday discussions, and vote, usually according to the advice given by somebody else. At least in a party, one has a spokesperson, who is here, who contributes and who is held accountable within the party for the position they are adopting. One places trust in them and in the Whips. Much of what we need is trust, within our parties, within the Dáil itself and between us and the electorate. The biggest challenge for us as parliamentarians is to win back that trust. We can only do so if we live up to the social contract we commit to when we go to the polls every five years or so.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I compliment Deputy Mathews on bringing it forward. This is essentially about political reform. It is important that we are having a debate about political reform, although it is also somewhat ironic. One of the big trophies this Government has claimed in respect of political reform is that it brought in the Friday morning sitting to enable Opposition and backbench Deputies to put forward legislation for consideration by the Government. In the four years this Government has been in power, has one piece of this legislation been enacted? No. We all know what this Friday sitting is about. It is about window-dressing. Its purpose is to enable the Taoiseach to say, "We sat X more hours in the week". If the Government was serious about reform, and had given Opposition Deputies and its own backbench Deputies a proper say, it would be looking at implementing some of the legislation. The Government often says it will not oppose such legislation, but it certainly never implements it. What continues to happen here, as in the past - it is not just this Government - is that the Executive is dominating the Dáil. The Members of the Dáil, whether backbench or Opposition Deputies, are not getting an opportunity for a meaningful and contributory role in the Dáil.

We discussed the issue of guillotines, a mechanism the Government was so fond of using until it got caught on the hop in the run-up to last Christmas, when it guillotined that important legislation, the water Bill. It was only then, when it became widely known in public circles how the Government chose to guillotine the establishment of Irish Water, such an important piece of infrastructure, in the space of three hours, that things changed. I acknowledge that the use of guillotines has diminished since then.

When the Government came to power, it was all about political reform and it was going to end cronyism. We know since they have come to power the two-to-one ratio in State appointments has been two for Fine Gael, one for Labour. Where is the democratic revolution there? It is not there. Nowhere was this skulduggery and stroke politics more acutely witnessed than in the appointment of Councillor McNulty to fill the Seanad vacancy. We saw the true calibre of the democratic revolution and the true character of the fraud that is the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, when he made that political move. In respect of party funding, if the Taoiseach and the Executive were honest about political reform, when Deputies leave one party to join another party or the Independent benches, their allowances should move with them. Instead, this Government, despite having lost a number of Deputies, both Fine Gael and Labour, has held on to the allowances attributable to them.

Gender quotas were mentioned by the Minister of State earlier, in relation to how the Government is embracing and welcoming women into the Parliament. If it really wanted to welcome women into the Parliament, it is not about merely implementing gender quotas, it is about reforming how this Parliament works. It is about reforming the sitting times. If Government was really interested in promoting women, the Taoiseach should have used the opportunity he had in the promotion of Ministers of State at the last Cabinet reshuffle. He could have given women more say at the highest level of Government.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Troy should have asked Deputy Mathews to brief him on the Bill so that he would have been able to speak on the substantive part of the Bill-----

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now the Minister of State wants to tell us how to speak.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----instead of having a general rant about everything, but that is the way it is.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Political reform, something the Minister of State knows nothing about.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should address his comments through the Chair.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies who made contributions to this debate. It is interesting that in many of the Deputies' contributions it was clear that there was a very broad understanding of what should and should not be a matter of conscience. As I stated earlier, for some of the Deputies who spoke, social issues are matters of conscience, while for others, economic issues are matters of conscience. There seems to be very little agreement, even among the Deputies who express support for this Bill, as to what is a matter of conscience.

I am not sure if the Fianna Fáil definition of issues of conscience is one that would be acceptable to all Members.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State should please speak to the motion.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yet, to include that phrase in the Constitution would force our courts and our judges to decide upon a definition of a wording which is something they clearly cannot do.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, please.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will have ten minutes to speak at the conclusion of the debate.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some Deputies were of the view that the Oireachtas should not define what is an issue of conscience when passing legislation. However, they stated that they supported a constitutional amendment that would require the courts to define what is an issue of conscience for Members of the Oireachtas.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy wishes to make a point of order, Minister.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will have an opportunity to speak for ten minutes on the motion.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that but I want him to make his point. What is the point of order, Deputy Mathews?

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is not addressing the wording of the proposed section of the Constitution.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my opinion he is doing so. Allow the Minister of State to continue.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should please address them; nothing more and nothing less.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy just wants to hear what he wants to hear.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please stick to the debate, please.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, Minister, please.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Catherine Murphy said that less than 3% of the public are members of political parties but she ignored the fact that even in the local elections in May - a very good election for non-party candidates - more than three in every four voters supported candidates from political parties.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Chair, this is not about political parties.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Wallace confirmed that between 1981 and 2010, a total of 54 Deputies have voted against their party. He failed to acknowledge that some of those Deputies went on to hold ministerial office. As we have seen from this morning's debate, any Deputy can vote against the Whip, and the speakers today have done so. The Whip system in the Dáil is a matter of choice. This country, unlike other countries, does not require Deputies who vote against their party to go back to the electorate and seek a renewal of their mandate.

I disagree strongly with Deputy Terence Flanagan's idea that any Deputy who votes with his or her party vote against his or her conscience is naive and disrespects the Deputies on all sides of this House.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must object. This is not about political parties-----

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will have ten minutes in which to reply.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Acting Chairman read the proposal?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Despite the fact that our State was only established in 1922, just 93 years ago, it has a history of stability and democracy that stands in sharp contrast to many of our European neighbours. Our State in its history has faced many challenges, including civil war, near economic collapse and a long struggle with paramilitary groups. Despite this, the Irish people have never allowed the light of our democracy to be extinguished.

To be proud of the stable democracy which the Irish people have built is not to be blind to the need for reform of our political institutions; rather, it is to accept that the zeal for reform must go hand-in-hand with preserving the achievements of past generations. It also recognises that the forces that often overwhelm and destroy democracy start life by assuring people they will reform the democratic system. The definition of reform, just like the definition of conscience, can be broad and depends totally on the individual viewpoint.

This morning's debate is a positive sign of the interest that exists across the Chamber in the area of Oireachtas reform. It is confirmation that this Government's commitment to Oireachtas reform and the steps we have taken to date and will continue to take in the future in this area, have opened up a debate on the issue of parliamentary reform that is both healthy and positive. For too long the inner workings of our Oireachtas were neither commented on nor considered except by a handful of experts. We have opened that debate up and I believe that ongoing parliamentary reform will be a feature of Oireachtas discussions from now on.

No parliament is perfect; there is always room for reform and improvement. While I do not support this Bill or the change it proposes, I am proud that this Government has embraced the issue of Oireachtas reform and I look forward to the next phase of Oireachtas reform later this year.

It is not often I acknowledge the contribution of Sinn Féin or agree with Sinn Féin. However, I acknowledge that Deputy Ó Snodaigh in his contribution had the courage not to take the populist view of a political party just to support the Bill because he is on the Opposition benches. He had the courage as a Deputy in an Opposition party to oppose the Bill rather than take the populist view like other political parties.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Bill being allowed go to Committee Stage?

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is the proposer of the motion, Deputy Peter Mathews, who has ten minutes to reply.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Kirk asked a question and I ask the Acting Chairman to answer it, please.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That question will be decided when it is put to a vote. At the moment we have not reached that stage.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman.

It is incredible that the Minister of State has avoided the debate entirely. There is no mention of parties in the proposal:

AND WHEREAS it is proposed to amend Article 15 of the Constitution so as to provide that all members of the Dáil and Seanad shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience:

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Deputy should be asked to withdraw that remark.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not withdraw it. This Bill is important. Where is our Taoiseach? He is in Davos. This Bill says we shall be representatives of the whole people----

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mathews-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and not bound by orders or instructions.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mathews, you are being asked to withdraw the word, "lie".

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, I will say, "untruth". But it is disgusting that after that statement by the leader of the Minister of State's party who is now the Taoiseach, ten people changed their minds and five people fell. That is the result of 2013.

I went to the Seanad to listen to that debate and the manipulation was incredible. They tried to tell us that the Bill was a case of preparing the runway for the people to decide whether there would be a Seanad. The people were not fooled and they are not fooled as they turn out about water charges which is again another Bill that was pushed through under a whip. I want to now stop talking about the whip. I want to talk about the safeguard for all of us in this House, that we work for the people and we debate for the people and we hold the Government to account.

Last night I received a note from a wonderful lady, a hero of the 21st century. Her name is Elaha Azinfar, an Iranian. She works with Maryam Rajavi, who is also a hero, a Mahatma Gandhi-type figure of our time, holding out for the liberation of the Iranian people from the Supreme Leader and mullahs of Iran, who govern their own people tyrannically. Ms Azinfar resists bravely, having lost relatives to execution and imprisonment. Her note states, "Dear Peter, good luck with tomorrow's debate". She has sent me a little package of truthful information.

The Taoiseach did not even send me a text. I met him last Thursday just outside the doors of the Chamber and said to him there is nothing to be afraid of in this Bill. It is a constitutional safeguard and does not refer to procedures. Rather, it sets out an atmosphere for us all to work for the people. I asked the Taoiseach not to be afraid and told him that, as leader of this country, he should claim the Bill and bring it into the Chamber as themodus operandi reflecting our duty and solemn responsibility to our people, irrespective of whether there are parties, coalitions or majorities, or whether there is a Parliament entirely comprised of Independents.

I gave an example of a hypothetical new party with unanimous approval for its policies and outlined the circumstances that would obtain if there were an event that rendered those policies inappropriate for the well-being of the country. I outlined why it would be necessary for a Member to use his conscience and not a scrupulous neurotic checklist from early childhood. I refer to a grown-up conscience that ordains what is not appropriate and that would lead a servant of the people to change policy. Any fool who does not do so is letting the people down. What is the Taoiseach afraid of? The Government has between now and Tuesday to liberate its supporters as true parliamentarians so they will make up their own minds on this proposal for the Constitution.

The Taoiseach thanked me for my proposal and I asked him to run with it, take the credit and do the laps of honour around Croke Park for getting it into our Constitution to safeguard our parliamentarians. He thanked me and said he appreciated that. Do Members know what he did over the weekend? I asked the Chief Whip, Deputy Paul Kehoe, what was happening and for a sounding on this, and he said the Government would not be supporting it. I asked him what he was afraid of. I asked the Taoiseach during the lull before a vote what happened over the weekend and he said he had to take advice from the Attorney General. That is rubbish; he does not. This is a new constitutional proposal. The country needs to know that the Attorney General is the servant of the Government and protects it from breaking the law or acting contrary to the Constitution. That is his or her job. For the Taoiseach to say he took advice from the Attorney General is rubbish. How dare anybody with such authority and power, and with such a majority, try to fool us.

Where is the Taoiseach? Is it at Davos? I stated we are lucky to be debating this Bill because the choice of business is a lottery. The Bill was drawn out like a ticket. It is a ticket that is worthy and that can save us. This type of constitutional provision saves Germany, Lithuania and all the other countries I mentioned. It saves their parliamentarians from the dangers of infiltration, undermining activities and corruption of power. Members will have heard about the EMC and such phenomena. Let us pay attention to the amber lights. Are we to tear up the lottery ticket that brought about this debate today? It is a winner for the people of Ireland and the Parliament. Do not tear it up, please.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 117A(4), the division is postponed until immediately after the Order of Business on Tuesday, 27 January 2015.