Brendan Ryan (Labour)

— politics has changed to a degree in western societies and ideological differences have become blurred, at least in the short term. While I believe they will arise again because of forces at work in the evolution of economies that will reinvigorate a serious ideological debate, in the short term, members of the public are easily persuaded that who is in power makes no difference. It would not have been possible to persuade working class Britain in 1945 that who was in power made no difference. It would not have been possible to persuade them of this three years later, when a National Health Service was provided for the first time ever. This made an enormous difference to the quality of life for working families and people. There are specific issues like this.

I will allude to the people of my father's generation, who campaigned for Fianna Fáil in the early 1930s and who saw massive programmes of public housing being built. That programme was described by prominent academics as an example of Bolshevism at work. It would not have been possible to persuade such people that policies made no difference, because in my home town they saw a move from mud cabins to houses with running water and a toilet. At present however, it is much more difficult to persuade people that politics matters. This is one reason for the decline in voting, although registers also have much to do with it. However, the lack of a belief that one's vote matters is significant. Part of what must be done is the re-engagement of the public with the belief that politics matters. One of the more sinister developments is the way major sections of the media, in this country and others, send out a message that is essentially cynical about politics. They concentrate on the entertainment value of the occasional idiotic remarks made by politicians, which are always picked up. There are now almost as many colour features about politics as articles containing serious analysis.

The same newspapers which create that climate are owned by people who are acutely aware of the importance of politics and who spend both time and money ensuring the politics that develop are the politics they want. In the UK, more so than Ireland, they summon leaders of Government to their conferences to be reassured of that, even as their newspapers give the impression there is not much difference between politicians. In this country one major newspaper group peddles the line that it does not make much difference who is in power because they are all the same and all equally corrupt, but the owner does not believe a word of it and cultivates politicians who agree with him.

There is a great need to re-engage the public. If an issue, local, national or international, agitates people or is not, in their opinion, being addressed with the priority it deserves, they need to be persuaded there is a process through which, without having to visit a clinic and outside election time, they can put it right. Irish politicians, perhaps more than many others, have a good idea of what the public thinks, but things can get overlooked and our society has become much more complicated. In the Minister's area, the environment, many of the best ideas have originated from local communities thinking about how to deal with problems. It is not always the case but it is common. Local communities are a great source of ingenuity, creativity and imagination. It is very frustrating to spend years knocking on the doors of unresponsive bureaucracies to get things done that are obviously in the interests of the community.

When I was first elected, community groups often asked me for advice about campaigning. I used to reply that the first thing they needed was stamina. They then asked what was the second thing they needed. I said it was also stamina, as were the following ten things. However, it should not be stamina. Good ideas need to be tested but deserve to be heard.

The way the media regard the commentary of people outside the political process, whether it be CORI talking about poverty or a non-governmental organisation discussing the environment, creates a problem. Their response is to get politicians to have a row about it. Then they decide to bring in dispassionate experts to talk about it. I use a pet phrase, which I may have stolen from a piece the Minister wrote during his academic years, the tyranny of experts.

The late Lieutenant General MJ Costello who, as I recall, was not a great admirer of Fianna Fáil, although I am not sure, detested experts who came into his office and tried to swamp him with gobbledygook. He had a great belief in his own ability and believed himself to be reasonably intelligent. If anybody came to him and told him something he did not understand, he would say that if they were real experts, they would be able to explain it to him. He told them to leave, acquire a proper understanding of the subject and explain it to him. That is the sort of expertise ordinary working families have, one based on experience. They know what is wrong with their local communities.

I am aware of a classic example which is now common practice. For years local authorities, when building housing estates, whether private or public, used to lay paths only to discover that the public would not walk on them but went a different way instead. Nowadays, in many places they wait a little while and see which routes people take. Then they put the path where people actually want to walk. It is very simple and sensible but previously only they knew where the path should be. The fact that the people did not want to walk along it was a mistake on the part of the people. Until recently, to put double yellow lines on a street in Cork required the permission of the Garda Commissioner in Dublin, as if the Garda Commissioner in Dublin would know anything about the nature of parking in Cork. There was a belief that there was always an expert who knew the answer.

The process proposed in this motion would not change things inherently but would foster a sense of engagement with the Houses of the Oireachtas, this one in particular, that would begin a process of enhancing the public sense that politics is a process that delivers change. We know it happens but the public does not believe it anymore.