The principle of equality of representation in the Dáil is clearly enshrined in the Constitution and any failure to hold by-elections within a reasonable period of a vacancy occurring would be a breach of the spirit and, possibly, the letter of the Constitution. Under existing legislation, there is no requirement that the Government should move a writ within a specified time and these two vacancies could, theoretically, be left open until the next general election is held. This is clearly not satisfactory and this House should address the question of amending legislation so that all by-elections have to be held within a specified time.
I am aware that the two Government parties have publicly indicated their intentions of opposing our motions to move the writs, but I hope even at this late stage that the Taoiseach and Tánaiste will reconsider the scant regard they are showing for the democratic rights of people in the constituencies concerned. Their refusal to consider holding these by-elections or even to give any date as to when they might be held is in stark contrast to the position adopted by both parties when in Opposition. For example, when Kieran Doherty died on 4 August 1981, Fianna Fáil moved a motion for the writ on 21 October. Following the death of George Colley on 17 September 1983, Fianna Fáil moved a writ on 2 November. The following year Fianna Fáil waited only five weeks before attempting to move the writ following the death of Ber Cowen.
The suggestion that the elections may be deferred until 1994 because of Fianna Fáil's difficulties in getting a candidate for the Dublin South-Central constituency is particularly outrageous. This will mean that both seats will be vacant for close to or more than a year. Avoiding by-elections for party political reasons should not be acceptable in our parliamentary democracy. In the past, Governments have, on occasion, opposed motions to move writs because they argued by-elections should be deferred and held in conjunction with general elections, local elections or European elections which were pending. The next elections due to be held here are the European elections of summer 1994. Surely the Government is not contemplating deferring the by-election until then?
The Taoiseach's comment about a by-election interrupting the work schedule of the Dáil could be taken more seriously if his Government had not forced through a motion for the Dáil to close for a full week simply because St. Patrick's Day fell on a Wednesday. In fact by-elections would result in the Dail losing one sitting day only.
How can the Tánaiste reconcile the statement of his spokesperson to the effect that the matter is not even on the agenda with the lavish promises given in the Programme for Government under the heading "Principal Objectives":
...To restore confidence in the democratic process, by encouraging openness and participation at all levels, by improving public accountability, transparency and trust, and by ensuring the highest standards in public life;
Irrespective of the extent of the majority a Government may have in the Dáil or indeed its performance in office, there is a right to have Dáil vacancies filled within a reasonable period of time. However, where the parties in Government within such a short space of time so spectacularly failed to live up to their pre-election promises there is a particular obligation to allow people to express their views on the record of the Government when vacancies arise.
The sense of public disappointment with the Government, only 100 days after being elected with the largest majority in the history of the State, is virtually unprecedented. Therefore, it is not surprising that this administration is already running for cover and afraid to put its programme to public test.
The unemployed, who looked to the Government to honour its commitment to put the country back to work, have looked on in disbelief as the live register figures remained virtually static and the Government passed up the opportunity presented by the latest budget to introduce imaginative job creation initiatives. The disappointment with this Government has been compounded by the manner in which Labour Party Ministers have packed their Departments with advisers, managers and handlers drawn largely from the ranks of their party.
Those on social welfare, who expeted the Labour Party to honour its promises to have the dirty dozen social welfare cuts reversed, feel betrayed as the majority of them remain in place and continue to cause hardship to those most in need. The Labour Party, particularly the Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Burton, has contested my statement that most of the cuts remain in place. Perhaps she will accept the verdict of SIPTU, a union affiliated to the Labour Party, which pointed out in a statement on Friday last that four of the 12 cuts only had been eased and that two new cuts had been effected by this administration.
Unfortunately, in the social welfare area, it appears that the Government will continue to insist that black is white. What else can we make of the statement of the Minister for Social Welfare in this House last evening on the Adjournment Debate? He said:
Meanwhile, I want to emphasise that health boards have discretion to make payments in support of ESB and gas bills where they consider that circumstances warrant it.
This is simply not so and the Minister knows it. The McCreevy circulars have restricted the community welfare officers' discretion. They cannot now help with ESB bills except in exceptional circumstances, as defined in those circulars, which severely restrict the previous discretionary practices of those same community welfare officers. The Minister for Social Welfare and his Minister of State, Deputy Burton, know it, yet they continue to attempt to mislead the House. They do so because they know, in their cynical calculated way, that the people affected are poor, unorganised and marginalised. They have no power, no trade union and no protection in society. If my party and a handful of welfare groups did not consistently raise the matter, their plight would remain unnoticed. I intend to continue raising it because it is an injustice against the people already struggling to survive, who are being ignored by Government because they are poor and powerless.
The Labour Party in Opposition told us they were opposed to hospital charges, yet one of the first things the Minister for Health did was to increase those same charges. We were told the Labour Party was opposed to privatisation. It has already agreed to the sale of the remaining public share in Irish Life and it would appear that Greencore is about to go the same way. In addition, the equity injection so urgently needed by Aer Lingus is still being withheld. Indeed it appears that at least part of Aer Lingus is being prepared for privatisation.
If the Government has any confidence in its programme and performance surely it should be prepared to put them to the test in these two by-elections which would pose no threat to its majority in this House but would enable the electorate to pass judgment on their record to date.
I emphasise that the Democratic Left has a particular interest in the Dublin South-Central constituency where Councillor Eric Byrne, who was an outstanding Dáil representative for the people of that constituency, lost his seat by just four votes after the marathon recount in the last general election. We want to see him back in this House. More and more people in Dublin South-Central want to see him back in the Dáil to represent their interests. We are confident that he can take the seat in the by-election. Of course the parties in Government also realise that. Perhaps that is the main reason they are so reluctant to hold the by-election in that area.
