We are continuing the joint committee's hearings on the review of the electoral system. Members of Parliament have an important role to play in any evaluation of or proposed reform of that system. We are particularly pleased to have the opportunity to hear the views of two Members of Dáil Éireann based on their political experience of the current electoral system. I am grateful to them for putting the time and effort into preparing submissions for the committee. Deputy Tuffy brings a fresh perspective as a first-time Member of the Dáil. Deputy Higgins, with his considerable insight into the subject as a former lecturer in sociology and political science and having first been elected to the Dáil in 1981, brings weight and gravitas to the discussion. I now invite him to make his submission.
Electoral System Review: Discussion.
I am pleased to appear before the joint committee. I do not know how the Chairman wishes to organise the meeting but I have made a submission before and it may be useful if I recap on some of the points I made on that occasion. I will be more than pleased to answer any questions members may have by way of clarification.
That is fine.
Since I last made a submission to the committee, an interim report has been published indicating the results of a survey of Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas on how they dispose of their time and on their impressions of the current electoral system. The findings are interesting if for no other reason than that they are consistent with those of reports from other parliaments on similar investigations.
An interpretive issue arises for me in this regard, in that there is a methodological issue as to whether this constitutes an evaluation by representatives of their time or of their work. If they wish, members can revert to this point and can ask me the reason I make this point as I have some good reasons for so doing.
As one looks across parliamentary systems, one point strikes me. Were one to begin with the general assertion that parliaments everywhere are in some difficulty, I will make one loose generalisation, on which I am happy to be corrected and about which I would like to be wrong, which is that the only parliament that is increasing in powers and reputation is the European Parliament. It is gaining functions in respect of the Commission, is gaining transparency in respect of its newly acquired powers and functions, is receiving coverage in the media and so on. A number of factors are associated with this point. First, in political history or political philosophy, if one considers the careers of significant individuals who have ended up in parliament, one finds that their parliamentary period forms just one period of their political lives. This is an important point. In respect of a piece I have written recently, it is important to realise that significant figures such as, for example, Michael Davitt, found it necessary, when involved in the Land League, to organise meetings at that level to speak in very large fields in Ballindine, County Mayo, before moving along and ending up in the House of Commons, where he became involved in international issues such as dealing with anti-Semitism in Russia. However, the studies sometimes miss the point that there are multiple venues of political discourse. A Deputy speaks at a meeting in a particular way in his or her constituency. Public meetings are held on issues in respect of health, education or whatever and then there is Parliament.
Consequently, it is important to consider the question of how much parliament contains by way of its project and the language that is appropriate within it. One reason Parliament has lost some of its effect has been the shortening of speeches. I have no doubt, and have made the point elsewhere, that the decision to put a limit on speeches in the Dáil by allowing Members to share time has damaged political rhetoric. It enables backbenchers to make three and five-minute speeches which, if one is in government congratulate the Minister and comprise a small section of his or her original speech. Alternatively, one may lash the Minister with a small portion of the Opposition spokesperson's speech. This development has to an extent come into existence to facilitate media that have changed completely from the time I began my Dáil career in 1981. At that time, it would be assumed that a serious political reporter or commentator would be acquainted with history and political philosophy to an extent. I refer to people such as Michael McInerney and Michael Mills, but this no longer is the case. In another piece I am writing at present that will interest members, I note that most political commentators now cease working sometime between lunchtime on Wednesday and Thursday morning, after which it is not a case of observing Parliament at all but a matter of gathering the gossip for the Sunday newspapers and so forth. I make this observation to put this matter into context.
I now will become more formal and will remind myself that I also was a political scientist. A common feature of the weakening of parliaments has been the role accorded to the executive. If one asks an average Deputy how much time he or she spends legislating, one will get good answers. However, is this not an illusion in a way? The question really is how much time does a Deputy think he or she spends legislating if in fact there is a unique monopoly of control of the serious public service by the Executive of the day. This has implications although there is nothing particularly Irish about this, as it is a weakness of parliaments in general. An extreme example of an abuse in another parliament occurred during the tenure of Prime Minister Howard in Australia when the Executive there claimed control of intelligence. One could abuse the intelligence, which was necessary for the safety of the State, to justify not answering Parliament on the sinking of boats full of refugees in the Pacific. Equally, this is being encountered in respect of the hearings under way at present in respect of the Iraq war. Consequently, one should consider the Executive's role as it enjoys its monopoly of control of the content of legislation.
Second, which also is interesting, I argue that such monopoly of power also exists at micro-level in local politics in Ireland. On the departure of Deputies and Senators from city and county councils, a domination of initiative by city and county managers and directors of services again arose. In the same manner in which the framing of legislation is controlled in a particular way centrally, the aforementioned officials now control a plethora of committees, special policy committees and so forth. From the very early days of political science, the point has been made that it is crucial to draw distinctions between the influencing, making, taking and shaping of decision-making. All these processes have leaked away from the elected representatives and therefore the role of the Executive, both local and national, in respect of its domination of the public service is highly important. Moreover, the fact that the Executive is not at arm's length from the control of committees is a serious weakness. This has particular small and obvious difficulties, that for example arose in the case of Professor Nutt in respect of the system in Britain, as to when a person ceases to be an expert or a scientist but suddenly becomes the person who is contracted to the Government.
While this is a particular point that arose most recently in respect of legislation, there is a more general issue that should arise in respect of the Green Paper, namely, the reason public representatives enter politics and their conception of a political career. Vibrant political committee systems are those in which a committee has the right to initiate, amend and reject legislation. In addition, many also have an allocation of both capital and current spending. This certainly is the case in Scandinavia. Therefore, a parliamentarian may decide to construct a career as an expert in a particular field, in the knowledge that he or she will find satisfaction in so doing, and will pursue interests in issues such as fishing, housing or social welfare. However, members should note the requirements, which are that such a committee has that arm's length distance and has the right to initiate, amend and change legislation. In addition, a person joining such a committee may do so on the basis of competence. This does not affect either cabinet or front bench formation because an examination of the Scandinavian systems shows that prime ministers and front bench spokespersons often have chosen a critical path. They will have spent a period on one committee, followed by an economic one, and then suddenly are in competition to be a prime minister or whatever. Consequently, it serves that function. In many cases, when giving my last presentation, I was highly conscious that there was something abstract to me about asking a question on how much time members spend on legislation or regarding the rather populist view that politicians are active doing something else simply because they do not wish to legislate or whatever. Consequently, if we are to have such an examination, it also is crucial to consider the question of how free one is to legislate.
One further controversial and important point is that I hold the view that there is no constitutional basis for the hegemony of the Department of Finance in respect of the Cabinet. It is an old Treasury revival. Therefore, the notion that individual members of Cabinet must, to quite a minor degree in terms of the appointments of staff and so forth, seek permission from the Department of Finance has neither a constitutional nor a legal basis. It is an old Treasury revival. I do not have time to discuss it further, but it has a particular history in the Westminster model from where it came.
Regarding the other issues that arise in terms of the survey, there is an assumption that one can make a generalisation about Deputies, men and women of whatever age. It must be recognised that there is a considerable variation. For example, one Deputy in the current Dáil secures 80% of his vote in three parishes. The political analysis that one would examine in this respect is the work of Professor Barber of UCD. In his work on political geography, he uses a concept that is not so fashionable now, namely, bailiwicks. Geography plays an important role. When people discuss intra-party competition, it is sometimes assumed in the interpretation of survey data that it is the competition between two Deputies. Frequently, it is actually a matter of locality. Redoing the data from Deputies' performance and so forth, one finds that geography is important.
Another interesting part is the concept of political culture. There is something unsatisfactory and intellectually sloppy about the concept of political culture. It has always been a lazy intellectual approach to political science. One could examine issues of localism, personalism, nationalism and bailiwicks. I remarked on the destruction of political rhetoric in the assembly. The most artificial side would have been in Professor Bailey's work on the British Parliament. He asked why someone who is elected as a socialist or social democrat walks down after Black Rod with the Queen and her extended family. He attaches a certain amount of importance to the rituals of parliament. When they defeat the purpose of citizenship, one must ask a question.
One could summarise much of what I have been saying and, with the deepest respect, I suggest that the committee began in the wrong place. One could change the electoral system and leave everything else unchanged and be seen as responding to a popular pressure that is based on a comprehensive ignorance of politics or citizenship. After the creation of local radio, for example, one could ask whether it deepened citizenship, increase political education or was linked to the extension and deepening of democracy. What of the shortened speech in the Dáil? Why do people only take two or three minutes? They like to be on local radio so that people know they are alive and to enhance their reputations. One piece of artificiality produces another.
Bad programmes like "The Frontline", which is presented by Pat Kenny, degrade politics altogether. One assembles an audience and carries a packet of cards in hand. One insists on going from one to another without allowing anyone to finish, then turns to the camera and says, "That is all we have time for, I am afraid". As has been stated, I have been in Parliament one way or another since 1981. Parliamentarians are beating themselves up. I have a classical approach towards parliament. Politics has ideological content and philosophical assumptions. It has a discourse that is occurring at the most public level. Another discourse is occurring at the level of intellectual work. Some comments are appropriate when one is speaking at the gate on Kildare Street. Another language is appropriate for parliament within the Parliament itself.
It might be said that I have not answered any of the questions, but I want to finish on another point. My work in the 1970s set off a certain amount of work about political clientelism, particularly in the Cambridge University Press on public power for private gain or whatever. When I wrote my work, I was not as aware of the depth of corruption at the top of the stage.
When people conducted work regarding clientelism, we always began with straight dependency and patronage. Then we considered brokerage systems, which have real benefits, whether one is providing housing, employment or so on. Then we went on to clientelism. The committee seems to be preferring some systems to PR-STV. Most clientelism in the modern period did not confer many real benefits. It was about reputational management and the illusion that one was on hand should a person want to be contacted. The single state of Britain is using the American system more than ever before. I spoke with an MP who makes thousands of telephone calls, the idea being that keeping people in the net of influence is sufficient. This is not a superior form of politics at all. The notion that changing the electoral system will automatically change people from doing constituency work, which is regarded as useless, to legislating is rather thinly based.
I have a final point. My admiration for those who stand for election is enormous, but they should have had more bottle in standing up to ignorant, poorly informed and regular attack on politicians. If someone is coming from a Nationalist tradition such as Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin or so on, he or she is entitled to be proud of it and to discuss the ideology. The same is true for people coming from Fine Gael's tradition in terms of the foundation of the State and the Labour Party, the oldest party in the State. Therefore, we should have pushed off long ago. I would like to see Deputies and Senators telling young researchers who are preparing the cards to be put into the hands of the presenter who will run out of time to go, read and educate themselves on this subject. The discussion should be robust. If one does not do this, one lives in great danger of people who are somehow dysfunctional seeking roles for themselves. Some Deputies feel insecure enough to want to go around knocking on people's doors asking whether they have problems instead of spending time with their loved ones. We will always have those Deputies. We should take this matter seriously. I would be glad to answer questions on any of my points.
I will tell the committee about the great example of Dublin South, as it will show members the contradiction of it all. Using long speeches, I debated with the distinguished parliamentarian, Professor John Maurice Kelly. Ms Nuala Fennell was a colleague of his in Fine Gael. They had a sophisticated electorate who did not bother Professor Kelly with any constituency problems. He answered approximately one dozen per week in beautiful handwriting. If a constituent had a problem, he or she went to Ms Fennell. She lost her seat, but Professor Kelly was there until the end and made a distinguished contribution. One must always bear in mind the complex contradictions of the life we have.
I thank Deputy Higgins. I can well understand how he has been in Parliament for 29 years.
And for another 29 years, please God.
God willing.
Now we have a different slant on the question of electoral reform. I am delighted that Deputy Tuffy has taken this opportunity to make a presentation to the committee.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to make an oral presentation. I am not beating around the bush with the title of my presentation. I make this presentation in a personal capacity. I do not want to pre-empt the contribution of Labour Party members on this committee or any discussion that will take place in the party. I want to persuade the committee in its determinations about multi-seat PR-STV. The most fundamental reason I oppose moving away from PR-STV is that any of the other electoral systems means less say for the voter. I quote the seventh report of the all-party Committee on the Constitution in 2002:
The fundamental and insurmountable argument against change is that the current Irish electoral system provides the greatest degree of voter choice of any available option. A switch to any other system would reduce the power of the individual voter.
I concur with that view. That committee examined the mixed member system most seriously. It decided that it was not the answer for the Irish electoral system. Our current system means there is accountability for the voter right down to a named person on the ballot paper. The person does not just look at the party but at the integrity of the candidate. An important aspect in politics is the relationship and trust the voter places in the person and not in the political party of which the candidate is a member.
I oppose the list system because it takes the decision away from the voter. The voter ultimately has a say on who was elected to the Dáil. The list system makes this solely the preserve of political parties and that is profoundly anti-democratic. Single seat constituencies favour larger parties and would lead to a disproportionate result in the Dáil. Regarding mixed member system, the submission of Deputy Seán Fleming to the 2002 report by the committee made the point that two wrongs do not make a right. One does not take two wrong systems and mix them to provide the proper electoral system in Ireland. On the last all-party report on the constitution Professor Michael Laver made the point that mixed systems mean larger parties — at the time Fianna Fáil — would win the bulk of constituency seats and other parties would have to win seats predominantly through the list system. There is an idea that people elected through list systems would be superior to the Deputies elected currently under the multi-seat PR-STV system.
A commission carried out a review of the mixed system in Wales. It recommended a move to PR-STV instead of the current system of mixed membership. The mixed list system in operation in Wales has called AMS and the commission reported:
AMS creates two categories of elected representatives. This is an intrinsic defect of additional member systems. Although in the Assembly constituency and list members have equal rights, there remains a perception that list seats are consolation prizes for parties which failed to win constituency seats.
That is what would happen here. Contrary to the position put across by people like Mr. Pat Kenny — that somehow list Deputies would be considered superior — the electorate would probably view them as inferior and would not see them as being directly accountable. The electorate would have a closer relationship to Deputies directly elected in constituency seats. Unfortunately, if those constituency seats were done on a single seat bases, they would be largely held by the larger parties. Very few, if any, Independents would be elected and the smaller parties would fare very badly under such a system.
It has been put forward that Ireland and Malta are the only countries with PR-STV. I have a list of places where it is in existence. The PR-STV system was introduced relatively recently for the Scottish local elections, the city council elections in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Tasmania, other parts of Australia and it was introduced in Northern Ireland for the local elections in the 1970s and subsequently extended to the assembly and European elections. Not only is PR-STV used in many other places, there are civic campaigns throughout the world to introduce PR-STV. One is carried out by the Electoral Reform Society, a UK-based organisation, which makes the point:
STV gives voters more choice than any other system. This in turn puts most power in the hands of the voters, rather than the party heads, who under other systems can more easily determine who is elected.
A submission was made by Dr. James Gilmour to the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform in 2004. If one decides PR is the best system, the choice is whether one gives the decision on PR to the political parties or to voters. He states:
There are many systems of PR, but in reality you have only one very simple choice. Is your aim to secure proportional representation of registered political parties or is your aim to secure a proportional representation of the voters? Do you wish to entrench the power of the political parties or do you wish to empower the voters?
He is arguing in favour of PR-STV because it empowers the voters as opposed to the political parties. The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia produced a report in 2004 and recommended a system of PR-STV that it called BC-STV. It described it as fair and easy to use and gives more power to voters. The referendum had 58% in favour and there was a further referendum with funding provided to both sides. On that occasion it was defeated. The initial referendum in British Columbia was held in 2005 and 58% of people voted to change to PR-STV. A 60% threshold was required——
That required a majority in 77 of the 79 constituencies. It was carried in 77 of the 79 districts by more than 50% but it required 60%.
The referendum was held again and funding was provided to both sides of the campaign. This time the referendum was defeated by approximately 39% or 40%. My point is that there are civic campaigns in other countries to move to PR-STV. Ireland does not have a civic campaign to change our system. I would almost guarantee that if a proposal were made to change our system there would be a civic campaign to retain it. It would be bizarre for voters to come together to campaign for less say in elections.
In my submission I argued that the work we do for constituents makes us better-informed legislators. Deputies are spoken about as though we are constituency messengers only and developments in recent years are not taken into account. The dual mandate, whereby Deputies and Senators were able to sit on local authorities, was abolished and this has made a difference in the work Deputies do and voter perception of what they do. With the abolition of the dual mandate, constituents are aware of the differences between the work done by councillors and Deputies. Since I stopped being a councillor I have received fewer invitations to local meetings and I am contacted less about local issues. Local and national issues often overlap and an example of this was the recent cold spell. It was not just a matter for county councils. The bad weather was not confined to council administrative areas.
In recent years we have received much more support from parliamentary staff. We have parliamentary assistants and secretarial staff and more support in the Oireachtas from committee secretariats. I do not follow up every query raised by constituents; I have a parliamentary assistant and secretarial assistance to do so. The Oireachtas Library has a new system whereby it carries out research for us. We have much help in combining our work as constituency representatives and legislators.
In the past year, I have received more queries from constituents about national issues. I received a huge amount of e-mail correspondence and telephone calls about NAMA and public sector pay cuts. Another major issue raised with Deputies on many occasions is that of school buildings and the need for new school accommodation or for schools to be repaired. I receive more queries by e-mail and telephone than I do at clinics. I hold clinics on the first and third Monday of each month and I find that manageable. I hold meetings about issues and politics is about attending meetings. In the United States, when President Obama wants to argue about matters such as universal health care he attends local town hall meetings. Face to face contact is extremely important.
Would our workload change if some or all of us were elected differently? I do not think so. The appendix of the survey details the amount of constituency work done by Members of Parliament in other countries. In Wales, which has a mixed-member system of single seat constituencies and lists, Members believe they spend 45% of their time on constituency work. We consider that we spend 53% of our time doing so. It is a matter of degree. Members of Germany's regional parliaments consider they spend 40% of their time on constituency work and representatives in Canada believe they spend more of their time on it.
I examined the community newsletter of the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, David Miliband, in which he discusses meeting a resident at Sutton Hall on a walkabout with council officials discussing the local town centre. He is also photographed on the beat with police in Biddick Hall. At the bottom of the newsletter is written:
In addition to the duties I perform in South Shields, I also take up literally thousands of individual cases each year ranging from school admissions to broken paving stones. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you think I can help you.
That is the exact same as the work we do as Deputies.
A recent major issue for us was the gritting of roads by local authorities. Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament in the UK, raised the issue of the 26 "priority one" roads that Harringey council failed to grit. She is a shadow spokesperson in the UK Parliament. Under the heading "Constituent Services", the website of a US Congressman states, "By far the most important part of being a member of Congress is serving one's constituents.". It is the same everywhere. In an interview with Frank Field MP, a journalist describes the MP's day as follows:
This day Field meets a retired nurse, now housebound, whose home-care providers brought her breakfast at 11.15 and dinner when they felt like it; he opens a patio area at sheltered housing; he quizzes the principal of the sixth-form college; he meets a council official; he sees 16 constituents at his surgery, and in the evening he watches the Chester Mystery Plays in Liverpool Cathedral.
All politics is local, that is the way it is and that culture and expectation is there. What would we do if we changed our system? If people elected from a list were invited to a meeting by a local school board about the need for repairs to the school building, would they tell that board to go away and that they were legislators? No they would not and it would not be good for our political system if they did so.
That Deputies are in touch with their constituents makes us better informed legislators. Many commentators speak about legislators as though they are legal draftspersons who operate in an ivory tower and receive their information from newspapers, books or academic research. The point of being an elected representative is to bring the concerns of voters to one's work as a legislator and to make decisions on legislation by thinking about how it will impact on people's lives. It is very important that Members of Parliament empathise will all types of people. One cannot bring just one's own experience to the Dáil, one needs to keep in the mind the experience of all types of people who live in constituencies throughout the country. Members of Parliament are good at that and the reason is that they are in touch with their constituents. If we change our system to try to get rid of the level of constituency work done now it will be a loss to our system. Parliamentarians could end up being more remote and people could feel more disengaged from the political system.
Politics is about ideas. One to one contact with the person named on a ballot paper is key to putting ideas across and persuading voters. President Obama won an election because of his personal engagement with voters. He was not elected on a list system. One can say that across the board.
When people are deciding who to vote for, they consider not only a candidate's party affiliation but also his or her integrity and the potential for a trusting relationship. If we are saying as Deputies that the wrong people are being elected, what are we saying about ourselves? Are we thinking that I am okay but the remaining 165 Members of the Dáil are at fault or are the kind of gombeens who spend their time running after people about medical cards? We need to stand up for our role as parliamentarians. There is an element of looking for a quick political fix to our problems and that is why the media is promoting the need to change our electoral system even though this could turn out to be a major mistake.
One-to-one engagements between Deputies and their constituents play a major role in giving people faith in politics. I urge the committee to retain our system. I remind them that 61% of the Deputies surveyed wanted to retain the current system and the remaining 39% were divided over the alternatives. Some preferred a mix while others opted for single seat constituencies, lists or had no preference. Furthermore, fewer than half of all Deputies responded to the survey. I believe the silent majority want to maintain the current system. When the debate is put before the electorate, I expect we will hear the same opinions. Does the committee want to be out of sync with the majority of Deputies and voters in what it is proposing? As previous referendums have shown, our electorate is very attached to the system of PR-STV. Does the committee expect voters to give themselves less say in elections?
I thank Deputy Joanna Tuffy for her presentation, which certainly held the attention of members.
I ask members' leave to contribute early as I have another appointment to attend. I have previously had the benefit of hearing both of my colleagues' points of view. I am very familiar with Deputy Higgins's arguments and have read his very detailed analysis of the electoral system and the workings of Parliament. I am completely wedded to his main thesis on reforming current institutions as the first step. I hope in the very near future to make a formal presentation on behalf of the Labour Party to the committee in this regard.
Enormous pressure is being put upon us due to the mischaracterisation of our work in the media. I noted that Senator Boyle, who has left the meeting, was tweeting earlier. I hope that does not mean another Minister has resigned. Last night, I spoke to a Minister who communicates through Facebook. It is supposed to be a good thing that one can share soundbites of information but not everything can be mediated to soundbites.
The misrepresentation of history and people's principled stands is profoundly annoying. For example, I saw a programme on the X case during the week which characterised politicians as an amorphous group as if individuals had not taken different views. We need to find a way of recapturing the space for a proper analysis of politics and political theory. I am interested in hearing Deputy Higgins' view on that issue.
I have two questions for Deputy Tuffy because I am aware she holds strong views on these issues. Only two countries, Ireland and Malta, operate a system of PR-STV for national elections. With all due respect, it is neither here nor there if a town council in Massachusetts uses the system.
It is a city council.
I am sure that makes all the difference.
Its population is probably as big as ours.
I am wedded to our system but national parliaments are elected by it in only two countries. The Maltese system is profoundly different from ours because candidates there are elected in blocs and each party runs as many as they can with a view to maximising votes. In truth, our system is unique. Perhaps that is not a dreadful thing but it raises the question of why everybody is out of step except our Johnny. Some would say it is conceited to take the view that other countries are profoundly undemocratic.
If one is wedded to the PR-STV system, our three-seat constituencies are undemocratic. We have heard a presentation advocating constituencies of nine seats or more. That would compound the problem of multiple representation on every issue by a posse of Deputies but it is the logical corollary of our system if one wants perfect proportionality.
We need to consider this issue because we should not operate a closed shop or think it is somehow wrong to explore alternatives. That is what we are here to do. In response to Deputy Tuffy's question on what it says about ourselves to want to fix the system, the Canadian parliamentarian, John George Diefenbaker, famously stated that the first day he entered Parliament, he wondered how he possibly could have got there but the second day he wondered how everybody else got there. We all look around us on that basis. The review we are conducting is important and we should not be afraid to ask profound questions.
It is great to see such diversity within one party.
I agree that we need to consider reforming some of the ways we conduct our business. For once, I am in full agreement with Deputy Tuffy, with whom I probably disagree fundamentally on many issues. It is my belief that the people elect their politicians and a seat should not become a prize for somebody favoured by headquarters. Politicians must work their way up through the system, starting with becoming involved in their communities as ordinary branch members and then getting elected to their local authorities. With all due respect to Deputy Howlin, the city councils of Massachusetts represent more people than the entire population of Ireland.
Is it the university town of Cambridge or another a city?
There are 1,000 others.
I accept that but, in terms of democracy, a city council which represents 5 million people compares to favourably our 4.5 million. The parallel is quite accurate, therefore.
I support almost everything Deputy Tuffy said. I commend her on the extensive work she has clearly done on the subject. Does she see any merit in the single constituency, which is the only alternative I can see? Does the fact that the Labour Party does not run two candidates per constituency influence her thinking in any way? Fianna Fáil runs two or three candidates in each constituency as a general rule but that can create intra-party rivalry. The Chairman made that point on RTE this morning. Is Deputy Tuffy's view influenced by the fact that she will not be sharing the Labour Party ticket in her constituency in the next election?
I am sure the party might aspire to two candidates in the area.
It is refreshing to have colleagues coming before us and giving strong views. That is what we want as it will be up to us to produce a report when we get through all of this. It is a relevant issue in that it is raised occasionally but it may possibly be more relevant in the UK, and we may be brought over as experts. If there is a hung parliament in the UK, I imagine one of the deals the Liberal Democrats will insist upon will be electoral reform. Changes made there may become very relevant.
I agree very strongly with my colleague, Deputy Howlin, on the issues associated with but not directly related to electoral reform, specifically the reform of existing institutions. There can be changes through Standing Orders. I have been here a good while and sometimes I think I am part of the furniture but I have heard much about Dáil reform in particular. Whether I should be thankful or not, I do not know much about the internal workings of the Seanad, having never had the privilege of serving there.
Why we do not change the way we do business in the Dáil beats me. The only conclusion I can come to is that when in Government, a party wants as little active engagement in the Oireachtas as possible but when in Opposition a party wants the opposite. Governments do not want the bother of the Dáil. We have Leaders' Questions and Deputies Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore have the opportunity to ask questions. That is one of the few worthwhile current changes. Every other piece of procedure is an antediluvian set-piece, and that is what turns the general public off more than anything else. There are proposals which we must insist on being put through.
A survey was mentioned by Deputy Tuffy. The survey was of the Oireachtas and the natural tendency of Members of the Oireachtas is towards the status quo. If a person is elected under the system, the chances are that a person would prefer to stay under it. Why rock the boat or shift to a different one? A person might not do much sailing if he or she picked the wrong boat. I am not sure if there is a real demand among the general public for change.
Some of the issue is led by the media, which in idle moments or when there is nothing else to write about gives a view which can be elitist and a superior Dublin 4-type approach to the work of Deputies. That relates to Deputy Tuffy's point on the work of Deputies being worthwhile. It is all very well for somebody from the lofty eyries of The Irish Times or other newspapers to give out about Deputies looking after somebody seeking a medical card but what if somebody is 77 and has not had the card to which he or she is entitled renewed?
I had such a person coming to me recently and he had been without a card for months because the system had changed. The man had various complications and did not have the money. That issue was the most important in the world for him, and great changes at ministerial level or anything else were a minor concern. He only wanted the medical card to which he was entitled. If we put down a question on such matters we are told the Minister will not deal with them so we must change the system.
We must bear in mind that one of the responsibilities of a parliamentary representative is to ensure the interests of constituents are looked after. Will that change depending on how a person is elected? If a person is nominated, as some Senators are, there is no direct responsibility to anybody. I get the impression from speaking with colleagues in the various international institutions with which I have been involved over the years that no matter how a person is elected, he or she is still expected to look after the people in one way or another.
I thank both my colleagues for the time and work they have put into their presentations, which I found intellectually stimulating. Much of what was said by both I fundamentally agree with. There are a few issues I disagree with but they are small.
The first relates to a point that Deputy Higgins made on the length of time for which one can talk. I am only in the Dáil eight years but one of the areas I find quite disconcerting is the amount of time allocated to Second Stage speeches, particularly when there is an absence of relevance to the Bill in question. This is not meant to be a complaint but some Deputies are blessed with the ability to communicate, and Deputy Higgins is one of those. The presentations from such Deputies are very well thought out and focused on the Bill.
Many of the Second Stage speeches I have heard were complete waffle. At times, the chair of the session may have brought the speaker back to the point and it is possible to make such relevant points on a Bill in a five-minute presentation if it is well thought out and focused. That is a small point and I do not for one moment advocate that Second Stage should be limited. In the course of 20 minutes, any parliamentarian who has put some thought into a presentation can make very relevant points on a Bill.
I am open to correction but I believe that in the US Supreme Court, which deals at times with issues such as the death penalty, the opposing legal teams are limited to ten or 15 minutes to make their points. If a person's life can be decided in the short period of ten or 15 minutes, we as parliamentarians should be able to make our points in such time. It is a small detail.
Another issue touched on by both speakers and which I completely agree with is the eternal battle between legislation and constituency work. I fundamentally believe they are both sides of the same coin. They are one continuum and feed into each other. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe made the point regarding the medical card and we all deal with the same issues every day in our clinics. The reality is that it is in the Dáil in Dublin that the medical card guidelines are decided. When somebody inquires about a medical card, it is a legislative matter rather than just a constituency issue.
The focus in certain sections of the media to run down constituency work and build up legislative work is to misunderstand totally the work of a Deputy. That leads to a third point, which is a hobby horse of mine. There has been no serious analysis of what is a Deputy's work. The consultation, either in constituency clinics, at meetings, on the street, by e-mail or over the phone, is the basis of all the work we do. We do surveys but they are incredibly subjective; they are not objective or statistically robust. I would warmly welcome the consideration of this question by a political scientist. Deputy Tuffy mentioned the day-by-day tracking of an MP in the UK, Frank Field, in order to determine how much time he spent on various activities. That is the only way to conduct objective analysis of work such as that done by TDs. Such analysis would show that we do constituency and legislative work all the time; one merges into the other.
I had a short sojourn as Minister of State, during which I was able to experience the benefits of a small list system. I had responsibility for science and technology and at some European meetings I had occasion to sit with colleagues from other countries. One or two of the Ministers — I am thinking in particular of those from Spain and Italy — were not elected but had been appointed through a list system. They had been given their particular briefs because of their expertise and knowledge of the subjects in question, which was impressive. However, I also saw some Ministers who knew nothing, frankly, about their subjects and were totally at the mercy of their advisers. Perhaps one extreme cancels out the other. However, I would not completely dismiss the need for some expertise from outside the political system in specific areas. I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe that the workings of our Dáil are antiquated, out of date and urgently in need of reform.
We have heard two stimulating presentations. Deputy Tuffy did well on the radio programme on which she appeared this morning, putting the type of case that is required with regard to what TDs do and the importance of their work. I prefer to talk about public representatives rather than politicians. There are thousands of politicians but only 166 directly elected public representatives. "The politicians" is a term that is used all the time, as mentioned by Deputy Howlin. We are not just politicians but elected public representatives. We must make that clear as people tend to be a little blasé in this regard. It denigrates elected Members. It is important to stand up and be counted.
Sometimes the limits on speeches in the Chamber are a little too much. However, we must have some sort of efficiency. I was here during the years when one could go on for a long time, but one would probably have been put out if one was not saying things that were reasonably relevant. Unfortunately, everyone is moving towards soundbites instead of getting into their subjects and trying to explain them better.
Deputy Higgins also mentioned the amount of time Members spend on legislation or, as he said, they think they spend on legislation. The whole process is a continuum. It is not a question of saying "Today I am legislating." The creation of legislation follows on from one's involvement, research and consultation. This runs through everything, including committee meetings. Deputy Devins used the word "consultation", which is important. We are representatives of the people. Deputy Higgins mentioned this point, which needs further consideration.
The Deputy also mentioned the domination of initiative by an unelected group. That is where the system breaks down. Ministers have much background support, but TDs and Senators have a limited amount, although it is much better than it was. There are some false notions about where Ministers get their ideas. They often get them from the committees, but they have the ability and the resources to implement them. If that information is transmitted back to the committees, their members will feel happier about their work. That is another issue that needs further consideration.
Politicians should be prepared to stand up and hold their position. We are not doing that enough, including on radio programmes of the type mentioned earlier. That is why Deputy Tuffy did well this morning; she made her point without insulting anyone or getting annoyed, which is a good thing to do.
The process of reforming the current institutions in Parliament should continue. Quite a lot has been done already in this regard, but we should try to ensure the process continues. Deputy Tuffy talked about how contact with voters informs her work as a legislator. However, one must sort out that work. There is work that can be done fairly simply, while other work is much more meaningful from a legislative point of view.
The more one thinks about it, the more one realises the truth of the assertion that the introduction of a list system would divide elected representatives into two types, superior and ordinary. It would be like the Premier League and the First Division in football. To some extent, one sees that internationally. I have attended many international committees over the years and I have noticed such people are not as much in touch with the effects of what they are talking about on ordinary people but, being administrators, are much nearer to the Administration. That is something we should not slip into. I have often said I do not want to be an expert. I am qualified as an expert and was one in the past, but I did not come into politics to be an expert, although I was forced into it several times because I had done enough research to know what was going on, which makes people think one is an expert. We are here to represent people and help develop the overall direction of the country.
There has been a considerable change in the work of elected representatives due to the possibility of contact by e-mail, which has resulted in fewer people attending TDs' clinics, but the system must be able to deal with that. Deputy O'Keeffe raised the issue of Ministers not wanting interaction with Deputies or thinking they are a bit of a nuisance. If that is the case, they are foolish Ministers, because if they recognise that the Deputies are in touch with their own constituents, they can expect to get many ideas from them.
As Deputy Devins said, some Deputies give excellent speeches, while others waffle. The waffling is not really necessary, but we must remember that having people from all walks of life and representing all civilians in the country is important in a Parliament. We should not have an elite who decide how they want to do things and who the good speakers are, although there may be people who will be used as speakers more frequently. The strength of a Parliament is that it has representatives of all sorts of people throughout the country, which has always been the case, although, obviously, the level of education has risen over the years. Proportional representation by single transferable vote, PR-STV, is the best system, if it can be worked. One only needs to provide some support for people for it to work. What is decided by Government or parties afterwards is a different matter. It is a very competitive system but one need not get involved in dirty tricks. One must do one's job and let people see one is doing it, work with them and understand them. They will know what one is about.
There is much to consider regarding the direction we should take. However, further reform is necessary. There were many stimulating ideas in both contributions.
Does Deputy Higgins wish to speak briefly?
Very briefly.
The Deputy should take his time.
It is important to bear in mind that parliaments are weak and need to be made stronger. The alternative is to have extra-parliamentary agitation on fundamental issues, whatever forms such agitation might take. Some people might welcome that as a fundamental change in society.
It is best if I give a practical example. We can consider what is happening in Ireland, Greece and Europe at present. The European Central Bank is in charge of monetary policy but to sustain, for example, 3% of GDP by 2012 in Greece, or the same by 2014 in this country, fiscal policy is required. Fiscal policy will cut expenditure or welfare or whatever and will also have national implications. How does one bring that within the frame of parliament? There are two possible paths. One might argue for bringing about such fundamental adjustments to monetary and fiscal policy that there will be no riots on the streets in Athens. Is this a technical question? What is the role of Mr. Papandreou's Cabinet and the Greek Parliament? I pick that example deliberately because that issue arises. If one takes the 19th century——
The fact that there is a good relationship between the Prime Minister and the unions is probably helpful in securing the necessary outcome in that country. It is also effective.
It is, but it is a situation in point. I shall follow the theoretical point in which I am interested. In the agitations that took place for the vote, the assumption that people in certain classes would find their way into parliament was also an assumption that they would hold power. The demand by Irish women for the vote in 1918 and their finally getting it included an assumption that it would confer power. When I look at the literature written by Professor Bailey and others about that time I note that the parliaments of the time ran according to certain rules. That gave us what are perceived today as certain antiquated procedures, languages and so forth. Parliaments did not really move on. Occasionally, however, as for example in the British case regarding the Suez Canal, a government might be dislodged.
To what extent does parliament want to be able to handle the issues of the day that have implications for the people on the ground? One might take the decision to go to war, as Britain did, for example. That is an issue for parliament and if parliament is to enact that, the challenge is not a technical one. This is where the big danger lies. If there has been a real failure in Irish political science, dare I say it is in not examining the Weberian prophecy about what would happen in bureaucracies. We have had moments we did not actually notice. Whatever suggestions may be made about electoral reform, I do not close the door to them. I merely say that electoral reform is only one part of the legislative process. If one presents electoral reform proposals on their own, these may well be perceived as an admission of failure by Deputies in regard to their performance. That would be very foolish.
Another important point is the need to do something about the committee system. I offer an example that again comes from another legislature. Some very fine work has been done by the joint committee on human rights of the House of Lords and House of Commons at Westminster. An issue of human rights arose, namely, whether committees exist to ensure compliance with what the Government has signed up to, as in the case of an international convention. It was asked whether the committee has a thematic role in advancing human rights thinking among the public in general. These are issues that regard committees.
The term "disconnect" was used today on the radio. If we want to address the disconnect, we really need to be able to operate more thematically. That is what I meant when I spoke of deepening democracy. We are all in agreement that we should not sit here as patsies, listening to people pasting the system, saying that a person is a lesser being because he or she is elected. That is a subtext. In a chapter I wrote for a book, I described that when I was Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, there was an issue concerning the production values of current affairs programmes. This may even have concerned banking. Sometimes journalists interview each other and this is followed by the expert slot which is followed by the politician slot. Indeed, it is usually the other way around. The politician is usually in second position, the assumption being that those people who are elected do not know anything at all about the matter and so there must be recourse to the smaller group of people who are supposed to be experts on what is happening in regard to the ECB or whatever. This does not hold up and it is one of my difficulties.
I do not take the extreme view that we are there to represent the opinions on the street. For a very long time there has been a majority in the United Kingdom in favour of bringing back hanging. It is to the credit of politicians, even of people such as Margaret Thatcher, that they have resisted that option. I never thought I would send a compliment in that direction. There is a case to be made, however, that one cannot represent certain views simply because they are populist. When we are elected, we must discover our nerve and our bottle.
I have respect for people who join political parties. They know why they join them and have good historical reasons for doing so. I do not accept the view that if we had some kind of interparliament of individuals, things would be better. There is a notion that I have described as "the seminar on lifeboat behaviour". This concerns those precious people who suggest that we should leave parliament behind and begin all over again, that there is a real need to create anew. I regard that as having a discourse on lifeboat behaviour before the ship sinks. This is the ship. It is possible to have discussions that could bring about very significant improvements in the legislative process. That is not an old view.
Technology should serve a robust parliament but parliament should not be reduced to the technology involved. There is much argument of that kind. There are people, for example, with whom I work, or whom I see every day and admire. They work in different places and are superbly competent with regard to technology. However, the same cannot be said about their political inheritance, their philosophical views or their notion of why they are alive. Ultimately, it is all about what one wants to do with one's life. One does not want to crawl out of this House and have it said: "He tabled 110,000 parliamentary questions." Perhaps some people might regard that as a great headstone to have but it would not do much for me.
With regard to Deputy Howlin's point, I support the work of the committee in asking the questions it does but I want to persuade the committee to give certain answers. That is my basic objective.
It is fine to have a debate on whether we should look at a list system or other political systems. The debate taking place in the media about the need to move to a list system is largely premised on the idea that the wrong people are elected, that voters are making the wrong choices and therefore we must restrict their choice. The argument is that we must take the voter out of the equation regarding picking the people concerned. That is my problem with the debate in the media and the larger forum.
Concerning the point made about the two countries, new electoral systems have been put in place. For example, the Scottish local elections saw the introduction of proportional representation by single transferable vote, PR-STV. The same occurred in Northern Ireland and there are civic campaigns in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to introduce PR-STV. There is no civic campaign in Ireland of which I am aware to get rid of PR-STV.
I refer to the point made about soundbites and the idea of taking the voter out of the equation and removing an element of contact between the voter and individual. This is part of the technological movement towards centralisation and the era of the soundbite. Our system is the contrary to that. It is one-to-one and face-to-face and goes back to the basics of one individual persuading another about particular political ideas. That is a healthy part of our democracy and not something we should take away.
I refer to the electorates for a list system. Let us consider the positions of Senators. I was a Senator. Who do they spend their time going to? The answer is county councillors. Those elected under a list system would spend their time working to the audience of party membership or leadership. Many parties wish to remove members from selection conventions. In Italy, the prime minister chooses who goes on a list. Does he choose the right people? I am unsure but I need not say too much about that. There is a similarity in France, a point made by one of our former MEPs at a recent meeting. When Mr. Sarkozy sought to get rid of one of his Ministers he put her on a list system for the European Parliament and that was how he got rid of her. List systems can be abused and the way things are going any list system would almost certainly be abused.
I refer to Deputy Woods's point about denigrating the system and the idea of superior Deputies. Media commentators or party advisers may perceive people elected by list as superior but the electorate does not see it that way. That was a finding in Wales and I believe the same finding would emerge here. I refer to the point made by Deputy Jimmy Devins and I have already referred to poor examples of the list system. I believe I have covered most of the points raised. I thank the committee.
I thank the Deputy. I thank everyone for their presentations and I thank members for their participation in this very interesting meeting.