JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION debate

Electoral System Review: Discussion.

Vice Chairman

We are continuing our hearings on the electoral systems and this is the 12th hearing. We are nearing the end and we have kept the best wine until last because we have three colleagues from the Houses who have views to offer based on their political experiences of the current system. It is important to add to the academic advice we have received and we have received practical advice from colleagues such as Deputy Michael D. Higgins, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey. Today we welcome Deputies Rory O'Hanlon and Bernard Durkan, and Senator Fiona O'Malley. I thank them for attending. I suggest we asked them to contribute in that order with a brief presentation that will be open to questioning around the table. I ask the delegates to give a short outline of their views after which we will explore it in more detail under questioning.

There is one item not on the agenda and that is the shared impoverishment of the Vice Chairman and Deputy O'Hanlon this morning.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

I will try to avoid that matter. I will begin by dealing with the issue raised by the Vice Chairman. One of my concerns is that over the past 15 or 20 years every time there has been a revision of constituencies, two seats have been lost on the western seaboard. Practically every county has lost a seat, including Kerry, Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Roscommon as have the constituencies of Cavan-Monaghan and Sligo-Leitrim. I am concerned that over time the large rural areas will be under-represented and there could be a serious problem. There might be only two Deputies representing the entire county of Mayo if it continues. I know it is because of the 1958 judgment that there is no flexibility in tolerance and we need a constitutional referendum to allow for a different population in the 12 western counties, or whatever the committee would recommend, because there will be a serious problem in time to come.

A related issue is that if we allow the situation to continue as is, it will not be long until we will not have sufficient Members in the House from the western part of Ireland to pass legislation to hold a referendum. If 60% or 70% of Members are from the greater Dublin area or the east coast they will not pass legislation to give away ten seats to the western seaboard. There is an issue to be addressed to ensure proper representation in the rural parts of Ireland, particularly along the west coast.

I am sure the other points I wish to make have been made and have been well teased out. I would prefer a single transferable vote first past the post system or the multi-seat system we have at present.

Vice Chairman

Is the Deputy in favour of single seat constituencies with transferable vote?

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

Yes.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

How would the Deputy have proportionality with a single seat? Does he envisage a top-up with it?

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

If one had single seat constituencies a candidate would have to win more than 50% of the votes on the final count. It would be like a by-election. The multi-seat system is wasteful for everybody, for Members and the State, due to the competition between Members and duplication of effort in public service.

The electoral register should be compiled by An Post. At the time of the most recent local elections there was a serious problem whereby approximately 700 extra people were included in the south Monaghan area, which has a population of only 12,000. There was no way the local authority was able to check them. There was no way of knowing whether they were valid. This issue needs to be addressed to ensure the electoral register is accurate and that only those entitled to vote do so. In some parts of Ireland, personation takes place, perhaps the closer one gets to the Border. It was endemic on the other side of the Border.

It might also be worth examining Sunday voting. In the past, the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church were not over-enthusiastic about it but it might be worth examining it.

Vice Chairman

There is scope for weekend voting, over Saturday and Sunday.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

Yes, Saturday or Sunday. I see no reason it should not be held on Sunday, similar to other European countries. However, it should be held on Sunday only if all the various cultures here are happy with it. I would not want to see it otherwise.

People who are ill and who apply for a postal vote must submit a medical certificate at every election irrespective of the nature of their illness. If one has a permanent serious illness or condition, such as a stroke, which prohibits one from going out to vote, one should not need to include a medical certificate after the first application. People can lose the franchise by not applying in time.

Vice Chairman

I thank Deputy O'Hanlon and call on Deputy Durkan to fire his shots.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

My views on this subject are fairly well known and I will add at the outset that they are not my party's views. Institutions have a particular role to play. They tend to create confidence among the public. The public expects to be able to rely with confidence on institutions. I do not accept the suggestion that we need reform in the parliamentary system. There is a great deal to be learned and gained from reliance on what has proven to be fairly effective in the past. At present, the perception is being created that the economic difficulties in which this country and other countries find themselves can be attributed to the parliamentary system; this is not so. In fact, it is directly attributable to the watering down and erosion of the parliamentary system by the Executive on the one hand and by the European institutions on the other. It is not the fault of the parliamentary system; it is simply the fault of the institutions in place not gelling together and not being of benefit to the general public.

The Dáil and Seanad have worked extremely well in the past. Tampering with democracy at a time of economic difficulty is the worst sign of an attempt to recognise there is a problem where none exists and to attribute blame in an area where it should not be attributed. What I see as the most serious problem we face is the degree to which experts have overtaken the role of Government and Parliament. We rely on expert opinion for almost everything we do. We wonder whether what we state and how we act is trendy and whether it is politically correct. That has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is an expression by the people at any given time; they do not need to pass an IQ test for that and neither should public representatives. Democracy has worked extremely well and we should be very careful not to interfere with it.

As it stands at present, the Irish electoral system is probably the most democratic in the world. It is recognised as such. The Australian system is a little more intricate but is based on a similar system. The committee has been examining various other systems, such as those of New Zealand and Malta. Many of those democracies took their inspiration from ours in the very beginning. I see no reason for tampering with ours because we think we have become inadequate.

I turn to the causes. To a great extent, the Executive has taken over here. It has consumed Parliament, for want of a better description, and Parliament no longer fulfils the role it should.

There are several reasons for that, and all Governments in recent times have been responsible for it. Ministers no longer want to come before Parliament to answer questions or respond to Adjournment debates on any of the issues that have been discussed over the years. Everything has been set aside, and the most menial tasks are repeatedly given to the most junior Ministers of State rather than the Ministers with responsibility. When Deputy O'Hanlon and I first became Members of the House, Ministers came before the House repeatedly to answer questions.

The role of Parliament is now diminished. The general thinking, generated by those with vested interests, is that we do not matter any more, as everything is done in Brussels. That is simply not true. Everything is still controlled by the national Parliament, and by its members, if they have the strength and the audacity to stand up and demand their rights on behalf of the people who elected them.

There is an attempt to reinvent the wheel, but the wheel has worked extremely well for a long time. Nobody has improved it just yet, nor are they likely to. We should consider how we can ensure that Parliament is able to hold the Executive — whatever Government is in power — to account without restriction or apology. We should remember that this is done in many other parliaments that operate in a much less democratic way than we do.

My party has suggested in recent times that reducing the membership of the Dáil and abolishing the Seanad would be one way to respond to the ills of the time, but I do not agree with that at all. Any attempt to abolish or reduce the membership of the institutions that are democratically elected by the people of their own volition is an attempt to subvert democracy. That is a very dangerous thing to do. It would create the impression among the general public that those institutions are at fault, but that is not the case.

I recently heard another "expert" in the media express the view that there is not the expertise in the Houses to make Members fit to run a country. However, there is a great lack of expertise in the institutions outside the Houses. Those institutions have clearly failed to run the country, to run businesses and to fulfil their functions and roles, and they continue to do so. We must not be fooled into thinking that the parliamentary institutions have in some way fluffed up or reneged.

I, like Deputy O'Hanlon and other members, have been members of various committees in this House for almost 30 years. I always thought it was a great honour for Ministers to come before a committee when they were asked. Some Ministers now find that very difficult. They say that they see no reason they should do so. Following the Lisbon treaty, there is a huge responsibility on the Houses of Parliament with regard to how they operate — particularly in relation to the Joint Committee on European Affairs — and how they represent our people. The reluctance on the part of some Ministers to come before a committee out of courtesy is appalling. I emphasise that I refer only to some Ministers. Others are particularly attentive to their duties: they ensure that they regularly appear before committees and do not have to be asked a second time.

Democracy is sacred. Voting should not be simple, and we should not set out new rules and guidelines that make it simpler or easier. We should not have voting on a Sunday or at any convenient time for holidaymakers or anyone else. Voting should be seen to be a very serious ceremony. We should participate in it and encourage the public to do so. Any diminution in its — or Parliament's — importance should be shunned.

Vice Chairman

I thank Deputy Durkan. He has made a number of relevant points.

We move to the third member of this morning's triumvirate: Senator Fiona O'Malley.

Senator Fiona O’Malley

I thank the chairman for the opportunity to come before the committee. Reading the constitution to prepare for the meeting has made me realise just how desperately we need to update it.

I asked to come before the committee because I wish to focus on the question of women in Parliament, although I realise that other matters also need to be addressed. I have prepared a statement, which I will try to read as quickly as possible. My proposal is quite a radical departure, so it is important that I present it in writing.

My instinct is to take this opportunity to consider whether we can do things differently. Notwithstanding what colleagues have said today, some aspects of our democracy and participation in it need to be addressed. That is what should happen in a modern democracy. I have discovered that the term for what I propose is "parity democracy".

Vice Chairman

The total equality of women with men.

Senator Fiona O’Malley

I am not sure whether there will be total equality, but I want to try to bring the ratio up to 50:50.

Vice Chairman

I see.

Senator Fiona O’Malley

I will, with the chairman's permission and indulgence, read my statement, although I will cut it slightly short. It is inspired by the on-going discourse on the involvement of women in politics.

In considering the proposal, members must suspend their understanding of how politics is currently practised. It suggests not that increased participation of women is the panacea for the body politic, but merely that we try something different. As a basis on which to organise or construct a system of election, it is as legitimate as any other.

My proposal is, first and foremost, based on the premise that we want more women to be involved in politics. As I reflected on the topic, I realised that a total overhaul of our system would be necessary to facilitate that. It is a simple idea: a gender quota would be imposed, so that 50% of the people returned to Dáil Éireann are male and 50% female. That is the only fair way to do it. Importantly, everybody would be elected on the same basis.

Such a system would demand the total redrawing of the constituencies, as well as a change in our voting system to first past the post. I will outline how it would work. I note that while such a radical overhaul is under way, we should take the opportunity to cut the number of Deputies. I propose that it should be reduced to 120.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Is there a need for 120?

Senator Fiona O’Malley

No, that number is completely arbitrary. It could be 50 or 60. From other people's contributions, I note that a reduction to 120 would not require constitutional change — although I recognise that my proposal would need total constitutional change. That is why I came up with the figure of 120.

To elect 120 TDs, we would have 60 two-seat constituencies. Each constituency would have a male panel and a female panel. The candidates in each panel with the most votes would be elected to represent the constituency — to state the obvious, that would be a man and a woman. That would instantly bring about a 50% level of participation. The voter would get two ballot papers, and would cast one vote for each panel. Naturally, people would be free to vote for whoever they wished, but one male and one female would be returned.

If we adopted that system, it would transform much of our politics, and the calibre of the candidates in particular. All parties would be out to head-hunt the best woman and the best man to stand for them in the panels in each constituency. The competition would be about the quality of the candidates rather than party affiliation. That would no doubt have a profound effect on political parties, and membership would be more fluid. At a time when the raison d’être — or, more correctly, the raison d’origine — of the two largest parties is no longer relevant, change is imperative.

In the past, politics was as much of a social outlet as joining the local GAA club. It was what people did to meet other people. However, politics no longer serves that purpose, and getting people to go to meetings is a big problem for all parties. I realise this will seem like heresy to some but it is the reality.

It is common in other countries that political movements come and go frequently. Bonds between groups are established before an election and they often disband after an election or a term of Government. I point to France as a particular case where political affiliations come and go coming up to elections. It is also true of many African countries. Why should Ireland be different? We have a notion that we should cling rigidly to our political origins.

A radical change in how we elect our politicians will result in a radical shift in expectation on the part of the voters. New people would be attracted into politics to do the real job of Deputies — to legislate, devise and decide policy in a national and international context. Another advantage of this system is that it minimises clientelism. A constituency colleague is no longer a rival because each is competing on different panels.

Members should forget about paying lip service. This proposal will get more women involved and the best part is that it is completely fair to men and women. I am not comfortable with the notion that one gets elected on the basis of gender alone. This imposes a constraint on the voter's total freedom to choose and it has been described to me as anti-democratic. A similar restriction exists under our current system where some voters may return five Deputies and others only three. It could be argued that currently, there are barriers to participation by women in politics and that is undemocratic. A subgroup of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights has examined the barriers that exist to women's participation in politics. Whether one agrees with them, the reality is that women are excluded from politics.

For completeness, if we keep the Seanad it should be reduced to 30 Members. There should be the same gender panel system and election by general suffrage, but members' constituencies should be based on provinces and membership could be on the same basis as Members of the Dail in respect of participation in government.

The electoral system is only one part of our political system. The Civil Service is the means by which political decisions are implemented. Political reform must go hand in hand with public sector reform if it is to transform Irish society successfully. I have no doubt there are flaws in my proposal and it needs improvement. I welcome comment; the idea is to stimulate debate.

A radical overhaul is just what we need to kick-start our jaded political system. In another context, a leader of my former party said we had to be radical or redundant.

Vice Chairman

Redundant then. I could not resist.

Senator Fiona O’Malley

If we fail to radicalise now, we are in danger of making politics redundant to so many. My offering may not be perfect but it addresses the issue of getting more women into politics and delivering the possibility of real change.

It requires a constitutional referendum but this is not a legitimate barrier to changing the system. We need a total constitutional review but that is an argument for another day. This does not have to be permanent and we should trial it for two general elections. Let us see if it works. There is a notion that women will make politics better. We will not know until we have full participation. That is why my proposal should be observed for two election terms.

The biggest challenge in this proposal is how to get the measures adopted. The political parties with a vested interest in keeping our electoral system as it is will not be interested in a radical overhaul. I appeal to the public and wonder whether we need another revolution as we approach the centenary of the establishment of the State. My idea is based on debates that have taken place. Rather than thinking of this as a problem with no solution, I have produced a solution and I hope to see this applied because it is worth trying. Let us see what difference increased participation of women in politics makes. I welcome the comments and suggestions of colleagues.

Chairman

I thank the three contributors, who did not tailor their contributions to match. That is democracy and we had the experience and expertise of three serious Members of the House.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I thank the Chair and the three presenters. I understand why Deputy O'Hanlon proposes to change the system of proportionality to the advantage of the west. Coming from an eastern county, I see we are disadvantaged in the east. For example, the Seanad electorate is composed of councillors and there are more councils per capita in the west than in the east. My county has 21 councillors for 140,000 people in Wexford. That is doubled in some western countries and in some eastern counties such as Carlow, which has 21 councillors for a population of less than half of Wexford. There is already a disproportionate involvement of people from the west in the election of the Seanad. In the United States, a state such as Arizona has only one congressman but two Senators. Every state, regardless of population, has the same number of Senators but the US Congress is made up on a proportional basis. A state like California has an enormous number of congressmen. There will be resistance to simply amplifying the representation of the west for simple geographical reasons.

I strongly agree with the analysis of Deputy Durkan. We need to rebalance the Executive and the Dáil. Those of us who had the privilege of serving in government know that when in opposition one wants a strong Dáil to hold the Executive to account and when one migrates to Government one wants a weaker Dáil and as little accountability as one can get away with. We need consensus to have the structure of accountability permanent, irrespective of who is in government. I am interested to hear Deputy Durkan's views on the specifics although I have heard him through parliamentary questions on what needs to be done.

My final question is for Senator O'Malley, who has an intriguing proposal. The proposal is fundamentally flawed in that it distorts proportionality entirely. The first past the post system turns every constituency into two panels, one male and one female, with the highest vote getter getting the seat. Senator O'Malley may have a prejudice against the party system for obvious reasons but the system will endure because it is needed to have a consensus on law making. Theoretically, it is possible that the same party could win every seat under Senator O'Malley's proposal. If one party is to win the highest vote on the male list in a constituency, there is a probability it will win the vote on the female list. This could lead to winning the panels on a straight vote system with 30% of the vote. In the British system, all three parties are now on 30%. Under the current system in Britain, if the Labour Party wins 30% of the vote, it will win a clear majority of seats. It would hold the largest number of seats of any party. The Liberal Democrats, with a similar number of votes, would win one third of the Labour Party total of seats.

Deputy Michael Kennedy

Gerrymandering.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The system is designed like that and it is crushing proportionality. One can end up with 30% of the vote and no seats. That could happen under the system proposed by Senator O'Malley. The Labour Party has introduced a similar version of Senator O'Malley's system to elect our national executive. We have two panels, male and female, with three seats on each but it is an STV system. The committee might consider that. We elect six members to the national executive, three men and three women, from two panels. Everybody receives two ballot papers but it is an STV proportional system.

Vice Chairman

I ask our witnesses to bank the questions and respond at the end.

Senator Dan Boyle

Like Deputy Howlin, I believe the issue of proportionality and regional balance can be best addressed in a bicameral system. It is important to have a link between population and representatives and also to ensure the regions are adequately represented. The US or German system, whereby the second chamber is filled on a regional basis and less on population, is possibly a better way of doing this. Where attempts are made in other jurisdictions to have a smaller proportion of representatives for outlying districts there is an imbalance. In the British example, Scotland and Wales are identified as regions. Some might see them as nations or countries in their own right and because they have a smaller population ratio to elect MPs it benefits the Labour Party in Britain. It is one reason it can come third in an election and win the highest number of seats. One must be careful not to distort the system in that way.

I have much sympathy with what Deputy Durkan stated, but this is the Joint Committee on the Constitution and much of what he discussed was Dáil reform. I accept the Executive has a vested interest in ensuring reform does not happen and that is true regardless of who is in government. I wish someone would have the foresight to understand that a vibrant democracy depends on regular changes of Government and composition of parties in government. Whoever is in the Executive at a particular time should reform the system to ensure that when they are in opposition they can be the most effective Opposition possible. That is the debate we need to have on Dáil reform.

There is something to be said for Senator O'Malley's proposals. However, like Deputy Howlin, I think it would fall down on proportionality. A transferable vote and a link to additional seats, perhaps through a list system, are needed. I do not agree that there should be two votes in each constituency. In a two-seat constituency, voters can be given the option of voting for either a male or female list with top-up seats to ensure a male and female candidate is elected in each constituency. The danger is that people will be elected in a lop-sided way. People might opt for a male or female constituency in disproportionate numbers. However, at least it gives the voter the entitlement to ensure one or the other. It carries the danger described by Deputy Howlin, that the same party would win the two seats in each constituency even under a transferable vote system. It would probably benefit the second placed party in our system more than the first placed party and that would be a significant distortion of our system.

We need to get the balance right between elected representatives whom people can identify at a local level and how the national vote is properly transferred among overall political opinion in the country. We are examining the German and New Zealand systems because they seem to get that balance better than we do. I disagree with Deputy Durkan's statement that we do not need to examine our system because it has served us well since 1922. We are almost unique among democracies in place for most of the 20th century in not having examined or changed our voting system. Practically every other European country has changed its voting system several times to improve it and we should not be slow to do so. The Seanad has not been reformed in any way since 1937. This is despite the country's population increasing by 75%. It is clear that we need these reforms and to look at matters differently. We need to examine the type of changes made which have worked elsewhere. The contributions today have helped that process.

Deputy Denis Naughten

I thank those who have made presentations. I must agree with Deputy O'Hanlon, naturally enough.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Special pleading.

Deputy Denis Naughten

However, this is for a slightly different reason, which is that I come from one of the few constituencies, Leitrim, divided by the previous boundary commission and perhaps it is the only such constituency. We have heard contributions from quite a number of experts in this area and all of them argued that the county structure is fundamental in the country, more so than the provincial structure. We saw the hatchet job done at the last boundary commission review and I believe it is a mess. It will be very difficult for people to relate to their Deputy. Parts of Offaly have gone into Tipperary and parts of Kerry have gone into Limerick. It is chopped all over the place. This is bad for democracy and it is why we should have greater tolerance with regard to constituencies; not necessarily on the western seaboard only but also on the eastern seaboard. Deputy Durkan comes from a constituency which has changed in every boundary review since the 1980s. It has included parts of Wicklow. This causes significant problems with regard to people relating to their public representative. We need to try, in so far as it is possible, to examine mechanisms to try to fix to a certain extent the constituency boundaries, and a certain tolerance is required for this. Will the delegation comment on this aspect?

I listened intently to Senator O'Malley's contribution. My parliamentary party held a debate on the issue of women's participation in politics. There are other minorities not represented in the Dáil. Young people are the largest minority not represented in the Dáil.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

They are not a minority.

Deputy Denis Naughten

They are under-represented.

Vice Chairman

The Deputy should choose his words carefully.

Deputy Denis Naughten

Young people make up by far the largest proportion of the population but they are under-represented in the Dáil. My point is that the argument has been made by quite a number of Members of the Oireachtas that the quota system does not ensure people are elected on their merits and abilities. This argument has been made by female Members of the Oireachtas. Will the delegation comment on this?

With regard to clientelism, we have heard contributions from many people, the vast majority of whom have argued that it does not make any difference what type of electoral system we have in the country, because the type of society we have and the fact that everyone knows someone who knows a Member of the Oireachtas will lead to clientelism anyway. Whether we have a first past the post or PR in a multi-seat constituency system we will have clientelism. Even in the UK, put up as a benchmark, there is a significant amount of clientelism.

Much of what Deputy Durkan spoke about is with regard to the need for Dáil reform, and this is needed. Does he think a change to the electoral system could enhance the role of a Deputy? What changes would improve that system? The next issue which this committee will examine is the committee structure and this will very much tie into what Deputy Durkan spoke about today.

Deputy Michael Woods

I am very concerned about the west vanishing and I believe we should examine tolerance to ensure a reasonable balance. It also applies to the east coast and even in heavily populated areas. Very small differences can mean small groups of people being taken out and fired to somewhere with which they are not familiar. This can be examined. The suggestion that An Post might compile the register is interesting, but I am not sure how practical that would be. We have had a great deal of difficulty in getting the register right. I agree entirely with the suggestion that we find a way to help people with a permanent or long-term condition; it should be possible to do that.

I agree with much of what my colleague, Deputy Durkan, said. The system in Ireland is very democratic and competitive. As I have said before — members will be tired of hearing me say it — the system is tough, and keeps us working on the ground. It keeps us in touch with the people. I am not a football star or a TV star — a lot of people like that could move in if we had a select system. The great thing about our system is that it brings out people from the community, who are familiar with that community. Deputy Durkan is right in that sense. We will consider how we can improve that situation and go a little further.

On the point about the Executive taking over and the role of Parliament being diminished, I felt that things were going fairly well, as the committees were being strengthened. However, in the current situation, people are drawing back resources and funds from the parliamentary committees and TDs, and democratically that is wrong. We have to meet the requirements of the current situation, but people are inclined to forget that those people are their elected representatives.

We can see that the committees are doing excellent work at present, although that could, and will, be improved. There is much better participation in committees. The Executive must consider the issues that have been raised. However, we must make the point strongly, as Deputy Durkan did, that a reduction in the membership of the Dáil or the Seanad would involve breaking away from a system in which we listen to people on the ground.

If someone is running a big business or factory and does not walk the factory floor, they will get into trouble. That is a basic rule of management. If we do not keep in touch with the people, we will be in trouble.

We hear that people have said certain things in various surveys, but I find that there is a different attitude on the ground. I and other Deputies talk to people who are in a certain situation and who make decisions accordingly. Surveys can indicate trends, but there is great democratic strength in our system. I would be reluctant to move too far away from that.

With regard to Senator O'Malley's proposal, we are certainly anxious to find ways to encourage a situation in which women can and will participate. As members will be aware, quite a few women have come and gone for one reason or another. They may have done a term and said that is enough for them. That could be due to clientelism or other things.

There is no doubt that the job is tough, and it is hard to marry it to other things — it is certainly not family friendly. We are looking hard at that, and it is important that we do anything that is reasonable. Other members have mentioned the potential dangers in Senator O'Malley's proposal.

The issue of clientelism has been raised, but I am not sure I know what that is. If I meet an elderly person who has a problem he or she cannot solve, and if that person has been to hospitals, seen other people, written to the Department and the Minister and still nothing is done, I do not let go. That is the person who matters. Every individual person matters. That is what we are here for, although it may mean that I have to work longer hours because I have to cover the other side of the job and try to keep up to date with everything.

That has changed a lot over the years. The more effective public service becomes, the less of that type of work there will be. That change can be seen in a lot of areas. I was involved in the area of social welfare, and we did significant work to try to get away from that as far as possible.

The same change occurred in other areas such as Revenue which became much more customer oriented. As that happens, we move away from the previous elements, and we are left to deal with the problems that nobody will solve. I can tell the committee that there are plenty of those.

Senator O'Malley mentioned that membership of the Dáil could be reduced to 120. The Dáil is beginning to get to grips with the committees. If we reduce the number of Ministers under the Constitution, that means 15 will go to start with. If we reduce the number of junior Ministers — at least one in each Department or thereabouts — that is another 30 gone. If we take away other people such as the committee chairmen and the Ceann Comhairle, we will not be left with enough people to service the committees that are necessary if we want to be effective on a European and international scale as well as an Irish scale.

Whatever we do with regard to small reductions, there is no scope for big reductions. It is good to see the way in which committees are now functioning. They are really getting into things. Senator O'Malley's proposal is stimulating — as she said herself — and it keeps the issue very much in front of us.

Senator Alex White

The value of Senator O'Malley's paper lies not so much in the meat of the proposal, but in the context in which she places it. The paper's opening sentence mentions the sense that politics no longer serves the people or is relevant to them, and that feeling is gaining traction. There is no question that is the case. We are all feeling around to try to find out how we can define the problem and start to address it.

One of the problems is that our current system does not facilitate in any real way a sufficient level or quality of debate on alternative ways of doing things in our country. In other words, it does not facilitate hardcore politics.

The problem is not that there is not a sufficient number of people who have their ears to the ground. Loads of people have their ears to the ground; that probably includes everyone in this room. We have a surfeit of people who know about the individual problems in their communities. There are loads of people like that. They are very impressive, and new people who come in sometimes feel that they are hard to keep up with.

However, what we lack is a system, and often a Parliament, in which there is any real debate about alternatives and, when election time comes around, any real alternatives presented to the people. That is where the problem lies.

The context of Senator O'Malley's proposal is right, although I do not agree with her answer. I strongly support the proposals from Senators O'Malley and Bacik and others on what political parties should be doing. However, I do not think that engineering a system that ensures that representation must be 50:50 is either desirable or democratic. It would require more than simply changing the electoral parts of the Constitution. There is a question mark around how it would comply with the basic equality provisions of the Constitution.

Senator O'Malley says that her proposal would transform so much about politics, and the calibre of candidates in particular. Notwithstanding what I have said about supporting quotas in political parties, it does not necessarily follow that female candidates are of a higher calibre than male candidates. I know that is not quite what Senator O'Malley said, but I stress that is not the case.

I strongly disagree with a lot of women in politics, and agree with a lot of men, and vice versa. The fault line with regard to whether or not I disagree with people is not whether they are men or women. In many ways, Senator O’Malley's proposal would arguably be a backwards step. We need to consider things in terms of politics rather than gender. I might have a problem with women on the right, whereas others might take the opposite view. We line up not on the basis of our gender, but on where we are coming from politically.

Senator O'Malley's paper is interesting; I briefly heard the other two Members deliver their papers before I came in. I strongly disagree with the idea of trying out the Senator's proposal for two terms — I do not think we can do that. We must tread carefully on changing the Constitution. I respectfully tell Senator O'Malley that we cannot experiment with her idea.

Vice Chairman

There are a series of issues to consider. We might need to crystallise them.

Deputy Jimmy Devins

I would like to make a brief comment. I thank the three Members for their submissions. We are charged with examining Article 16 of the Constitution and considering whether it needs to be changed. From the presentations we have heard today, it appears that there is a degree of dissatisfaction with it, which I think is mirrored by most Members of both Houses. We will take on board the suggestions and discuss them in committee later.

Vice Chairman

I ask the panel to respond. The central feature of Deputy O'Hanlon's presentation related to rural representation and the problems associated with the depopulation of rural areas. I have much sympathy with the points that he raised, especially the fact that the 1958 Supreme Court decision means there is no room for manoeuvre in changing the membership of the Dáil without a constitutional amendment although, as has been mentioned, certain changes to the Seanad might be possible.

I have spoken to people from Leitrim, which is a part of the country for which I have a great deal of affection. It is a county, and yet it often does not have any representation of its own. If a constitutional referendum was held on the issue, would such a proposal for change be passed by the majority of the population, particularly those within 30 miles of the GPO, in urban Ireland and the east coast?

Deputy Durkan touched on a concern that most people share, namely, that the creeping tentacles of the Executive are consuming the political system and extinguishing the voice of democracy in the Dáil to a large degree. That is quite worrying.

Perhaps there should be Dáil reform to which everyone could commit before an election. I have no doubt that if, as predicted, Fianna Fáil is in opposition after the next general election, its members will be the greatest advocates of all time for Dáil reform, but perhaps now is the time to agree on such things.

Senator O'Malley raised the issue of greater representation — parity, in fact — for women in the Dáil. Does the Senator think enough women are interested in standing for political office? Perhaps most of them have enough sense to say that they will not have any part in it.

In my experience, there is no queue of women who are interested in getting involved in politics. They would not put up with the unbridled cynicism of the media — they have more sense than to put up with what now passes for responsible journalism, which is in many instances the utterings of arrogant sheep.

I made a genuine effort to get more women involved in my own constituency in the most recent local election. We had a directive from headquarters to do so. However, I had great difficulty in trying to interest women, even when they were assured of a nomination and virtually assured of a seat. They could not be bothered with it.

I have a lot of sympathy with the view that getting more women involved in politics would be great for the political system. However, I think they have more sense, and most of them will stay away from it. That is, perhaps unfortunately, the real problem.

We move to the responses from the panel.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

I thank the members for their comments. I was speaking specifically about the Dáil. Our two Chambers are totally different to Congress and the Senate in the United States. I agree with Deputy Howlin that we need balance in the representation in each Chamber.

I would be concerned if two Dáil seats were lost in the 12 western counties. I take Deputy Naughten's point that such change would not necessarily be needed in those 12 counties, but wherever the weaknesses are, at each constituency revision following a census, areas of the country will be left unrepresented by a TD because of the sheer size of the constituencies. My own constituency is only a three-seater, but it probably requires more travelling than some of the very big counties.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

That problem will be compounded if the total number of TDs is reduced.

Deputy Rory O’Hanlon

The issue is that will be the case in large areas of the country if we go on as we are.

In an ideal world, representation would be based on population, but because of the demography in Ireland it is not possible to do that equitably while balancing the more remote parts of rural Ireland with the big population centres.

The Chairman raised the interesting question of whether such a proposal would get through. As I said at the start of my presentation, if we go on for another two or three revisions after a census, the legislation will not get through the Dáil and we will not be able to put a referendum to the people.

It is interesting to listen to members who, depending on which area they represent, have a different view on what direction we should take. That is why we need to address the issue urgently. The longer we leave it, the less likely it is that we will have the force to get the legislation through the Dáil and a constitutional referendum.

Another interesting question can be asked about tolerance in relation to counties with populations of between 20,000 and 30,000 people. If it was not in the Constitution, would anybody be clamouring today for the change that the 1958 court case brought about? In the early years of the State there was no breach of county boundaries, and the tolerance limits were totally ignored. Did anybody in the general population complain that we should go down the road of a rigid system? It is worth examining the issue, and we need to do so sooner rather than later.

I have one brief comment on Senator Boyle's contribution. He said that no effort has been made to change the system, but in fact two efforts were made. Those were unsuccessful, but the people had the opportunity to decide and their will was respected.

One question, which ran through a number of contributions, is an important issue for Members of the House, although perhaps not in terms of constitutional reform. We need to consider how we ensure that people maintain a proper interest in politics, and how we get rid of the cynicism and get more people to come out to vote and support the political system.

I ask all parties in the House to sit down and consider, in an objective rather than an adversarial way, how we can improve the image of politics. I will give one example. When it comes to the recess, irrespective of which party is in Government and who is in Opposition, the Government will propose the recess and the Opposition will oppose it and, next year, if the Opposition is in Government it will accept it. There is a whole range of areas here which all political parties should consider with a view to improving the image of politics and ensure we support the democratic system, which I think has served the people very well.

Vice Chairman

I am not certain but I think the Commons has fixed times. Perhaps a case can be made for an agreed calendar throughout the year——

Senator Dan Boyle mentioned constitutional reform and Dáil reform. The two are intrinsically linked. I also think the system has worked well. I will always remember the legislation to remove people from outside polling stations where they congregated. The modern trendy version was that it was an abomination, that it was not democracy, but was interfering with the people's free thought and right. As soon as it was no longer possible to canvass outside polling stations, the numbers of those voting began to decrease. Many people used to go along to vote in order that they could observe the confrontations involving those canvassing outside polling stations. It was a form of tribalism and traditionalism. It was also great. It had nothing to do with Civil War politics. Those involved would have a drink together in the pub afterwards and would be great friends until the next election. However, they would be woeful antagonists on polling day and that generated public interest.

Reference was made to clientelism and the fact that it should be shunned because otherwise we will have a select, elitist group whose members will be legislators. The definition of a legislator is someone who knows how legislation will affect his or her constituents. How do legislators discover what will be the effects of legislation? Information in that regard is usually provided by an expert who is appointed to advise them. The only true version of democracy is where an elected representative knows what the people think and who thinks as his or her constituents think. If he or she does not have the courage to stand on one or other side of the argument, then so be it. That is democracy.

In an interview with George Hook some time ago, Geraldine Kennedy made an interesting comment which no one subsequently highlighted. When asked whether the true route to journalism lies through academia or through the traditional method of working one's way up from the regional newspapers to their national counterparts, Ms Kennedy replied that journalists should always be close to the people. In my opinion, the position in respect of politicians is much the same. Ms Kennedy clearly indicated that the job she and those who work for her newspaper do must relate to the people. One can invite an expert to provide one with advice and then toss him or her out again because he or she does not represent anyone. In most cases, experts have, in the context of trying to cover every eventuality, failed politicians abysmally.

There has been a recent development whereby Ministers have appointed advisers, PR experts and others to inform them what they should do. I was the only Minister of State in one Administration who did not have an adviser. I was Minister of State in the Department in which Deputy Woods spent some considerable time as Minister and I was of the view that I knew as much about social welfare law as any expert. I do not require any education in that area and the same applies to every Member of the House. Why should we seek the services of experts?

Deputy Woods, who is a long-serving parliamentarian, made an interesting contribution. With regard to what he said, I am of the view that there are no easy ways of proceeding. Committee work is difficult and tedious and it does not receive any publicity. In many ways, it is boring. All of the members present have spent many years working within the committee system and are aware that what we do is not easy. They should remember one fact, namely, that regardless of whether the Houses sit three or four days each week, they should be in and around the Houses while they are in session and they should divide their time between committee, legislative and constituency work. That is the balance which should apply.

Senator Alex White referred to the Constitution. The latter is a sacred document and I agree with him that we should be careful with regard to what we "try out" in respect of it.

The Vice Chairman made some interesting comments regarding cynicism and the media. There is one action that must be taken in order to improve the situation in that regard. The sooner we put in place a system whereby the proceedings of the Dáil, Seanad and the committees are broadcast live on television, the sooner the cynicism to which the Vice Chairman refers will be removed. If the proceedings of these Houses are broadcast live, members of the public will be in a position to see, at first hand, what sort of job those they elected to represent them are doing and saying. As a result, they would no longer be obliged to rely on a second-hand or cynical version or interpretation of what their representatives are attempting to do.

I was my party's assistant Whip in the 1980s and its Chief Whip some years later. As a result of that experience, I discovered that what we were trying to do and the portrayal of our actions in that regard were two very different things. Those in the print media go to bed at a certain time so no business can take place after that because it does not suit them to report it. The Houses of Parliament should not be required to suit anyone. These Houses have a major role and function but this has been diminished as a result of cynicism and criticism and also, perhaps, as a result of the odd mistake. Anyone who cynically states that mistakes made in this Parliament are not made elsewhere is not telling the truth.

Vice Chairman

I thank Deputy Durkan for his comments. As usual, they were expressed in trenchant fashion.

Senator Fiona O’Malley

I thank the various members for their contributions. If there is one thing of which I can be accused, it is an over-supply of idealism. While it is our duty to uphold the Constitution, we must recognise that it is not so sacred a document and that it was drafted in a different era. We should embrace the opportunity to update the Constitution and bring it more into line with current realities. We should not be afraid to take such action.

Reference was made to proportionality. I accept comments to the effect that it would be peculiar to base the electoral system purely on gender. I was extremely interested in what Deputy Howlin said with regard to the third way. I can see now that this is probably what is meant by the third way. In the context of proportionality, my proposal would benefit a great deal from that to which the Deputy referred. I accept that there could be a predominance of one or other party. However, part of my belief in the new reality is that in the future, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael may well come together when they realise that there is very little which divides them.

I agree with Senator Alex White that there is not enough discussion with regard to alternative ways of doing things. We have become too stuck in our ways. I would love to see Fianna Fáil joining forces with Fine Gael because there is little difference between the two. If this happened, the Labour Party would then be in a position to properly occupy the left, particularly as the other two parties are more to the centre in their beliefs. We do not engage in higher thought to a sufficient degree. By higher thought, I mean alternative ways of doing things. I am not being snobbish, but the type of thinking I refer to refer relates to considering how we can solve the problems of our country. Policy and where our country is going are what stimulate me in the context of my involvement in politics.

The Vice Chairman should allow me to make my point. Clientelism was seen as a negative and an attempt was made to allow Deputies to have more of the role of legislating and examining Ireland's international context and policy decisions and so on — the dual mandate was an answer with regard to local issues — and there was an effort to make the separation between going to a local councillor to deal with local issues rather than to the Deputy. That did not necessarily work. As all of us who work this system know, Deputies are in danger from the people operating on the ground, so it has not really worked.

The trouble with the system is that it suits Deputies to have blockages in the system. Deputy Woods gave the example of a lady who is looking for a service to which she is entitled. If our system was working properly, that lady should have no difficulty in navigating the public services but, while nobody likes to hear this, it suits Deputies to have that upper edge on their running mates or their constituency colleagues in this regard. They want to hear: "That person is the fixer. Go off and see that person. They are great at fixing this or that." That is all very well and it is the way our system works, as matters stand. However, we need to recognise this and ask is this the kind of work the Deputy should be doing or should have to be doing, or whether Deputies should be considering legislative issues.

I was interested in what Senator Alex White said in this regard. We do not engage enough in thinking about alternative issues and discussing policy in the way our Parliament should. I have enjoyed the debate today because we are listening to other people's ideas and experiences. It is a nice trait of our political system that a person can expect to see his or her local Deputy or Minister in the supermarket, in church and among the local community. Our system benefits greatly from this. While previously I had thought I would prefer a list system where politicians are in a way insulated from the cut and thrust of trying to get re-elected, in fact I do not agree with that system because one has to remain connected to the local community and the people.

With regard to Deputy Woods's comments on cutting down the number of Deputies, the Constitution states that the Cabinet should have between seven and 15 members, so it can have fewer than 15 members. If we are to have a smaller Parliament, we can equally have a smaller Government.

On the question of trying out my experiment, I do not agree with Senator Alex White's point. I do not understand why we have to have everything rigidly set in stone. I will go away from this meeting very much interested in what Deputy Howlin said about the Labour Party and its third way, because I recognise that the shortcoming in my idea is in regard to the proportionality issue, and I will try to find how it can be improved. However, I am not giving up on my idea just because it has met a few barriers.

Vice Chairman

Good.

Senator Fiona O’Malley

Equally, we should be prepared to consider new systems for a brief period.

The Vice Chairman asked whether there are enough women.

Vice Chairman

There are enough women. I wanted to know whether there are enough women interested in getting involved in politics.

Senator Fiona O’Malley

I do not accept that as an argument. I do not think it is exclusive to women, which is another point. Senator Alex White made the point about the calibre of candidates. I was not making any judgment about women being better candidates than men, which I do not accept. Under my proposal, I want to see whether women are better at politics than men. I have no idea, and I do not accept that they are.

Both men and women are switched off by the cynicism and the arguing. I was interested in the point made by Deputy O'Hanlon that we ourselves are often to blame for people being turned off politics. There is unnecessary bickering and a failure to pay tribute to each other often enough, including a failure to pay tribute when the Opposition has a good idea and to accept it. That is the sign of a good parliamentarian, particularly Ministers, who are essentially the ones who accept legislation. They should take amendments from the floor because they are good ideas. We are all here for the same reason, namely, the interests of our country. Just because a Deputy is on the Opposition side does not mean his or her ideas are any less relevant or important. If we tried to extinguish to some extent the adversarial aspect, we would attract more people to politics.

Women are interested in politics, as they are of course interested in where the decisions are being made. We had a very good debate last week in the Seanad. While this is slightly unfair, it struck me that because women were involved in that debate, we got a solution. A female Minister received a proposal from a female Senator in regard to female genital mutilation. The Minister was adamant it was an issue on which we did not want to divide the House because it was a human rights issue. What happened? We all got together and said we had to reach agreement, which we did. There was enough of us interested in this to get consensus, deliver a result and move forward the legislation, which is what Senator Bacik had originally wanted.

That example struck me as being very satisfying because it was a good result on which we had all worked together. There was none of this nonsense of being adversarial. The objective was clear, we agreed on it and it was a question of timing and so on. We got together and worked together. All of us found it extremely satisfying, and I am sorry this does not happen more often. If it did, all of us would be the beneficiaries.

I have great faith and belief in politicians and the political system. It is something I see as a very noble profession. Of course, we are not helping ourselves. Whatever about how the media portrays it, we should not allow the media the opportunity to sometimes portray this place as essentially a crèche. It is sometimes embarrassing how we conduct ourselves and we need to get a grip. We should not blame the media because it is us who should behave differently and more maturely. I hope that one day we will see good, honest reform and that our politics, for the sake of the country, improves through the committee's work on the Constitution.

Vice Chairman

Clearly, the Joint Committee on the Constitution is the beneficiary of serious views, seriously and trenchantly presented, much as I would expect. On behalf of the committee, I am very grateful for the effort the witnesses have made, the thought they put into their presentations and the manner in which they made the presentations and replied to the issues raised. I thank them for attending.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.08 a.m. and adjourned at 11.10 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 12 May 2010.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION debate - Wednesday, 28 Apr 2010

Electoral System Review: Discussion.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 2010