Balance of power must shift from government to Dáil

The strength of party whips has ensured a parliamentary system contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, writes ELAINE BYRNE…

The strength of party whips has ensured a parliamentary system contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, writes ELAINE BYRNE

CONFUSION OCCURS when there is an absence of clarity. When confusion reigns, disorientation persuades the collective memory to forget about the past and look forward to an undefined future. In times of uncertainty such as these, the definition of common sense is complicated by things we assume are critical when they are not.

“Now, it is evident that a great deal of confusion of thought – not so much confusion of thought as the confusion of the habitual way of expressing thoughts – about these things, exists.”

Eoin MacNeill TD made these remarks in the context of his 1922 Dáil motion to re-affirm the basic principle that Dáil Éireann derives its sovereignty from the will of the people of Ireland. MacNeill felt it necessary to spell out what an independent parliament was because he believed that the long experience of British rule had conditioned the Irish psyche to accept their limited participation in the public affairs of the nation.

READ MORE

MacNeill made the distinction between the assumption of declaring independence and the actual practical expression of that political independence.

Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly made that distinction between the theory and practice of public office in recent days too.

Speaking on RTÉ 1’s The Week in Politics, she asked: “What is the point of me if I can’t do this, if I don’t do this. The whole point of me, of my office is to serve the public . . . Public bodies start to go wrong when they forget what they are there for and who they are there for.”

For only the second time in the 26-year history of the Ombudsman’s office, O’Reilly presented a special report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the Lost at Sea scheme.

The Dáil voted on party political lines and rejected the proposal to refer her report to agriculture committee. O’Reilly noted at the weekend that this decision confirmed the notion that “the saga [which] began with maladministration has ended, to date at least, with poor governance”.

The scheme, introduced by former marine minister Frank Fahey in 2001, provided compensation, in the form of tonnage quota, to six individuals. This include two of Fahey’s Galway constituents, who made representations and received written notification from the minister when the scheme was introduced and obtained 75 per cent of the total compensation offered under the scheme.

In an unsigned Civil Service memo, a senior civil servant strongly objected to any such concessions: “Piecemeal changes in policy in response to special pleadings from individuals where these changes would run totally contrary to policy objective, give large unrequited gains to these individuals and open up equally ‘meritorious’ claims, [and] cannot be recommended.”

This is why Fahey’s remarks on that same Week in Politics programme were so deeply incongruous.

When asked by Bryan Dobson why the Health Services Executive was so slow to reform, Fahey thoughtfully suggested that it was “because there are so many vested interests resistant to change”. That would include you too, Frank Fahey. As a member of the Government back benches, why would you vote to veto the Ombudsman’s report?

Since the foundation of the State, backbench government TDs have willingly interpreted their function as chief supporters of the government rather than as independent scrutinisers of it. Backbench government TDs express their loyalty to the executive at the expense of the legislature.

This is a country that is a republic in name but has yet to articulate constitutionally what its vision of “republic” is. Instead, we have a strong government and weak parliament which is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. Article 28 states: “The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann.”

The Dáil has the power to make the government accountable to it but it has chosen not to. The whip system has ensured that the Dáil has allowed itself to be irrelevant by not exercising its obligation to hold the executive to account.

The Dáil will not be more powerful if it has longer sitting hours, marginally better procedures or if the number of TDs is reduced. This is tinkering-at-the-edge stuff.

Deep-seated institutional change must rebalance the relationship between the government and the Dáil, as intended by article 28, by reducing the power of the whip and allowing more issues to be decided by free votes.

The proposals within Fine Gael’s New Politics document, to be published this week, must seek to re-imagine what the role of parliament should be.

A commitment to abolishing the Seanad may be construed by some as a sincere pledge to introduce radical reform, but I believe it is a dangerous slide towards democratic centralism and a nod towards a hierarchical style of authority more than familiar to Irish political structures.

Ireland’s authoritarian political culture is one articulated through the espousal of conservatism, the expression of public trust belied by the blanket emphasis on loyalty, and the polite acquiescence of deference as a core political virtue.

The rhetoric of reform can become hollow in the absence of clarity. One should never waste a good crisis.