Press Releases. Are TDs Messengers rather than Legislators?

Transcription

1 Press Releases Address by Fiona O'Malley T.D. at the MacGill Summer School ADDRESS BY Fiona O'Malley T.D. AT THE PATRICK MacGILL SUMMER SCHOOL AND ARTS WEEK GLENTIES, CO. DONEGAL 20TH JULY 2004 TDs: Legislators or Messengers?' Introduction In the Irish Constitution, the primary roles of the Oireachtas and its members are to choose a Taoiseach and his/ her government, and to make policy. The Oireachtas, not the government has exclusive law making power. There was no expectation that the Dáil would become a 'supine' institution, modelled as it was on the Mother of Parliaments - the House of Commons. But the practice of TDs' role differs from the constitutional theory, as Basil Chubb noted when he described the role of the TD as 'going about persecuting civil servants.' The failure of some of the brightest and best parliamentarians to get re-elected - people like Geraldine Kennedy, Conor Cruise-O'Brien or Justin Keating - while TDs who are virtually anonymous in the Dáil, quietly get returned election after election points to the importance of constituency work. The anonymous TDs are people who in Jim Kemmy's phrase to describe his constituency colleague, Willie O'Dea, act 'like Mighty Mouse in their own parish, but like a Church Mouse in the Dáil'. Some of these TDs are regarded as professional funeral-goers. I am conscious that as I speak, I am someone who is untested in the electoral field I have never been re-elected and that is the ultimate test for a TD - was I worthwhile? Your opportunities to distinguish yourself in the company of so many other backbenchers particularly as a Government backbencher, are extremely limited. As a result, few TDs would be as brave as the late John Kelly to stop providing constituency clinics at all. And none would expect their vote to go up as a result! Are TDs Messengers rather than Legislators? There is a view that TDs, always with one eye on their seats, spend more time taking care of constituents' problems rather than on any bigger political picture. This view is probably fair to some extent. Most of us in the Dáil spend our evenings and weekends at residents group meetings,

2 in constituency clinics or other functions that do not correspond to what is normally thought of as legislating or policy making. If I were to break down my hours, I would estimate that more time is spent on constituency work. The majority of my correspondence is related constituents' queries mainly planning, assisting people to get what they are entitled to, lobbying Ministers to get investment for the constituency. And I am lucky; I represent a relatively prosperous constituency close to the centre of Dublin. TDs representing constituencies in Donegal or Mayo must travel great distances not just to and from their constituency, but within their constituencies, in order to be seen at certain events and provide clinics. It would be surprising were TDs to have time to be legislators! That is not to say that TDs do not influence policy. Dáil Debates are organised warfare between parties, and between Government and Opposition. It is unlikely that a speech will change anybody's mind, or the way anyone will vote. However in the less adversarial Committees, likeminded TDs from different parties will combine to put pressure on ministers. Why do many TDs spend so much time on constituency work? Many people have argued that the STV electoral system is to blame for the burdensome level of constituency work that TDs do. Because STV allows for competition within parties, candidates compete with each other and differentiate each other by providing constituency services. I am not convinced by this argument. Many of the MPs that I meet from all over Europe also do constituency work, yet they have very different electoral systems. Indeed, there is no reason why candidates from the same party shouldn't compete by trying to show that they are better legislators. Another reason given for the high constituency workload in Ireland is that the type of person elected is suited to the messenger role. Many TDs are auctioneers, publicans and teachers- people who are based in local communities and who deal with people daily through their jobs. These may be natural doers rather than policy makers. But the types of people elected to the Dáil are elected because they often are good fixers, not the other way around. We get fixers because the system demands it. However, lawyers, who may be regarded as natural policy-makers are also over-represented in the Dáil. One could also point to the close connection between the survival of the

3 government and the survival of TDs. TDs are unlikely to defy the party whip when doing so may mean the collapse of the government and cause an election. This could mean that TDs are slaves to the government that can control their destinies. But the reverse is also true. Ministers must, and do, take account of their backbenchers' opinions. Ministers remain in office due to backbenchers' support. The factor I think that is most important in explaining the role that many if not most TDs have taken on is to do with the capabilities and resources of TDs. TDs could not be effective legislators even if they wanted to be - and many of us do want to be. This is for a number of reasons. 1 No research funding - TDs haven't any money or facility to hire policy specialists or advisers. This makes it difficult for TDs to compete against ministers who are well served by civil servants. 2 Questions are not answered in the Dáil - Information is rarely forthcoming from civil servants and ministers, who it sometimes seems, feel it their duty to say as little as possible short of actually lying. 3 Committees are government controlled - because the government rather than the Dáil chooses committee chairmen, and this is a relatively lucrative post, there is little incentive to 'rock the boat' or become known as a trouble-maker. 4 Recent changes to assist TDs have strengthened their role as welfare officer s- (e.g. hotlines to Dept of Social Welfare). This puts added pressure on TDs as there is an increased expectation that this is their role and that they have some sort of privileged access. In turn this takes the pressure off government to defend overall policy, because TDs have less time to do so. Conclusion and Recommendations Doing constituency work is not in itself a bad thing. It keeps the TD closely connected to the communities they represent and much more firmly rooted in reality than many British MPs seem to be. However the role of the TD should be to make policy - or at least scrutinise and criticise policy-making, thereby improving policy. Our role should NOT be to use our influence and contacts to circumvent policy. This would just have the effect of keeping poor policies by alleviating pressure for policy change. There is no justifiable reason why TDs should represent constituents in welfare applications or be involved in dealing with health services. We as TDs should demand that the State provides a fair and transparent system. Citizen Information Centres should be developed and promoted, in order

4 to assist citizens to find their way around the bureaucracy. TDs should use the Office of the Ombudsman to expose any fundamental flaws in policy or bureaucracy, rather than trying to get a quick fix by having a quiet word with the minister. The removal of the dual mandate should go some way to allowing TDs to concentrate on national policy and policy issues. However, it could merely put more pressure on TDs by adding to the competition for re-election, as many ambitious councillors will eye up a Dáil seat. Competition is not a bad thing, but it is likely to be based on the ability to deliver services to constituents rather than on broader policy. If Local Government could be strengthened then talented people would be more likely to want to stay and get things done at that level, freeing up time and resources for TDs to legislate. The abolition of the Dual Mandate should have gone hand in-hand with real Dáil reform 166 vainglorious egotists is an awful lot of ambition to try and contain. The vast majority of us will never advance to higher officer and this can be dispiriting. To give TDs clearer functions in policy and a greater role and relevance in policy formulation, I believe that we should reduce the number of TDs to 100. This, coupled with a strengthening of local government, would enhance our democracy. These measures should not prevent TDs from also being closely connected to their communities and effective messengers of people's views. But by concentrating on the messenger role rather than the role of legislator, and scrutiniser of government policy, we have perhaps, allowed governments to make poor policy and allowed ministers to act corruptly. Would we have needed the Beef Tribunal had Pat O'Malley's questions been answered fully in the Dáil? Could Charles Haughey or Ray Burke have gotten away with what they did had TDs been more conscious of their duty to hold government ministers to account? Would we have to continually revisit poor legislation in the courts had the proper scrutiny taken place first? The answer to these questions is probably not. The people of Ireland have elected a group of committed, hard working and bright people. We should use them to a greater extent. We need a change of culture in government and the civil service to allow greater scrutiny. We need more resources for TDs to gain and use expertise on policy areas. We need a greater influence to be then given to TDs. Then TDs can be both effective messengers and legislators. Until our parliamentary system is overhauled, the primary role of a TD will unfortunately remain that of a messenger. From:

5