Ireland has a "puny" parliament!

micosoft

Interesting report out by a number of academics on the relative lack of strength of the Dail. Some points are:

“We have one of the weakest parliaments in Europe and therefore a parliament that is much in need of modernisation, bringing it up into the 21st century.”
Dr Reidy said the number of Oireachtas committees should be increased but they should be smaller in size, perhaps with between eight and 10 members, to encourage policy specialisation among TDs.
She said a new Dáil Management Committee should have the power to allocate positions on committees. In that case, TDs could not be removed from committees by party leaders as a disciplinary measure.
A dedicated committee week is proposed so TDs would not have to leave in the middle of discussions to participate in Dáil votes.

So mostly useful reform to make the Dail more effective. Most of the additional resourcing costs could be provided for by eliminating the Seanad again which had conclusively proven itself incapable of useful reform or finding a purpose (still awaiting the opponents of the reform that was the elimination of the Seaned to tell us what they have achieved).

My only thought is that in order to have an effective Dail we need an effective opposition. The current opposition for opposition sake would need to end and be replaced by an accountable opposition i.e. no more reckless un-costed proposals. The idea of joint committees coming up with proposals on specialised topics is an excellent one and requires accountability all round.

They make a good point around encourage much greater policy specialisation by TDs but it's difficult to see that in our current constituency model where TD's are busy fixing potholes. We need to see better quality TD's getting in which will require changes to the electoral system (i.e. introduce a list system for example).

Will be interesting to see if this has legs.

Manach

Ah, academic. Which usually means that such proposals usually try and craft the idealised governing system which then runs aground in the messy reality of actual voters and fails to address the rather shadowy realm of getting legislation drafted so as to appease a governing party's backers. In the US theorists such as Lessig have been scathing on this type of statism. As for granting to TDs more of "dedicated staffing and discretionary budgets", would likely mean more nepotism and the equivalent of duck ponds for all.

Scofflaw

Those points don't seem particularly theoretical or 'ideal' to me. They seem, on the contrary, to be points that would update the Dáil in the same general direction more powerful parliaments have been evolving recently. To some extent - for example, in respect of committee power - the Dáil has also been moving in this direction.

My only thought is that in order to have an effective Dail we need an effective opposition. The current opposition for opposition sake would need to end and be replaced by an accountable opposition i.e. no more reckless un-costed proposals. The idea of joint committees coming up with proposals on specialised topics is an excellent one and requires accountability all round.

They make a good point around encourage much greater policy specialisation by TDs but it's difficult to see that in our current constituency model where TD's are busy fixing potholes. We need to see better quality TD's getting in which will require changes to the electoral system (i.e. introduce a list system for example).

Both of those improvements would follow fairly naturally from the strengthening of the committee structure. Having power through a committee reduces opposition for the sake of opposition, because opposition TDs become invested in specific policy positions - similarly with pothole-fixing, although to a lesser extent. You can't remove the focus on constituency issues unless you separate TDs from constituencies, but at least you can give them somewhere else and policy-oriented to invest their energies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BoJack Horseman

Twice the government put Oireachtas reform before the people, in October 2011 & October 2013.
Either would have strengthened the power of the Dail to scrutinise the government and gone some way at least to addressing the above qualms.

On both occasions, the people said 'no'.

(also, good to see Scofflaw, back from the dead!)

Scofflaw

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Twice the government put Oireachtas reform before the people, in October 2011 & October 2013.
Either would have strengthened the power of the Dail to scrutinise the government and gone some way at least to addressing the above qualms.

On both occasions, the people said 'no'.

Quite correctly, since neither of those 'reforms' would have been desirable. One would have allowed the Dáil judicial powers, the other would have reduced legislative scrutiny.

Neither of them would have increased scrutiny of the government by the Dáil.

(also, good to see Scofflaw, back from the dead!)

Thanks! We'll have to see whether I've decomposed to any great extent...

gravely,
Scofflaw

Jawgap

Generally, I'd agree.

The Dail is really just the Cabinet's lapdog - it doesn't do oversight and scrutiny very well (yes, I know PAC have had their successes but they are few and far between) and as such it doesn't hold the executive to account in anything like a meaningful way.

Also, unlike other countries we have no (although I'm happy to be corrected) 'non-ministerial' agencies reporting directly into the parliament from which they get their 'pay and rations' and consequently we've no truly independent regulatory, accountability or scrutiny agencies.

Is that necessarily bad? My view is that in theory, yes it it, but in practice, given the quality of deputy regularly returned to the Dail, it's no that bad.

It certainly needs modernising (to make it less parochial and less like a glorified county council) and it needs it's powers boosted but that's not something I can see any cabinet assenting to, and there's no votes in it so it won't really be an issue.

BoJack Horseman

Scofflaw wrote: »

One would have allowed the Dáil judicial powers

No, just the power to compel testimony.... no power to levy punishment.

the other would have reduced legislative scrutiny.

Neither of them would have increased scrutiny of the government by the Dáil

Would have introduced a 6th stage of debate & rotational committee chairs.
Not much, but more than the actual nothing that the 'No' vote achieved.

It implies that desiring reform is futile, the people will reject what the government propose anyway.

Scofflaw

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, just the power to compel testimony.... no power to levy punishment.




Would have introduced a 6th stage of debate & rotational committee chairs.
Not much, but more than the actual nothing that the 'No' vote achieved.

It implies that desiring reform is futile, the people will reject what the government propose anyway.

No, it implies that the 'reforms' the government offered were unsurprisingly ones to its advantage, whereas the reforms people would like are reforms that would strengthen the role of the Dáil/Oireachtas in holding the government to account.

Ireland has an amazingly centralised government:

1. "Local government" has virtually no discretionary powers

2. "independent bodies" have their terms and conditions (and often their management) set by the government. Statutory bodies like the Fiscal Advisory Council are simply ignored, regulatory bodies like the financial regulator were given conflicting mandates (regulate banks, sell Ireland as a blow-regulation baking hub), agencies like the one for white-collar crime are kept starved of resources

3. half the seats in the quango sector, which controls budgets of €13bn at last writeup, are in the direct gift of ministers

4. the government *never* loses a vote in the Dáil - FF did lose a Seanad vote one morning in about 1999, but they reversed the result the same day

5. even "decentralisation" plays its part, with "non-essential" ministers kept out of the loop in their far-flung agencies while the Departments of the Taoiseach and Finance run the country.

6. courtesy of the Judges' Pay referendum, the government now have the ability to set the wages of judges, reducing their independence

One of the takeaways from the crisis was that the Guarantee decision was taken, in effect, by Cowen and Lenihan acting as a duumvirate. Nothing has changed on that front since, and none of the "reforms" proposed by the government would have changed it for the better. That was why they were rejected - not because the public has no appetite for reform, but because the government offered sugar pills.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BoJack Horseman

Scofflaw wrote: »

the reforms people would like are reforms that would strengthen the role of the Dáil/Oireachtas in holding the government to account.

What are these reforms & when was the peoples endorsement of them sought & given?

Scofflaw

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What are these reforms & when was the peoples endorsement of them sought & given?

There was plenty of public discussion of reform following the crisis (and there was the Constitutional Convention, which even has a thread here), but curiously enough the government - who I may not have mentioned have the sole power to propose referendums - did not choose to put any of them before the people for their rejection or endorsement.

When the only mechanism for public endorsement of reform is in the hands of the government, it's not terribly damning, or even surprising, that reforms the government isn't interested in don't go through public endorsement.

To put it another way, your otherwise pithy comeback falls down on the fact that only government-endorsed reforms can be put to the public - that only the reforms the government endorsed have been put to the public is thus not a measure of the popularity or value of reforms, but solely a measure of government endorsement. As such, trying to use the fact that other possible reforms have not been put to the people as a way of dismissing them compared to government-sponsored ones is clever, but visibly cheeky.

amused,
Scofflaw

Good loser

Nice to see your return Scofflaw.

I voted for the Senate abolition and giving more power to Dail Enquiries.

In general I don't favour Dail 'reform' however as a general proposition; it would greatly increase the influence of the populists.
Unless the electoral system is changed.

Happy enough with how our system trundles along.

Ascendant

Hm, would we want a stronger Dail?

After all, the power there is, the more it can be abused. For all the flack the Senead got, it is at least a political counter-weight.

micosoft

Ascendant wrote: »

Hm, would we want a stronger Dail?

After all, the power there is, the more it can be abused. For all the flack the Senead got, it is at least a political counter-weight.

It's not even a mild counterweight. Aside from the sitting Taoiseach able to stack the membership in any case, the most the Seanad can do is delay bills by three months (21 days in the case of a Money bill). How on earth is that a counterweight? And it has zero influence with the populace who resoundingly ignore it.

We already have the massively powerful counterweights of the President and Supreme Court supported by the Constitution, both of whom are far more independent then the Senate. What more protection of your rights could you possibly want?

I accept there are many things that could be improved around the Dail's operations but the Senate is not one of them and is a unnecessary distraction from real reform.

Scofflaw

micosoft wrote: »

It's not even a mild counterweight. Aside from the sitting Taoiseach able to stack the membership in any case, the most the Seanad can do is delay bills by three months (21 days in the case of a Money bill). How on earth is that a counterweight? And it has zero influence with the populace who resoundingly ignore it.

The last bit is the main problem with the Seanad. It's not actually there to act in opposition to the Dáil, it's there to provide additional scrutiny of legislation - hence the power to delay bills.

The idea behind the way Senators are elected/appointed is that they should be an expert body with knowledge of the sectors and places Dáil legislation will affect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

micosoft

Scofflaw wrote: »

The last bit is the main problem with the Seanad. It's not actually there to act in opposition to the Dáil, it's there to provide additional scrutiny of legislation - hence the power to delay bills.

The idea behind the way Senators are elected/appointed is that they should be an expert body with knowledge of the sectors and places Dáil legislation will affect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And sadly that has not really happened other then one or two notable exceptions. And worse, one of the big Senate reforms being touted was that the current panel system (which had the possibility of a meritocracy with the good and bad that would attract) would have been directly elected Senators. An utterly pointless outcome. Because Democracy.

I suppose the question I would have is if we had a stronger Dail committee system this would provide a reasonable level of additional scrutiny rather than a second chamber just to carry that function out. It would also empower a more constructive opposition.

Scofflaw

micosoft wrote: »

And sadly that has not really happened other then one or two notable exceptions. And worse, one of the big Senate reforms being touted was that the current panel system (which had the possibility of a meritocracy with the good and bad that would attract) would have been directly elected Senators. An utterly pointless outcome. Because Democracy.

I suppose the question I would have is if we had a stronger Dail committee system this would provide a reasonable level of additional scrutiny rather than a second chamber just to carry that function out. It would also empower a more constructive opposition.

We're trending in that direction, as are most modern parliamentary systems. Media coverage is slow to catch up, unfortunately.

cordially,
Scofflaw