Calling For A Debate On The Quality of Politics

(24 March 2010, Order of Business, Edited Version)

I have listened to the various contributions regarding the Cabinet reshuffle. I do not see a problem with the multidisciplinary approach that has been taken and with skills being associated with education. As somebody who works in the third level sector, I think it is appropriate. Asking glib questions such as, “Who is the Minister for jobs?”, as we have heard in the media, does not get to the heart of what is needed. We talk about multidisciplinary approaches and joined-up thinking but if we intend to operate in a sophisticated way, different Departments must take responsibility for different aspects of an issue. The divvying out of skills training to the Department of Education and Skills, with other matters being the responsibility of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, is quite appropriate.

I compliment the Leader on the times he has responded to requests for debates on specific issues, but there has been less delivery when we have sought debates about the bigger philosophical questions. Such debates could be a credit to the Seanad. I would like to call for a debate about our political system, to discuss how it is working, and the quality of political debate at present and whether it is fit for purpose. An example of the need for this debate is the kerfuffle about Deputy Leo Varadkar’s comment about the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald. It was interesting to watch his party criticise him.

My point is that we have take issue if someone is criticized by someone of their own party, but if the person said the same about somebody from the other side, there would be no problem. I believe Dr. Garret FitzGerald has been more successful in the time since he was Taoiseach than when he was Taoiseach. The problem with Deputy Varadkar’s comments in the eyes of his party is that what he said is actually true in practice but did not work in theory. As Dr. FitzGerald himself would say because it offended against the theory of loyalty to one’s party at all costs. Loyalty to party at all costs has taken this Government down seriously bad roads on occasion, when there was a failure to criticise bad practice and bad decision making.

My question remains, when can we hold a debate about how our political system is working and the quality of our political debate? There are thinking people on all sides of the House. We would be required to do a little more work to hold such a debate because we would actually have to apply our minds to the issues. We have the capacity to do that and we could bring forward serious suggestions about how to improve the quality of national life by improving the quality of our political discourse.