Perhaps the sleepwalk through the general election will end after the bad dream on abortion. So far none of the big issues is being pressed on the parties and candidates; it's the same old mess of waffle and evasion, rendering the decision of the electorate, when it comes, again almost meaningless, writes Vincent Browne.
We might start with the elementary question: what are we electing TDs to do? Of course, when we vote, we have in mind the formation of a government and many of us will vote for a TD of a particular party to bring about the government we would like. But is that all?
Do we not also have in mind that TDs would represent our views and interests during the lifetime of the next Dáil?
That they would legislate on our behalf, they would speak on our behalf on the issues that concern us, they would exercise constraint and accountability on the executive arm of government? Yet we have devised, or rather TDs have created, a system whereby, for the most part, such a role for TDs is impossible.
Most of them do not, and cannot, represent our interest in any meaningful way. They cannot speak out for us, not in the Dáil anyway, without getting thrown out. The idea that they hold the Executive accountable is a joke. And, by the way, they don't legislate either.
This isn't true of all TDs but it is true of most of them, the majority who do not hold government office and are not on the front bench of opposition parties.
Backbench TDs get to speak in the Dáil with the reluctant permission of their parties. They may prepare a contribution, hang around for hours in a largely empty chamber but if the party whip hasn't arranged a slot for them, too bad. And more often than not it's too bad.
Yes, they can take part in Oireachtas committees, and all of them are assigned to two or three committees each. But for the most part this is just a piece of show and, anyway, Ministers and shadow ministers dominate committee stages of Bills in these select committees just as they do in the Dáil chamber. The main problem is a simple one: lack of time.
LAST year the Dáil met on 94 occasions. It didn't sit at all in August, only once in September, twice in January, only six times in April and eight times in December. And last year was better than most. TDs wonder why they can't get in to speak in Dáil debates? Why can't the Dáil meet as often, for instance, as the House of Commons, which meets almost double the number of days the Dáil meets?
Why can't it meet regularly after the first week of January? Why does it have to have Easter holidays? Why take off all of September and almost all of July? We're told the committees have changed all that. Like hell they have.
When asked how often the committees have met over the past four years, the Dáil press office added an addendum to the information they supplied: "Please note that the Joint Committees programme of meetings was curtailed in 1999 and 2001 due to the DIRT inquiry and the inquiry into the Mini-CTC signalling system. Due to the unavailability of meeting rooms and support staff, no meetings could be held in September and most of October in these years."
How many times have we been told that while the Dáil itself may not meet in September the committees are at it hell for leather?
At best, the committees meet once every fortnight, apart from special inquiries of which I think there have been two, and usually the committees meet only once every three or four weeks. And the average duration of these committee meetings is only a few hours. Yes, there are a few subcommittees of some of the committees, but they meet very infrequently too. Some TDs, especially those on the DIRT and the signalling inquires, did put in a lot of hours in preparation and at the sessions, but for many of the others . . .
THE reality is that most of our TDs are virtual TDs. They perform almost no legislative function, they rarely get in on Dáil debates - eight speeches a year in the Dáil would be good for most backbench government TDs - they have almost no input into the formation of policy (presented to them as a fait accompli at parliamentary party meetings) and no function in holding the executive arm of government accountable.
Why should we put up with this? Why should we not demand of candidates in this election that they undertake to change the system, no matter who it annoys. That they will insist that the Dáil meets at least 180 days - an average of four days a week for 45 weeks, which is hardly asking too much. That the whips system of blocking backbenchers from speaking is ended.
And, on the committees, that they insist that ministers are required to attend and answer questions, that the committees have the right to subpoena witnesses and demand documents and conduct any investigation that appears appropriate without further Dáil approval (proposals unveiled by Séamus Brennan last week are pathetically inadequate). And that committees proceedings are transcribed and published on the same basis as the Dáil chamber proceedings.
That's for starters.
(Jonathan Doyle, a researcher with RTÉ Radio 1's Tonight programme assisted in the compilation of figures for meetings of Oireachtas committees.)