What’s wrong with scrapping a few politicians to pay for medical cards?

THE authority of the Government has unquestionably been damaged by the medical cards controversy.

In these situations it is always as much cock-up as conspiracy, but there can be no doubt Finance Minister Brian Lenihan’s intention was to unpick other universal, non-means-tested benefits in his next budget. He might now have to think twice.

To lose a needy Independent might be a blessing in disguise; one Fianna Fáil TD is a misfortune. More than that and it looks like carelessness. We are not in a 1982 situation — when the government fell over VAT on children’s shoes — but political expediency might require that the gap between spending and revenue be plugged in other ways, even though the moral case for targeting benefits is a strong one. If further U-turns are to be avoided, the ground is going to have to be prepared much better in advance next time.

The sense that last week’s budget was pulled together hurriedly — which it almost certainly was as the economic news got darker — wasn’t helped by the “good news” headline-grabber. I refer to the 10% pay cut by members of the Government, ministers of state and senior civil servants.

If it looks like a stunt, it probably is a stunt: year by year, the full amount will be piled back on — and more. Again, a real opportunity for lasting reform will have been missed.

Opposition TDs, with some justification, point to government bloat, the number of ministers and, in particular, ministers of state, which has increased as coalition formation has become an ever more intricate art form.

Where there is less pressure — surprise, surprise — is in relation to the size of the Dáil itself. Politicians can make the number of representatives from each constituency sound like a matter of life and death — usually their political death — but the number of TDs overall? Only very rarely. It is flicked away as a matter for the people to decide by amending article 16 of the constitution.

First of all, of course, that would require a bill passing through the Oireachtas, so the initiative lies with the politicians themselves. Second, even if turkeys voting for the proverbial Christmas sounds unlikely, the constitutional provision for a certain number of politicians for the size of the population is currently being interpreted rather generously by the politicians.

The Constituency Commission, which recommends boundary changes, is limited by the 1997 Electoral Act to making proposals for a Dáil of between 164 and 168 seats. Unsurprisingly, it tends to opt for the status quo of 166 when, in fact, up to 20 seats could be shed while still fulfilling the minimum ratio of one TD for every 30,000 people stipulated by the constitution. But whether you call it the politicians suiting themselves or every voice being heard to the greatest extent possible, the fact is that Ireland has more parliamentarians relative to the size of the population — paid at higher rates — than almost any other developed country in the world.

With an estimated 4.4 million souls in the republic and 166 members of the Dáil, that works out at one legislator for every 26,500 people. That is leaving aside altogether the 60 members of the Seanad.

By comparison, countries like France, Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain have roughly four or five times fewer politicians in the main (lower) house of parliament. The same is true of other former dominions like Canada and Australia.

In Japan, it’s 10 times fewer and in the US, more than 20 times fewer. No one is suggesting that Ireland should follow the American example and have just one representative for every 571,000 people — that would provide a Dáil of a mere seven or eight wise men and women with extraordinary workloads.

But even comparing Ireland with other, smaller countries, the ampleness of representation — cynics would call it the degree of waste — becomes clear. Similarly sized European countries like Finland, Slovakia, Norway, Denmark and Croatia all have parliaments also of between 150 and 200 members. The crucial difference is that they are all unicameral: they have no equivalent to the Seanad.

The Dutch and Belgian lower houses are also in the same range, serving much bigger populations, but both countries — unlike Ireland — have very significant devolved legislatures. On the subject of devolution, the Stormont assembly is even more politician-heavy than the Dáil, but if it stops them fighting...

It could be argued that parliament size is not based on population; that a country has to have a parliament of a certain size from which to draw all the required ministers.

At any moment, the bulk of TDs will not be in contention for a government job either because they are from the wrong party, are out of favour, in poor health or just simply not up to it.

Seán Lemass complained in the 1960s that he found it hard to find enough suitable Fianna Fáil TDs to fill the posts. But a Dáil of about 120, as proposed once by Noel Dempsey, should still be fit for purpose. The electorate has a history of wanting it both ways: resenting the number of politicians and their perks while at the same time reserving a healthy scepticism about reform. Both attempts to alter the electoral system — getting rid of the proportional representation system — in 1959 and 1968 were rejected for fear they would entrench Fianna Fáil forever.

Indeed, the Dempsey plan was linked to a similar attempt to move to single-seat constituencies. But there is no reason why size and the voting method need to be considered as a package — they are separate issues.

Many voters rather like being able to play different constituency representatives from the same party or different parties off against each other. Some voters don’t appreciate having to seek assistance from “the other side”. There’s something to be said for the parish pump.

WHAT is the job of a TD, though? The constitution says it is to go to Dublin and make laws, not become a slave to every voter’s personal whims. The inordinate amount of time TDs spend in clinics or at funerals has served the national interest poorly.

Talented people shun politics; Ireland’s statute book and reputation internationally suffer as a consequence. Where else in the world would a politician like — take your pick — make it on to the national stage, some ask?

That’s probably too harsh: every democratic country tends to get the politicians it deserves. But a leaner, meaner Dáil and ministerial team might play well, particularly at a time when everyone else is trimming back and seeking efficiencies.

At the very minimum, the Government should consider legislation to prevent the Dáil getting any bigger in response to the soaring population, many of whom, of course — rightly or wrongly — do not have the right to vote anyway because they are not Irish or British citizens.

Both Fine Gael and the Greens have toyed with such ideas in the past — but never really pressed the point. The PDs once proposed getting rid of the Seanad altogether.

I have a feeling, though, that scrapping a few politicians to pay for more medical cards might receive a warm hearing at the moment.