When the Irish people went to the polls to elect their public representatives in November 2024, they could have hardly expected that a highly esoteric and specialized discussion over the status of so-called “technical groupings” and speaking rights on the floor of the Dáil would consume the political agenda for the first months of the 34th Dáil. Scenes of the Dáil’s descending into anarchy and members’ shouting over repeated rulings of the Ceann Comhairle—all will linger long in political memory.
There is clearly a need for a path forward to restore normal functionality, or even mere civility, to the nation’s parliament. However, it would be a missed opportunity to confine a solution to a narrow resolution of the current imbroglio and not to address the more fundamental question at the heart of Irish democracy: Should all TDs be treated equally?
Part and parcel of being an elected member of a representative body is the traditional power of a member’s raising issues constituents want debated and, concomitantly, raising issues which the government would prefer went unheard. Of course, where a member is part of a larger political party or bloc, the member is more likely to receive greater opportunities to advocate on behalf of his constituents.
Nevertheless, every elected representative should be entitled to a minimum amount of speaking time – regardless of political affiliation—to represent their constituents and to hold ministers to account on the issues of the day.
At the time this publication was drafted, to qualify for speaking rights in the Dáil, one must either be part of a political party or enter into a technical grouping having at least five members. Unlike political parties, technical groups are unmoored from any express ideology and a party whip system. Thus, these political marriages of convenience bring together coalitions of independents and small political parties for a single common purpose: to qualify for speaking time in the Dáil.
Under the rules that led to the dispute at the start of the 34th Dáil, speaking time was divided between government and opposition, and this of course raised and continues to raise very reasonable questions over whether these groupings can and whether any particular member should be classified as part of the government or opposition. We propose a solution that depoliticises this issue by largely removing the need for classifying parties, or technical groups, or members, as part of the government or opposition.Our proposal is that each member – regardless of party or bloc – receive a minimum amount or, better yet, equal speaking time, and that all such speaking time be freely transferable to other members. Parties with more members would still enjoy more speaking time overall, but independent deputies or smaller parties would not find either themselves or their constituents disadvantaged because of their political affiliation or lack thereof.
Consider a debate on a major piece of legislation (e.g., the annual finance bill) in which the Dáil order paper allocates five hours for all debate at second stage. With 173 partisan members and five hours of debate, under our proposal, each TD would be entitled to one minute and 45 seconds of speaking time. It follows that a government with a narrow majority of 88 members would be entitled to 154 minutes of debate.
The whips could direct backbenchers within the government to transfer their speaking time to government front bench members, or not to do so. The key point being that each member would be treated equally. Similarly, the opposition would have 146 minutes to debate, and it would be left up to each party and technical group to transfer their time to their respective front benches, or not to do so. Again, the key point being that each member would be treated equally. And the question of whether the member is in government or opposition would be moot.
With respect to shorter allocations of time for debate, the solution which we propose would still allow for each member to transfer – their albeit smaller – portion of speaking time to the respective front bench or to pool speaking time with other members of a similar outlook.
Furthermore, let us consider briefly a quite conceivable scenario. For arguments’ sake, let us imagine that at the 2024 Irish general election, a fringe political candidate broke through and secured election to the Dáil. In light of this figure’s purportedly radioactive political views, no technical grouping wishes to admit this deputy for fear that such association will attract, deservedly or not, current or future bad will. This would leave a situation whereby a member under the old amended rules, elected by the very same constituents who elect other members, is denied an equal voice in parliament, not by any law, but by the political calculation of other members. This result would be wholly inequitable and undemocratic, yet entirely permissible, if not likely, under the status quo. At the level of policy, one might fairly ask: What is the best way to diffuse allegedly dangerous political speech? Is it to squelch such speech, and to risk making political martyrs and to risk popularizing conspiracy theories? Or, is it to fervently stand with political equality, among voters and their elected members, and to chance that at the next election the electorate will see sense?
At the heart of the current debate is classification of deputies, as either part of the government or opposition, and assigning their speaking time accordingly. But this classification problem is not new. During the 33 rd Dáil, the Regional Independent Group (which at the time comprised today’s incumbent Ceann Comhairle and several ministers of state in today’s government) was recognised as a technical grouping and accommodated within opposition speaking time. Nevertheless, members of this group were consistently called upon to support the government in crucial votes and were arguably a (if not the) key bloc sustaining the previous government in power.
Despite this, the group enjoyed speaking rights as part of the opposition. This lays bare the arbitrariness which will arise where speaking rights are rigidly attached to a particular side, that is, government or opposition, in lieu of being treated as the inherent right of the voters and each of their elected representatives.
A modern, Western, democratic nation cannot be without a parliament. At over 100 days since the general election, Oireachtas committees remain unconstituted, and no legislation has been passed. A nation without a functioning parliament liberates government from accountability and transparency. All know that. It also undermines the will of the people by denying nonministerial members a meaningful voice. We urge the Government, the opposition parties and technical groups, and all members to consider reforms amending the standing orders to remove the need for parties and technical groupings to secure speaking rights. Instead, we propose assigning minimum speaking time to all members. We further urge that all members have equal speaking time. Equality will diffuse today’s dispute in the Dáil- equality will also, in part, diffuse future political divisiveness outside the Dáil.
Seth Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor, Maynooth University School of Law & Criminology / Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad (academic title & affiliation for identification purposes only).
Daniel Epstein-O’Dowd: Government Relations Consultant, former Political Advisor within the Irish Parliament.