John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I hope there is a lesson to be learned from this. Wexford now has a large number of senators for life. Those of us who paid £2,000, which we will never get back, received a lovely medal and held a meeting to discuss the events of 1798.

It is wrong to abolish the Seanad. The House should be reformed. I and Deputy Charles Flanagan have been Members of the Oireachtas for a long time. During our time in the House, various parties and Governments have proposed reform. I do not believe we will ever have significant reform of the Dáil or Seanad. Deputies are elected to represent their constituents and Governments are elected to do what is best for the country. I am not sure the discussion about reform and what should or should not be done will make any difference because ultimately the Government will take the decision on the issue.

The current committee system is a farce because membership of committees is controlled by the Government. For example, despite being the Fianna Fáil Party spokesperson on the marine, I cannot become a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine because only one member of my party can become a member and the position has been allocated to our spokesperson on agriculture, Deputy Ó Cuív. Moreover, given that committees are always controlled by the government of the day - this was also the case under Fianna Fáil governments - they cannot do much apart from scrutinising legislation and the Government usually gets its way. I do not envisage that we will ever have a position where the committees will overrule Government proposals.

To return to the proposal to abolish the Seanad, many great people have served in the Upper House over the years. We all know who they are and what contribution they made to democracy. I visited the Seanad on many occasions in a previous role as Minister of State and always found debate in the Upper House much different from debate in this Chamber. One had a much greater spread of views as Senators included Independents, academics and all kinds of other individuals who had their own take on how legislation should be implemented. I always found wise heads in the Upper House and it would be a pity if it were abolished.

Few Deputies believe the Seanad should be abolished, with the majority favouring reform. While the people will ultimately decide its fate, I am concerned that the proposal to abolish the Seanad follows the decision to abolish town councils. When the Taoiseach refers to the position in other countries he is not comparing like with like. Many other countries in Europe have local, regional and national governments, which is much different from the system proposed for this country. It is a pity citizens will not be given a choice between reform and abolition of the Seanad. I accept that they will make up their own minds on this issue.

Recently, a local radio station in my constituency featured a debate on abolition of the Seanad. A significant number of callers to the programme in question indicated they would vote to retain the Seanad because those making the case for abolition were Members of the Dáil. The public does not trust politicians or hold them in high regard. I hope citizens will vote to retain the Seanad and the Government will respond by agreeing on the reforms required to change the way in which the Upper House works. I do not have a major issue with having both Houses elected on the same day, although I am not sure how such a system would work. Moreover, I do not have a problem with people using the opportunities provided by the Seanad to get elected to the Dáil. Different political parties benefited from this approach in the past. Perhaps we are running from the media too often as we try to be whiter than white. The current democratic system has served us well and while slight changes are needed, we should not dispatch with it on the whim of a Taoiseach who wants to do something differently.

See this speech in context