Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Timmins for sharing time. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. We are advocating the abolition of the Seanad on three bases - cost, ineffectiveness since the 1930s and the lack of a real role or necessity for it. Notwithstanding the fact this House has considerably curtailed its costs, it is a more expensive House to operate per Member, its effectiveness as a mechanism of holding the Government to account is questionable, as long as it has existed, and on that basis we could equally question the necessity for it. However, the Dáil is a tool of our democracy.

To be honest, I will shed no tears and I hold no brief for the defence of the Seanad. I lost my seat in 2002 and did not contest the Seanad elections then. In that sense, I can speak with an uncompromised view on the matter. However, in the context of this legislation, which I support, I would prefer the Government to rearrange its deckchairs in a slightly different form. It is not too late to do this. What I mean by this is that we need to prove as a legislative Chamber that we are committed to a more effective system of holding the Executive to account, rather than simply passing legislation here, at the stroke of a pen or the press of a button, to abolish our Upper House, without proving that we are enabled to step into the breach and hold the Government to account more effectively. In a sense, we have put the cart before the horse, which is unfortunate.

More often than not in my time in this House I have sat on the Opposition side.

Sitting on the Opposition benches, I frequently agreed with the contributions made by Members on the Government side but could not speak my mind because of the Whip system. On rare occasions, I have also disagreed with the approach taken by this Government but had to go along with it. Our democracy is immature. As Deputy Timmins noted, the issue is one of mindset. On the first sitting after every election, Deputies divide along party lines to elect the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We assume our respective sides have a monopoly on wisdom and the crowd opposite does not have any good ideas. This diminishes the standing of the House and the electors who send us here to perform a specific role. If we could find a way to harness effectively the collective energies and opinions of all Members in the national interest, we would do a better job without compromising our political or party identities.

Reform is necessary. Friday sittings and other recent measures are mere window dressing, which barely scratch the service in terms of achieving what is needed to hold the Executive to account. By its own admission, the Government's reform programme is appallingly weak. Members of the public may well vote in favour of abolition of the Seanad. Members are taking a leap into the unknown, however, because we are proposing to remove a Chamber of the Oireachtas and a level of accountability before putting our own house in order, as it were, to ensure we can more effectively perform our role. Every Executive would behave in a similar manner because all governments want unfettered and untrammelled powers and do not want to be tripped up by pesky back bench or Opposition Deputies. Friday sittings keep the drones busy while the Government gets on with its business. This type of attitude sets in after a time in all Governments.

Occasional reform is not sufficient. We should embrace continual reform to make the Houses of the Oireachtas more effective in serving the citizens who elect us.

See this speech in context