Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The mandate so emphatically won by the Government must be acknowledged as the 23rd Seanad comes to the end of its life and a new Seanad will soon take its place. That the people have spoken so emphatically on the need to change horses is the political reality that cannot be denied. It is a matter for debate whether they have chosen to change course. While many decisions have been made in the past few years which have been uncomfortable and unpopular, it is not clear, even from this programme for Government, to what extent any of these decisions can be changed, given the underlying and prevailing circumstances in the economy.

If that sinks in eventually, perhaps we can have more open politics.

I acknowledge the attempt to at least address one of the more open failings of the previous Government in not being successful with the reform agenda. If it had been addressed, it would have ameliorated much of the public discontent that was allowed to grow and fester. That said, as someone who was involved in the negotiations on the previous programme for Government and its review, I do not see much new in this document. It repeats much of what was included in the previous two documents, which is good. Some of the changes and reforms need to be implemented and having such a strong mandate gives an opportunity to achieve such change.

On the fiscal situation, the reality will soon dawn that what was being done was very much what could be done in the circumstances. We are very much a hostage to factors that are global and related to our membership of the European Union. Having listened to Senator Regan's contribution, we also need to acknowledge that as a country and an economy we are very much a victim of internal politics within the European Central Bank. Many of our difficulties stem from our membership of the euro currency. We need a wider debate on the effect of membership of the currency on peripheral countries in the eurozone. I acknowledge the point just made about Mr. George Soros and the predicament in which we find ourselves. There is inconsistency in the approach of the European Commission and the European Central Bank in maintaining the Maastricht criteria when countries such as France and Italy have been grossly out of line in their budget deficits in recent years without any action being taken against them. We may be inclined through a sense of national inferiority to say we are being treated differently and worse, but there is undoubtedly inconsistency in the way the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the leading and larger members of the European Union, particularly the German Government, are stating how Ireland should be treated.

It is disappointing that the programme for Government does not go to the heart of the issue on public service reform. Many Members have views on the cost of the public service, the impact of these costs and the efficiencies or otherwise in the delivery of public services. Real reform of the public service needs to go deeper. While we have very many committed and able public servants, there is at the heart of the culture of the Civil Service a kind of sclerosis that prevents real decisions being made in real time to the detriment of whoever is in government at a given time. If the programme for Government is to be grounded in reality, it should tackle that reform in the most immediate sense.

The appointment as Attorney General of the first woman to hold the post is welcome. The person concerned will be a key member of the Cabinet. Without personalising the issue, the interaction between the Cabinet and the Attorney General on what is constitutionally and legally possible when wanting to implement policy is at the heart of government. The delays are a source of great frustration and go the heart of much of the inactivity in the life of any Government. I hope the new Attorney General will be a vital engine in achieving what the Government wants to achieve; she has a very important role to play.

The biggest disappointment for me is in the area of political reform which the Government with its huge mandate is in a particular position to achieve. It is a great irony that having committed itself to the abolition of this Chamber following a referendum — something that now seems to be the policy of every other political party — other issues of political reform are kicked aside into the constitutional convention which seems to be a kind of limbo or purgatory for the idea of any real political reform being achieved. I am also concerned that while there is a specific commitment to introduce legislation to ban corporate donations — legislation already prepared could be introduced next week if the Government was so minded — today the Minister spoke about legislation to ban corporate donations to political parties. We need clarity on the issue because if that leaves the door open to corporate donations to individual politicians, it will totally negate the idea of having legislation to ban such donations. If it is an attempt to define corporate donations as being business-related only and ignores other corporate bodies such as trade unions, it will also water down the concept and effectiveness of legislation in this area. Therefore, the matter needs to be monitored carefully.

Some of the items listed for the constitutional convention can be dealt with by way of direct legislation without the need for a convention. With proposals on the number of Members of the Dáil, the length of the presidential term, the participation of women in public life and reducing the voting age, I cannot understand why the convention is being suggested unless it is for the reason of delaying and ensuring many of these things do not happen. I like to think I have a liberal bent and my party has a policy on same-sex marriage. I appreciate there might be discomfort on the issue, with people having different opinions, and that there may be a need for a wider public debate, but every other issue mentioned by the Minister proposed for the constitutional convention could and should be dealt with directly by a Government. That fact that it is not can only be portrayed as an attempt to avoid these issues. That said, if the Government achieves its objectives in the reform of the Dáil, in particular, reducing the number of Oireachtas committees and giving them more powers, its work and that of the 31st Dáil will be successful.

Notwithstanding the Minister's comments about the contribution of this and previous Seanaid to the political life of the country when there is a debate and referendum on the future of this House, I hope it is not what the Minister says it is really about, a symbolic act. If the Government's policy on not having a second House of Parliament is about a symbolic act to appease a general feeling among the public, that is a shameful statement on which to start such a referendum.