Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We are going to have a debate, which I welcome, by the way, and I welcome a referendum on this in the context that we can actually discuss real reform. I call on the Taoiseach to reflect on the reform that he and his Government have brought through since he was elected. He has abolished Údarás na Gaeltachta and reduced the number of county councillors. The Taoiseach referred to the Nordic unicameral systems. What the Taoiseach did not mention about Denmark is that it has 98 local authorities and 2,500 local councillors. Finland has 304 local authorities and 10,000 local councillors. Norway has 423 local authorities and 12,000 councillors. They have these not simply for the sake of it, but because they have proper local government.

Let us consider the work of this House, which I joined in early 2011 after a period in the Dáil. It might come as a surprise to the Taoiseach to learn that in 2011 some 59 Dáil Bills were debated in the House as well as 25 Seanad Bills. In 2012, some 87 Dáil Bills and 37 Seanad Bills were debated. In 2013, so far, a total of 51 Dáil Bills and 18 Seanad Bills have been debated. Further, in this year up to May some 529 amendments to the laws of the State and to proposed legislation have been made in this House.

I cannot decipher what the Taoiseach is proposing instead. Some weeks ago it was reported in the media that the Taoiseach was proposing to set up a mini-Seanad of appointees of Government, experts that he would bring in. It is still remarked on in the House that the Taoiseach is effectively planning to have a four-day sitting and allow heads of Bills to go to the Dáil and invite in outside unelected experts. I agree that there remains absolutely an issue of a democratic deficit in this House. Reform Bills and reports have been published in the past ten years. It is certainly not my fault or that of many of my colleagues that reform of the House has not been brought forward. I do not envisage reform coming in the guise of abolition.

Let us consider from where most of our laws emanate. Since 2009, some 1,291 EU regulations have been automatically transposed into Irish law without any systematic or detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Let us consider the Oireachtas joint committee system and the level of scrutiny that goes on. Since I came to this House in 2011, I, the Leader opposite and many others have requested of the Chief Whip and the Government assistance to enable the House to scrutinise European legislation in this House, but we have not been allowed to do so. Since the Lisbon treaty, and, in particular, since the second Lisbon treaty, in every state, including Ireland - this point covers the previous Government and the current Government - some 139 tranches of legislation were released for comment and consideration by a member state in advance of being passed.

During the campaign on the second Lisbon treaty referendum we all spoke about how important it was for us to have a say on EU law so that we would not be just led by the nose. We said we would comment and make submissions. Ireland has made only one submission since the passing of that referendum, which is a sad indictment of the previous Government and this one. I have great regard for every Senator in this House. Even in a system that is not perfect they bring a high degree of scrutiny, professionalism and experience to the debates that take place here. Many Ministers have commented on this and if the Taoiseach were here a little more often, he would understand that. The Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Creighton, said the Seanad could carry out that role.

I would be gravely concerned about the provisions for how a President can be impeached and how a Comptroller and Auditor General can be removed, as the Taoiseach outlined in his explanation to the House. Is he proposing that impeaching a President would require the support of four fifths of the Dáil? Is that without a Whip system? Is he proposing any change to the Whip system in the Dáil should the Seanad be abolished? He is also proposing that it would require the support of two thirds of the Dáil to remove the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose role in the State is vital. I say that as someone who served as Vice Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Dáil. As the Whip system is operated today, a Comptroller and Auditor General could not be removed. Will the Whip system be changed? Will the Taoiseach allow free votes on certain aspects, particularly the impeachment of a President or the removal of a Comptroller and Auditor General?

Regarding the Taoiseach's crusade on reform, I watch the Friday sittings with interest and find that in the main they are farcical. He pointed to the Topical Issue debate and the additional Leaders' Questions. What happened to the programme for Government commitment to allow debates to proceed without using the guillotine? Last night saw the 55th Bill out of 93 taken in Dáil Éireann that the Government has guillotined; in other words, it stopped the debate before it had finished naturally. The Government allowed 40 minutes for the Committee Stage debate on removing one third of the Oireachtas. It is not about the Members here - I will live if this happens. I am concerned as a citizen. I welcome the debate and I will welcome a referendum if it is an honest referendum and if the Taoiseach does not continue to put out figures such as savings of €20 million to €50 million and if he does not erroneously try to lay the blame for problems that happened in the past on the Seanad alone.

I put it to the Taoiseach that, as father of the House and having served more than 35 years in Leinster House, he would know a considerable amount about the lack reform in this House over the years. I say that as someone who has only been here since 2007. I welcome that he is in the House today and I hope he will come back to answer the specific questions I have asked. Amending Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is owned by the people, is not something to be taken lightly. I fear and believe that he is taking it lightly and he is vandalising the Constitution with this proposal.