Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is no example in its history to compare with the recent habit of many Government Deputies systematically heckling Opposition speakers to protect Ministers who have legitimate questions to answer.

None of this is to say the Seanad should remain as it is. The vocational panel system is anachronistic. It is also the case that it is hard to justify giving an extra opportunity to vote for Members of Parliament to people based on their level of education, although there were historical arguments for it. That said, many systems have minor anachronisms in parliaments which make them less than fully representative. The reform Bill proposed by Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn is a positive one, which we support and which shows what can be achieved quickly to increase the effectiveness of the Oireachtas. The fact that the Government is denying us the opportunity even to vote on it is an eloquent testimony to its dismissive approach to others.

Changing the constitutional provisions concerning the Seanad is something which should be done but only in the context of also changing the provisions relating to the Dáil and the Government. The Taoiseach has again claimed that he will reform the Dáil and make his Government more accountable if the Seanad is abolished. Like St. Augustine, he is saying, "O Lord make me pure but not yet." The programme of supposed reforms which will be delivered following abolition is so thin as to be transparent. The supposedly radical change to committees about which the media were briefed last week involves changing only one of the current committees. The rest remain in their current configuration.

The allocation of committee Chairs proportionately is a positive proposal. What the Taoiseach does not acknowledge, however, is that his Government was the first in decades to remove all Opposition Deputies from any agenda setting position on the committees which oversee Ministers in their core day-to-day work. His supposed reform is mainly about reversing his own actions. The proposal to require non-urgent Bills to be circulated in draft stage is a continuation of the practice started by the former Deputy Eamon Ryan in the last Dáil. It is also a practice which is irrelevant if the Government adopts the policy of rejecting nearly all amendments and imposing the guillotine at an unprecedented rate. In recent years parties have campaigned for a European treaty partly on the basis that it introduced a citizens' initiative to the legislative process. Without explanation, the Government is proposing to remove our constitutional provision for a citizens' initiative.

In all, the sum total of the reform to follow concentrating all power in the Government controlled Dáil is that we might have a little more consultation and be allowed to influence the agenda of a few committees. In essence, that is what the Taoiseach is proposing. The reality of how little this means was summed up unwittingly by the Taoiseach recently when I sought discussion of a reform of Taoiseach's questions. He said: "We will have a chat about the matter before we make it a fait accompli." Ultimately, this is a Government which believes it should have absolute control over every element of our work. It talks about accountability but works against it every time a serious issue is raised. Even when it is willing to hold advance discussions, it always presents the Oireachtas with a fait accompli.

The final argument the Taoiseach has used to force this measure through with unjustified haste is that it must be done because it was in Fine Gael's manifesto. There are five Deputies who have been expelled from Fine Gael and the Labour Party because they wanted to vote for the policies in their manifestos. Why is this promise more important than protecting child benefit or special needs education? Why is it more morally important to abolish the Seanad than to honour promises to local hospitals? Why is a solemn pledge to reform rental contracts which are destroying thousands of businesses and jobs to be ignored but Members are to be threatened with expulsion if they vote against abolishing the Seanad?

Having spent years obsessed with attaining power, the Government is now focused on expanding and keeping hold of its power. Abolishing the Seanad and concentrating its powers in a place more directly controlled by the Government is the proposal which is its priority change to the way Ireland is governed. The Government has reviewed the Constitution and found 40 changes it wishes to make, none of which involves handing over a single area of power in the hands of the Taoiseach and the Cabinet. If this amendment passes into law, Ireland will have a governing system unique in the developed world for the amount of power it concentrates in the hands of Ministers. It will take a major step away from the models of accountability which dominate in other European countries. The Government will have spent scarce resources at a time of our greatest financial need in order to achieve a small longer term saving. Most of all, if the amendment succeeds, it will spell the end of any realistic hope Irish politics will be reformed. On the other hand, if it is defeated, the Government will have been sent a message that its power grab has failed and that the people want real reform. It is because of the behaviour of the Government in Dáil Éireann, its growing contempt for differing opinions and its dismissive approach to accountability that we need greater parliamentary oversight, not less. The experience of the past two years is a powerful argument to retain and reform Seanad Éireann.

That is why my party and I will vote against this Bill in the Oireachtas and campaign against abolition before the referendum.

See this speech in context