Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "that" and substitute "Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a second reading on the basis that it seeks to abolish Seanad Éireann without affording the opportunity to reform Seanad Éireann as set out in the Seanad (No. 2) Bill 2013".

I am determined that the issue of Seanad reform should be put on the agenda this evening, because the proposed constitutional amendment does not allow for it. As well as putting forward this amendment, I have put on the Order Paper of this House the Bill brought forward in Seanad Éireann by Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn and passed on Second Stage in that House. I do not agree with everything in the Bill, but I agree with the thrust of it and with the attempt to give the people an alternative to either abolition or retention of the Seanad in its current form.

It seems the Government has not thought through the consequences of a defeat of this referendum proposal. If it is defeated and reform is not considered, then we will simply go back to the old rotten system which everybody agrees, in both Houses, needs reforming. Will the Taoiseach indicate his plan B in the event the referendum is defeated? Are all the rightful criticisms he has levelled at the Seanad to be ignored and indulged? Will we have the same rotten system we have always had - the 1937 vocational system, as the Taoiseach calls it - which is discredited at this stage?

I was a Member of the Seanad for nearly 30 years. The first thing I did when I entered the House in 1981 was to put down a motion, much against the wishes of certain very powerful and rather manipulative civil servants, calling for its reform in very much the same terms as I am calling for it today. I made my proposal on the grounds that the method of election, the systems and procedures and the composition of the Seanad were unsuitable for the modern day of 1981. I congratulate the Taoiseach on his courage in confronting the vested interests in his own party by way of his undertaking to abolish the insiders' club which has dominated the Seanad for so long. He took that on - perhaps not with a great deal of thought, but he took it on all the same - and he is now finding it very difficult to push the proposal through his own party. Most of the opposition to the proposal has come from vested interests.

My view of the Seanad is that it is rotten and full of insiders. I agree too with all of those who say the university seats are elitist. The main problem, however, is that it is and has been for many years a home for patronage for all political parties and political leaders. I include the Taoiseach in that because some, though not all, of his nominees were his own people. The vast majority of Senators - 43 - are elected by insiders. It is absurd that it is county councillors, outgoing Oireachtas Members and incoming Members who elect this self-perpetuating body of installed insiders. That is why it has become a home for both failed and aspiring Deputies and a poor reflection of this House.

One of the most extraordinary things I found when I was in the Seanad was that the party Senators - I do not seek to exclude university Senators from criticism in making this point - consistently referred in their contributions to their constituencies. There were constant references to "In my constituency...". What they meant, of course, was their geographical constituency, the place they were aiming for or from which they came. In reality, Senators do not have constituencies. In fact, their constituencies are the county councils. These Senators were giving away the fact that they were there for one reason alone, to get into the Dáil. That was their only ambition and their performance reflected it. Incidentally, all Senators received some 1,500 envelopes per month, even though most of them required only some 60 votes to get elected. Yet they received 15,000 envelopes per year for an electorate of 1,000. What was going on here was an attempt to get elected to the Dáil. That was how it worked and it was a rotten system. That patronage will continue if this referendum is defeated and the Government has no plan B.

What I propose is that the ingredients of the Bill produced by Senators Zappone and Quinn be adopted as the basis of reform of the Seanad. Universal suffrage must be the basis, with everybody having a vote to elect the Members of a reformed House which would not, however, be simply a reflection of the Dáil in terms of geography and constituencies. We could have a system whereby Members are nominated by other bodies with an expertise in certain areas and who are elected by the people. It absolutely must be the case, if the bicameral structure is retained, that elections to both Houses take place on the same day. That would prevent individuals from standing for the Dáil, as candidates can do under the current system, and, where they are unsuccessful, approaching their party leader about standing for the Seanad or asking the Taoiseach to appoint them to that House.

I say to the Taoiseach, in the presence, in the Gallery, of two Senators nominated by him and who are nobly defying him on this issue by arguing for reform rather than abolition, that he is to be congratulated on some of his nominees. The fact remains, however, that the system of Taoiseach's nominees, which gives the Government the in-built majority it requires in the Upper House, is unacceptable. The temptation - and in many cases the practice - is to install party hacks. That temptation will continue to be yielded to unless reform is introduced.

There is a solution to these problems.

See this speech in context