Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Bill before the House, and the question that will be put to the Irish people, is whether or not to abolish the Seanad. That is a false choice. I have yet to meet anybody who believes the Upper House should be kept in its current form. As a new Deputy I was shocked to discover how Senators are elected, and dismayed at the functioning of the Upper House. If the referendum is defeated, and I hope it is, then I will be strongly advocating for the total reform of the Seanad. I am proud to co-sponsor a Bill which aims to do exactly that.

The real question before this House is whether to abolish the Seanad or reform it completely. There are sensible arguments on both sides of that question. It is true that some effective democracies have only one House, but it is also true that other effective democracies have two. What is absolutely clear, however, is that those democracies with one House have an effective House and an effective system of local government. It is here, unfortunately, that the Government's proposal fails. We are asking the Irish people to abolish the Seanad before we reform either the Dáil or the local government system. The Upper House is deeply flawed but it is one safeguard against a broken Dáil and a broken framework of local government. It is useful to imagine oneself sitting on a leaky boat and the person in charge proposing that he is going to fix all the holes in the boat and passengers should therefore throw their life jackets overboard because they will no longer need them. One would be an idiot to take off one's life jacket The correct response would be to propose that the boat be fixed in the first instance and only then should there be a conversation about whether or not life jackets will be required in future.

In considering the future of the Seanad there are two questions we must ask. First, do we abolish it before reforming this House? Second, if we reform this House and the system of local government, is there or is there not then a meaningful and proper role for an Upper House in this country? The answer to the first question seems unambiguously clear to me. We should not even consider abolishing the Seanad until we have fixed the Dáil.

The Government has pinpointed at least two areas for Dáil reform: strengthening powers of key committees and establishing sectoral committees to scrutinise the work of Departments. Both reforms are much needed and I would welcome both. If that is the right thing to do, let us do it, whether or not we abolish the Upper House. While we are at it, let us reform the Whip system. The Government backbenches are full of bright, passionate Deputies who want to use their expertise but cannot because they are not allowed to say what they think when they disagree.

The Government must stop hiding behind the guillotine. I looked up some information before making this speech and here is what I found: from the start of this Oireachtas to March of this year, 52 out of 90 Bills have been guillotined. That is nearly 60% of Bills. Sensitive Bills such as the Finance (Local Property Tax) Bill, the Finance Bill and the emergency financial measures Bills are guillotined.

The Government should let the Technical Group speak on the Order of Business. For sure, it is a diverse group and it comes in for criticism, but it is the second biggest group in opposition and changing Standing Orders with two words would allow it comment on the proposed Order of Business in the Dáil. That has been consistently refused for a long time.

Let us get rid of the ridiculous rule that means that no Deputy on any side of the House is allowed to propose an amendment to legislation that incurs a charge on the State. It is antiquated and ridiculous. Let us get rid of it. We can make these changes and more. We can make this House do what it is meant to do and what it is constitutionally obliged to do, which is to hold the Cabinet to account. I do not think any of us on any side would suggest that this House as it stands fulfils its constitutional role.

The Government has correctly pointed out that many small countries have unicameral systems. Five of the top ten democracies in The Economist'sdemocratic index are unicameral but many of these systems boast safeguards and rules that the Irish system does not. In Denmark two fifths of members of parliament may petition the speaker of the house to delay the final stage of a Bill by 12 weeks. That is very useful. In Sweden all legislation is considered by committee before it goes to parliament. Finnish municipalities control health care, education and infrastructure and levy two thirds of all tax. Article 29 of the Finnish constitution is very interesting. It states: "A Representative is obliged to follow justice and truth in his or her office. He or she shall abide by the Constitution and no other orders are binding on him or her." No other orders - that would cause havoc in our Whip system.

The Government position is clear: "Trust us, abolish the Seanad and we will fix the Dáil". Unfortunately, there is no greater proof of the problem in that demand than this Bill and the way it is being brought in. There was no consultation in the House. No analysis was provided and there was no pre-legislative input by a committee. Surely if this was a signal of a new way for us to work, we should have done it with this Bill?

If the Government wants to discuss abolition versus reform of the Seanad, there are many valid opinions on that around this House and in the Seanad. I ask it to please reform the Dáil first, to make this House work. The Seanad has nothing to do with that. Reform local government first. The Seanad has nothing to do with that. Until we fix the holes in the boat, let us leave the life jacket on.

See this speech in context