Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I believe the Seanad should be abolished but I also believe that the debate around it is going to be a distraction from the budget, which is due in October. We should not be having this debate. The Government has promised reform in four key areas: the Constitution, the abolition of the Seanad, the Dáil and local authorities.

Reform of the Constitution to update it and make it relevant to the 21st century is supposed to be initiated through the Constitutional Convention. This is made up of 66 citizens selected at random across different age groups, genders, etc., and 33 politicians put forward by political parties, including parties in the North. It discusses issues that may require constitutional change. These issues are decided by the Government. It is not allowed to discuss the Seanad or the X case legislation. It then votes on the issues and makes a recommendation to the Dáil. If the Government wants to legislate on that basis it will; if it does not, it will not. That is not a reforming Constitutional Convention. To date it has discussed the issues of same-sex marriage and more women in politics, with a majority in support of both. It also reviewed the voting system in general elections and a large majority favoured keeping the present system. The convention is a talking shop. That is not a reflection on the people there but on the way it is set up. I call for a genuine, elected people's convention to sit for a definite period of time to draw up a new Constitution which is much shorter and simpler than the present one, emphasising the rights of the citizen as opposed to those of the State and the Catholic bishops and those relating to property rights, which are entwined in the present Constitution. The citizens should be able to review the Constitution which has been in place for most of the past century.

Abolition of the Seanad was included in the programme for Government and there was no big row about it then. The row is now predictable. The Seanad has always been a grazing ground for has-been Deputies, a platform for wannabe Deputies and an elite elected by an elite. It is completely irrelevant. People have no interest in it whatsoever. It has no impact on the ordinary citizen and it is a waste of money. It has existed for 75 years without anybody who lives in the real world taking any more than the slightest bit of notice of it. The campaign to save the Seanad is completely opportunistic. We have talked about reforming it for decades and it has never been reformed. Now all of a sudden when we are discussing its abolition we are talking about reform at the same time. Deputy Ross said he tabled a Bill for reform of the Seanad. That was probably one of the few such Bills introduced. A former Deputy, one Michael McDowell, is attempting to use the issue to relaunch his political career and test the waters for a new party. In 1992, in his election material, he clearly identified the position of the Progressive Democrats Party on the programme for constitutional reform, the first demand in which was the abolition of the Seanad. The same person is now defending the Seanad and saying we must reform it. Some people ought to think about where they are coming from and going to, and others should be aware of this.

The proposal to reform local government justifies this debate because we would not be discussing that if we were not discussing the abolition of the Seanad. We should think about what we need to replace the Seanad. This will focus people's minds on the role of this institution and on local authority reform under the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan. Local authority reform has amounted to a cull of councillors and a further reduction of local democracy. I am for the fullest level of democracy at local level. The more local and close to the ground it is, the more democratic it is. Could we implement the Latin American model of proper participatory politics here? This would give more power to citizens to decide what communities need in the way of health services, transport and education services, etc. That is what this country needs, not a top-heavy institution that bases itself on a smoke and daggers approach, with the members calling themselves legislators when really they are focused on using that position to get re-elected. The cronyism has not changed. I cannot believe it is still the case that a hospital consultant can tell a citizen to go to his or her local Deputy to get an appointment to have surgery.

That is outrageous and not the reason we are here. We are here to introduce progressive legislation. Political parties put forward policies to the people during an election to get into power. However, those elected to government can change these policies which, in turn, puts pressure on backbenchers who stood on a platform for change. The Government has already broken its promises on Dáil reform, as it has on a range of other issues. It has guillotined the debates on up to 64% of Bills it has introduced. In saying this the previous Fianna Fáil Government guillotined the debate on 74% of all legislation it introduced; therefore, Fianna Fáil cannot criticise the Government. The most outrageous examples of the use of the guillotine were the local property tax, the wind-up of the IBRC, the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, and the promissory notes, as well as the ramming through of recent cuts to public sector pay. Friday Dáil sittings are a sham as we cannot vote on the legislation on the day. This, in turn, allows Deputies to go back to their constituencies for the weekend to lay the basis for re-election.

The right to recall an election is important. If an individual or a party stands for election on certain policies but does a complete U-turn when elected, one should have the right to recall the election. While I accept the proportional representation system makes it difficult to have a recall facility, some mechanism must be put in place, whereby 25% to 30% of the people can recall an election in which a candidate was fraudulently elected on policy issues.

The fact that the Government will not concede on one Standing Order to allow a group that represents 29% of Members to come in on Standing Orders is a joke.

See this speech in context