Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That is correct. I thank the Whip for allowing me to speak on the issue and I rise to support the Bill, as the change to abolish the Seanad should be made. Our political system is old-fashioned and no longer fit for purpose. We need fewer politicians but more democracy, and during recent years, many people in this country have made very significant and painful sacrifices, doing more with less, and it should be no different for those of us who are politicians.

It is important to see this reform in context, and it is not happening on its own. It is part of the new politics agenda we are pursuing as a Government and it is one of the points in the five point plan that we put before the people at the last election. The involves a new and reformed Dáil and very big changes in local government that are now happening. It also involves more open and ethical government, which I will touch on later.

The evidence suggests that we should all agree that we do not need a Seanad or second chamber, as there are many countries and democracies around the world that manage to get by with one house of parliament. There are 29 European countries, including Norway, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg and many of the new democracies in central and eastern Europe that only have one chamber and seem to manage very well. Outside Europe, countries such as New Zealand and Israel have unicameral parliaments and many small island countries comparable to Ireland, such as Cyprus, Iceland and Malta, have single chamber parliaments.

Having held the European Presidency of the transport council for the past six months, I have asked other Ministers in informal conversations how it works for them with one house and it seems to work fine. None is contemplating the introduction of a second house and the process seems to work very well in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and performance. Countries with a second chamber tend to be large and federal, such as Germany, where people are elected from states and not just with a direct mandate from the people. In some countries the bicameral system works very badly, and in Italy, for example, the second chamber has almost the same power as the lower house. As they have similar powers, the houses are often in conflict with each other, making good governance very difficult. Luxembourg is a very small but successful country and it uses an equivalent to our Council of State in a different way, as it reviews all legislation for flaws and constitutionality. That is how it achieves a second opinion without having an institution or second chamber to bring this about. Other countries break up parliament into small legislative committees to carry out that role.

As I mentioned, this is part of a bigger programme of reform, which will result in fewer politicians in the country. There will be approximately 600 fewer councillors this time next year after the local elections, we will have one fewer member of the European Parliament, there will be eight fewer Deputies in the next Dáil and, if this referendum is passed, there will be 60 fewer Senators. It is not that I wish to engage in a cull of my colleagues but we should bring the number of politicians in this country into line with countries of a similar size. It is wrong to compare us with America, which is very big, although it is also wrong to compare us with Liechtenstein or San Marino, which are very small. It is right to compare us with countries of a similar size, with a population of approximately 4.5 million to 5 million. Having 160 Members of Parliament brings us roughly into line with such countries.

The bigger reform agenda involves changes in local government and more open governance, including an effective ban on corporate donations and legislation to protect whistleblowers and regulate lobbying. Changes have been made in how we make public appointments and many Ministers - including me - bring legislation to committees at the heads of Bill stage, which is before final drafting. We are extending the Freedom of Information Act to other bodies. All these reforms are part of a package and the Seanad abolition should be seen in that light. There are savings of approximately €20 million to be made each year, although some of that may need to be used to beef up the committee system. There will be significant savings in payroll.

People often argue for reform of the Seanad, but I am certain that although there will be many promises of reform from those who can and cannot deliver it, the reform will not happen. In 1979, a referendum was approved by the people on Seanad reform, allowing change to the way in which graduate seats are elected. That has not happened. I cannot remember how many reports have been published, although I believe 15 is the correct figure. The Seanad reform has not happened because there is no consensus about what a reformed Seanad should look like. Some want Members to be directly elected, leaving the Chamber in competition with the Dáil, whereas others want Members to be indirectly elected, as it is now. Some people want votes for emigrants and others do not, whereas some people want votes for people in Northern Ireland and others do not. Some people want an elite Seanad made up of experts from the great and the good, including people who are so great that they do not believe they should have to run for election.

Another model would have a sectoral Seanad representing interest groups, and in many ways that 1930s vocationalist system of the Seanad, which we now have, is supposed to achieve this through an administrative, labour, industrial and commercial panel. The idea is outmoded and one could ask where people like the self-employed or sole traders fit into that system. These are people who do not consider themselves to be part of a particular interest group but rather citizens who pay taxes and obey the law. They do not want to be put in some panel or section.

Another model of reform would amount to a citizens' assembly, with people included by virtue of being part of some demographic group, whether they are young, old, or of a certain gender, ethnic background or sexual orientation. Such a citizens' assembly may have value in doing other things, but it would be wrong for a Parliament to include people just because of their demographic group or background rather than abilities or character. That would amount to equality by subgroup rather than equality of opportunity for an individual, which is what should be offered. Anybody who wants to run for Parliament should be allowed to do so and everybody should have one vote for a candidate. It should not matter what panel a candidate is on, what university he or she attended, or if the candidate went to university at all. The other reform models offer a so-called buffet option, or a Seanad made up of a bit of everything. That would be worst of all parts rather than the best.

In fairness to Senators Quinn and Zappone, they have made a good effort to reform the Seanad, and it may be the best possible. It is also pretty flawed. They suggest that the Seanad should have a role in scrutinising statutory instruments or secondary legislation, a practice that this Oireachtas has been very poor at through the years. There is nothing to stop the Seanad doing it now, and if there is an interest, Standing Orders could be changed to allow them to scrutinise statutory instruments. There was a statutory instruments committee of the Seanad until 1981, but it stopped functioning for some reason.

It has also been suggested that the Seanad could be used to scrutinise EU legislation, which is what a functioning EU committee of this Parliament should be doing anyway. The same logic applies to public appointments, which are already scrutinised by committees. The Senators wish to retain graduate seats, which is wrong, as we should not separate people with a degree from those with no degree. They also want to retain existing panels of culture and industry, as well as appointed Members. They also propose a degree of democratic quotas for outcomes, which is very different from quotas for candidates, which give people a clear choice.

Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned the guillotine and I have never used this, to my recollection, in two and half years as a Minister. Nevertheless, it is sometimes required because a decision must be made against a certain timeframe, or sometimes people filibuster by tabling large numbers of amendments or speaking forever just to prevent a decision being made by elected Members of this House. That is why it is sometimes necessary to use the guillotine. The Deputy none the less makes a good argument about having a qualified majority to end a debate in that way or after a period, although that would not get around filibustering.

It probably could be done through Standing Orders and not just by way of the Constitution, although I may be incorrect on that.

The Deputy also spoke about the role of committees and I hope what he said is not true because it was a terrible indictment of Deputies and Senators. He said that roughly one third are poor attenders, one third are poor contributors, leaving the remaining third to do all the work at committee. That is not good enough. That is an argument for a better Dáil and better Deputies. One does not create an entire institution because one third of committee members are not turning up or one third are not doing a good job. That is not an argument at all for retaining the Seanad. That is an argument for having better Deputies and a properly reformed Dáil. We do not need the Seanad in that context.

See this speech in context