Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Fine Gael and Labour Party programme for Government contains 69 separate references to reform. Yet when the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport spoke last night to this legislation he could only reference three true reforms which, by the way, have yet to be fully delivered on, namely, the whistleblowers Bill, the lobbying regulation Bill and the restoration of the freedom of information legislation. All three are welcome reforming initiatives.

Let us consider the term "reform" in the dictionary. It is defined as making changes in something, particularly an institution or a practice, in order to improve it. That is the purpose of reform. However, the truth is that throughout the 28 months of this Government's tenure the Executive has done little to improve our political institutions. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, told us last night that the political system over which he and his Government colleagues preside is no longer fit for purpose. I agree with him. He said that we need a new politics and a new agenda with a new and reformed Dáil. I agree with all of that as well. I suggest that the Minister share these thoughts with his Cabinet colleagues when they next meet, because it is the Cabinet which is failing to deliver on even some of the meagre reforms to which it has committed.

As recently as last week, the Government Chief Whip told the media that Cabinet's performance on Dáil reform measures has been "deplorable". Deputy Kehoe also conceded that a promise not to rush through legislation without proper discussion has not been honoured. Analysis carried widely in The Irish Times tells us that Ministers have failed to appear in the Dáil three times out of four, on average, to respond to the four Topical Issues debates on Dáil sitting days. I was about to say "tropical", which might be a more apt description. The same analysis showed that some 40% of issues were dealt with by a Minister of State from a non-relevant Department who read from a script. Deputy Kehoe said "it is deplorable that some Ministers are calling for Dáil reform and at the same time do not co-operate with reform". It is indeed deplorable, and moreso when we consider what the Government promised us with regard to Topical Issues. The programme for Government promised "an end to the practice of one junior Minister reading out scripts on behalf of a number of Departments about a range of issues of which he or she knows nothing". Despite this, 360 issues have been raised in the past 90 sitting days or since last September. Ministers have appeared to answer questions for just one quarter of all issues raised. In addition, Ministers of State from the relevant Department have responded to only 25% of issues and almost half of the replies have been delivered by non-relevant Ministers or Ministers of State reading from a script and they have been unable to deal with some of the issues raised by the Opposition or questioning Deputies in any meaningful way. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The same article also quoted research that highlighted the now accepted practice by Government of guillotining the majority of Bills going through the Dáil. During the first two years of this Government's stewardship, a total of 52 out of 90 Bills were guillotined, amounting to 57% of all Bills passed. The use of guillotines is at its highest in run-up to the Dáil going into the winter or summer recess. Deputy Kehoe was altogether correct when he said that it was deplorable that Ministers are prepared to talk the talk of reform yet refuse to co-operate with even meagre changes in the way we do our business. Worse, the same Ministers concocted a programme for Government committing to "restrict the use of guillotine motions and other procedural devices that prevent Bills from being fully debated, so that guillotining is not a matter of routine as it has become at present, particularly at the end of a session." That is what the Government had to say at the time. The reality is that guillotining is still a matter of routine and it remains the norm rather than the exception.

There is little point in the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, coming to the House and promising a new dawn if he and his Cabinet colleagues cannot deliver on even the most modest of reform measures. It has become clear day by day that reform for this Government is not the dictionary definition but rather a code word for cuts. Reforming social welfare means cutting hard-fought protections for vulnerable citizens. Reform includes cutting mobility allowances and supports for carers and lone parents. Reform, according to the Government, means spending less on our children and reducing services and educational supports at the very time when demand is increasing. For this Government, reform is about the bottom line and cutting away at public services, cutting modest standards of living and vital social supports. For this Government, reform has nothing to do with improving practices or institutions. Rather, it is a strategy or cover for an austerity agenda, penny pinching and hurting vulnerable citizens. Last night, the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, reduced his reforming agenda and that of the Government to a mere reduction in numbers. After failing to deliver on virtually all the Dáil reforms in the programme for Government the only trophy the Administration can hold up is its decision to get rid of 600 councillors, eight Deputies and an attempt to get rid of 60 Senators. For those responsible, it is a crude numbers game.

Whatever one's view, I suggest that it hardly amounts to the democratic revolution that we were promised in the heady days of 2011.

Many people who support the legislation for the abolition of the Seanad point out that there are many democracies that do not have an upper house. That is true, but when one looks closer, one finds that those same countries have in-built checks and balances to ensure proper accountability, transparency and representation for all citizens. Very often that is contained in comprehensive, rooted and effective systems of local government. We do not have that in this State. The Government offers us no such checks and balances. In fact, it is moving to centralise power in a way not seen since the foundation of the State.

It is not unusual for Ministers outside of the inner sanctum of the Economic Management Council, which the four lads occupy, to periodically run to journalists to tell them how frustrated they are and how disempowered they feel because of their exclusion from critical executive decisions. The further move towards centralisation of decision making is coming from the top down. It is a measure that does not have universal support, even among the ranks of the Government backbenches but, more importantly, such centralisation of decision making is bad news, not just for frustrated Ministers on the outside but for all of us and for the democratic system.

The Seanad is not fit for purpose. That is a blindingly obvious statement. No one, not least me or Sinn Féin could possibly stand over a system that is elitist and out of step with the times. However, I still believe the Seanad could provide a vital check and balance to the Executive if reformed or if transformed into, for instance, a citizens’ assembly. The proposition before us today is base and crude and it tells us that the Government is not such a fan of democracy or democratic representation. If the Taoiseach were serious about democracy or reform, he would have extended the Constitutional Convention’s remit to include Seanad reform before coming forward with a referendum to abolish the Seanad. However, he chose not to do that. The question that Members of the Oireachtas and citizens must ask is why that was the case.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, might have shed some light on the issue last night. On the proposition of a citizens’ assembly the Minster said: “It would be wrong for a parliament to include people just because of their demographic group or background rather than abilities or character.” I thought that was a very revealing statement. In the mind of the Minister, and perhaps in the minds of members of the Fine Gael and Labour parties, power is not alone to be centralised but it is to be run on a survival of the fittest approach. That is the kind of strategy that has delivered white, middle aged, male and stale politicians since social democracy first opened its doors to citizens.

For democracy to work, for us to build a just and equal society, we must have the inclusion of citizens, precisely because of their demographic group or background. That is a prerequisite to social solidarity and progress. Citizens have rights and as legislators it is our responsibility to ensure that every child born in this State is guaranteed equality of opportunity. We have certainly not achieved that goal. Children from the Traveller community in many cases are unlikely to reach their full potential. The same is true of children with disabilities or those with special needs. Children from disadvantaged areas are faced with what are sometimes insurmountable challenges. The list goes on. Their families cannot access the supports they need and for many, maintaining basic standards of housing and health care can be a lifetime of struggle. It is the proposition of Sinn Féin that we need to hear from those people. We need to afford them and the organisations that represent them, at a minimum, a seat at the table. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, is not and will not be in a position to deliver equality of opportunity if he sets his face against those for whom he legislates. It is only by including the very people the Minister would wish to exclude from our democratic structures and processes that we will drag our practices and institutions into the 21st century.

I commend my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, on tabling a comprehensive set of amendments to the legislation. In doing so, he has shown that one can in fact make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The Sinn Féin amendments offer people a real proposition, an opportunity to truly influence reform of our political institutions. It is beyond my comprehension why a Minister or Deputy would vote against the inclusion of an option to reform the Seanad when putting the proposition to the people in October, or for that matter why Labour Deputies would vote against an amendment that seeks to refer the question of the future existence, functioning and reform of the Seanad to the Constitutional Convention in advance of the referendum.

Unlike our Fianna Fáil colleagues, Sinn Féin has constructively engaged with the legislation. We have set out comprehensive amendments that provide for a real debate and choice for citizens. To be blunt, Labour and Fine Gael would have a brass neck to keep banging the drum of reform if they vote against the proposals we have tabled in the amendments.

In his contribution, Deputy Charles Flanagan managed the not inconsiderable achievement of being in opposition while on the Government benches. Perhaps that is not entirely a unique achievement. He claimed that abolition of the Seanad is difficult but necessary. He is wrong on that matter because straight abolition of the Seanad is not difficult; it is actually very easy. It amounts to the lazy way out. Reform, transformation or empowerment of the Seanad would be challenging and difficult for Government, too difficult it seems for a Government that is not serious about reform, full-blooded representative democracy or the democratic checks and balances essential to good governance.

It is not good enough for the Government or anyone else to put to the people a bald proposition in such a stark fashion to abolish an institution that has been crying out for reform for decades when it is those very same parties in government, some of them now in opposition, that left the Seanad impotent and unreformed. It would be a different proposition if we had effective local government structures, but we do not and they are not in sight. The Sinn Féin amendments seek to change the legislation to take account of the need for full-blooded representative democracy, for essential checks and balances within the Oireachtas, and the need to hold the Executive to account. Above all, our amendments seek that the Government, rather than putting a stark “Yes” or “No” question on whether to keep the Seanad, would give the people their proper position and allow them the option of reform for a truly democratic, effective and empowered Seanad.

See this speech in context