Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

Many people have been insulted by having the example of small Scandinavian countries being lauded by the Administration for not having a second chamber, and fair play to them and I do not have a problem with it, but these countries have very good health care and child care systems and other measures which our Government chooses to blatantly ignore.

The real irony for ordinary people looking at the deliberations of the Taoiseach on this is that he poses as the defender of democracy, which is galling when we see legislation being forced through the House which gives the power to Revenue to deduct the hated home tax from people's wages and social welfare, and the financial emergencies Bill was also rammed through. That said, a broken clock is, of course, right twice a day and I agree with the Government that the Seanad needs to be abolished. This is the correct position in my opinion. The Dáil also needs to be reformed, but the fact this is not on the table today is not a reason for continuing with the Seanad, which never had a useful purpose and certainly does not have one now. The irony of not just the Taoiseach but the likes of Michael McDowell posing as great liberators is nauseating and hard to take. The points have been well made on numerous occasions by previous speakers. The Seanad was never a democratic institution.

It was always elitist and has always been a consolation prize, a present for Deputies who want to retire into oblivion and take things handy or a holding area from which someone can work up to taking a Dáil seat.

There are no direct elections to the Seanad. Like most Deputies, I could not name half the Senators. I would struggle to name ten. It is ludicrous that there are Senators who could not get elected as county councillors but whose parties organise 30 people to vote them into Seanad seats, large salaries, offices and so on because they are in political parties that, for example, want to boost the number of female politicians. They can then build their profiles to develop a Dáil base. Other Senators have repeatedly been rejected by the electorate in Dáil constituencies.

The Seanad is not a democratic institution. It was based on vocationalism in the early years, a system that was itself based on a papal document. It is a throwback to the guild system of the Middle Ages. The Seanad never had democratic accountability.

I wish to address some of the myths introduced during this debate. The idea that the likes of Mary Robinson or David Norris needed the Seanad to thrive is ludicrous. They would have thrived in any environment. They are exceptional people, particularly Senator Norris, and are not a justification for keeping the Seanad. The Seanad has not scrutinised or overthrown legislation any differently than the Dáil has.

If the Government was serious, it would empower people at local level, transform local democracy and devolve powers. It would introduce the only democratic accountability that is relevant, namely, giving power to the people. It would be a bottom-up democracy rather than a top-down elitist body. This must start with the right to recall Deputies, further opportunities for referendums and the devolution of powers to citizens.

See this speech in context