Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what should be an important issue for Ireland and the future of our democracy. The debate on the abolition of the Seanad has been interesting. All that people can seem to see is the Seanad as it exists now. That is what is wrong with the Bill. We should be discussing reform. The Seanad is far from perfect, but a reformed Seanad is preferable to none at all. It should remain. If the people decide to keep it, its reform should begin immediately. It is unviable as it exists today.

I thank Senators Zappone and Quinn in particular for making a solid argument for reform of the Seanad as opposed to abolition. I also thank my Technical Group colleague, Deputy Ross, for his contribution to this debate and for the publication of his Bill on reform. I would also like to acknowledge Government Deputies and Senators who have stepped away from the party line and voiced their concerns. I hope they continue to do so on this and many other issues. It might make our democracy more relevant for people.

I am of the belief that the Seanad as it stands is little more than a talking shop for people who are not directly elected. Successive Governments, particularly Fianna Fáil Governments, have failed for decades to address that House's problems. There have been 11 reports in total, but all have been left on the shelf to gather dust. However, inaction does not justify its abolition. Radical reform is necessary.

There is merit in much of the content of the 2004 sub-committee report on Seanad reform. It should be re-examined in the event that the Seanad referendum does not pass. That most Senators would be directly elected and given responsibility to review Government policy, scrutinise senior public appointments and assess EU legislative proposals would constitute a dramatic reform. The abolition of the Taoiseach's nominees would go a long way towards reforming the Seanad. Anything that guarantees a Government majority in the Seanad ensures it is ineffective.

The Seanad could play a key role in European affairs. As a nation, we have failed to engage fully with the EU legislative process and realise the enhanced role of the Oireachtas regarding European affairs through ratification of the Lisbon treaty, leaving much of the activity in this area unscrutinised. This is a threat to the quality of our democracy. A reformed Seanad could be of value.

What is necessary is a reformed Seanad that is more democratic and effective. To have all Senators directly elected would require another constitutional amendment. However, there is scope for a radical expansion of the Seanad electorate that would still include a universal franchise while maintaining the panel system.

This is something that is dealt with in more detail in the consultation I mentioned that took place with Senators. It should be considered.

This Bill proposes to transfer duties to the Dáil in what this Government describes as "reform" of the Dáil. It does nothing, however, to reduce the powers of the Executive. Worryingly, we know very little about the small print of any of these changes. When will these so-called reforms take place, and how? There is no transparency and there has been no consultation with the Opposition. In this legislation we are given the continuing rule of the Executive over the Dáil. Independent Deputies will lose out on committee opportunities. As it stands, Technical Group Deputies cannot challenge the Order of Business in spite of the fact that this matter has been raised on numerous occasions with the Government and the Whips. There is a continuing refusal to allow that to happen. Independent Deputies have no amending or legislative support, even though we make up one third of the Opposition. Support is given to Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin to enable them to carry out their legislative duties but this Government continues to refuse to allow this to happen for Independent Deputies.

Other countries of a similar size with a unicameral system have more accountability and transparency. Much has said about Sweden, Denmark and Finland. One could make a long list of countries. They have strong regional municipal assemblies that have considerable authority and responsibility whereas this Government, by way of reform, is reducing demographic accountability at local level by abolishing town councils and making electoral areas bigger and more difficult for county councillors. Let us not talk about Finland, Sweden or Denmark and how they have a unicameral system when this Government refuses to give powers to local government or ensure local government can develop.

If I hear another comment in this Chamber about how Ireland is only the size of Manchester I believe I may get sick on the floor. It is the most ridiculous argument I have heard any politician put forward. Unfortunately, it comes all the time from the Government side. Manchester is an area within a country of 60 million people that has a huge and powerful economy. It cannot be compared to a country such as ours. If one wishes to compare us with somewhere, why not look at Finland, Norway, Denmark or Sweden? Those are countries of a comparable size that have far more developed economies and democracies with much more transparency and accountability than this Government would like to see in this House.

We are in an era of cutting costs, something to which in theory I do not object, but this Government continues to cut in areas where it is detrimental to society to do so. I believe the abolition of the Seanad would also be detrimental in that it would reduce transparency and democracy. I object to its abolition in the strongest terms. How our political system works affects all of us and I am concerned that some will vote in favour of abolition as a cost-saving measure without understanding the Seanad's true worth to democracy. We should make it an accountable and democratic institution and should debate its reform, not its abolition.

See this speech in context