Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a contribution. The previous speaker mentioned statistics and I want to mention other statistics. She mentioned Denmark. Following the local government reforms here, Denmark will have five times the number of local authority members per head of population that we will have in this State. It also has strong local government with real powers devolved to local level and not centralised in the bunker in the Custom House.

We are debating an amendment to the Constitution relating to the Seanad but, in parallel, the Constitutional Convention is debating issues including the future of the Seanad. We believe that is the rightful place for this debate. There should be reform - we agree with the Government on that. One cannot defend what is in place and I will not even try to, but for the Government to introduce this proposed amendment to the Constitution smacks of desperation and arrogance. Why is it fearful? Why not let the convention debate, discuss and make these proposals? It is sitting at the moment.

The Government was elected a little over two years ago and one of its promises was reform, but what have we had to date? It has been piecemeal, with Friday morning sittings, proposals to centralise power and evidence of more power being centralised at the Cabinet table. What we have before us is not reform but abolition. Reform is defined as making changes to something, typically a social, political or economic institution or practice, in order to improve it. Certainly, the proposal before us will not make changes to improve the Seanad; it will simply shut it down. It is a lazy headline-grabbing option that was trotted out in the middle of an election campaign.

Not for one moment will I defend the Seanad as it currently stands. As a republican I simply could not do so. Since 1928 there have been 12 separate official reports published on the reform of the Seanad. There is plenty of evidence and information on how best to reform the Upper House of the Oireachtas. In its current form it is elitist and undemocratic. The last speaker is correct in that it does not reflect modern Ireland. It is a throwback to an Ireland of long ago. As a county councillor I had the equivalent of 1,000 votes five times over. There was one vote for each of the panels and that was worth 1,000 votes in a general election. That is a totally undemocratic system.

Given all the headlines about the Seanad, one would be forgiven for thinking that it was the cause of every ill that has befallen this State of ours. The Taoiseach would have us believe that it is the cause of the economic recession and the banking crisis and everything else from dole queues and emigration to overpriced property. He would have us believe that to shut it down and throw away the key would somehow be like waving a magic wand and that all our problems would go away. Rather, our problems are the fault of light-touch regulation in banking and construction and developers, crooked politicians, councillors and Ministers. However, to examine all of those areas would be painful because it would mean previous Governments would have to take responsibility for the crisis in which we find ourselves.

I maintain the Government is cynically using the current economic crisis to force through many of its proposals, including the shutting down of the Seanad. Let us look behind the smokescreen and the screaming headlines. We can see a Government attempting to centralise power more and more around the Cabinet table.

Last October, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, launched Putting People First, claiming it would be "the most fundamental set of reforms in local government in the history of the State". However, nowhere in the 198 pages of the document does the Government outline what powers will be devolved. It refers to devolving functions rather than powers. Since the launch of Putting People First, the Government has shut several tiers of local government. We support reform because the structures in place are not fit for purpose. However, town and borough councils are gone, reducing the number of council seats from 1,627 to 949. In my county, Laois, the number of councillors has gone from 43 to 19. The system needs reform but as things stand we will end up with local electoral areas that are 50 or 60 miles in length and breadth in some cases. I understand there is one in the Minister's county of Kerry that is closer to a stretch of 100 miles. One of the Minister's party colleagues told me about it.

The void left behind will not be filled by stronger local government. Instead, there will be fewer councillors covering huge wards with less funding to meet the needs of the public they serve. I believe the Government is not interested in real reform; it is interested in centralising power around the men in grey suits. I gather there are four of them.

I will outline what we should be doing. We are keen to see the maximum possible reform, but reform must be real rather than some populist headline-grabbing statements. Sinn Féin believes the reform programme should be guided by the key principles of democracy, accountability, devolution to local government and stronger public services. These principles must be the cornerstone on top of which we can build a national all-Ireland democracy. That is what we should be building. The democracy we have in mind is participative and would be rooted in our communities. Certainly, the Seanad does not represent that. Our democracy would reflect a new Ireland. The reformed structures should be fit for purpose and should be accountable to those they serve. They should have the confidence of the public. At the moment the Seanad does none of that. If we were to have a reformed Seanad, it should be elected by universal suffrage, by every resident on the island, North and South, over 16 years of age. Suffrage should not stop at Dundalk or Lifford. Everyone in the Thirty-two Counties should have the opportunity to vote for a new reformed Seanad once they are over 16 years of age. The debate on how we should reform the structures must be informed and balanced and alternatives must be explored. What we have before us is ill-informed and stunted. That is why the Constitutional Convention should be used.

Reference was made to other jurisdictions where there is a single chamber, but they have strong regional and local government and accountability. In those states there tends to be a greater division between the executive, the cabinet and the legislature, the equivalent of the Dáil in this country. However, in this State we have seen time and again how the Government has railroaded Bills through and guillotined Bills. We have seen how the gang of four calls the shots.

The debate on the future of the Seanad must be part of an overall debate and a national conversation about reforming the democratic structures of the State. I notice that some people on the Government benches have referred to that as well and I welcome that. Anyway, we must reform this Chamber as well. This is about putting proper accountable democratic structures in place in the Dáil and in any new Seanad. I would go as far as to say that we should have a national conversation about the structures we want to have in a new united Ireland. As a republican I am keen to see a united Ireland with a national democracy delivering for all the people. This is why I believe a first step should be to give people in the Six Counties a vote in any new reformed Seanad.

To abolish the Seanad, town councils and borough councils, to reduce the number of councillors and Deputies, to take away further powers from local government - for example, water will be dealt with by the new water body - amounts to disenfranchising the public and taking local and national government further away from people. It is alienating people. I am flagging it for the Government. We have seen it before our eyes over the past ten or 15 years. I passionately believe that these changes are alienating people from politics and decision-making. It is undemocratic and I do not believe it is healthy. This debate is in the wrong place. It should be taking place at the Constitutional Convention first. We should allow a more full and robust debate about democratic structures in the State and throughout the island.

It is very unfair to present the case this way. One must vote either to abolish it or to retain it. I am keen to see it reformed and I am keen to see a proper accountable Seanad elected by universal suffrage. This is an unfortunate development and what we are doing may actually be seen as a wasted opportunity. The members of Fine Gael did not even know that the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, was going to say what he said that night. They were taken by surprise. Deputies and councillors who are members of the main Government party said as much to me at the time. This is not well thought out. A commitment was given and the Government may wish to stick to it, but the Government should have another look at this and at the least put forward a third option of serious reform.

See this speech in context