Dáil debates

Thursday, 20 June 2013

An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: Second Stage (Resumed) - Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

1:25 pm

Photo of Arthur SpringArthur Spring (Kerry North-West Limerick, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am in favour of saving the Seanad and I will outline my reasons. The previous Deputy spoke of our current President, Michael D. Higgins, and one can also consider a former president and member of my party, Mary Robinson, and the contribution they have made to society. One wonders if they could have had a platform on which to launch a political career of such importance to our country without a Seanad. We also know a former Taoiseach from Fine Gael, Garrett FitzGerald, a good man for the people of Ireland, also started his career in the Seanad. A certain calibre of people have come through the Seanad and they have gone on to make a significant political contribution not just in this House but also to the presidency and within political parties in instances where they have not become Deputies.

There is as much enlightenment within the Upper House as there is in the Lower House, and we should not underestimate what will happen. The appetite of the Irish public is not to keep on politicians who are costing the Exchequer significant amounts, and the lowest common denominator is often where we head to in politics and media coverage. There is a need for enormous reform in how we conduct business in this House and in our relationship with the media. We must also consider how people are provided with access to informed debate through media rather than headline arguments. There is a level of cynicism directed at politics and the media which serves neither side well.

Modern politics is far from where it was at the foundation of the State and we can agree that the complexity can only be met by expertise, specialty and dedication. The Taoiseach has spoken about a four-day sitting week for the Dáil and although I agree with many of his points, a four-day sitting every week will not keep us in touch with the people or the reality on the ground and it will not make this place more productive. For example, when we are working during the course of the day on committees or elsewhere, if somebody decides there is to be a vote, we must all rise, with a disruption of business for half an hour. With 166 Deputies disrupted for half an hour, the immediate loss is approximately 83 man hours. No business, commercial entity or State organisation would put up with such a lack of productivity, and the simple solution is to group votes at the end of the week.

There is also a need to consider best practice elsewhere, and we can consider Scandinavia as an example, where I was privileged to have studied for a year. We can also consider the Germanic model of having two weeks on and two weeks off, where a politician reads documents and has access to committees and departments for research purposes. There is also the possibility of speaking to interest groups before bringing forward proposals.

We all like the idea of being significant and relevant in Irish society but the idea that the Dáil is far more significant in how the Executive runs than the Seanad is something I do not believe in as a first-time Deputy. My Labour Party colleague in Kerry provides a service to people, and people need and welcome this. The idea of doing away with a second Chamber that examines the Dáil indicates we have a monopoly on wisdom within this Chamber. There are some fine people in the Upper Chamber we would like to see having a larger role in society.

We have spoken about empowering committees but the most important factor for all committees is how much access they have to finance. We should have a better budgetary system than the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputies Noonan and Howlin, coming here and producing a document that we either favour or do not favour on the basis of our political party membership. Nevertheless, I have the utmost respect for those men. There is an appetite in the people for us to say we are not in favour of such a process, and the electorate are educated and informed. They find it a little crazy that we rubber-stamp a budget like that, and they would like to be far more informed about what is going on. That is a bigger issue.

The role of the Executive can be examined on many fronts and when a Minister has complete power, there must be a detailed examination of what that entails. Far too often a Minister's weekly schedule involves a scissors and cheque book while travelling the length and breadth of the country, covering as many as 2,000 miles per week. That is not just this or the last Government, and it is supposedly what Ministers are meant to do. I would be delighted as a member of the Executive if that was the case because it would not leave time for consideration of a portfolio.

We should consider single seat constituencies. If we want policy-based politics, we should examine how to prioritise ideology rather than personalities. Many of us in the Chamber have been told that we come from political dynasties, or as I say myself, a genetic disposition towards politics-----

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.