Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In attempting to get my thoughts together on this subject prior to the debate, I discovered several contradictions in my position. One of the reasons I was motivated to contribute today was in order to increase my participation. I suspect that if a survey were conducted among Members, the results would indicate an inverse relationship between length of time spent in the Dáil and participation in debates, unless one is a Minister or party leader. Whether it is a cynicism or weariness which takes hold after a certain period of time in this House, it is difficult not to conclude that although one can make the finest speeches in the land and produce the most wonderful proposals, unless one is a member of Government one will have very little influence or impact.

I recall Vincent Browne doing a survey of Dáil contributions on his radio show prior to the 2002 election. Every night he would proclaim his shock and surprise at the quality of speeches made in the House. The reality, however, is that many excellent proposals and suggestions have been made in this Chamber only to fall on deaf ears for a myriad reasons. During the Celtic tiger years, for example, there were many calls for a halt to spending in the area of housing and elsewhere. Some of these contributions were reported and others were not. There certainly was no continuum of reportage which would have allowed such proposals to resonate with people. The public has a short memory, particularly during difficult economic times when social issues and matters such as political reform are unlikely to engage it at a meaningful level.

In considering the question of Oireachtas reform, I am reminded of an observation by Boris Pasternak, the Russian writer, who observed that Adam might have turned to Eve as they were leaving the Garden of Eden and observed that they were merely going through a period of transition. In our discussion of political reform it is important to remember that we do not necessarily have a monopoly of wisdom, notwithstanding our insistence that mistakes made in the past must never recur. In preparing for this discussion I came across a relevant extract from a debate which took place in this House some 20 years ago, which I will outline in due course, time permitting. It is illuminating because it highlights the point I am making here. The week before last I visited Normandy where the message that kept coming up at the various visitor attractions was that what happened in the First World War should never again be permitted. Yet here we are, almost 100 years later, hearing about atrocities taking place in Syria, in central Africa and elsewhere. It seems the more we talk about change the less actual change is achieved.

I support any legislation which allows the people to have their say. It is important to bear in mind Article 27 of the Constitution, which permits the calling of a referendum on a particular issue where one third of Members of the Dáil together with a majority of Members of the Seanad request it. If the Seanad is abolished, that constitutional provision will have to be replaced by a similar mechanism in a situation where the Dáil is the single House of Parliament. Notwithstanding my enthusiasm for allowing the people their say, I am also very wary of referenda because it is so difficult to get one's message across. The referendum commission is obliged to be perfectly balanced in its provision of information to the public even where a proposal enjoys unanimous political support. A classic example of the difficulties that can arise in this regard was last year's referendum on children's rights. An opinion poll three weeks before that vote showed only 4% of respondents intending to vote "No" whereas the actual "No" vote was some 48%. Incidentally, 91% of poll respondents indicated an intention to vote, but only 33% of the electorate turned out 21 days later. Opinion polling in the context of referenda on social areas reflects the fluidity of public opinion over the course of a campaign.

I support this legislation. Until quite recently I was indifferent to the prospect of the abolition of the Upper House and, like others, weary of the talk of Seanad reform. I could make a great case for the abolition of the Upper House or for its retention. Likewise, there is a case to be made for either the abolition or retention of the Dáil. Certainly, if a proposal to abolish this House were put to the people I would be nervous about the outcome. While the Seanad receives nothing like the attention given to the Dáil, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of Mr. Jimmy Walsh of The Irish Times over many years. He always managed to identify the pertinent contributions for inclusion in his report on Seanad proceedings. We in politics are inclined to criticise the media. We are lambasted when the Chamber is empty, but I cannot help but notice that the Press Gallery is not very busy today. Perhaps the members of the press are, like many Deputies, working in their offices. As a result of the failure to report Oireachtas proceedings in a comprehensive way, very important debates are not made known to the public. I am the first to admit that a great deal of waffle is spoken in this House, but many useful contributions are simply not reported.

One of my concerns regarding the potential abolition of the Seanad relates to the power of the Executive. My Private Members' Bill, the Good Samaritan Bill 2005, involved no cost for the Exchequer, was demonstrably in the common interest and was, everybody agreed, a worthwhile proposal. It was rejected by the then Government, however, on the basis that similar proposals were under consideration by the Law Reform Commission. When I subsequently brought forward a second Bill which reflected the recommendations made by the commission, it was again rejected. Finally, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, included the same provisions in one of his own Bills. This type of refusal to take on board the contribution of ordinary Members of the House is a shortcoming of our parliamentary system. Instead of abolishing the Seanad, we should perhaps focus on decommissioning that mindset. We are all aware of the wonderful achievement that was the decommissioning of weapons in the North, but there will never really be peace and harmony in that jurisdiction until we also decommission mindsets, which can only be done through amalgamated schooling and so on. A similar decommissioning of mindsets here in the Oireachtas is vital if we are to have effective reform.

Although a member of one of the parties of Government, I am not a member of the Executive.

See this speech in context