Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will diverge from my colleague’s view on the debate. I have no problem with the abolition of the Seanad, as such, because it is elitist and does not live up to the corporate ideals that inspired de Valera’s reconstruction of the Seanad in the 1930s.

That said, I recognise that many Senators made valuable contributions to political life in this country. It would be unfair not to acknowledge that. I refer, for example, to contraception, which was first discussed many decades ago in that arena led by Mary Robinson. I acknowledge the good work that has been done by the Seanad.

My next point will not be popular with the public. If we abolish the Seanad it is important that we look after Deputies who lose their Dáil seats because we must not allow a situation to develop whereby people of small means cannot get involved in politics. It is important that this Chamber would be as representative of the general public as possible. As part of that we must ensure that it is not an insurmountable risk for one to seek election. We must examine the situation carefully if the Seanad is abolished.

There is no Government incentive currently to encourage Deputies to try to get the referendum across the line. The Cabinet’s ideal is that we would all be good boys and girls and come in and press the right buttons at the right time, but we must do more than that. The Cabinet accepts that backbench Deputies must be more than that but if Ministers are being honest with themselves, that would be the ideal; it would be less hassle and they could get on with life more easily. Politics is not about an easy life, however, so we must avoid that situation.

There is a need to present a strong package of parliamentary reform as part of the debate. We may well find that, unless such reform is put in train, the people decide to retain the Seanad. Regardless of whether the Seanad is to be abolished, reform is necessary. I refer to reform at two different levels. First, at local level it is important that we build on the reform we started in terms of giving local authorities more control over their financial resources. The property tax, unpopular and all as it is, is a start in that direction. It is important that the authority of councils is held by those who are elected and that staff such as county managers serve the people rather than the other way around where so much power is the hands of the unelected.

At Dáil level there is a pressing need to improve the situation. First, we must work to ensure greater powers for committees. There was an attempt to progress the situation in the inquiries referendum last year but we must try to get to a situation where we have compellability of witnesses so as to bring about a better reformed society. We require direct input from Deputies from all sides of the House, if possible, at heads of Bill level, and an ability to influence the Cabinet at that stage. We also need a satisfactory way to deal with Private Members’ Bills. I had the honour of bringing a Bill before the House on Friday last. It is not easy to progress a Bill, either mine or any other and we must work out how to do that. I do not see why there cannot be a free vote on Bills that have no negative financial impact on the Government. I accept that if a proposed Bill were to lead to expenditure of €500 million the Government would have to apologise and say it did not have the money but we must get away from the mindset that there can never be a free vote.

I accept this is not perhaps the best time to raise the issue. I appreciate that the Whip system protects some Deputies in the current debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. We must grasp the issue and deal with it. Other parliaments have a much easier approach. In our case it is probably due to the fact that most Governments, with the exception of this one, have slim majorities and therefore a Whip system is important to get legislation passed. Deputies must have more influence in terms of pre-budget submissions.

More extensive oral questioning of Ministers is also required, as is the need for Ministers to respond in person to Topical Issue debates, because far too often the Minister who is responsible for a matter does not answer the Member raising the issue. Another possibility is to allow a certain number, perhaps 40%, of backbenchers to institute parliamentary inquiries. As Ireland is part of the European Union, a much better method of interaction between our national Parliament and the European Union institutions must be worked out because the decisions made there have such an influence on us. An effective conduit is required to bring our views to those institutions and to get a chance on a regular basis to interact with senior people at EU level.

If the situation is not handled properly the people might well decide to retain the Seanad. We must grasp the opportunity to use this occasion to introduce substantial and real parliamentary reform in a way that has often been discussed but rarely instituted. I have to hand a document produced by one of my colleagues, now a Minister, on new and better government, which goes through a list of important areas of parliamentary reform. One could do well to go through it and consider a great many of the suggestions it contains.

See this speech in context