Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this very important and historic topic. We need a reasoned debate on the issue. There are many diverse opinions on the Upper House of Oireachtas Éireann and the question is whether we should abolish the Seanad or reform it. The Labour Party has taken a long, hard look at the Seanad and in our view, the case for its retention has been lost. It is not possible to identify any body or section of society, such as university graduates or county councillors, that should be singled out as constituting a special or separate electorate whose members who should be entitled to vote in their own special House of the Oireachtas.

In a small country such as Ireland, there is no need for a second House and that has been shown throughout as best practice.

Many hold the view that it is simply a nursing home for politicians who have served in the Dáil and at the same time a nursery for those seeking higher office later in life, a view which is perhaps unjustifiable in some cases. The Seanad has a very restricted constituency in that it is made up of persons elected by county councillors, graduates of some universities only, and another 11 persons nominated by the Taoiseach. Wherever people stand on this issue, one point is clear. The Seanad cannot remain on in its current form. It must be either reformed or removed.

Historically, two-tier parliaments like our own were set up so that the upper house could hold the lower house to some kind of accountability. It usually did so by delaying legislation where it was felt that the lower chamber was trying to rush through some law, or it did so by delaying the passing of a budget. However, most upper houses, including our own, have been somewhat weakened over the years and now do not exercise any real power. As a consequence, they are seen by the public as redundant to the needs of the parliament, but this is a view with which I do not always agree and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work done by my Labour colleagues in the Seanad.

The Seanad is seen as undemocratic and, in reality, since its inception, its role has been limited. It is a historical institution borrowed from the British Administration of the past. Many hold this view, even cross-party. Many who have gone before us in this House have outlined their dissatisfaction with the Seanad and have clearly articulated that it has fulfilled no real part in national affairs, despite being a costly burden on the taxpayer. "One vote, one voice" has always been the primary principle in a democratic system. This principle rings hollow in the Seanad, where many can be nominated at the discretion of the Taoiseach. The ordinary man or woman has had no hand, act or part in this selection. Real or perceived, the public view is that the Seanad is an elitist, aloof institution and it has stayed too long to be of any use to anybody. However, practitioners here in the Oireachtas do not always see this to be the case.

If we were to reform the Seanad, we would have to change the way in which it is elected. As it stands, it is an affront to democracy. We would have to make it stronger and give it more power and more of a say in the legislation of the country. Is this possible or even practical? We have a legislative assembly already, that is, the Dáil.

Like some of my Labour Party colleagues, especially Deputy McNamara, I am concerned at the proposal included to delete Article 27 of the Constitution, entitled "Reference of Bills to the People". Article 27 gives power to the Oireachtas to seek the views of the people on legislation which contains "a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained". There were many occasions in the past where this should have been used. For example, the bank guarantee was an issue of national importance and where the will of the people could have been sought. This is an invaluable tool of democracy and one not to be dismissed lightly. I hope the Minister will take this on board. Real power should lie with the people and not only must they be able to have their say but also they must feel they are being listened to.

In the past we have looked at countries such as Sweden to examine best practice in child care and care for the elderly. They may also have a lesson for us in this issue. The Swedish system of government is based on subsidiarity, which is one of the main themes in decentralisation where a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively. To that end, the Swedish system is made up of three branches - national, regional and local. The national level is self-evident. The regional level is divided into 20 different counties. Each of the county councils is responsible for overseeing most of the tasks of which we are aware. I note that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is making certain changes in the local government system. Some of my colleagues, as town councillors, are not happy about that, but so be it. The Minister is making some good changes. If the people vote to abolish the Seanad, it gives us great scope to strengthen the local authorities even further.

See this speech in context