Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this issue in respect of which my views are fairly well known. I have long since expressed my opposition to the concept of the abolition of any element of our democratic structures, the Seanad being one. That said, I have no difficulty in having a referendum where the people are called upon to make a decision as to what lies in the future. It is appropriate. I would like to see a number of options placed before the people in the referendum on whether the Seanad should be abolished or reformed. In such circumstances the people would go for reform.

I wish to particularly address some of the issues raised by my colleague with regard to cynicism. Cynicism is very dangerous and should never be allowed overtake or overcome a democracy. Any time in history cynicism overtook democracy there were appalling consequences. I listened with interest to Deputy Boyd Barrett, who seemed to think there was appalling anger out there which manifested itself in his admission to the House, because we presume this is the basis on which people come to the House. He also quoted Lenin at some length and went on to discuss a new form of democracy which would be a people's assembly. Parliament is a people's assembly whereby the people take the responsibility of electing people to Parliament. In return, the parliamentarians do their best to do the job they are given to do, whatever the circumstances may be. Sometimes it is done well and sometimes it is not, but the power to remove them is always in the hands of the people, and this should be at intervals.

When I was a child a fairly large European country used to have a new government every six weeks. This was the case in more than one European country. The reason was the economic difficulties in the aftermath of the war. At times of economic difficulty we should be very careful not to interfere with democracy because this is the time when the most serious damage is likely to be done.

Of course one can harness cynicism. What is the real problem which made the people so cynical? The people felt there was no change and Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to this. Why was there no change? I spoke about this in the House at least 20 years ago after an election when there had been no change even though the outgoing Government was defeated. The reason it happened, not only in this country but in other European countries also, is because the outgoing main party selected one group from the Opposition and continued in government regardless of losing its mandate in the election. This is what has undermined democracy in many European countries and is what has annoyed the people. It is one of the major causes of the paralysis which has developed over the past ten or 15 years throughout Europe.

The proposals suggested to remedy the deficiencies in our democratic system are already in place in other European countries. These include list systems and unicameral parliaments. They did not stop the play from going wrong or the economy from falling into jeopardy. They did not stop anything. This is not what the issue is. The issue is something totally different, but unfortunately it is at times of economic distress that people look around for a suitable whipping boy and identify democracy as part of the problem.

I totally dismiss the argument we cannot afford a second House. It is unbelievable this has been suggested. If we cannot afford a second House we cannot afford democracy. If we cannot afford democracy we have a serious problem. This is the way it has always been. We must always remember democracy costs something. It cannot be dismissed or toned down. We should be very careful not to curtail democracy because every time we do so we increase bureaucracy and the power of the unelected appointees and those who could never get elected and I hope never will get elected. We get into a situation whereby we, as Members of Parliament, become dependent on the activities of people who were never elected.

I remember once having an argument with colleagues from the Netherlands and Italy only to discover halfway through the conversation that neither of the two had ever been elected anywhere. I found myself at a complete disadvantage. Here I was in my own humble way trying to represent the views of the people who elected me, from the Parliament which delegated particular responsibilities to me, to find my colleagues on the opposite side had never been elected anywhere by anybody but were lucky enough to be on somebody's list at somebody else's cost to get into their position.

This means more power to the Executive, which is a dangerous thing, and I have heard criticism from both sides of the House in this regard. I notice the Opposition has harped on quite a bit about the extensive arrogance of the Government, the lack of democracy and the use of the guillotine. If they had been on that side of the House for the past 14 years they would have known all about it. On many mornings I stood up on that side of the House after 25 parliamentary questions I had tabled had been rejected by the Ceann Comhairle as not relevant because the Minister had no responsibility to the House, even though all the services about which I was inquiring were funded by the State. I was told again and again the Minister had no responsibility to the House to such an extent I began to inquire whether the Minister had any responsibility to anybody. This was another part of the failing which led to the people becoming cynical about politics.

The most important issue about cynicism in politics is that the power is in the hands of the people. What has happened in this country over the years is that the public has been encouraged to disassociate the consequences of its activity in the ballot box with what happens afterwards, and this is sad. My colleague, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl, spoke at some length about promises being kept.

Had the Fianna Fáil Government that was elected that year with a large majority not kept its lavish promises, the fiscal independence of the State would not have been undermined and the country would have been far better off. These are not my words, but the admission by a former Minister. It was the saddest time ever. Do Members remember what happened? Two and a half years after the 1977 general election, the Taoiseach of the day had to resign because the country was in hock up to its ears thanks to the lavish promises made.

The members of the public must recognise their power and responsibility. We must explain it to them regularly. In the 2007 general election, everyone in the House knew that the country was broke, but the voting public did not believe it. This was the case to such an extent that Opposition parties needed to make promises that they knew were unsustainable. The public voted to retain what they had. This is the public's weakness. We must explain to them in greater detail that proceeding in a particular direction can be to the detriment of democracy.

The suspicion of the democratic process is not new in Europe. I was amazed by the extent to which Deputy Boyd Barrett skirted around this fact when he quoted Lenin. He could have quoted a number of people who became prominent in Europe in the 1930s when the direction the system was taking was easily recognisable. Democracy was suspended in many European countries.

Regarding the question on the need for a bicameral system, it has been stated that we should compare Ireland with eastern European countries. I disagree, as democracy has different meanings for different people. In some European countries, it is a relatively new development. They went from feudalism to war and from oppression to democracy. We should not need to compare ourselves with anyone to determine whether democracy is failing. We should set the highest standards for ourselves and be unapologetic. To the cynical public, we must explain that it can change the democratic process at every election.

I wish to address the necessity of a second House. In any democratic system, it is a good idea to have a second House with a different perspective of legislation. Our Bills go through ten Stages instead of the five Stages that would apply in a unicameral Parliament. As proof, Ministers have accepted countless amendments in the Seanad.

To those who claim there is no longer democracy in the Dáil, I remember when, upon tabling more than 100 amendments to a Bill while sitting on the other side of the House before the last general election, I was told by a committee Chairman that the Bill would be dealt with in two or three hours regardless of whether I liked it. The guillotine was alive and well, nor did we need to wait until 14 July to see it.

There is a strong case for improving the Seanad and for relying on a vocational body with a different perspective. The original intention behind the Seanad was to give a different electorate - an electoral college - an overview. To those who assert that it is undemocratic, what is undemocratic about it? There are electoral colleges across Europe and the US. Many countries elect their presidents and politicians through electoral colleges. There is nothing wrong with it as long as the system is not entirely based on electoral colleges. In Ireland, there are direct elections to the Dáil and, as a balancing influence, an electoral college of councillors and vocational groups for the Seanad.

Disparaging remarks have been made about the quality of the Seanad. A number of distinguished people who contributed significantly to public life started or spent some of their time in the Seanad, including the Minister sitting before me, the former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald, the late Brian Lenihan, former Minister Pat Cooney, Maurice Manning, the Ministers for Education and Skills and Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputies Quinn and Howlin, respectively, John Robb, Seamus Mallon and a host of others. This fact should not be overlooked. The Seanad was good enough in those times, some of which were not great, and the people I have mentioned were intelligent, capable of discerning between the frivolous and the necessary and took their decisions seriously. We should revert to that situation.

By all means, let us reform and make the Seanad effective, but let us not have a place that we despise or for which we have contempt. Those who were elected to the Seanad have given a good account of themselves. I do not doubt that others would be well able to do so again in the future.

See this speech in context