Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will play it by ear. I listened to some of the debate in my office. Many people share my belief that this State has a democratic and governance deficit. That is a view shared across all parties and none. We know from opinion polls that people hold politicians and political institutions in low esteem and low voter turnout across the State is another manifestation of this standing. If we were to read certain sections of the media we would all pack up our bags at this stage. Speakers have mentioned people being cynical about politics and political institutions. That is understandable if one bears in mind what we have been through, and given the aspirations of people as they look at their livelihoods and see things crashing down around them. For them, this pillar in society called "politics", which includes politicians and political institutions, has been pulled down, probably rightly.

This Government was elected in 2011, with one of its main promises centred on political reform. The programme for Government contains 69 separate references to political reform but all we have got after two and a half years is rhetoric and piecemeal reform. There is talk of Dáil reform but I have yet to see any reasonable and concrete suggestions come from the Government on this issue. The only idea that has been strongly suggested, the one that has curried favour according to spokespersons on radio and television, is cutting the number of Deputies by eight. That is a great idea. That will reform things. The Ministers who promote this will not let it happen in their constituencies and it will not be their seats that will be done away with. This will not offer anything by way of reform given the expectations people have.

There were commitments in the programme for Government to end the practice of Ministers of State reading scripts, as I am doing now, or as happens in a number of Departments, replying to Topical Issue debates on matters not covered by their brief. The Ceann Comhairle has probably heard this complaint from all sides of the House. The Topical Issues debate was a new mechanism to address urgent issues, a system where the body politic could respond to urgent or vital issues, but what has happened? Research by The Irish Times shows that on average Ministers fail to appear in the Dáil to answer Topical Issue matters appropriate to their Departments a whopping three times out of four. People believed this would be a change from the previous system but there has not been any real reform. The same research showed that 40% of issues were dealt with by a Minister of State from a non-relevant Department who merely read from a script. This is frustrating for any of us who use this mechanism to ask questions. A Minister looks blankly at the speaker and is clearly not aware of the issues. This can happen even with a Minister connected to the Department in question. It is hardly meaningful reform.

Research also highlights the fact that the Government guillotines the majority of Bills going through the Dáil. The argument against the guillotine was put when people sat on different seats but this Government has some of its most ardent advocates. Figures show that 52 of 90 Bills, some 57% of all Bills passed, were guillotined. Again, we say one thing but do the other in respect of reform. This will be surprising to some considering that the programme for Government states its commitment to restricting “the use of guillotine motions and other procedural devices that prevent Bills from being fully debated”.

There is a strong view across all parties that the Friday sittings are nothing but window-dressing and that real power has been centralised even more within the Cabinet, in particular around the four male-only members of the Economic Management Council which has significant powers.

The Government also took the hatchet to several tiers of local government. Town and borough councils are going and the number of council seats is to be reduced from 1,627 to 949. It is becoming increasingly clear that not only is this Government using the recession as an excuse to implement harsh and cruel cuts under the name of austerity but it also seems to be using the cover of reform as an excuse to cut away at political institutions.

I and my party completely support reform of the State's political system. If one talks privately to people most will say the current structures are definitely not fit for purpose and, more important, are not delivering for citizens. We do not stand over reform being used as a substitute for cuts, however. We need to look at where change can come. Reform must involve making changes and improving the role and remit of our political institutions, not centralising power around men in grey suits. I am wearing my brown suit today and I note the Minister is not wearing his grey one.

Sinn Féin believes Government and political reform should be guided by the key principles of democracy, accountability, devolution to local government and stronger public services. These principles must be the cornerstone on top of which we can build a national all-Ireland democracy. In its current form the Seanad is not fit for purpose. That is no reflection on current or past Members. Sinn Féin has always stated its belief that the current structure is elitist and undemocratic. In many cases the Seanad simply rubberstamps the decisions of the Dáil. People may take a different view on that. Other speakers have addressed how Members are elected, the question of university seats and how these can be opened up.

The Government had a real chance to improve the Oireachtas by placing the issue of Seanad reform before the Constitutional Convention before it proposed a referendum to abolish the Seanad. That view has been reflected by speakers across the House and Members of all parties express this both publicly and privately. I do not know why the decision was taken to go down this road. The Government could have proposed direct elections of Members to the Seanad, extending the vote to all citizens of this island over the age of 16. That would be a radical reform. People spoke this way about opening up the presidential elections and my party suggested that anybody aged over 16 should have that vote. The Government might have examined the somewhat controversial prospect of reserving seats for Irish Unionists. It could have explored the option of reserving seats for immigrants to Ireland, or having representatives for Irish emigrants, better known as the diaspora. We could have opened up to minorities or created mechanisms to involve civic society. There is a community forum deficit in that regard, both North and South.

The Government rejected this democratic and egalitarian approach to follow what many would call a crude and harsh route. It has pushed forward to promote a referendum with only two options, to abolish or to maintain. This does not fit with the views of many people and again reflects what so many say, that we say one thing in regard to reform but what is proposed is not real reform. We are only tinkering around the edges.

The Government is quick to argue that other countries function well with one chamber but it is not comparing like with like. Most of the countries in question have built in checks and balances to ensure proper accountability, transparency and representation for all their citizens, as well as effective systems of local government that ensure power is not as centralised as in Ireland. The parliamentary committees of these countries are not dominated and controlled by their governments. I have spoken to a number of people across Europe who expressed surprise that the committee system in Ireland is dominated by the Government. Other committees have strong powers to direct Ministers, unlike our system in which committees can only make a suggestion or send a polite letter. In many of these countries the division between the executive, the cabinet and the legislature is clearer than in Ireland.

A reformed Seanad would have an opportunity to right some of the wrongs in this State's political system by opening it up to a wide variety citizens and making it directly answerable to all the people of this island. That view has been expressed by a number of commentators.

The Government is using this debate as a smokescreen for the absence of real political reform. It is neglecting to tell the people that its programme of reform would result in a Dáil that is even more dysfunctional, a weaker system of local government and a Legislature dominated by the Executive. That is a criticism which other speakers have made during this debate. There is general agreement that governance reform is badly needed and the Seanad as it currently exists is not fit for purpose. The question arises, however, of what will replace it. If it is abolished, I cannot see it returning in a more enlightened form. People are saying they will bring it back if they get into power but if it is gone, it will not return. We have a real opportunity now to bring about change. I urge the Government to reflect on what has been said during this debate.

We should refer this important issue to the Constitutional Convention, which was supposed to be a mechanism for debating constitutional reform. The convention could propose alternative options to the current either-or choice. People will be frustrated when they come to the ballot box. If we asked people tomorrow whether they wanted to abolish the Dáil they would probably vote "Yes". I speak as a person who previously lost a seat in the Dáil. Reform is needed but we must work collectively to improve our system.

Many good people have passed through the Seanad and it has produced useful Bills. I am not aware of its day-to-day business. At one stage I could have been nominated to Seanad but my party decided to pick someone else. The Seanad was seen in the past as a place where people were put out to grass, but so was the European Parliament. That does not reflect the hard work many Senators do on a daily basis.

I appeal to the Government to reconsider this proposal. I do not expect it to change course on foot of what I say, but this debate has been useful. If we can come up with ideas for reform of this House and the Seanad, this will be a good day's work. We need to examine how this House is structured. I am as frustrated as everyone else about some of the carry-on in which Members engage. The committee structure certainly needs to be reformed and strengthened. I can understand why the Government might be reluctant to introduce radical change for fear that people might delay legislation or cause embarrassment, but if that happened, it would strengthen democracy in Ireland. It certainly would go down well with the electorate.

See this speech in context