Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy and the Technical Group for facilitating me and giving me the chance to speak.

I am strongly in favour of the abolition of the Seanad. I have been a Member of this House for more than 20 years and during that time I have observed that our second House is, on the whole, ineffective, lacks real teeth and does not have a proper role in the political system. I have believed for many years that the abolition of the Seanad and a move to introduce greater Dáil reform coupled with radical reforms in local government is the way forward in improving democratic accountability. On the issue of costs alone, I agree that the Seanad should be abolished. I am happy to go forward with 170 senior politicians - 158 Deputies, an tUachtarán and the 11 MEPs, but the savings made through the abolition of the Seanad should be ploughed back into enhancing the resources of Dáil Éireann and into local government.

I first visited the Oireachtas as a teenager when I was in the Irish politics class of Dr. Maurice Manning. While I might not have agreed with the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael dominance of Dáil Éireann then - as now to some extent - I could see on that visit that Dáil Éireann had major and influential figures such as Frank Cluskey, Brendan Corish, John Kelly, Jack Lynch and Charles Haughey. When we visited the Upper Chamber, it seemed as if we had stepped into the somnolent parlour of some sporting or business club. The contrast certainly was a shock for our class.

Over ten years ago, when the former Deputy, Mrs. Mary O’Rourke, was Leader of the Seanad and held a public consultation on the operation of the House, I proposed the abolition of the Seanad because of its fundamentally undemocratic nature and its history of providing only a minimal contribution to Irish governance since Eamon de Valera reinstituted it. We should not forget that Eamon de Valera abolished the first Seanad.

Of course, I recognise that many Senators on an individual basis have made a considerable contribution to civic society and Irish politics over the years. Over decades past, people like T.K. Whitaker, Maurice Hayes, President Michael D. Higgins, Mary Robinson, the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Costello and the late great Pat Upton have graced the Seanad. Senator David Norris continues to make an eminent contribution, as have other Independent Senators, including Deputy Shane Ross and Senators John Crown and Rónán Mullen, who have always contributed well to the wider public debate. As in every Seanad, the current group of Labour Senators led by Senator Ivana Bacik have always contributed well to Irish politics. Many of the talented cohort of current Senators of course could and should stand for election to Dáil Éireann during the next general election campaign, whenever it happens. Despite the good individual contributions made by a number of outstanding people, the Seanad remains a profoundly ineffective institution.

Montesquieu, of course, proposed the tripartite system of governance based on the separation of powers.

This is a feature of so many political systems today and it influences the famous constitution of the United States. The importance of the checks and balances between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary was also a feature of Montesquieu's theory.

Anyway, the current operation of our Legislature is regrettably largely controlled by the Executive of the day and many Members and commentators believe rightly that control is growing each year. Proponents of Seanad reform, including the newly established group, Democracy Matters, have argued that the abolition of the Seanad would further erode the ability of the Parliament to hold the Government to account. I do not agree with that proposition but I believe that any potential role the Seanad could play in this regard could just as easily be performed by the 158 Dáil Deputies of the next Dáil.

The Seanad has had little input in providing a meaningful contribution to legislation going through the Oireachtas. Professor Manning has noted in his history of the Seanad that only two Bills have been rejected in the Seanad. The first in 1959 related to proportional representation and the second in 1963 was the Pawnbrokers Bill. Furthermore, a potentially strong power of the majority of the Seanad along with one third of the Dáil to initiate a so-called ordinary referendum has never been initiated.

Coakley has pointed out that Ireland and Slovenia are the only two countries in the OECD that are unitary states with a population of less than 10 million which have a bicameral parliament. Ireland and Slovenia are also the only two countries in which the second chamber was designed to represent functional and vocational interests. De Valera's ideal that our second House would represent vocational interests has been largely illusory since most of the representatives who have come through the vocational system are politicians. Real vocational representatives have, generally, never been elected.

Most Seanaid, including the Seanad I first witnessed, are composed of older former Deputies or candidates who missed out on election, young and upcoming Dáil candidates, figures from civic society who have performed services to our nation and a few, sometimes independent, Senators who are long-standing professional Senators who would contribute to civic society whether they were Members of the Seanad.

In his speech the Taoiseach noted that the savings to be accrued from the abolition of the Seanad would be of the order of €20 million initially with a further €100 million saved over the electoral term. Others have put the overall related costs of the Seanad at approximately €200 million. Obviously, in the current challenging economic situation with which our country is faced savings of this nature are important. There is indeed a need to reduce the number of politicians in this country overall, but we cannot abolish a political institution simply to save money. Some savings should be made and the Taoiseach has also referred to savings that will be made under the Government's proposed reforms of local government. I strongly believe that reform of the Dáil system and the re-launching of true local democracy is the right way forward.

The sad reality is that the Seanad is impossible to reform and there is no real scope to reform it. In this small unitary State there is no political role the Seanad can be given. As has been pointed out in two excellent briefings from the Oireachtas library and research service, several European countries, including some from Scandinavia, as well as New Zealand, have abolished their second chambers in modern times. Those Scandinavian democracies and New Zealand function perfectly well with unicameral parliaments. What is striking about those countries that are now unicameral is that they continue to have strong local government systems.

Reform of the Seanad is impossible because it would inevitably lead to what in the United Kingdom used to be referred to as the House of Lords problem. If the Members of the Seanad were elected directly by the people, inevitably the larger constituencies needed would give Senators a better mandate than Deputies have. Greater powers would have to be given to such a democratic Seanad and, inevitably, clashes would occur with the people's House, the Dáil. The Liberal Government of pre-First World War England had to deliberately break the power of the House of Lords to stop it obstructing the will of the people. Ultimately, in a small unitary state such as Ireland the people themselves represent the checks and balances and are effectively the second Chamber. With the growth of online communications we can look forward to a time when the people could be invited to make key decisions on many more issues, for example, on the budget in October. We are not quite there yet but the day will come.

Not nearly enough reform of the Dáil has occurred since the Government took office in March 2011. We need real and substantial powers for the Dáil to examine fully legislation without the frequent threat of a guillotine and we need stronger committees. One small reform that has emerged since the start of this Dáil is that Government Deputies can now question the Taoiseach. This reform was led by several Members, including Deputy Joanna Tuffy, Deputy Durkan and myself.

I commend the Ceann Comhairle on his strong attempts and efforts to assist backbenchers and protect them during Friday sittings. Such sittings take place once a month but we still encounter a rigid whip system in the consideration of legislation of this nature. I have heard the Ceann Comhairle protest on several occasions that the Order of Business on that day should be set by Deputies and that the role of the Ceann Comhairle should be to guide us and conduct us through the day. I hope the Minister will take that point on board and that the whipping of Business on a Friday will stop. It is refreshing on Fridays that one can simply put up one's hand, come forward and say a few words.

See this speech in context