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

I welcome the debate. It is important to discuss the matter and there was no opportunity to do so after the referendum. Members talked about this Bill fixing the system but it is not radical enough. People talked about voters voting for reform in the last election but I do not know that they did. The media interpretation was of a consensus that people wanted to see change but people voted for various reasons. Perhaps people voted against it to send a blow to the Government. Across the House, there is agreement that the system is not working and needs to be fixed. There is a democratic deficit, which many speakers mentioned. There is a deficit in respect of the current system and it must change.

The Fianna Fáil proposal contained in the Bill replicates much of the old system with some amendment, with reference to decreasing the number of Seanad members nominated by the Taoiseach. I welcome the idea of broadening the franchise. There is reference to electing the current Seanad and including graduates at third level institutions. It is wrong that the current system operates with some colleges outside the system. Depending on the college one goes to, one may not be included. It is elitist in that sense.

I note a proposal to include representatives of the broader community groups, including people involved in sports, arts, representatives of the Irish diaspora and Travellers. The reality is that it will still be tokenism and this does not fundamentally address the undemocratic nature of the Seanad as it currently stands. The Government reaction to the rejection of the proposed abolition of the Seanad in the referendum proposes to give all third level graduates a vote in future elections. That was signalled after the result of the referendum. While welcome as an improvement on the current situation, I cannot accept it is a meaningful attempt to genuinely reform the Seanad, nor an attempt to address the commitment in the wake of the rejection of the referendum to radically democratise the Seanad. We have not seen that happen. Since it came back from the referendum, the Seanad has not been inundated with legislation or work. It is the fault of the Government because they are not putting legislation through the House. Plenty of people want to use the House to bring about reform and scrutinise legislation but it is not happening.

The Taoiseach is on record as having rejected the proposal to extend the franchise to all third level graduates as a farcical response to the demand for the Seanad to be transformed into a democratic institution. That was part of the discussion. His rejection of such piecemeal reform was one of the reasons he put forward for the abolition of the Seanad. Sinn Féin wants to see a truly democratic and republican second Chamber and there have been suggestions about the work it could do. There is consensus across the House about the lack of EU scrutiny. The committee system and the way it operates means we do not have the required scrutiny of European measures.

I can understand why elements of old Fianna Fáil, trying to rebrand themselves, would wish to retain the power of the Taoiseach to nominate Members and thus limit the ability of the Seanad to be a critical voice. I have a difficulty with that nomination process. People will say that through the Taoiseach's nominees, various important voices were added to the Seanad but the reality is that has also been part of the Government holding on to its majority in the Seanad. However, it does not reflect what is needed. Previous governments, Fianna Fáil governments in particular, have used the Seanad to nominate their own individuals and former taoisigh have appointed the party faithful - who have been the loyal supporters of the Seanad over the decades - and awarded them with perks, privileges and elite status at the taxpayers' expense. There are examples of that. At least 11 Fianna Fáil Members and supporters were appointed for periods of only one month in order to give them perks, including free city parking in Leinster House, lifelong access to the Dáil, the Members' bar, restaurant facilities, a full month's salary and the right to speak and vote on legislation, rubber-stamping Bills for the Fianna Fáil Government. We are talking about reform but let us reflect on what this has been all about. It was jobs for the boys. It was not about transforming the House and making it operate better, it was about looking after their own. That undermined the structure of the Seanad. Between 1997 and 2011, Fianna Fáil taoisigh filled 40 seats with political cronies, therefore, it is no wonder that they continue to support the idea of future Government nominees to a so-called reformed Seanad in this Bill.

It has been mentioned that party delegates to the Constitutional Convention have called on the Government and the Oireachtas to empower a second Constitutional Convention with a broader mandate to consider issues related to the strengthening of constitutional protection of human rights and outstanding political and institutional reform issues, including Seanad reform. We believe that rather than the Government, Fianna Fáil, ourselves or any other party coming up with proposals to tinker around with the Seanad, as currently constituted, this issue should be passed over to the Constitutional Convention to deliberate on and come up with genuinely democratic proposals and solutions.

I welcome that we are having this discussion and while there is nothing to prevent any political group from submitting its ideas here and having them debated, we believe that a broader discussion involving societal and community representatives is required. Does anyone have a difficulty with the debate on Seanad reform being broadened? Despite the Taoiseach's contention during the referendum campaign that the Seanad was elitist and now that it requires radical reform, he has blocked any suggestion that the Constitutional Convention would consider this issue. Where is the logic in that? We need to broaden the debate if we are all in common agreement that it is working. Let us get the discussion going.

The Constitutional Convention will publish its report on Monday and I understand one of its key proposals is that it will be reconvened to consider Seanad reform. Its record to date, as will be reflected in the report, has been thorough on all the matters put before it. Its debates have been well-informed and reasoned and the convention has managed to arrive at conclusions, despite many people having said that it would be a talking shop and that nothing would emerge from it. The Government should accept that has been the case and examine that proposal.

Why would the Taoiseach object to the convention considering Seanad reform? If his interim position is to extend the franchise to another relatively small section of the electorate, then while that would not be sufficient in my view, the Government should go ahead and do it as it is long overdue. It could be done and the franchise should be expanded. However, such limited extension of the franchise is certainly not enough and it is farcical to have a second Chamber that is not directly elected by universal franchise. I believe there would be broad public support for that.

I thought people would have voted in favour of abolishing the Seanad. Regardless of whatever the Government's short-term plans are, the Taoiseach should explain the reason he will not allow the Constitutional Convention to consider, debate and report on this issue and to bring forward a recommendation. It strikes me that if the concern of Members is about a democratic deficit in respect of the Seanad, a democratic remedy would be to allow the convention, in its full sitting, to consider these matters and to broaden the discussion rather than having it confined to the politicians.

I have major difficulties with the scope of the Bill. It is not radical enough. There is a need for radical reform and to remove the elitist elements of the Seanad, many of which still remain. Therefore, on that basis we will be voting against this proposal.

See this speech in context