Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is important that we ask why are we here today. We are here because the Government tried to abolish the Seanad. It brought a referendum to the people and the people said "No" because they wanted reform, they did not want abolition.

I recall there was a referendum in 1979 on extending the franchise for the university seats in the Seanad and it was the first time I was old enough to vote in a referendum. On that occasion there were two referenda before the people, one on adoption, which was well passed, and the other to extend the franchise for the university seats. The Constitution currently provides for three from Trinity College and three from the NUI, while all the institutes of technology and other third level colleges have been excluded from the process, even though they also award full degrees. Many years on from that referendum that franchise has not been extended. I have had a particular interest in this issue. That was the first t referendum I voted to be passed, and while everyone of us has been in government at different stages, the will of the people has never been implemented. I often wonder why that was the case.

Since the new Government came into office there has been a good deal of talk on its part about political reform but some of the reform has been to give more power to the Government. Essentially, that is the reason the people have said "No" to the Seanad referendum. As Deputy Crowe has made clear, Sinn Féin supported the abolition of the Seanad, the second Chamber, and he was surprised that the people refused to go along with the Sinn Féin, Fine Gael and Labour approach to abolish the Seanad but if they had been listening to the people they would have known that this was an effort by the Government to close down a form of opposition and of a Chamber that could hold the Government to account. We have seen the Government do that in abolishing town councils, reducing the number of local authority seats and progressively taking more powers and functions from democratically elected members. For example, the Irish Water legislation has taken a central function from local government, which was for the provision of water and wastewater services, yet we are putting a super-quango in place because the Government wants to centralise all power under its control wherever possible.

The Seanad might have been a slight inconvenience for the Government on some occasions and in consequence, it came forward with the proposal to abolish the Seanad. That referendum cost approximately €15 million. As part of the Minister of State's reason for rejecting the proposal before the House he cites the cost of holding elections to the Seanad as one of the reasons he will oppose this Bill. He said the cost involved in conducting the election and the count is significant. He had no problem wasting €15 million of taxpayers' money to put a proposal to them which they rightly rejected. The reason it was rejected was because of the arrogance of the Government. The people saw through that referendum. The Government wants to close down any form of opposition.

The Government should have learned from the Oireachtas inquiries referendum it tried to have passed the previous year. Members are not elected here to be judges, juries or prosecutors but the Government wanted to change the Constitution to turn this Chamber into a forum for Oireachtas inquiries whereby Members of the Oireachtas, who are elected to legislate, would also be judges, juries and prosecutors, all in one process. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, had a key role and made a key intervention in that referendum. His performance as Minister during that referendum was one of the principal reasons it was defeated because the people decided that they did not trust this Government trying to take power onto itself.

It tried to take power from the Seanad and it failed. It tried to take power from independent inquiries by bringing them under Government control. The people have spoken on these issues and the Government should listen.

I must say to Sinn Féin, which states this legislation is not radical enough, if it were more radical it would be outside the Constitution. It is as radical as the Constitution allows, which is all we can do. Otherwise the legislation could not come before the House as it would be unconstitutional. We believe in working within the Constitution, as it was voted by the people, and the legislation complies with it. I do not accept Sinn Féin's argument for rejecting the Bill. I am surprised Sinn Féin, which wanted to abolish the Seanad, is here today to oppose the legislation because it is not radical enough. I do not know which way it is trying to play it. It was opposed to the decision of the people. It should have listened to the people's decision. They wanted reform not abolition. This is reform which can be delivered under the constitutional framework but Sinn Féin is opposing it.

See this speech in context