Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, I welcome this Bill as an honest and genuine attempt to respond to the referendum that was held last year. I do not agree with everything it contains because everyone has his or her own particular model and solution for Seanad Éireann. However, it is far preferable than the present position and I certainly cannot understand the Government's response to it, which was to dismiss it in such a way that exposes the Government itself to criticism on the grounds that its solution and its response to the referendum are totally and utterly inadequate. I was a Member of the Seanad for a very long time and over a long period I became aware both of what is wrong and what is right with it. One of my most enduring memories is that on my first day there, I tabled a motion for reform of the Seanad, its structures, its methods of election, in respect of the Taoiseach's nominees and various other procedures that were outdated at that time, which was in 1981. However, there was absolutely no reform of the Seanad during the intervening period. Moreover, it suited all political parties to keep it the way it was because it was a House that principally allowed patronage and certainly it was not the House of preferred choice for Members of the Oireachtas. The last place in which Members of this House want to be is Seanad Éireann. Members of this House use it as a consolation prize if they are defeated here and very few of them actually want to be there. One cannot blame them, but that is what the Seanad is.

The question then is what should the Government do about it. The Government may maintain the referendum was a vote of the people to retain the Seanad in its present form but it certainly was not that and no one could possibly interpret it in that way. It was a vote to retain a second Chamber but behind that, there obviously also was a will that it should be changed radically. This position has been rejected utterly by the Government. I attended what I think was the only meeting called by the Taoiseach for representatives of the parties to consider the referendum result and to proceed from that point. It was obvious, both to me and others present, that neither the Taoiseach nor the civil servants accompanying him had any intention of any sort of radical reform. It is absurd to put forward now the reform of the university seats as an adequate response to a referendum of this sort. Nothing is changing, nothing is proposed to be changed and certainly not before the next election. The only defence or shield the Minister of State put forward in his speech was to state that something would be done about those seats. The Government does not intend to change the number of those seats. The constituencies will become larger, which in principle should be welcomed. It is almost certain that a large number of the personnel probably will be the same, although I will not make a judgment on that.

The result will be that the next Seanad, in its shape, form and structures, will look remarkably similar to the last one.

The problem with the Seanad is fundamental. It was devised by de Valera very cleverly in order to ensure it reflected his views and that there would always be a Government majority in it. It was also guaranteed to elect almost exclusively party people - bar the six university Senators - who reflected almost identically the Dáil numbers and points of view. Everybody knows there are panels to which individuals are nominated. The panels sound worthy - cultural, educational, etc. - and all of the apparently civil society-driven nominating bodies nominate and have representatives elected to them, but it is the electorate that is the problem, not the panels. The electorate includes county councillors and Members of this and the other House. It is a self-perpetuating body which gives powers to us to put in place cronies, chums and others and ensure party people, whose first loyalty is to their party, not their nominating bodies, are elected. I do think any non-party person has ever been elected to any of the panels, although I could be corrected on this. However, several people who would be considered experts in their fields were summarily rejected by the electorate because they were not members of political parties. Dr. Ken Whitaker, a former Governor of the Central Bank, received a nomination from a nominating body for one of the panels, but he received a derisory vote. He was subsequently voted Ireland's greatest living Irishman but that was by popular vote. That is an indication of how difficult it is for anybody whose first loyalty is to a nominating body and a discipline, not a party, to be elected under the current system. I am not saying people who are in political parties should be rejected automatically - far from it - but it is mandatory to be a member of a political party to be elected to these panels, which is wrong. The nominating bodies realise they have no chance of getting anybody elected, unless it is someone who is a party hack and wants to get into the Dáil afterwards. The system, therefore, works in favour of maintaining the status quo. That is deeply regrettable, but it is something that was opened up in the debate last year and to give Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Opposition their due, they recognised that it should not be allowed to continue.

What is so depressing about this debate is not only the rejection by the Government of the Bill which is reformist, but also the fact that the Government has absolutely no proposals whatsoever to reform the Seanad. It will continue with it in its current format, bar the university seats. The rotten system will continue. It is no good the Minister of State reading a list of utterly minor reforms which are meaningless. They are procedural reforms or what it calls subtly operational reforms which mean a few changes to the rules internally but which are of no structural value and which do not represent radical change. What the Bill lacks is constitutional and radical change. When we went to the meeting with the Taoiseach a couple of months ago, the one taboo subject was constitutional reform. The Taoiseach did not want to hold another referendum and there was not going to be another one. That meant that certain no-go areas, in terms of reform, were put down. One cannot change the Taoiseach's nominees, although I accept Deputy Frank Feighan's point that the Taoiseach's nominees in the current Seanad have been outstanding in terms of their independence and contributions, have given the Government a shock and caused certain reversals, which is welcome. However, I think it is the first time that has happened on a meaningful scale. It is fortunate and to the credit of the individuals involved, but that will not continue as long as Taoiseach's nominees are nominated using the current format because the majority of Taoisigh, with one or two exceptions who have nominated people of independence, have nominated individuals because they are useful to the parties and ensure a majority for the Government in the House.

See this speech in context