Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Yes. What is wrong with the Seanad? Its first problem is that it does not have any clearly defined purpose. People have been scrambling around the place looking for a purpose for the Seanad but we must consider what it is supposed to do before we can even begin to examine what it does. We must ask what we want of the second Chamber.

Its second problem is that it is elitist, undemocratic and even anti-democratic. I imagine that in ten or 20 years, people will look back and wonder how we tolerated a position where only degree holders would have a vote. That is discrimination, and if we discriminated against women or any other particular group, it would be labelled as such more readily. The voting practice is elitist. A qualified plumber is not entitled to vote in a Seanad election but a qualified plumber is. The guy making false teeth may not be entitled to vote in an election but the dentist is. Politicians are entitled to vote in these elections because we are favoured in being in this place.

The third problem is that the Seanad, as it is currently constituted, is a clone of this House. There is a kind of built-in majority in the Upper House such that when members of the Government parties speak on something, the majority of Seanadóirí will nod their assent. They are like the little dogs one sometimes sees in the rear windscreens of cars, with their bobble heads going up and down. The Seanad is a clone of Government party structures. It is only when something goes wrong - as happened in recent weeks - or when a Seanadóir goes walkabout and cannot be found, that the Government's wishes are thwarted in the Seanad. It is a mirror image of this House and 99 times out of 100 it will deliver the answer the Government wants. We again saw evidence of this in recent weeks. The membership of the Seanad club is open to all sorts of favouritism and cronyism and thus the privilege of the inside few is perpetuated. This has not changed. We were promised change but it is clear it has not been brought about.

If what I have said defines the problem properly, what has been the response of the Taoiseach and the Government? Prior to the most recent general election, the current Taoiseach made a headline-grabbing announcement to the effect that he intended to abolish the Seanad. It was a simple statement, it produced great headlines and it was a dramatic and populist move. What he did showed that he was the leader who could make the tough choices with which everyone would be impressed. The Taoiseach held a referendum in which the people were asked whether they wished to keep the Seanad in its current form or abolish it. We argued that real reform of the Seanad should also have been included as an option but "Action Man" said "No". He wanted to be seen to be decisive and strong. We went to the people, therefore, and they voted to retain the Seanad. Why did they vote to keep a dysfunctional Upper House? The first reason is because they do not trust the Taoiseach or the Government parties and the second is because they believe, quite rightly, that it is not possible to reform something which has been abolished.

I will deal with the Government's amendment to the Sinn Féin motion. In the first instance, it is an abuse of language to call it an amendment because it only contains two words from the original motion. It is, therefore, a counter-motion rather than an amendment. Of course, in this House we are used to saying things we do not really mean or that do not mean what they appear to mean. If the Government's amendment is an abuse of language, then its response to the debate is an abuse of the intelligence of those who put forward the original motion, those who will support it and the members of the wider population who clearly see a need for fundamental reform of the Seanad. The latter also want fundamental reform of the Dáil, but we will leave that matter until another day.

During his contribution, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, made a number of points. He commended Sinn Féin on tabling the motion and stated that while it had some good points, some of our proposals were either incompatible with the Constitution or were not set out in sufficient detail and would require further thought, that it raised as many questions as it answered, that the Government is moving forward with a scheme to extend voting rights to degree holders from all higher level institutions and that the Seanad Committee on Procedures and Privileges is considering proposed reforms to improve the operation of the Upper House. We can all sleep well now. The Minister also indicated that some of the proposals are not well thought out, that further detailed consideration would be required in respect of them and that they had the potential to be very expensive to administer. That is disappointing.

Sinn Féin does not claim a monopoly of wisdom in respect of this matter. Our motion calls on the Government to "immediately engage with all parties and groups within the Oireachtas, but also broader civic society, to consider how best to reform the Seanad to ensure that it becomes a fully inclusive, representative and accountable institution". Amendment No. 1 is, I presume, the Government's response to that call. The nature of the response indicates to me that the Government does not want real change or reform. In fact, I am of the view that it would fear such change or reform. The response is similar to that of a person who owns a clapped-out old car which fails the NCT and who says: "Let us spray it a different colour and it will be grand on the day of the re-test." It is wrong, and this will remain the case ten, 20, 30 or whatever number of years from now, that we continue to have the elitist anachronism we call the Seanad, which still has no clearly defined purpose, which remains a mirror image of this House and which is still open to cronyism, favouritism and privilege. The Government's so-called amendment shows it has no intention whatsoever of bringing about its much-vaunted democratic revolution.

See this speech in context