Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to share time with Deputy Pat Deering, although I will gladly take the five minutes allocated to him if he does not come to the House.

I support this Bill to abolish the Seanad. It is significant legislation which will be put to the people for their ultimate ratification in the form of a direct democratic choice. Abolition of the Seanad is a difficult but necessary step. Of the world's sovereign states, 50% operate under a single chamber legislature. The Seanad is largely unknown to the vast majority of the population and has had few remarkable achievements in its history. Its role and function in practice have been greatly exaggerated.

I question the motives of some of those who have been most vociferous in campaigning to retain the Seanad. Time will not allow me to quote extensively from a letter to The Irish Times of 6 March 1987 written by the then Deputy from the Progressive Democrats Party, Mr. Michael McDowell.

The Seanad has failed to fulfil its constitutional role and function because it has been strangled by the political parties. It has been a feeding ground for Dáil Deputies, a limbo between elections and a place of debate for persons who have retired from, or failed to be elected to, this House.

As Deputies have noted, various reports have been produced on Seanad reform. At this stage, however, the Seanad is incapable of reform. Even when one listens to the arguments of the advocates of reform one finds that they do not agree. Much of the reform promoted by those in favour of retaining the Upper House would result in either a mini-Dáil elected by universal suffrage or some form of parallel assembly which would compete and be in conflict with this House.

It is fundamental to the manner in which the House does its business that we consider a serious programme of Dáil reform before and in parallel with the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. In this regard, we have a very poor record. The record of the current Government is exemplified by a statement made by the Government Chief Whip only last week in which he indicated he would be the first to admit that the record is deplorable in terms of reforming Ministers and Ministers being held responsible to the House. When I inquired about the current status of Dáil reform in recent weeks, I learned that there is no working group on the issue and no one is measuring the outcomes of our political deliberations. A meaningful programme of Dáil reform is akin to a snowstorm in the desert.

The adversarial system in place in the Oireachtas removes any Opposition input in decision-making. With respect to Deputy McDonald and her party, as well as Fianna Fáil and the Technical Group, the Opposition has no role in or influence on policy-making. The real Opposition in this Dáil consists of Government Deputies who do not hold office, of which I am one. With 51 members, this backbench group is the largest voting bloc in the House. In my experience, the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party exerts more influence on the Government than Deputies in the Chamber. This is neither appropriate nor adequate in terms of the working of the democratic process.

The Government controls the entire agenda of the House. Even in Private Members' time, it introduces an amendment to motions. In Westminster, from which we adopted our rules, regulations and Standing Orders, 20 full sitting days per annum are given over to the Opposition and free votes are common. The Dáil, on the other hand, is subject to a three-line whip every week. There is no two-line or one-line Whip, which means everything is under the heavy hand of a three-line whip and backbench Deputies must vote according to the bidding of their party Whip. I was disappointed recently to hear colleagues on both sides state the Whip is very convenient because they can hide behind it. This is a remarkable statement for any elected Member to make. The legislative programme is under the stranglehold of the Whip system.

Proposals on Dáil reform include a recommendation to elect committee chairs under the D'Hondt rules. The problem with committees is not their chairs but their composition. In many respects, committee chairmen are mere puppets of the Government Minister to whom their committee is aligned. The composition of the committees, in other words, the in-built Government majority not only in legislative committees but all committees, ensures they will continue to do the bidding of the Government of the day.

There is also a difficulty in respect of the resources available to the Parliamentary Counsel. To take the current legislative programme, only a handful of Bills is proceeding through the House simultaneously. As Government Whips will regular inform the House, we are waiting for legislation. Why do we not address the resourcing of the Parliamentary Counsel?

The programme of new politics, as flagged by my party, is not yet in evidence. We were told that guillotine motions would become a thing of the past. I recently undertook a survey of the number of guillotine motions put to the House since the change of Government. In 2011, the figure was 50. This had increased to 52 in 2012 and this year alone, 16 guillotine motions have been put to the House. Since the change of Government, we have had 118 guillotine motions, which is a poor record. As we head towards the end of this session, the rush to enact legislation under a guillotine motion will be all the more remarkable.

Ministers are not answering questions in a manner that reflects the requirement that they be held accountable to Parliament.

Major public policy announcements continue to be made by way of television set pieces outside the House and anybody will say Oireachtas television is boring because it is too stage-managed.

The introduction of the Topical Issue debate was a major plank of Dáil reform. However, Cabinet Ministers fail to appear for the Topical Issue debate - as we have just experienced. Since the change of Government, of 650 Topical Issue debate matters, 250 were answered by Cabinet Ministers and 400 by Ministers of State. I did not make reference to the number of days upon which one Minister of State is handed scripts to deal with the entire Topical Issue debate - and we wonder why people are not interested in the proceedings of the Parliament.

We need a radical programme of Dáil reform. When there are reports from a committee, the committee Chairman should be submitted to questions from other Members who may not be members of that committee. A committee week was suggested but has not happened. The set piece of the day should be Question Time where Deputies flock in to represent the views of their constituents and their work on committees. Question Time has become a bore and is a set-piece. People do not even bother attending. The lottery for questions should be undertaken by the Ceann Comhairle in this House every morning and let the 50 or 60 people who have tabled questions come in and be ready to have their questions answered. That would introduce an element of debate and less stage management.

What are the role and function of our committees? Are they legislative? Are they investigative? Are they evidence taking? We are severely constrained by the Abbeylara judgment, which must be revisited. We have been talking about a banking inquiry for more than a year and we are squabbling over what committee might do it. The Acting Chairman knows as well as I do that no committee has the capacity and no Deputy has the expertise or the back-up to engage in the type of investigation we would like to see happening here. So it will not happen.

The one committee that is an essential component of our Parliament having regard to the influence of Europe is the EU scrutiny committee, which was abolished and is now some sub-committee of another committee. Examination of statutory instruments by committees does not happen at all. Time spent on Bills here once the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople have completed their contributions is meaningless because it is controlled from start to finish by Government. Amendments are rarely accepted. There is no difference between Committee and Report Stages, and Fifth Stage has become a meaningless exercise. There was a commitment to pre-legislative debates on the heads of Bills to be circulated to the committee before drafting by the Parliamentary Counsel. However, that cannot have happened more than three or four times in the past ten years.

The Constitutional Convention, of which I am proud to be a member, is an innovative and exciting development but its scope and agenda are too narrow. However, it is a good start and I would like to see it made more permanent or at least given an extension of time.

Do we want to continue with the adversarial Punch and Judy Parliament which potentially shuts out up to 49% of the Members, or will we consider a more consensus-based committee model for how we do our business? The inquisitorial or investigative model was rejected by the people in a pretty shoddy and poor campaign. We need to decide if we want to revisit that and if so, let us prepare.

It is out of a certain frustration that I rise here this evening. It is proposed to abolish the Seanad and we are talking about Dáil reform, but unless we change how we do our business here, cynicism will continue to grow and we will become irrelevant. There is talk of Parliament sitting five days a week, which may well happen. However, Parliament sitting five days a week will ensure that very few people - particularly those from outside Dublin - will serve more than one term. Whom does it suit? It suits the permanent government, which is virtually in charge of the manner in which we run our affairs in any event.

I support the Bill because I believe the Seanad has outlived its usefulness. However, we have a great opportunity to introduce a programme of Dáil reform that gives a meaningful role and function to every Member of the House and not just the 14 or 15 Cabinet members who are chosen to serve at that level.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a member of the class of 2011, I like several of my colleagues campaigned on a reform platform during the general election campaign that year. Since I have been honoured and privileged to be given the opportunity of representing the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny, I have discovered that reform of the Dáil and the institutions around here is more than essential. One could argue that significant reform has already taken place, including the banning of corporate donations, meaning the Galway tent will be no more. Linking State funding to ensuring greater participation of women in politics is also important. The number of Deputies has been reduced by eight and the number of Dáil sitting days has been increased by a third. One could argue it is now much easier for Opposition Deputies and backbenchers to introduce legislation, especially on Fridays.

The Topical Issue debate started off with great fanfare. This initiative needs to be reformed and given an extra bit of jizz. Deputy Charles Flanagan has already mentioned some figures and it is disappointing when the relevant Minister fails to attend to answer a question. Earlier today a question on an agricultural matter was answered by the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation who had no responsibility for that matter. That is an area that needs to be addressed.

We are also considering a different local government structure which will be very important in the near future. We will have bigger and better local government. Our local authority members, the grassroots of our organisations, will be given more power to deal with matters at that level. Their numbers will be reduced from 1,600 to 950 and the number of local authorities will reduce from 114 to 31. All these are very important first steps in giving what most people want - fewer politicians and more democracy. I believe that now is the time to tackle the issue of the Seanad as an institution which has seen little reform since 1937 even though more than ten reports have been commissioned and are now gathering dust on a shelf in some Department.

It is almost impossible to reform the Seanad because of the number of diverse views that seem to exist as we have seen in recent weeks. Ireland, as we know, is a very small country and one House should be sufficient to look after our affairs. This would bring us into line with most European countries of a similar size. The question must be asked as to why we are where we are with the Seanad and I believe the reason is simple. To Mary and Joe Public the Seanad is undemocratic and an ineffective legacy of empire and 1930s social theory. Its type of vocational representation is not found in any other national parliament and has basically been hijacked by political parties over many years.

In recent weeks a number of proposals, including the Bill sponsored by Senators Quinn and Zappone to reform the Seanad, have been launched with great fanfare. Ironically these were launched by people who have served in the Seanad for many years. During that time some served in government and did very little on the reform issue. Senators Quinn and Zappone are again proposing a vocational system, a university system and yet again 11 Senators to be nominated by the Taoiseach of the day. There is nothing very earth-shattering or democratic about this. I believe we will end up with the same old system with the same types of people in the Seanad - I say that with no disrespect to anybody involved. I now feel the people should be given the opportunity to have their say on the future of the Seanad. A proper debate on what will replace it is very important.

A radical reform of how we do business in this House is essential. In my short time here I have discovered that the committees are greatly underused. I have seen the amount of very valuable work that has taken place at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and Marine, of which I am a member, and I feel this must be the way forward. Recently Deputy Eoghan Murphy published a document about reforming the Dáil system and it deserves close scrutiny. I wish to deal with a number of sections with regard to committees.

The removal of the whip within the committee system is essential. Much valuable work is done on a cross-party basis in committees. For example, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine has done much work with Coillte. This has resulted in the decision today not to sell the forestry rights of Coillte. Much valuable work was done in preparation for that decision today. We did a lot of work on the relationship between our supermarkets and primary producers and this will end up in a report being published in the coming period. However, if we had more powers at committee level we could have been empowered to bring in the only supermarket that had the audacity not to come in to us, that is, Dunnes Stores. Representatives from every other supermarket were prepared to come in to us but no one from Dunnes Stores came in. If we had more power we could have been in a position to get them in to get more information from them. Committees can act as one of the measures of checks and balances. It is also important that committees are in a position to report back to the Dáil in future and a particular day should be set aside for that.

Another matter of reform relates to the Order of Business in the Dáil on a daily basis. It is farcical that we spend half an hour asking the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste, whoever is in the House on a given day, about a particular matter of legislation when all we need do is look at the book, read the list or make a telephone call to get that information. I believe it is a waste of half an hour of Dáil business and we could be doing something more valuable.

Parties have different views on this matter. The Fianna Fáil manifesto of 2011 was very much in favour of the abolition of the Seanad. Now, for whatever reason the party has changed its view completely and one wonders why. As regards the main proponent of the Seanad in its present form, the former Deputy, Mr. McDowell, referred to the Seanad as a cross between a crèche and a convalescent home not long ago. One wonders what has changed his mind since.

I support the Bill. It is an important first step but I look forward in particular to the reforms of the Dáil that will take place to make it a more valuable place for the future.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Fine Gael and Labour Party programme for Government contains 69 separate references to reform. Yet when the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport spoke last night to this legislation he could only reference three true reforms which, by the way, have yet to be fully delivered on, namely, the whistleblowers Bill, the lobbying regulation Bill and the restoration of the freedom of information legislation. All three are welcome reforming initiatives.

Let us consider the term "reform" in the dictionary. It is defined as making changes in something, particularly an institution or a practice, in order to improve it. That is the purpose of reform. However, the truth is that throughout the 28 months of this Government's tenure the Executive has done little to improve our political institutions. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, told us last night that the political system over which he and his Government colleagues preside is no longer fit for purpose. I agree with him. He said that we need a new politics and a new agenda with a new and reformed Dáil. I agree with all of that as well. I suggest that the Minister share these thoughts with his Cabinet colleagues when they next meet, because it is the Cabinet which is failing to deliver on even some of the meagre reforms to which it has committed.

As recently as last week, the Government Chief Whip told the media that Cabinet's performance on Dáil reform measures has been "deplorable". Deputy Kehoe also conceded that a promise not to rush through legislation without proper discussion has not been honoured. Analysis carried widely in The Irish Times tells us that Ministers have failed to appear in the Dáil three times out of four, on average, to respond to the four Topical Issues debates on Dáil sitting days. I was about to say "tropical", which might be a more apt description. The same analysis showed that some 40% of issues were dealt with by a Minister of State from a non-relevant Department who read from a script. Deputy Kehoe said "it is deplorable that some Ministers are calling for Dáil reform and at the same time do not co-operate with reform". It is indeed deplorable, and moreso when we consider what the Government promised us with regard to Topical Issues. The programme for Government promised "an end to the practice of one junior Minister reading out scripts on behalf of a number of Departments about a range of issues of which he or she knows nothing". Despite this, 360 issues have been raised in the past 90 sitting days or since last September. Ministers have appeared to answer questions for just one quarter of all issues raised. In addition, Ministers of State from the relevant Department have responded to only 25% of issues and almost half of the replies have been delivered by non-relevant Ministers or Ministers of State reading from a script and they have been unable to deal with some of the issues raised by the Opposition or questioning Deputies in any meaningful way. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The same article also quoted research that highlighted the now accepted practice by Government of guillotining the majority of Bills going through the Dáil. During the first two years of this Government's stewardship, a total of 52 out of 90 Bills were guillotined, amounting to 57% of all Bills passed. The use of guillotines is at its highest in run-up to the Dáil going into the winter or summer recess. Deputy Kehoe was altogether correct when he said that it was deplorable that Ministers are prepared to talk the talk of reform yet refuse to co-operate with even meagre changes in the way we do our business. Worse, the same Ministers concocted a programme for Government committing to "restrict the use of guillotine motions and other procedural devices that prevent Bills from being fully debated, so that guillotining is not a matter of routine as it has become at present, particularly at the end of a session." That is what the Government had to say at the time. The reality is that guillotining is still a matter of routine and it remains the norm rather than the exception.

There is little point in the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, coming to the House and promising a new dawn if he and his Cabinet colleagues cannot deliver on even the most modest of reform measures. It has become clear day by day that reform for this Government is not the dictionary definition but rather a code word for cuts. Reforming social welfare means cutting hard-fought protections for vulnerable citizens. Reform includes cutting mobility allowances and supports for carers and lone parents. Reform, according to the Government, means spending less on our children and reducing services and educational supports at the very time when demand is increasing. For this Government, reform is about the bottom line and cutting away at public services, cutting modest standards of living and vital social supports. For this Government, reform has nothing to do with improving practices or institutions. Rather, it is a strategy or cover for an austerity agenda, penny pinching and hurting vulnerable citizens. Last night, the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, reduced his reforming agenda and that of the Government to a mere reduction in numbers. After failing to deliver on virtually all the Dáil reforms in the programme for Government the only trophy the Administration can hold up is its decision to get rid of 600 councillors, eight Deputies and an attempt to get rid of 60 Senators. For those responsible, it is a crude numbers game.

Whatever one's view, I suggest that it hardly amounts to the democratic revolution that we were promised in the heady days of 2011.

Many people who support the legislation for the abolition of the Seanad point out that there are many democracies that do not have an upper house. That is true, but when one looks closer, one finds that those same countries have in-built checks and balances to ensure proper accountability, transparency and representation for all citizens. Very often that is contained in comprehensive, rooted and effective systems of local government. We do not have that in this State. The Government offers us no such checks and balances. In fact, it is moving to centralise power in a way not seen since the foundation of the State.

It is not unusual for Ministers outside of the inner sanctum of the Economic Management Council, which the four lads occupy, to periodically run to journalists to tell them how frustrated they are and how disempowered they feel because of their exclusion from critical executive decisions. The further move towards centralisation of decision making is coming from the top down. It is a measure that does not have universal support, even among the ranks of the Government backbenches but, more importantly, such centralisation of decision making is bad news, not just for frustrated Ministers on the outside but for all of us and for the democratic system.

The Seanad is not fit for purpose. That is a blindingly obvious statement. No one, not least me or Sinn Féin could possibly stand over a system that is elitist and out of step with the times. However, I still believe the Seanad could provide a vital check and balance to the Executive if reformed or if transformed into, for instance, a citizens’ assembly. The proposition before us today is base and crude and it tells us that the Government is not such a fan of democracy or democratic representation. If the Taoiseach were serious about democracy or reform, he would have extended the Constitutional Convention’s remit to include Seanad reform before coming forward with a referendum to abolish the Seanad. However, he chose not to do that. The question that Members of the Oireachtas and citizens must ask is why that was the case.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, might have shed some light on the issue last night. On the proposition of a citizens’ assembly the Minster said: “It would be wrong for a parliament to include people just because of their demographic group or background rather than abilities or character.” I thought that was a very revealing statement. In the mind of the Minister, and perhaps in the minds of members of the Fine Gael and Labour parties, power is not alone to be centralised but it is to be run on a survival of the fittest approach. That is the kind of strategy that has delivered white, middle aged, male and stale politicians since social democracy first opened its doors to citizens.

For democracy to work, for us to build a just and equal society, we must have the inclusion of citizens, precisely because of their demographic group or background. That is a prerequisite to social solidarity and progress. Citizens have rights and as legislators it is our responsibility to ensure that every child born in this State is guaranteed equality of opportunity. We have certainly not achieved that goal. Children from the Traveller community in many cases are unlikely to reach their full potential. The same is true of children with disabilities or those with special needs. Children from disadvantaged areas are faced with what are sometimes insurmountable challenges. The list goes on. Their families cannot access the supports they need and for many, maintaining basic standards of housing and health care can be a lifetime of struggle. It is the proposition of Sinn Féin that we need to hear from those people. We need to afford them and the organisations that represent them, at a minimum, a seat at the table. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, is not and will not be in a position to deliver equality of opportunity if he sets his face against those for whom he legislates. It is only by including the very people the Minister would wish to exclude from our democratic structures and processes that we will drag our practices and institutions into the 21st century.

I commend my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, on tabling a comprehensive set of amendments to the legislation. In doing so, he has shown that one can in fact make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. The Sinn Féin amendments offer people a real proposition, an opportunity to truly influence reform of our political institutions. It is beyond my comprehension why a Minister or Deputy would vote against the inclusion of an option to reform the Seanad when putting the proposition to the people in October, or for that matter why Labour Deputies would vote against an amendment that seeks to refer the question of the future existence, functioning and reform of the Seanad to the Constitutional Convention in advance of the referendum.

Unlike our Fianna Fáil colleagues, Sinn Féin has constructively engaged with the legislation. We have set out comprehensive amendments that provide for a real debate and choice for citizens. To be blunt, Labour and Fine Gael would have a brass neck to keep banging the drum of reform if they vote against the proposals we have tabled in the amendments.

In his contribution, Deputy Charles Flanagan managed the not inconsiderable achievement of being in opposition while on the Government benches. Perhaps that is not entirely a unique achievement. He claimed that abolition of the Seanad is difficult but necessary. He is wrong on that matter because straight abolition of the Seanad is not difficult; it is actually very easy. It amounts to the lazy way out. Reform, transformation or empowerment of the Seanad would be challenging and difficult for Government, too difficult it seems for a Government that is not serious about reform, full-blooded representative democracy or the democratic checks and balances essential to good governance.

It is not good enough for the Government or anyone else to put to the people a bald proposition in such a stark fashion to abolish an institution that has been crying out for reform for decades when it is those very same parties in government, some of them now in opposition, that left the Seanad impotent and unreformed. It would be a different proposition if we had effective local government structures, but we do not and they are not in sight. The Sinn Féin amendments seek to change the legislation to take account of the need for full-blooded representative democracy, for essential checks and balances within the Oireachtas, and the need to hold the Executive to account. Above all, our amendments seek that the Government, rather than putting a stark “Yes” or “No” question on whether to keep the Seanad, would give the people their proper position and allow them the option of reform for a truly democratic, effective and empowered Seanad.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. While considering the top-heavy composition of State administration, I strongly believe that quality and not quantity is the way forward to create an effective, well functioning and economically viable political system. This Bill on a referendum proposing the abolition of the Seanad follows on from a number of other reforms already introduced by the Government. As soon as it took office, the Government reduced the pay of the Taoiseach, Ministers and Deputies, increased the number of Dáil sitting days and removed the automatic entitlements to State cars and drivers. Before taking office, Members on this side had witnessed the ridiculous situation in which the previous Fianna Fáil-led Government put off the holding of the Donegal South-West by-election by almost 18 months. The present Government guaranteed that by-elections would take place within six months and an example of this was the recent Meath East by-election. The days of a government playing political football by deliberately delaying by-elections has become a thing of the past. Moreover, spending limits on presidential elections have been reduced by more than half a million euro and reform measures for local government recently have been announced.

The Bill before Members demonstrates the Government is continuing to demonstrate it means business in respect of real political reform. The 32nd amendment of the Constitution, as promised under the programme for Government and if passed by the people of Ireland, will totally overhaul the political system. These measures are radical, wide-reaching and further evidence the present Administration is determined to lead from the top by delivering real change for the benefit of all citizens. The reforms contained in this Bill, if passed by the people, will result in a leaner, more efficient political system. At a time when the Government is calling for reform, cutbacks and staff reductions in the public sector, what better way to set a good example than to reduce the number of Oireachtas Members and get its own house in order? The Oireachtas is top-heavy for a small country and the cost to taxpayers is not justified. The abolition of the Seanad will result in savings of €45 million annually and expecting redundancies in other areas of public service without setting its own house in order is the height of hypocrisy, which is something one would get only from Fianna Fáil. During the Ahern and Cowen years in government - in which Deputy Micheál Martin participated fully for 13 or 14 years at senior ministerial level - which were not terribly long ago - one should consider the number of high-flying junior Ministers who were given office as a sop to ambitious backbenchers, as well as to quell unrest in a wilting Government that had been in office for too long. This useless move cost Irish taxpayers a staggering €160,000 per annum per Minister in salaries alone, which does not count the additional costs such as staff, refurbishment of offices at huge expense to the State, administration and drivers, not to mention foreign travel. Had such surplus-to-need Ministers and administration costs been axed at that time, this Bill proposing the abolition of the Seanad might not be before Members today.

The Taoiseach by this action hopes to make Government smaller, while at the same time strengthening good governance at national level. He hopes it will bring trust and integrity into the political system after all the scandals, which is badly needed. The old saying that there is nothing permanent except for change is true in this case. Members must create new ways and must adjust their political habits in such a way that citizens and young people in particular, feel attracted to political participation after all the scandals and fiascos that took place under Fianna Fáil. Even with the abolition of the Seanad, my biggest concern is whether politics can ever regain its place in society as a respectable body. Members should consider what is happening in the Middle East and the Mediterranean countries with riots and revolutions. Our political environment must be changed to show people we represent a new faith in government and a force of real change. While the present Administration has been implementing its policies of reform from the outset, from the manner in which Fianna Fáil is carrying on in opposition, it is evident that its members are not prepared to change from their old, corrupt ways of waste. No matter how Fianna Fáil tries to spin the matter, it has done a U-turn on this issue, although it is difficult to see what they have to lose at this stage. Every man, woman and child in the country knows what went on under Fianna Fáil and what still is going on. Their cover has been well and truly blown by the greed of those who were and still are milking the system. Whether one likes it or not, Fianna Fáil has been bailing out its cronies. It put a noose around the necks of Irish people which will tighten daily until the political system is reformed fully and the country is put back on the rails fully.

At the last Constitutional Convention meeting held on 8 and 9 June in baking hot sunshine, participants were debating options for the reform of the Dáil electoral system, the size of constituencies, the numbers of Deputies, the possibility of non-parliamentary Ministers and the case for an electoral commission to oversee the preparation and maintenance of electoral registers to foster integrity in the electoral system. While this was fine, in my opinion the topic of radical plans such as the proposal to abolish or reform the Seanad also should have been included, as we live in a parliamentary democracy. Most parliaments have a second chamber and such second chambers take many forms. The United Kingdom still has its hereditary House of Lords, while other European countries have chambers elected by representatives of local bodies. In some countries, the chamber is selected by the members of parliament and in others, it is elected by the same electorate as is the parliament, albeit with different kinds of constituencies. It may be stated that the success of the second chamber is closely related to the logic of the principle on which it is selected. The respective powers of the two chambers also differ greatly, with many second chambers having certain functions of their own. For example, the American Senate must ratify all treaties and all appointments to certain important posts by a two-thirds majority. In some countries, the second chamber tries cases of treason and serious dereliction of public duty by Ministers and senior officials on the accusation by the parliament, in a practice termed impeachment.

I am sorry to note, however, that in Ireland, it has lost nearly all its powers. All it can do is hold up a measure for a limited period or demand its reconsideration. As far as I can recall, during my term in the Seanad a section of a Bill was partially redrafted in one case. The Seanad has no power in enforcing a change of Cabinet and the fact that the second Chamber's powers are now limited causes problems for the public looking in. I regret that over the years, there was such an unwillingness on the part of the political establishment to bring about a reform of the Seanad. I suppose one could state it was a lack of responsibility by successive Governments and the failure to modernise or to find new tasks for the Seanad, particularly after joining the European Union, probably resulted in this Bill before Members this evening.

Senator Marc MacSharry's irresponsible behaviour and performance last week, particularly his attack on the Taoiseach, has created much public controversy and jibed remarks about its role. One remark I heard at the weekend was that the Senator behaved like a dying wasp or a hive of bees when their cosy nest has been poked and that he went out of control in an attempt to protect his own cosy little arrangement. In any event, the 1937 Constitution outlines its role as the second Chamber and its political structure. Its intent was good and was designed to create a role for sections of society including agriculture, education, industry, arts, commerce and culture. A platform was provided for graduates and intellectuals from third level institutions.

If the citizens of Ireland decide to abolish the Seanad, will the future be better? Will there be genuine reform of the Dáil? The Seanad had a very poor record in the 21st century. We saw the arrival of the troika to force us to get our national finances under control after the reckless Ahern and Cowen years brought our little country to a dysfunctional state until this Government took office. I hope we will see real reform as promised by the Taoiseach and this Government once the people take the decision, and that is up to the people. It is not our decision. We will put the question to the people in a referendum and it is for them to decide.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill, which is a step in the right direction. I welcome that the people will have an opportunity to make their views known on this matter in the autumn. In fairness to the Taoiseach, he made this commitment in 2009 and he is now following through on it. That is to be commended.

We have 226 national parliamentarians in a country of 4.5 million people. That is far too many, and we need to trim the numbers because if we are trying to reform our country and achieve a more efficient public service, it must start with the national Parliament.

This Bill is not the first Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill to be introduced in this House. I introduced a Bill last year with the same title but it was on Dáil reform. Abolishing the Seanad will be a decision of the people but if that happens, it is crucial that we have significant and meaningful reform of this House in place by then. We can run the country effectively with one Chamber but it must be a proper working and effective Chamber. Having been a Member for just over two years, my belief is that this House is not working as it should be working.

We need fundamental reform of the way we do our business here. I do not believe the Dáil is able to hold Ministers and the Government to account in the current format. We must seriously examine what we are doing here because we did not get to where we are since 2008 by chance. Something was fundamentally wrong in this country and, ultimately, the buck must stop with the national Parliament. Our parliamentary system has failed because the IMF is here, effectively running the country, and that means that something went wrong along the way. The problem is not just the Seanad. There are many questions to be answered in terms of this House.

My Bill proposed 101 Members here elected from single-seat constituencies maintaining the transferable vote system. In response to some of the issues raised by Deputy McDonald earlier, minorities are represented in this country by our voting system but that is the system I proposed and I believe it would work well. It would allow parliamentarians get on with the work of Parliament and not be concerned about what their party colleague in their constituency is doing, the leaflets they are dropping, the roads they are tarring or the potholes they are getting filled when they should be scrutinising and contributing to legislation.

In terms of what we can do immediately in this House, we need to reform the Topical Issue debate. One can wait up to a month to have one's issue selected for that debate. When one is selected one might get a Minister of State responding, if one is lucky, but sometimes a Minister of State from another Department is sent to the House to reply. My colleague, Deputy Flanagan, gave the statistics earlier. I have gone through them also and they are appalling.

We need to reform Leaders' Questions. As a back bench Deputy I cannot raise a matter of urgent importance with the leader of our country on Leaders' Questions. I do not have an opportunity to do that. That opportunity exists in other parliaments.

The Order of Business remit is farcical. We can only ask about promised legislation. The remit is far too narrow. We must reform it and give Members on all sides of the House an opportunity to raise relevant matters.

We need to have meaningful debate in this House, and we must seriously examine the Whip system. That became an issue recently regarding the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill that is due to come before the House but in the overall scheme of things, the Whip system restricts the working of Parliament. I accept the Whip is necessary in terms of overall budgetary issues but on the micro issues of the day, a way to get good law passed is to give each Member an opportunity to make their contribution, and make up their own mind. That will bring out the best in Governments and Ministers bringing forward legislation.

While I welcome that we are moving towards the abolition of the Seanad, it is only a step in what must be a huge reform process. We should not be under any illusion that the abolition of the Seanad alone will not improve matters in this country. Hand in hand with that we need to see fundamental reform of this House because unless that happens, we will not achieve the type of change we really want.

Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support this Bill, which is welcome, but with mixed feelings. My mother was elected to the Seanad for a short period in 1981. She spent six or seven months in that House. Over several elections I watched her traverse the country looking for votes to get elected back to the Seanad and I thought it was a perverse way of trying to get oneself elected to represent one's people in this Oireachtas. Since then I have always felt that because the Seanad was set up in the way it was it needed to be reformed. Ten reports have been issued on reforming the Seanad and not one of them have been acted on. The sad part about that is if they had been acted on and Seanad reform had taken place, we would not be here debating this Bill.

I hold in my hand the Constitution, which is the book of the people. The Seanad is mentioned frequently throughout the Constitution. It is almost as if I was a councillor again. One can see the powers one has as a Senator and the powers betrothed upon one by the people in this book. How many times have the powers that have been betrothed on them been used? The Seanad can hold up a money Bill for 21 days. At any stage during the period of the economic boom, the Celtic tiger years, were any of the money Bills that were brought before the Seanad held up? The Senators could have highlighted the faults and the problems that might be associated with them but not once were those Bills held up. If they had done that the media and the public would have come to recognise that what was going on in this country was wrong. The Senators, in their own way, have been part and parcel of the downfall of this country. They had the power to hold up money Bills for 21 days. They can hold up other Bills for 90 days but they have the power within this blue book, the book of the people, to hold up money Bills coming from the Dáil. If they did not do that when they should have done it, we should get rid of them because they had no function as far as I am concerned. The money Bill reference in the Constitution is Article 21.2.1o.

During the debate on this Bill I hope we will have a serious debate on reform of the Dáil. I hope also that when the debate widens into public discussions we do not simply focus on what the Seanad did or could do if it was reformed but deal with the question of Dáil reform also.

The people have a lack of trust in politicians. They have already proven that by their failure to accept the referendum question on Oireachtas inquiries which would have given us, as Dáil Members, more power to inquire into various topical and serious issues that arise. However, because they did not accept that question I am fearful that the question in this case, when it is put to the people, will be passed.

The sad thing is that Deputy Griffin and I are new Deputies. We had no hand, act or part in the past or in what happened. We are in here to reform and change our country for the better. We must earn the trust of the people but the sad thing about the people out there is that they remember only the bad things from the poor, weak politicians who were lap dogs walking through the "Tá" lobby to create the bubble.

I want to see real Dáil reform. I agree with Deputy Griffin, the the Topical Issues debate is an excellent idea but the Minister responsible for each issue must come before the Dáil. I do not want to see a Minister of State from another Department coming in here without a clue as to what we are talking about and then reading a script. I also want to see the Taoiseach being accountable to Members of the Dáil and not just to leaders of the Opposition. I want more Bills to be introduced on Fridays. I took part in an excellent debate last Friday but why were two or three Bills not debated and why were they not voted on later in the day?

While I support this Bill and want to see the abolition of the Seanad, I fear the people will not give us as Dáil Members the trust that is needed to have a really functioning Dáil Éireann. I will support the Bill and during the discussion on the Seanad would like to see a real debate on reform of Dáil Éireann.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this opportunity to speak. I do not agree that the Seanad cannot be reformed; it is realistic and achievable. I got the impression listening to some Ministers that if we abolish the Seanad and could make a good case for a second House, it would be one way to go. Listening to the debate, I do not think there will be any great heart to have a second Chamber if the Seanad is abolished. I sincerely believe there should be two Chambers in the Oireachtas.

I can deal with the difficulties in the Seanad. I agree with the Taoiseach's comments that the Seanad is an elitist body and the major difficulty is the way it is elected. There are 43 Members elected by a small electorate, six more elected by a restricted third level electorate, and 11 nominated by the Taoiseach of the day. I would like everyone to vote for a second Chamber.

I was elected to the Seanad as long ago as 1977 and was nominated by the Taoiseach in 2002. It would be hypocritical for me to call for the abolition of the Seanad when I know the good work that is done there. The Seanad operates in a very practical way, even today, and there are good debates there. The present Seanad is led by the Cathaoirleach, Senator Paddy Burke, and Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Denis O'Donovan, and the Leader of the House, Senator Maurice Cummins, along with the leaders of all parties and groupings. There is good debate there and one of the reasons for that is that there is more flexibility in the Seanad than in the Dáil. The Order of Business in the Seanad is not confined to questions on promised legislation. A Senator can seek a debate and raise current and local issues. These are allowed in the Seanad. It has everything except Question Time. There are Adjournment debates, like Topical Issues debates here, and local and topical issues can be raised then.

Of course, there is a need for reform, no more than the Dáil needs reform. There is, however, a need for a second Chamber when the Government has a large majority in the Dáil. I note the points made by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, where the Government will listen to any case that is made, but I have my doubts about whether that will happen.

Even with 166 Deputies, there have been difficulties with the representation of some counties. On two occasions, County Leitrim was divided in two and many people felt the county would never elect another Deputy when part of the constituency was in Sligo and part in Roscommon. Deputy Colreavy has managed to get elected but if the number of Deputies is reduced further, because we are told we have too many politicians in this country, the situation could arise where people in the counties with low populations would lose out. People in Leitrim were very annoyed at their county being divided in two because it made it difficult to have a representative living in the county. I agree with gender balance and the representation of immigrants and minorities, but if we could agree to a reformed Seanad, the people might reject it. I would suggest considering at least one Senator per county. In the United States, there are two Senators per state, regardless of the size of that state.

As well as making the point that the Seanad has been impressive in the amount of legislation with which it has dealt, I agree with those speakers who raised the issue of Dáil reform and the priority that should be attached to that. We are now abolishing town councils and have cancelled elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta. I do not know if local government is strong enough to say we should introduce a single Chamber Oireachtas. When we are having the vote in October, why are we not putting the question of reducing the number of Deputies to the people, as the Government promised? The promise was to reduce the number of Deputies by 20 but because of the Constitution, the Government simply reduced the number of Deputies by eight.

In some contributions, concern has been expressed about accountability and the fact there will be less democracy. Deputy Olivia Mitchell raised the point yesterday that we want scrutiny of legislation by two Chambers. When we look at the reduction in the number of councillors after the next local elections, there will be a high ratio of electorate per councillor. The countries that have single chamber legislatures have reformed their local government and have a stronger local system.

Fianna Fáil has published proposals that included a Seanad of 65 Members, with some being directly elected, some indirectly elected and some nominated by the Taoiseach.

I am not saying that I totally agree with this but if there were direct elections in 26 constituencies under a proportional representation system, that would be one way there would be accountability. One could also hold elections by all the graduates of the higher education constituency for six Senators. As was suggested, the direct elections could be held the same day as the local and European elections and the indirect elections could take place 90 days after a general election - something similar to what happens now. The question of the members of the Irish diaspora, immigrant communities and any under-represented groups in Irish society, and the question of the two traditions in Northern Ireland, are areas that could be looked at as possibilities for other Senators to be elected.

There is criticism of those campaigning to retain the Seanad. Suggestions were made that some are either persons who are trying to form new political parties or, perhaps, trying to resurrect a party that has gone down in the polls, but that is a little unfair because people genuinely feel that they should make a case for a second chamber. It is not merely a question of anyone in Dublin 4 stating that we need a second chamber. I note the following headline in the Tuam Heraldin Galway, "Government needs to use common sense". This editorial states:

The other issue on which the Government may trip itself up is the abolition of the Seanad. While many cogent arguments have been made in favour of so doing, there is a substantial body of opinion that doubts the wisdom of having a single chamber Oireachtas. Ironically, the huge majority enjoyed by the present Government only adds to those doubts. There would be very little such a majority could not do in the line of legislation, were there not some kind of check and balance.

The cynical will point out that as the Seanad is currently set up, with an almost automatic majority for the parties in power, there is no balance.

On the other hand, an idealist might well suggest a reformed Seanad, with a completely different system of representation, divorced from party politics, or at least not as entangle in them.

Why not have a multiple choice referendum, and give us options: to retain, to abolish and to reform.

Or is that too much like a common sense solution?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My overall view of the Bill and the proposals which the Government is putting forward is that it is an immense disappointment and a terrible missed opportunity by the Government to bring about serious political reform.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, at the outset, in May 2011, stated boldly, "The programme for Government agreed by the two parties contains the most ambitious and far-reaching agenda for political reform ever put before the House". If this is the boldest, most ambitious and far-reaching agenda for reform ever put before this House, if this is the best we can do, I pity us and the country.

There has never been a bigger appetite among the public for real reform and change in the political system. The party of the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, committed to that at the last election. Fine Gael committed to it. It was part of their platform for getting elected. One could not listen to one of their candidates without hearing how the system, as well as the parties which were in power let us down and how they would bring about a breathe of fresh air and all would be different. The public voted for them to put that in place. What, instead, do we get as reform except a straightforward proposition for abolition of the Seanad? It is a stunt.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is much more to it than that.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It boils down to little more than a stunt by the Government to give the impression to the public that it is doing something big in terms of reform when it is doing nothing. The Government is going backwards. Instead of opening things up, it is shutting them down. The Dáil will be no different. The only difference is the Seanad will not be there.

I hold no candle for the Seanad and neither does the public. Few care about the Seanad the way it is, and why should they? It is very ineffective. It does not do what it could, but what it offers - there is potential to reform it - is a real chance to change the political system and the way the Houses of the Oireachtas operate so that there can be a democratic functioning government and Parliament in this country.

Instead, what we have seen from the outset is the Government playing politics with it. The initial proposal to abolish the Seanad emanated from the week when the Tánaiste, then an Opposition Deputy, stated he had no confidence in the then Ceann Comhairle and in the process stealing thunder from the then Opposition leader, now the Taoiseach. It led to the resignation of the then Ceann Comhairle. In response, feeling the pressure, the Taoiseach introduced, at a party gathering that weekend to the shock of all his party members around him - not only his own Senators but his Dáil Deputies - the proposal that if he was elected he would abolish the Seanad. That is where it comes from.

In the last election, there was much talk of reform. It became a little more subtle than that. At the outset, the Taoiseach stated he would abolish the Seanad. What we see here is a crude Bill to abolish the Seanad with little else to accompany it.

Undoubtedly, there are serious issues in terms of the way the political system operates and we could change and address them. Often we talk about changing the electoral system but that is not something the public will buy or, indeed, wants. Last week's recommendation from the Constitutional Convention was to keep the system of election to the Dáil. Yet undoubtedly, the way the Dáil is elected puts real pressures on all of its Deputies to focus on matters which are not directly related to this Chamber, to legislation or to committee work. The focus of the majority of Members tends to be the constituency because it is constituents who elect them and that is what the public expects. It is our the electoral system gives us.

In these circumstances the existence of the Seanad offered an opportunity to really reform the electoral system. We did not have to change the way we elected Members to the Dáil. What we could have done is look at the weaknesses in the electoral system and try to reform and bring in place a separate House which would improve the situation and which would have a totally different way of electing Members.

The system that is there at present, where councillors and university graduates elect the Seanad, makes no sense to anyone. Few among the public have any regard for it. Equally, few among the public will resist the Government changing the way that the other House is elected and that offers a major opportunity to bring a very different dynamic to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government could have reduced the number of Deputies further and put in place a Seanad Chamber which brings in Members with a different type of focus to that which we in the Dáil would have. The Dáil should retain its primary power. The Dáil, ultimately, is directly elected by the people and should have the ultimate vote but what one could have in the other chamber is Senators who have a different approach and who are elected at national level. My party proposed a list system based on different panels which represent different strands in society. That was a type of opportunity available, and which the Government has not looked at.

Deputy Bannon spoke about a political football in reference to something else. The issues of reform and abolition of the Seanad have been used as little more than a political football by the Taoiseach and Government. The Taoiseach has a number of attributes. He is one of the shrewdest and politically canniest politicians in the Dáil and he has demonstrated that through his use of this issue. The Government brought forward the children's referendum and the referendum to bring in committees of inquiry.

Unlike with those referendums, this Bill is being introduced months before the referendum is to take place. With every other referendum, the Bill has been introduced five or six weeks before polling day and rushed through with little debate, but cutely and shrewdly, the Bill to provide for the abolition of the Seanad is to be thrown into the Dáil five or six months in advance of the referendum. It will be a bone for every politician to run after for the next few months so as not to concentrate on the real issues and difficulties being experienced by the people. What better way is there to get the media and Oireachtas Members focused on something that is not important than to say that one half of the Houses of the Oireachtas is to be abolished? That creates a scenario in which people will spend the next five or six months navel gazing.

We will witness Senators from various parties, and particularly Government parties, making noises about how they will not vote for this. That will suck up media attention and the media will gleefully make its reports. The public will find it great fun to watch Senators trying to save their political skin. This is a bit of a game and we will see it for the next five months. It is no accident that the Bill is being introduced five months in advance as it serves the Government's purpose well in creating a distraction and keeping the focus from other issues. As I indicated, this will have no impact in bringing about any real political reform in the way we do our business.

Although the Bill will facilitate abolishing the Seanad, we are seeing no effort from the Government to address the way in which the Dáil operates. There were many promises at the last election and since about bringing about a democratic revolution, but the most we have seen from that is the introduction of Topical Issues, with matters being moved from being heard last thing at night to earlier in the day. There are only four items per day, meaning four Deputies can raise a topic of interest and of relevance, or 12 topics per week. There are 166 Deputies in the House, and even taking away Ministers and Ministers of State, that means a Deputy would have one topic, on balance, every ten weeks. That is the extent of the opportunities available to Deputies to bring up issues of importance.

The other way of tackling a Minister on the floor of the Dáil is through Oral Questions, with a particular Minister coming to the floor once every six weeks for an hour and a quarter. There may be 100 questions to be answered orally and the Minister might get through ten of them. We should be able to have a Minister for two or three hours per week, giving Deputies from the Opposition and the Government backbenches the opportunity to raise relevant issues.

We have Friday sittings, or "farcical Friday", where once every four weeks we have an opportunity to deal with Private Members' business. The only reason this happens on a Friday is because it gives the Government an opportunity to state publicly that the House sits four days a week sometimes. The Dáil does not begin until 2 p.m. on Tuesday and it normally finishes at 5.45 p.m. on Thursday, with the proceedings beginning at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday. We could start on Tuesday morning and go later on Tuesday night, leaving room for additional debates or questions. We could consider issues that would not lead to votes while at the same time holding the Government to account. None of this has been attempted, however, and instead there is tokenism in the form of including a Friday sitting. Using the time for Private Members' business is useful and we need more of these opportunities, but putting this sitting on a Friday smacks of tokenism that we have become used to seeing from the Government.

I and any one of our citizens would be very disappointed by this, and I predict this referendum will not pass. That is not because anybody outside these Houses has any regard for the Seanad as it stands, and I will not be telling them that they should have, but because this initiative represents a massive lost opportunity to bring about real change in the political system in this country. The Government is asking the public to be complicit in selling this as reform and a real big deal by voting as the Government wishes in the referendum. If it does so, the public will have to listen to the Government for the next two and half years reminding them of how it has changed things and how the public endorsed the effort to reform politics. The Government will be continuing a deception that it is doing something to change politics in the country. That is a fraud, and the public will see that throughout this campaign. When the public refuses to endorse this, we will have to turn around and try to address the real reform which the Government was mandated to introduce through the vote it received at the previous general election.

Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be voting for the abolition of the Seanad. I have held the view that the Seanad should be abolished not just in the two short years I have been here but for almost all my adult life. Those of us elected to the House are doing ourselves a disservice as there seems to be some soul searching about what we really need and the idea that we must reform the Seanad urgently. That is one of the twin arguments, with the other being that somehow democracy in the Republic will be weakened if the Seanad is closed. Both of these ideas are nothing but utter rubbish.

The Seanad has never been democratic and it was never meant to be, as it was meant to have the primary function of being elitist. From inception, when the British were about to leave us, the idea was that it would be elitist and use an awful term, the Upper House, which is nothing short of offensive to the plain man and woman of Ireland. The plain people of Ireland elect this Parliament, and that choice is one of the great gifts of democracy, with the ordinary people deciding the nature of how this country is governed. The plain people decide who comes here to govern, which is wonderful.

With the inception of the original British model of the Seanad, the elitist Upper House came about because as an independent Ireland would elect its first Parliament, there had to be a body or institution that would be an Upper House to the ordinary men and women elected to this House. These were people who were not elected, and the list of Members had Sir This, Sir That and Sir The Other. That astonishes me.

This House is dominated by people who in one guise or another declare themselves as members of republican parties, and they are entitled to this and respect it. I am not a republican but I am a democratic socialist. I was here last Thursday night when Deputy Martin, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, and Deputy Adams, on behalf of Sinn Féin, made their contributions. They proudly claim to be republicans but they defended an Upper House which is a concept of an imperial power.

Let us be frank, it was the British who first came up with the concept of an Upper House, with the elite looking over those who were democratically elected because the political establishment did not trust the ordinary people of Ireland. They got their way and a Senate was established. When we took over the country ourselves, we created our own model in the form of the Seanad.

On the point about those who are identified as being members of republican parties, a man whom I admire, principally because of his economic views, made an interesting comment. A former leader of Deputy McConalogue's party, and former Taoiseach, Mr. Seán Lemass, during a debate in 1928 on the concept of the Seanad, pulled no punches in saying the following: "It is a body created ... not to improve the machinery of administration in this country, but to give political power to a certain class that could not get that power if they had to go before the people at a free election and get the people to vote them into office". He was right. In fairness to Mr. Lemass, he cut it down the middle and what he said is true.

There has been some discussion about the move away from the original British model of the Senate into the Seanad. I am of the view that it must be elitist by its very nature. A couple of thousand graduates, a couple of hundred councillors and Deputies of this House elect its Members but the plain people have no vote on the membership of a House which is supposed to oversee the conduct of members of the Dáil. I am not on for that and the quicker it is abolished, the better. It is undemocratic and I fail to see how anyone can come in here and defend it.

I lived in England for a while and used to visit Westminster occasionally. When I read Irish newspaper reports about the Seanad I used to think that the only real difference between it and the House of Lords was that Members of the latter wore wigs while members of the former did not. They are both Upper Houses for the elite. There has been much discussion of the need to reform the Seanad but how can one reform something that has never been democratic? It was never democratic so how can one reform it? That has never happened anywhere in the world. Most of the parliaments in the world do not even have a second House.

Some Deputies have taken the view that there should not be a referendum on the issue. I cannot understand how parliamentarians can be against the holding of a referendum. Is it that they are afraid of the ordinary man and woman on the street? It is they who will decide whether or not there is a Seanad, not the Deputies in this House. If we are democrats - and there is much talk in this House about believing in and cherishing democracy - let us put this to the plain people of Ireland and let them decide. On that question, as on many others, they are ahead of us because Ireland is growing up. They are way ahead of us. The public perception of the Seanad is that it is a quango, or more correctly, a political quango. It has been used and abused by every political party that has been represented in this House. I say every political party deliberately because I do not want to have double standards on the issue.

There has been a flurry of campaigning by the former leader of the Progressive Democrats and former Tánaiste, Mr. Micheal McDowell, who appears to be the ayatollah or spiritual leader of the save the Seanad campaign. He has suggested that if the Seanad is abolished, a great pillar of democracy will be lost and all of us will be under threat. He also made some silly point about a power grab. There is no power grab because the Seanad does not have any power. Other than prolonging the legislative process, that is, dragging out Bills, the Seanad has no great power. If someone can show me where that power is, I will vote "No" but as it stands, I will be voting "Yes" and will be encouraging others to do the same. I see the wagons being circled by an elitist bunch of academics. I am not against all academics. I am sure some of them are useful people. I am amazed at the great energy being put into the campaign to save the Seanad. Some have suggested that it should be reformed rather than abolished by way of a referendum. I know why they do not want a referendum - they do not trust the ordinary people to decide on this. Some of those involved in circling the wagons should reflect on the matter some more.

I have heard many references to the great people who have served in the Seanad. I am happy to acknowledge that there were great people in the Seanad, albeit small in number. Indeed, there are still good people in the current Seanad - the few who still speak to me. There have been some good people with their own views on issues, some of them quite independent views, it must be said. One such person is Ms Mary Robinson whom I wish to quote now. She did not pull many punches about the Seanad either, despite the fact that she was a Member more than once. In 1973 she said,

Let us not fool ourselves. This House is not in the mainstream of Irish life at the moment. It is not fulfilling a role which satisfies the desire for democratic control over government policy and for participation in the legislative process.

I will now refer to a man whom I met twice in my life and who I admired greatly, Dr. Noel Browne, another former Member of the Seanad. He had his reservations about the Seanad and made some astute observations on the issue. In 1957 he said:

We must assume a literate electorate which has considered carefully our qualifications for government, for legislation. We, to the best of our ability, have come in here, considered the points of view of the people who have elected us, and passed legislation through this House which we believe is in accordance with their will. I can see no reason why we should deliberately accept a Second House which would have a right to interfere with what is essentially the expression of the public will in relation to legislation.

The people who should vet what we do are the people of Ireland and they do not need a second House. I have often used the argument that the best local authority in the UK, the Greater Manchester council, governs an almost equivalent population of this Republic of 4.5 million people. It sits in a room approximately the same size as the Chamber and has financial functions. We should be careful about defending an oversight committee. The people will decide every five years on how good or how bad we are.

I have been always opposed to the Seanad. If I were a citizen of the UK I would be opposed to the House of Lords. During a dispute with a Senator on a programme, I stated that I did not predict a riot on Kildare Street or any other Irish street the day after the referendum takes place and the Seanad is abolished. Anyone waiting for a people's revolution because of the loss of the Seanad can forget it.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Joe Higgins who will share time with Deputies Clare Daly, Mick Wallace and Thomas Pringle.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For many decades I and the Socialist Party have called for the abolition of the Seanad, and pointed out many decades ago that it is an utterly undemocratic and elitist institution in how it is elected, or more correctly, selected. As we know, the bulk of its members are elected by a tiny electorate of councillors, Dáil Deputies and outgoing Senators with a further 11 appointed by the Taoiseach of the day. Deputies and councillors have numerous votes in Seanad elections. The system makes the Seanad an institution of loyalists from the establishment political parties of the day, and this is the reality. The only independent voices come from the university graduates vote, but here again we find intolerable elitism. What gives university graduates special democratic rights over people who may not have been to college but who have worked or slaved all their lives, pay their taxes and make a contribution? They are denied a vote. The Deputies and councillors with numerous votes as a result of their office have additional votes if they happen to be graduates; it is a rotten borough and totally democratic. It creates a Seanad which is a reflection of the Dáil in its political composition and is superfluous.

I acknowledge that a few people who were or are Senators have used the institution as a forum to advance progressive and important issues. I salute Senator David Norris in particular, who with great courage has campaigned for the civil rights of many people and particularly for the gay community when its members were shamefully criminalised. He used the Seanad as a forum and used the courts. No doubt Senator David Norris and, importantly, the campaigners with him in the extensive campaign, could have found many means with their campaigning abilities to achieve the same end.

The approach of the Government and the Taoiseach to the abolition of the Seanad is replete with cynicism and opportunism. I was dumbfounded to hear the Taoiseach use as an argument against the Seanad the fact it had not been reformed because of 75 years of inaction by the political establishment. He tried to suggest he, for the past 30 years, was not himself at the very heart of the political establishment, being at the very heart of the most establishment party, Fine Gael. There is a possibility the contempt in which a huge majority of ordinary people throughout the country hold the Government, and the contempt they have for its arrogance and hated austerity policies, could lead those in favour of abolition to take advantage of the referendum to deal the Government a blow. This is not ruled out.

I am inclined to abstain from voting on Second Stage of the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 because it contains provisions, apart from the referendum, with which I strongly disagree. Candidacy for the Presidency must be nominated by 14 Dáil Deputies. I stand for the abolition of the Presidency. It is another democratic reform which should have been put in place. If there is to be a presidential election it should be open to every citizen to stand. We should not get rid of one undemocratic institution and preserve another. On the basis it contains a number of such elements it is not a reform of the Constitution in any radical way, particularly from a socialist perspective, but I agree with getting rid of one undemocratic institution.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a real irony that such has been the mishandling of the case for the abolition of the Seanad by the Taoiseach that the spectre has been raised of this archaic, irrelevant and highly undemocratic institution potentially being rescued from annihilation. This would be totally regrettable. I do not in any way blame people for having this view. It is small wonder when we have been subjected to listening to Ministers speak about how they have a mandate for this measure. It is correct that it was part of the election programmes of the Government parties, but so too were many other promises all of which have been flagrantly broken without a second glance.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a bit of an exaggeration.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many people have been insulted by having the example of small Scandinavian countries being lauded by the Administration for not having a second chamber, and fair play to them and I do not have a problem with it, but these countries have very good health care and child care systems and other measures which our Government chooses to blatantly ignore.

The real irony for ordinary people looking at the deliberations of the Taoiseach on this is that he poses as the defender of democracy, which is galling when we see legislation being forced through the House which gives the power to Revenue to deduct the hated home tax from people's wages and social welfare, and the financial emergencies Bill was also rammed through. That said, a broken clock is, of course, right twice a day and I agree with the Government that the Seanad needs to be abolished. This is the correct position in my opinion. The Dáil also needs to be reformed, but the fact this is not on the table today is not a reason for continuing with the Seanad, which never had a useful purpose and certainly does not have one now. The irony of not just the Taoiseach but the likes of Michael McDowell posing as great liberators is nauseating and hard to take. The points have been well made on numerous occasions by previous speakers. The Seanad was never a democratic institution.

It was always elitist and has always been a consolation prize, a present for Deputies who want to retire into oblivion and take things handy or a holding area from which someone can work up to taking a Dáil seat.

There are no direct elections to the Seanad. Like most Deputies, I could not name half the Senators. I would struggle to name ten. It is ludicrous that there are Senators who could not get elected as county councillors but whose parties organise 30 people to vote them into Seanad seats, large salaries, offices and so on because they are in political parties that, for example, want to boost the number of female politicians. They can then build their profiles to develop a Dáil base. Other Senators have repeatedly been rejected by the electorate in Dáil constituencies.

The Seanad is not a democratic institution. It was based on vocationalism in the early years, a system that was itself based on a papal document. It is a throwback to the guild system of the Middle Ages. The Seanad never had democratic accountability.

I wish to address some of the myths introduced during this debate. The idea that the likes of Mary Robinson or David Norris needed the Seanad to thrive is ludicrous. They would have thrived in any environment. They are exceptional people, particularly Senator Norris, and are not a justification for keeping the Seanad. The Seanad has not scrutinised or overthrown legislation any differently than the Dáil has.

If the Government was serious, it would empower people at local level, transform local democracy and devolve powers. It would introduce the only democratic accountability that is relevant, namely, giving power to the people. It would be a bottom-up democracy rather than a top-down elitist body. This must start with the right to recall Deputies, further opportunities for referendums and the devolution of powers to citizens.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be difficult to argue for the retention of the Seanad as we know it. It is not representative of the people or the workplace. If it was a low-cost second chamber that represented the different sections of society, it could be of some value. If we were to tolerate any reform, the Seanad should consist of people with no links to groupings or parties. Perhaps it could be a check on the Dáil.

This will not happen. The Government has no more of an appetite for change than the previous Government had. The changes to the Dáil and local government since I have become a Deputy have been almost irrelevant. Given the fact that we have one of the most centralised governments in the developed world, the need for strong local government is great. Unfortunately, the situation is getting worse. I would like the people to have a say in how their communities are organised. The people they elect to local government should be able to make decisions and be answerable to them. Moneys raised at a local level should be spent locally so that people might see where their money goes. However, these developments are a while away.

Given the fact the Seanad will not be reformed in any serious way, it should be abolished. If this or the next Government gets around to introducing real local government, it could also cut the number of Deputies. I would like to see it cut to 100. A drop from 166 would not impact on the manner in which the country is run negatively.

There has been much discussion of democracy and watering it down. This is rich, coming as it does from certain people. One is a former Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, who has criticised the plans to abolish the Seanad as the destruction of our democracy. While he was Minister, he threatened the same democracy through his efforts to discredit Frank Connolly and the organisation the latter represented, the Centre for Public Inquiry, an institution founded to investigate matters of public importance in political, public and corporate life. Mr. McDowell made sure to put an end to it for being far too democratic for us.

It is a bit rich that many Deputies, including members of the Technical Group, are prepared to sacrifice any notion of democracy to ensure their re-elections. That giving Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan or me speaking time is not considered a great move for democracy seems to be a reinvention of the notion. They believe that doing so would jeopardise their chances of getting re-elected. In their view, the majority ruling on who is fit to speak makes more sense than allowing everyone speaking time. This is so nauseating that I want to run out of the place.

I will conclude with a quote from Fintan O'Toole on the dilemma facing the people. He wrote: "do you want to give the most centralised government in the developed world even more unaccountable power or would you rather keep paying your scarce money to keep a bunch of failed politicians in the game? The sane answer is not yes or no – it is no and no."

I do not know whether people realise it, but Senator Norris, for whom I have great respect, is not feeling great and is in hospital. I wish him well.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what should be an important issue for Ireland and the future of our democracy. The debate on the abolition of the Seanad has been interesting. All that people can seem to see is the Seanad as it exists now. That is what is wrong with the Bill. We should be discussing reform. The Seanad is far from perfect, but a reformed Seanad is preferable to none at all. It should remain. If the people decide to keep it, its reform should begin immediately. It is unviable as it exists today.

I thank Senators Zappone and Quinn in particular for making a solid argument for reform of the Seanad as opposed to abolition. I also thank my Technical Group colleague, Deputy Ross, for his contribution to this debate and for the publication of his Bill on reform. I would also like to acknowledge Government Deputies and Senators who have stepped away from the party line and voiced their concerns. I hope they continue to do so on this and many other issues. It might make our democracy more relevant for people.

I am of the belief that the Seanad as it stands is little more than a talking shop for people who are not directly elected. Successive Governments, particularly Fianna Fáil Governments, have failed for decades to address that House's problems. There have been 11 reports in total, but all have been left on the shelf to gather dust. However, inaction does not justify its abolition. Radical reform is necessary.

There is merit in much of the content of the 2004 sub-committee report on Seanad reform. It should be re-examined in the event that the Seanad referendum does not pass. That most Senators would be directly elected and given responsibility to review Government policy, scrutinise senior public appointments and assess EU legislative proposals would constitute a dramatic reform. The abolition of the Taoiseach's nominees would go a long way towards reforming the Seanad. Anything that guarantees a Government majority in the Seanad ensures it is ineffective.

The Seanad could play a key role in European affairs. As a nation, we have failed to engage fully with the EU legislative process and realise the enhanced role of the Oireachtas regarding European affairs through ratification of the Lisbon treaty, leaving much of the activity in this area unscrutinised. This is a threat to the quality of our democracy. A reformed Seanad could be of value.

What is necessary is a reformed Seanad that is more democratic and effective. To have all Senators directly elected would require another constitutional amendment. However, there is scope for a radical expansion of the Seanad electorate that would still include a universal franchise while maintaining the panel system.

This is something that is dealt with in more detail in the consultation I mentioned that took place with Senators. It should be considered.

This Bill proposes to transfer duties to the Dáil in what this Government describes as "reform" of the Dáil. It does nothing, however, to reduce the powers of the Executive. Worryingly, we know very little about the small print of any of these changes. When will these so-called reforms take place, and how? There is no transparency and there has been no consultation with the Opposition. In this legislation we are given the continuing rule of the Executive over the Dáil. Independent Deputies will lose out on committee opportunities. As it stands, Technical Group Deputies cannot challenge the Order of Business in spite of the fact that this matter has been raised on numerous occasions with the Government and the Whips. There is a continuing refusal to allow that to happen. Independent Deputies have no amending or legislative support, even though we make up one third of the Opposition. Support is given to Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin to enable them to carry out their legislative duties but this Government continues to refuse to allow this to happen for Independent Deputies.

Other countries of a similar size with a unicameral system have more accountability and transparency. Much has said about Sweden, Denmark and Finland. One could make a long list of countries. They have strong regional municipal assemblies that have considerable authority and responsibility whereas this Government, by way of reform, is reducing demographic accountability at local level by abolishing town councils and making electoral areas bigger and more difficult for county councillors. Let us not talk about Finland, Sweden or Denmark and how they have a unicameral system when this Government refuses to give powers to local government or ensure local government can develop.

If I hear another comment in this Chamber about how Ireland is only the size of Manchester I believe I may get sick on the floor. It is the most ridiculous argument I have heard any politician put forward. Unfortunately, it comes all the time from the Government side. Manchester is an area within a country of 60 million people that has a huge and powerful economy. It cannot be compared to a country such as ours. If one wishes to compare us with somewhere, why not look at Finland, Norway, Denmark or Sweden? Those are countries of a comparable size that have far more developed economies and democracies with much more transparency and accountability than this Government would like to see in this House.

We are in an era of cutting costs, something to which in theory I do not object, but this Government continues to cut in areas where it is detrimental to society to do so. I believe the abolition of the Seanad would also be detrimental in that it would reduce transparency and democracy. I object to its abolition in the strongest terms. How our political system works affects all of us and I am concerned that some will vote in favour of abolition as a cost-saving measure without understanding the Seanad's true worth to democracy. We should make it an accountable and democratic institution and should debate its reform, not its abolition.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Liam Twomey is sharing time with Deputies Joe McHugh and Paschal Donohoe.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If an overwhelming majority of people vote in favour of abolition of the Seanad, we should see that as a desire of the people for reform, not of the Seanad but of this Chamber. Many of the comments made about the accountability of the Executive to the Dáil are true. However, it is rich when comments about what needs to be done in this Chamber come from members of Fianna Fáil, whose members also object to reforms being carried out by this Government. When Fianna Fáil did not like the look of what was happening under the freedom of information legislation, it quickly changed that legislation to restrict access to information that should be freely available to citizens. Many of those restrictions have been reversed by this Government.

The Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill is about giving more powers to the Dáil to conduct inquiries without putting charges against individuals in order that we can gain information and make this Chamber work better. Many of the faults and failings of the Dáil as a Chamber are not so much about what this or previous Governments do or have done but about what we, as Members of the Chamber, actually do. Too often we do not act like parliamentarians but sit screeching and roaring at each other across the Chamber. At committee level, we run the risk on many occasions of committees having to be suspended or not even starting because we cannot even get a quorum to attend in the committee rooms. That is a disgraceful way for parliamentarians to act. When people talk about the lack of confidence they have in us and in how we act as democratic parliamentarians, it is that which concerns them.

Very little has been said during much of the course of this debate about where we see our own failings inside this Chamber. There is talk about parliamentary questions, Topical Issue debates and so on, but there is a great deal we can do to make this Chamber work better and more efficiently. Many of the contributions during the long debates that take place are very much politically driven rather than legislation-driven. They are not about people trying to take a strong legislative viewpoint to improve legislation and make it work better for people in this country. The debate is all about taking a political potshot at members of the Government, with little or no thinking put into it. What we should be doing to drive the discussion of the proposed referendum is to ask what those of us who are not Ministers or Ministers of State can do, as parliamentarians, to act as a counterbalance to what happens within the Executive. That is why I so completely support much of what the Taoiseach is doing. I believe he has a genuine commitment to make this Chamber work better, if we are prepared to work with him.

There have been some mistakes in the way committees were set up but the intention was to have a greater number of members involved in order that we can act on the scrutiny of legislation and fulfil our role in marking the Departments of Government assigned to each committee. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening. Everybody tells us how important Europe is, for example, and how much legislation comes from there, but one would be hard-pressed to get many Members of this House to come to scrutinise the legislation for which they are responsible. We need to change that.

There is a great opportunity for us to highlight the deficiencies of both Chambers during the course of the proposed referendum campaign and we should use it so that people can demand we become more accountable to them and that we are able to act as a greater counterpoint to the Executive. That was the initial reason the Oireachtas, the Executive and the Presidency were established in the way they were - it was so that no one group would have too much power to dictate to others. I believe the Taoiseach and the Ministers involved have a genuine commitment to those types of reform and we should have that type of discussion rather than take simplistic potshots. Fianna Fáil's use of the opportunity to attack this legislation has all the markings of a political attack on the Government rather than a well-thought out, support the Seanad type of campaign. The former Minister for Justice has been referred to a few times. He was one of the very architects who sought to restrict freedom of information during the course of the previous Administration but is now campaigning like a knight in shining armour to save the Seanad. This not only smacks of hypocrisy but is almost laughable.

There is an opportunity here. As Members of this Parliament we should demand of ourselves to consider what sort of reforms we can see happening in this Chamber and in the committees. The committees can offer a great opportunity to hold a Government to account if we consider the work they do and work them properly on our own behalf. If we look at every way this Chamber works we can demand that reforms be carried out. We have to find out why our people are resistant to some of these changes. It may be because they feel the people whom they elected to this House have no great interest in seeing these reforms work. As it stands, in our political system one is elected for reasons of what is considered to be clientelism and localism and this is seen as the way one approaches one's work as a Teachta Dála. If we are to change that, we have to give real power back to this Chamber in the way Deputies make decisions about people's lives by way of legislation.

I have nothing against Members of the Seanad and I was a Member of that House, but I believe it is surplus to requirements at this time. We can afford to abolish the Seanad. That is not in any way being disparaging about current or former Members of the Seanad. People work hard in every job they do as Members of the Oireachtas, whether in the Dáil or the Seanad. However, I believe we can afford to abolish the Seanad. Perhaps we should consider putting additional resources into the committee structures in order that we can have a real resource to counterpoint the Departments with which we deal.

Perhaps additional resources could be provided to Members who produce reports on legislation or examine the work of Ministers. That is the approach we should be taking instead of the simplistic potshots that seem to mar this type of debate.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Constitution of 1937 served our country well in many ways and it has stood the test of time. It is useful to consider the context in which it was forged and the challenges our young country faced at the time. Europe was about to enter a war which brought terrible loss of life across the entire Continent. Ireland was emerging from a divisive and bitter Civil War. The Constitution allowed our nation to steer its way further to statehood and respond to many of the challenges that arose in the ensuing decades while remaining stable and intact. We were able to take the first steps to becoming the country of which we remain proud.

However, while some of the principles of that Constitution have served us well, in the context of this referendum we must ask whether all of its values are still relevant to the Ireland of 2013. I believe we should debate and remove two basic tenets of the Constitution. The first is the concept of vocationalism or the requirement for particular sectors to be represented at all times in our democratic institutions. We have institutions that are fully democratic and it is up to the people to decide who they want to elect. The concept of vocationalism, which was beginning to emerge in other states in Europe when the Constitution was being drafted, is not relevant to a modern country or a democracy in which people have the right to elect who they want to represent them.

Arising from this is the role of the institution of the Seanad. An institution whose members are largely elected by other politicians and people who attended certain universities does not have a place in modern Ireland. Like Deputy Twomey, I count it as a privilege to have served in the Seanad but that privilege does not blind me to the fact that its role and means of election is no longer fit for purpose in an Ireland that has undergone such radical and difficult change. Those who say we should reform the Seanad need to explain why reform has never been implemented, despite the number of people who have rallied to that cause over the past 70 or 80 years. The reasons reform has never been implemented are because, first, there was rarely consensus on the shape of reform and, second, whenever consensus briefly settled, it inevitably ran into obstacles. Once a vision of reform is articulated, it poses a threat to the people who will lose out and they will inevitably resist the reform agenda.

I will be campaigning and voting for the abolition of the Seanad because I do not see what functions a second House can perform that a single House directly elected by the people cannot. We must ask whether the additional powers proposed to be invested in the Dáil will be adequate to the functions required of it in the absence of the Seanad. The measures proposed on lengthier legislative processes, greater roles for committees, optional reviews of legislation 12 months after enactment and allocation of committee positions based on the composition of the Dáil as opposed to that of the Government should allow this Chamber to perform the roles required of it. There is, of course, a difference between "should allow" and "will allow". As Deputy Twomey noted, the importance of closer scrutiny of European Union legislation by the Oireachtas has long been acknowledged but such scrutiny has been rare. One of the reasons for this is the limit faced by Oireachtas Members in the time they can invest in proper scrutiny. The challenge for Deputies is to commit the energy and time required to perform their legislative functions well. I believe more people will be willing to make that investment in a single Chamber because greater powers will be available to the Dáil.

I respectfully ask those who propose to retain our bicameral system what functions a second House can perform that the Dáil cannot. In respect of those who seek diversity in our political system, surely the people best placed to decide how much diversity they want are those who will cast their votes on whether to move to a single Chamber.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party is currently meeting and that my colleagues from the Upper House are watching Deputy Donohoe and I on their monitors as we discuss the future of the Seanad. It is a sensitive topic given that we are speaking about Members' jobs and the contributions they make. I acknowledge the contributions made by Members of the current Seanad and its predecessors.

It is 11 years this month since I was elected to the Seanad with 53,000 first preference votes. It was, of course, a weighted system whereby one vote cast equated to 1,000 votes on the screen. I was in fact elected by 53 votes from my peers in county councils throughout the country, primarily Fine Gael councillors with a few stray Independents and second preferences by Fianna Fáil councillors. Did I give a representative voice to the administrative panel for those five years? I did not. I became a voice for County Donegal and my constituency of Donegal North-East, hence the argument that the Seanad is either a grooming ground for future Deputies or a retirement home for politicians.

During the first sitting of the Seanad after my election, the then Senator Shane Ross spoke from the Chair. He stated that the biggest priority of the Seanad was reform. Everyone, including me, agreed with him because the issue had been discussed for years. Now, 11 years later and 75 years after the Seanad was established, it is too late for reform. It is up to the people to decide in a democratic vote whether they want to retain the Seanad.

The first President of the Executive Council, W.T. Cosgrave, agreed to use his appointments to grant extra representation to the State's Protestant minority. The 60 Members of the first Senate included 20 Protestants, three Quakers, one Jew, seven peers, five baronets and several knights. Some of these appointees had previously been Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland, which was a 1920 creation of British law consisting of a mixture of Irish peers and Government appointees. Senate Members from Ulster included George Sigerson from Strabane, Sir William Hutcheson Poë from County Down, Sir Horace Plunkett, Sir Joseph Henry Greer from County Tyrone as well as Unionists from the co-operative movement in County Meath. The Senate, therefore, reflected vocational and other groups which would not otherwise have been represented. This was in line with the thinking behind the establishment of the Seanad.

Since then, many people from Ulster have sat in the Seanad. They include Seamus Mallon in 1982, Gordon Wilson and Maurice Hayes who was a colleague of mine in the Seanad in 2002. These individuals made good contributions to debate, especially on Northern issues when Northern Ireland was very much on the radar. Since then, much progress has been made on the North. We now have the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association, a cross-party group which, ironically, held its inaugural meeting in the Upper House and its second meeting in the former Senate Chamber in Stormont. The Good Friday Agreement has delivered progress on the Northern question and representation on Northern issues.

On the issue of keeping the conversation going, sometimes politicians get carried away and believe they lead reform and effect change when in fact it is the people who do this. We need to make maximum use of opportunities for civic forums. We must progress the proposal for a North-South civic forum to consider the type of society we want and the constitutional challenges we will face in the coming years.

In discussing reform, we must also discuss the issue of the permanent government. Members of the public are irked that despite the major change in political representation arising from the previous general election, the same permanent government remains in control. This issue should be included in the debate.

Shortly after I became a Senator, a fellow from my parish related to me the following saying: "When all is said and done, much more is said than done." For 75 years, much more was said than done with regard to the Seanad.

For the record, in 2005, I stated in the Seanad that the construction sector was unsustainable and would create problems that would affect thousands of people. Clearly, no one was listening.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Seamus Kirk. The changes and deletions proposed to the Constitution in the Bill before the House run to 19 pages. Not since the adoption by the people of the Constitution in July 1937 have so many fundamental and basic changes been contemplated. I do not know of any Member of the Oireachtas who believes in a bicameral parliamentary system and does not share the view that Seanad Éireann needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, while the Seanad requires major reform, the many good reform proposals put forward in the past have not been acted on. Governments of all hues, including single party and coalition Administrations, have not carried out this necessary reform.

We should recognise that every Seanad has contributed in a positive way to our democracy. Many voices and particular interests, which were not represented in Dáil Éireann, have played an important role in national debate in Seanad Éireann. The Upper House initiated many important debates, especially on social matters and other issues of importance to citizens.

Over the years, taoisigh have used their appointments to the Seanad to give people of outstanding ability the opportunity to contribute to the workings of the State through the parliamentary system. Similarly, people of outstanding ability have been elected in their own right to every Seanad. One need only consider the case of Northern Ireland which did not have an assembly or legislature for many years. During those dark years for the country, Seanad Éireann had people of the calibre of Seamus Mallon, Gordon Wilson and John Robb to give an important Northern context to debates in the Oireachtas and wider discussion in society. We should also be mindful of the need to protect the interests of minority groups, which was one of the major aims in constituting the Seanad, as Deputy Donohoe noted.

When one thinks of the Seanad, the names of former Senators such as the former President, Mary Robinson, W.B. Yeats and, much later, his son, Michael, who was leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad for many years, come to mind. The late environmentalist and Senator, Mr. Éamon de Buitléar, was ahead of his time in trying to stimulate debate and interest in the environment, heritage and cultural issues.

The Taoiseach and Tánaiste want to avoid proper debate of this issue for specific reasons. They fear such a debate could expose how little thinking, debate, research or consideration went into the proposal to abolish the Seanad. The Government intends to put before the people a major change which would damage the Constitution but has not provided any significant supporting documentation or research in advance of the legislation being brought before the Legislature. This is the first time in the history of the State that such a proposal has come before the Oireachtas without significant research or supporting documentation.

Let us return to the fateful night of a Fine Gael Party fund-raising dinner at which the then beleaguered Fine Gael leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, announced his new policy of abolishing the Seanad. What research had he and his team done to develop this new approach? Only three months before his announcement, the then Deputy made a speech at the MacGill Summer School in Glenties in which he extolled the virtues of Seanad reform. Fine Gael has been busily trying to dismiss his comments in County Donegal by arguing that his script did not specifically refer to the Seanad. The party cannot, however, deny the content of the then Deputy Kenny's interview on "Morning Ireland" the following day, 24 July 2009, in which he specifically stated he opposed the abolition of the Seanad, adding the following:

I see a different role for the Seanad here. I would change the electoral system and give every graduate a vote here ... There is a real need for proper scrutiny of European legislation. There is a need to have a forum for MEPs. There is a need to challenge the Seanad in the work that it does. Many people feel that it has just been a cosy house for far too long ... It has got real potential but it has got to be challenged in that sense.

The then Deputy Kenny made his speech in Donegal in late July 2009. What happened in August and September 2009 that he turned from a reformer to an abolitionist?

The answer is straightforward: it was down to opinion polls and, as Deputy Tuffy said earlier, being populist. He saw his popularity rating go down while that of the Labour Party leader and now Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, was rising. He and his advisers scurried around to find a policy that might make their leader look tough, hard and decisive. We are now having a referendum on the basis of a promise made for pure political reasons. The proposal before us is not as a result of some reforming zeal or great vision. It is the product of a leader in trouble looking for something he could do or say to dispel the attacks on his leadership. Those attacks were coming from his own front bench. This is not how to make policy and it most assuredly is not a basis for playing with the fundamental law of this land, Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Deputy Donohoe rightly spoke about how Bunreacht na hÉireann has served our people so well. Last year to mark the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution in July 1937 and its enactment by the end of December of that year, I recall hearing a report of a major conference in University College Dublin on the importance of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Most of the attendees were constitutional law experts from outside the country, which shows the standing of our Constitution internationally. Yet, here we are with a large section of the Constitution being carved out for sacrifice upon the altar of the Taoiseach's political intentions.

Not that the Labour Party leadership is in a much better place. The Tánaiste somehow conveniently forgets his party's 2011 manifesto which specifically stated: "We will be proposing to the Constitutional Convention that the Seanad be abolished." Perhaps Labour Members might tell us when they decided to ignore this commitment and ignore the Constitutional Convention. Was it at the same time as they chose to ignore all their other election commitments?

There are few areas of political reform in Ireland that have been more talked about than Seanad reform, but all we have done is talked, and that applies to every political party. Some 12 reports have examined and recommended Seanad reform over many decades, but successive Governments of all political hues have failed to act on their findings. The mistake has not been talking about reform; the mistake has been not doing it. This should not be a party political issue. Governments of all political hues have failed to act. Rather than looking to abolish the Seanad, we should be working together, both in the Oireachtas and at the Constitutional Convention, to agree a structure for a radically reformed Seanad that is truly open and accountable to the people with a franchise for the people at large and outside our jurisdiction.

Approximately 156,000 people are currently registered to vote in Seanad elections, most of these on just the university panels - but only about 35% of these ever cast their ballot. It is within our power to design a Seanad that would represent 20 times that number, a Seanad where more than 3 million people are entitled to vote, comprising people across Ireland, North and South, and those who have been forced to leave this country. As the Private Member's Bill on Seanad reform tabled by Senators Zappone and Quinn has shown, it is entirely possible for the Oireachtas to extend the franchise for the Seanad without any need for a referendum. The problem with Seanad reform is not a lack of ideas, proposals or options. On the contrary, if anything there are too many options. The issue is with the political will and commitment to decide on a new structure and run with it.

As a Deputy who represents two of the southern Ulster Border counties, I believe we should be using the opportunity now to offer people in the North an opportunity to vote in Seanad elections. We should be seeking ways of extending politics beyond the old boundaries and limitations and reaching out to those in the North, those who have been forced to emigrate over the years and to the "new Irish" who have come to live and work among us. That was a view put forward very strongly by the Acting Chairman's constituency colleague, the Minister, Deputy Howlin, when he was Minister for the Environment in 1995. What he said in the Seanad at that time was absolutely correct.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Smith for sharing time, giving me the opportunity to make a short contribution to tonight's debate. John Stuart Mill once said: "A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life." We in Fianna Fáil believe the Seanad needs to be reformed, not abolished. Where is the real reform that was promised or is that being forgotten in the Government's five point plan? The Seanad needs to play a more active role in politics, with a keen focus on what really matters: getting our country back to work.

I strongly believe in the need to change how we do politics in this country, but scrapping the Seanad outright is not the answer. Such a move, in the absence of wider reform of the political system, will undermine democracy rather than enhance it. We need to make politics more transparent and accountable and ensure political decisions are subject to proper challenge. Abolishing the Seanad will do the exact opposite. It will make our system less accountable and less transparent. It will give a Government with a record majority even more control over the political process, which is the last thing people want.

It is very disappointing the Government is pressing ahead with the referendum and has refused to allow the issue to be discussed at the Constitutional Convention. It makes no sense to establish the convention to examine key issues relating to the Constitution and then bypass that body with a major constitutional referendum. Fianna Fáil will strongly campaign against what we believe would be a backward step for democracy in this country. We intend to publish detailed proposals on Seanad reform, changing how Senators are elected and changing how the Seanad does its business. Our plans will aim to bring more challenge and more transparency into our political system rather than undermining democracy as this proposal will do.

The Seanad should be used to bring in talent for ministerial appointment where there is a perceived lack and it should be used to focus on specific skills to tackle our country's problems. In the history of the State only two people have been appointed directly from the Seanad to ministerial office. These were Seán Moylan, who was appointed by the then Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, and Professor Jim Dooge, appointed by the then Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald.

The Seanad should be used as a tool in the decision-making process. In our parliamentary system the Executive yields absolute power and this needs to be changed. The Seanad needs to be reformed in order that there are further decision-making voices to help aid with our country's ever-changing problems.

Fianna Fáil's upcoming proposals on Seanad reform encompass a holistic vision for change in Irish politics to make it fit for purpose. The Government's slash and burn approach to reform exposes the shallow nature of its short-sighted changes. Behind the Government's box ticking reform exercise there is a complete lack of commitment to tackling the deeper issues that need to be addressed in political life. Four major issues need to be addressed. We need to address accountability shortcomings, such as electing the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot; allowing the Dáil to control its own agenda; the allocation of committee chairs by the D'Hondt system; and a Civil Service department for the Opposition. We need to address the lack of openness and transparency by having much more than mere reinstatement of freedom of information and the publication of audited accounts of political parties. We need to address failures in how representative politics operates through radical local government reform and the diversion of parliamentary administrative support away from Deputies and to Oireachtas research support services instead. We need to address the continued domination of the Dáil by the Executive.

Contrary to its promises of a democratic revolution the Government has used its unprecedented majority to ruthlessly guillotine Bills, abolish town councils and centralise power further into fewer hands by abolishing the Seanad. The Government with Fine Gael at the helm has decimated town councils, reduced Dáil numbers and wants to abolish the Seanad. It seems that Fine Gael is activating a top-down approach, where decisions are made with no consultation with the relevant stakeholders.

This was an opportunity for the Government to make a real difference in how politics is run, but if I were to give a mark on the Taoiseach's scorecard, it would be "F" for failure. This is not how to reform. Reform is described as making changes to improve. There has been no forward thinking by the Government to improve the running of our political system.

Nor has there been any effort to change or improve it. It is a question of pure and simple abolition.

We are opposed to the abolition of the Seanad because the Government has failed to act on real political reform and is using its abolition as a smokescreen. The Seanad needs to be reformed to play a more meaningful role in providing oversight and scrutiny of the Government and to broaden the representation of life in public debate. The Government is attempting to use stunts such as abolition of the Seanad to mask the lack of joined-up thinking to focus on problems with the institutions of the State.

Any real changes to the Seanad must address the following key areas: legislation, including a formal system of public consultation to be put in place in the Seanad to allow for consultation with interested groups and individuals early in the legislative process; European Union affairs, with the Seanad being given a new role in EU affairs; public policy, with the Seanad assuming the role of principal policy reviewer in the Houses of the Oireachtas; senior public appointments, with the Seanad being assigned responsibility for the scrutiny of senior public appointments; and a right of attendance at Cabinet, with the next Leader of the Seanad having the right to attend Cabinet with the status of either a Minister or Minister of State.

The reformed Seanad should have 65 Members, of whom 32 should be directly elected, 20 indirectly elected and 12 nominated by the Taoiseach of the day. A total of 26 Members should be elected directly to a national constituency under a proportional representation list system and six should be elected from a national higher education constituency under proportional representation by single transferable vote. Indirect elections should be made from councillors, Deputies and Senators. The direct elections should be held on the same day as local and European elections, while indirect elections should occur 90 days after a general election. The Taoiseach's nominees should be drawn from the Irish diaspora, the immigrant community, under-represented groups in society and the two traditions in Northern Ireland.

If the Seanad is abolished, it would take away another level of democracy. The people need to have a voice and both the Dáil and Seanad provide this in a bicameral arrangement. The Seanad has given us great minds, voices and people who want to represent the people. Overall reform is needed but no alternatives have been put in place under this proposal. Why not give a number of options to the people? The Taoiseach should listen to his backbenchers. They are bemused and confused by the whole situation and there has been no forward thinking, planning or solutions with regard to the issue of Seanad reform.

The abolition of the Seanad will not only affect democracy, it is a direct attack against democracy. We need to offer alternatives to abolition. Potentially, the Seanad could be used as a think tank, offering solutions and ideas to various Departments.

As mentioned, the election of Senators is archaic and needs to change. With a move towards increased democracy, the people's opinions will matter and the people will have a chance to say how they want democracy to continue in Ireland. Although Fine Gael and the Labour Party have an overwhelming majority in this House, we will fight tooth and nail to reform the Seanad and to be a progressive voice for the people.

Several broken promises have emerged since Fine Gael and the Labour Party have taken power. One example relates to the appointments to State boards. During the general election, the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, promised to end political cronyism. He said that in the previous 13 years the politics of the country had been dominated by the politics of cronyism and that for the previous 13 years the Government had been run by a small group of insiders, so-called friends of Fianna Fáil. He said that one of his ambitions was to put a sense of trust back into politics because it was a noble profession and should be seen as such. Prior to the election, Fine Gael pledged to replace the membership of all boards within six months of taking office. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, said in January 2011 that board members "will be asked to resign within six months by Fine Gael if we form the next government". The Labour Party pre-budget submission last year stated that any programme should include "Reform of the system of appointments to state boards to ensure that the process is transparent and that those appointed have the requisite knowledge and skills". The programme for Government committed to halving the size of the Department of the Taoiseach. However, since last year the Department appears to be the only one growing in size, with additional staff in the Department to monitor the implementation of the programme for Government, additional staff from the EU division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, while more staff are expected from Enterprise Ireland to oversee the implementation of Action Plan for Jobs.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Noel Harrington is sharing time with Deputies Regina Doherty, Seán Kyne and Áine Collins.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Everyone is agreed across party lines and across society that the Seanad is broken. It is not democratic, it is elitist and it has problems. It has required work, decisions and reform throughout the decades. It required an overhaul almost every decade but it got none. Calls for reform got no response despite trying, speaking and publishing reports on reform ad nauseam. It has become an institution that has outgrown its usefulness. I say as much as a person who ran for the Seanad poorly in 2007. I did not get there but I almost got there despite the fact that I received 22 first preference votes. That is the problem. The electorate to the Seanad is made up of county councillors, new Deputies and outgoing Senators in one group, third level graduates who have registered, although only a fraction of those registered ultimately vote, and the nominations of the Taoiseach of the day. It is reasonably clear that in a republic that demands democracy, accountability and transparency, this is simply outdated. It served its purpose after the 1937 Constitution and whatever the make-up of the previous Seanad was, but the days of the vocational element that was required almost 80 years ago are simply over.

There is a modern European dynamic with newer countries coming in from the former eastern bloc, which countries are similar in size to Ireland in terms of population. They do quite well, competitively and democratically, with one House. The same applies to other countries, including New Zealand, Finland and Denmark, the latter two being Scandinavian countries which we aspire to emulate in many ways, although sometimes unreasonably, because we look to them all the time. They have succeeded with one House.

Arguments have been put forward. I listened to previous speakers. If ever there was an argument about what we should do with the Seanad, I have not heard it. We have heard about reform, changing the Seanad and the Quinn Zappone Bill before the Houses, none of which could be realised. Reform has been tried 20 times in Canada since 1979. Each of those 20 times, those involved had the will, the foresight and the decisions to take, but they could not get consensus. I have heard many speakers in recent weeks offering their version of reform, but all have come up with different versions of what the Seanad should be and most of them would require a constitutional referendum. The Quinn Zappone Bill does not require a constitutional referendum but it is so similar to the current Seanad and as undemocratic and as elitist that it is difficult to see how it could truly become a changed or more democratic House.

It has been suggested that this is a power grab by the Government. We are suggesting putting this proposal to the people in a referendum. We are putting it to every voting citizen for their consideration and so that they can view it and vote on it. If that is a power grab, then I do not know what that is. If a decision is taken, whatever the decision, it will not take effect until the next Government. It is typical thinking from people in parties who automatically assume they will be in the next Government or those who believe the current Government will evolve into the next Government. It is a shame that we must hear that again, but that is it.

I have heard people making the case of the brilliant people who have graced the floor of the Seanad. No doubt there have been excellent people from all walks of life, but the examples I have heard of have done their best work outside the Seanad. I have heard people refer to Mary Robinson and others, but I cannot recall in any part of my mind Mary Robinson in the Seanad, although I remember her as a President, as a constitutional lawyer and as a brilliant person.

The fact is that the Seanad stifles such personalities. We need to engage such citizens, minds and intellects in a different way. If that is the kind of reform we are talking about then we need to hear that. The institution has become comfortable. It is human nature to become attached but the Seanad is not fit for purpose and the only option is to put the question of its abolition before the people. I cannot think of anything more democratic.