Seanad debates

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

6:00 pm

Photo of Camillus GlynnCamillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

I wish formally to record the fact that the Government parties are not proposing an amendment to the motion.

As someone serving his third term in the House, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Seanad reform. The renewed programme for Government contains a commitment to establish an electoral commission which will be tasked with proposing reforms to the electoral system in a number of areas, including outlining new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann. The final meeting of the all-party group on Seanad reform was held in November. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is to report to the Government on its conclusions. The commitment to seek to advance Seanad reform forms a part of the Government's overall approach to Oireachtas reform. It is clear the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is committed to Seanad reform.

The issue of Seanad reform was put under the spotlight - not in the way that I or any Member of this House would like - by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Kenny. The Government's reaction at the time was that we must bear our democratic institutions with great care. Given that even the poorest democracies in the world have a two-chamber system, why should Ireland have only one? At the end of my contribution I shall outline some of the attributes that have been justly earned by this House in terms of scrutinising legislation.

There is no doubt that Seanad reform must be pursued. We have done the talking; now let us do the walking. It would be wrong to simply abolish the Seanad to save money. We could save money by halving the number of Deputies or by abolishing many of the cabals throughout the country, many of them very worthy organisations. If we take that simplistic approach we will not be doing any good. The abolition of the Seanad as put forward by Fine Gael cannot sit as a proposal on its own. It must be accompanied by significant institutional and constitutional reform. There are several references to the Seanad in the Constitution.

The Seanad was established in the interest of a proper functioning democracy. Abolishing the Seanad would improve vertical accountability of the Dáil as it would be the sole Legislature, but it would remove horizontal accountability, as another body would not check the Dáil's business. I shall give examples of what would have happened had this Chamber not been in existence. It would reduce parliamentary oversight of the Executive. Getting rid of the Seanad may speed up the passing of legislation, although the passing of the bank guarantee scheme in September 2008 is an example that showed that legislation could be done quickly in a bicameral system.

All parties need to play a constructive role in moving forward with Seanad reform, which is why we do not oppose this motion. In terms of reform, it is clearly important for any organisation to look continually at the way it does its business. We should not be afraid to push the boat out and examine how we operate. However, simply to close it down as Fine Gael has proposed is not the answer.

The sub-committee on Seanad reform published a report on Seanad reform in April 2004. I did not agree with a number of those recommendations, but as a democrat I had to take account of what the majority in the Government parties felt at the time. The report set out a package of comprehensive recommendations for further consideration and action concerning the composition, functions and future role of Seanad Éireann. Many of these recommendations were radical and far reaching.

Reference has been made to this House being used as a stepping stone. I shall refrain from using the term "to bigger and better things." I am proud to state that I am a career Senator.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.