David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I concur with everything Senator Barrett said. As I noted on Second Stage, when one reflects for a moment on what took place in this State over the past five years one finds that the failure of the political and regulatory systems to rein in the banks and properly scrutinise developments in the economy resulted in the collapse of the public finances and the bail out of the State by the International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank. The notion of sovereignty and democracy and whether we live in a republic has been the subject of debate in recent months. People are crying out for genuine political reform. They want leadership. Many question whether we genuinely live in a republic that should and does cherish all citizens and children of the State equally, as was promised by the founding mothers and fathers of the State.

I very much regret the fact that the potential abolition of the Seanad is using this House as some sort of sacrificial lamb on the altar of political reform or the notion of it. I agree with the previous Senator. The point has been completely missed if we go ahead with the abolition of this House and the reduction in the number of Deputies without strengthening local government. It would be a dangerous thing were we to have less accountability and scrutiny in the State. We have all seen at first hand what the centralisation of power can do in other countries. It would be a dangerous development were we to empower the Executive, namely, the Cabinet and give Government parties even more power. It would be against the interests of citizens.

There was a missed opportunity in respect of participatory democracy and ensuring that citizens have a voice. I attended a recent lecture by Professor Kathleen Lynch on the need for the State to value its citizens. She referred to the political discourse and narrative that has been set by the political establishment in recent years even in terms of how we view people. For example, citizens in the health service are seen as customers and people who seek housing are considered as clients. The type of language which has crept into the political discourse in this country is wrong. It shows a move towards more Thatcherite thinking and policies. We must get back to the notion of what it means to be a republic, what a republic should look like, and what kind of republic we all collectively want to be part of creating and living in.

When one measures those big issues against the Bill it shows how short it falls. We are again getting a Government which is simply trying to give the impression that it is serious about political reform but in reality it is just being populist. I very much regret the fact that the abolition of this House and the reduction in the number of Deputies will end up as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political reform. That is wrong. It will not in any way enhance democracy in the State. We should also reflect on the failure of the regulators and the entire regulatory system. That is something which should be seen in the context of political and institutional reform. There was a very real difficulty in respect of the relationship between the State, the democratic institutions and the regulators. All of the institutions failed to prevent the collapse in the economy and the public finances.

I am sure the Minister will relate to and agree with my final point. We are talking about accountability, political reform and ensuring there is improved scrutiny and oversight. Reference was made to the health service and the Health Service Executive. I made the point recently in a debate on the health service that the best impression of Pontius Pilate I have seen in my time as a political activist was the previous Minister for Health and Children who did not take responsibility for any of the problems which presented. We had a bizarre situation where the Department of Health and Children, the Minister, and the Health Service Executive were all going backwards and forwards and nobody was taking responsibility. People were being thrown from Billy to Jack in terms of who was responsible for problems in the health service. That goes back to the dismantling of the health boards and the establishment of the Health Service Executive which introduced more bureaucracy and less accountability and oversight. That is the kind of change we require.

My party introduced proposals on community health partnerships where local public representatives, national politicians, advocate groups and patient groups would have a role in scrutinising health policy. If one wants to fix the problems in the health service then one should talk to those who are suffering as a consequence of the health service. If one wants to fix housing problems then the Minister responsible for that area should talk to people who are living with the nightmare of unfinished estates, which we discussed recently in the House, or other issues. So much was missed in the Bill that it cannot be seen in any way as genuine political reform. That is why the political parties in opposition are so opposed to the proposals.