Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn for bringing this proposal before the House. I also thank the Leader, the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach for their contributions. Although I have no direct experience of anything that went before, this Seanad, which contains 42 new Members, has proved its worth in the past 18 months. This country was not bankrupted by Members of the Seanad or the Dáil, but by bankers, bureaucrats and builders - the sectors of our society whose representatives were in Government Buildings four years ago this past weekend. If we abolish the Seanad, those representatives will be the happiest people in the world because there will be one less forum for scrutinising and imposing some checks and balances on their activities. We cannot let the wider society down by abolishing one of the democratic institutions of the State when it had nothing to do with the bankrupting of the country and the obligation to seek the support of the EU-IMF-ECB troika.

Grattan's Parliament was the last parliamentary forum to be abolished in this city, a decision which led to decades of misery following the transfer of legislative power to Westminster. It took 122 years to restore a national parliament to this country and even then, the six north-eastern counties were omitted. That was a major disaster. We should not shut down any parliamentary institution lightly. In his book The Irish Free State and its Senate, Donal O'Sullivan sets out the origins of this House. On 16 November 1921, he tells us, Arthur Griffith, acting on behalf of the President of the first Dáil, Éamon de Valera, met in London with several persons associated with Unionist interests in the South: Lord Middleton; the provost of Trinity College, Dr. John Henry Bernard; and Mr. Andrew Jameson. After this meeting, Mr. Griffith wrote to Mr. de Valera to tell him that the men had made a strong case for a Senate in any new democratic dispensation in Ireland. Mr. Griffith communicated to them his support for a second Chamber, he said in his letter, and indicated his view that his colleagues would be of the same mind. He indicated, moreover, that he had undertaken to consult these gentlemen before proceeding to erect the machinery of state and that they were satisfied with this commitment.

Today, when one enters this great building, one sees a portrait of Arthur Griffith on one side and Éamon de Valera on the other. These two statesmen established a second Chamber in order to ensure fair treatment of minorities. This House stands supreme in that regard. Even after partition, minorities in the State were treated well in institutions such as the Seanad, something which was not replicated on the other side of the Border. That tradition of inclusivity continues to this day. I received a card the other day from the president of the Bann Rowing Club in Coleraine thanking me for conveying my good wishes to its participants in the recent Olympic Games, even though they opted to row for Great Britain. This House still has standing in terms of the goals of Arthur Griffith and Éamon de Valera to integrate minorities into the political structures of the State. It is an extremely valuable role and one we should cherish. As Senators Zappone and Quinn set out in their admirable document, this House was shaped by a need to counter the strong hold of the Executive over the Legislature in the Irish system. Perhaps a complementary reform that is required when reviewing the working of the Seanad is to relax the Whip system in both Houses.

The question we must consider is whether this House continues to fulfil its historical role. My answer to that question is "Absolutely." When Committee Stage of the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2008 is taken in the Chamber tomorrow, there will be 34 amendments to discuss, 20 of which have been tabled by the Minister arising from the quality of the debate on Second Stage. Several Ministers have likewise amended legislation on the basis of issues raised by Senators in the course of debate, most of them observing that the debate in this House was superior to that in the Dáil. We have a major role in seeking to rescue this country by way of the checks and balances we provide in the legislative and parliamentary process. The fiscal responsibility legislation was introduced in this House, as were ground-breaking provisions on, for example, family planning and the abolition of corporal punishment in schools. Seminal legislation was initiated here by Senator David Norris, the former Senator and President of Ireland Mary Robinson, and former Senator Owen Sheehy-Skeffington. We have lived up to the role we were asked to perform. We should not throw away the great talents that are here, which are so badly needed if the Dáil is to continue in its present way. This House has historically included among its Members some of the best legal intelligence in the country, as represented, for example, by Alexis FitzGerald, who made important contributions to legislation. The Seanad's contribution to parliamentary endeavours in this country has been acknowledged by a series of Ministers over the years, including Patrick Hogan, a former Minister for Agriculture, and, in more recent times, a former Tánaiste, Michael McDowell.

Another former Senator, Dr. Maurice Hayes, made a witty observation recently when he compared the Seanad to a junior football team that has last year's seniors on the way down and next year's minors on the way up. What a crop of minors we have had, however. Liam Cosgrave, as Taoiseach, appointed the current President, Michael D. Higgins, to this House. Former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald began his career here, as did Ministers of State Deputies Brian Hayes and Alex White and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. It is a good training ground. I do not know, however, whether there are too many on the way back from the senior team. It is good to have a parliamentary forum that is not adversarial, as we try not to be, but which instead facilitates Members in raising points that would not be raised in the Dáil. There are people in this House who would not be elected to the Dáil but still wish to contribute to the better governance of the country. Such commitment is needed now more than ever.

An important focus for this House must be to tackle bureaucracies which are immune to scrutiny. In that context, we have a job to do tomorrow to persuade the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, to bring more of them under the scrutiny of the Ombudsman. We also must seek to tackle lobbyists and pressure groups. As we know, ¤64 billion was taken out of this country in one evening.

It was a major coup by bankers and we still have not got to the bottom of it. I hope we will do so when we assert the dominance of Parliament over those who inflict such punishment on the people.

I also worry about the growth of other bureaucracies. An bord snip noted that senior management in the Civil Service was growing four times more rapidly than the Civil Service as a whole and was protecting all of its allowances. We must represent the people against this type of abuse of power.

I have no doubt that, on reflection, we will present to the Taoiseach a reformed Seanad. I hope we will be able to persuade him that the referendum should not proceed on the basis that we have reformed ourselves and earned the respect of the people. With so much to do, a referendum could be a distraction. Parliament must assert itself over the groups which have destroyed the country. I have no doubt this House has a great future.