Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Of course population comes into play, but is the Minister, an educated man, saying to me with straight face that 32,000 people in Leitrim require 18 councillors while 65,000 people in Sligo can survive on the same number while coping with the challenges of supporting the ninth largest urban centre in the State? If he is, he must examine that.

Term of reference No. 5, in particular, clearly states that, in addition to the minimum number being 18 councillors, where a borough councillor is lost there may be up to a maximum of another four members. I appeal to the Minister to examine that area.

On the issue of broader electoral reform, the problem in this country is that we have a great sense of community but no sense of state and the reason we have no sense of state is that we have no sense of ownership of the public policy platform being pursued by Government. We all play the game in this House and in the other House. Manifestos are prepared and, as the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, told us recently, this is what is done at elections. We make stuff up, buy the electorate, get into government and do with it what we want. We heard that on "The Week in Politics". My view is that autopilot mode immediately kicks in. The Parliament is subservient to the Cabinet of the day. Its members announce polices in their parliamentary party rooms, on which there may be a debate, and the whip comes down and that is what is voted through, end of story. That system needs to change. Government needs to be outside Parliament. It needs to have to sell its policies even to its own party members. In the same way as one would see in the United States and as in the United Kingdom, there needs to be three forms of whip, where there can be accommodation of conscience issues and people are able, without the wrath of the party or threat of expulsion, to voice real opinions on behalf of the people. Then they may feel that have more of a sense of state, more of a sense of ownership of the policy being pursued from time to time.

What we have in this country, and it is not a question of criticising the current Government or absolving those who were there in the past, is a functional, democratic dictatorship. That is the reality. When the Minister announces a measure, it will go through. One of the things I am against, and it is the last thing people want to hear, is a Senator talking about the abolition or maintenance of the Seanad. In general, I will be staying out of that debate but I would make one point. I find it incredible that a Government has effectively manipulated a scenario to guarantee the abolition of the Seanad. That is a fact and it will be proven to be correct. Dare I say it, when the Bill is published towards the end of this week, as we have been told, I wonder what it will be called; to me, Hitler called it the Enabling Act and we all know where that led, and I am not joking in that regard.

It is incredulous for the leadership of the mainstream parties of the day, whether it be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party, to have put forward as an electoral stunt the abolition of this House when it was non-Senators who made sure that it was never reformed. We could do three things immediately without referring to Senator Crown's Bill or the 17 reports that were written. We could abolish the whip today, all EU scrutiny should be done by these Houses and all public appointments could be ratified by this House. That could be done between now and the referendum and it would not cost anything. The media do not cover this House. It is a done deal. The Seanad is going to be abolished. The media is supporting it, we have been elected to it as a stunt and the Government will have all the control. I wonder when the people were throwing out the Shah in Iran did they think the same and they woke up to the Ayatollah the next day. Was that the right thing to do?

On the matter of public appointments, we all despise the cronyism over the years. We heard many comments in opposition about how the Government was going to change this situation, how people would have to apply for jobs and their expertise would be judged and we all support that. Some 70 people applied for jobs in the Heritage Council and two people got the jobs. We can imagine how those 70 applicants felt when the two people who got the jobs did not even apply for them.