Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I also enthusiastically endorse the efforts of my friend and colleague, Senator Crown, in putting forward a very meaningful proposal on Seanad reform and on Seanad electoral reform. One of the downsides of this initiative is that on the face of it, it is a very complex Bill. I would have preferred it to be more simple in its execution. I have no difficulty whatsoever with its approach. The attempt is to widen the franchise to include the citizens of Ireland and to increase the university representation. I have never understood why successive Governments have failed to act on the 1979 referendum, which would have extended the university franchise to all those who are third level graduates as a result of the development of our education system over the past 30 years.

The response from the Minister was predictable. The Government has set sail on a course, led by the Taoiseach, to abolish this House. It is interesting that a meeting was held last week between the Labour Party Senators and the Labour Party leader, the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore. Although I was not a fly on the wall, inevitably in politics - and particularly in this House, which is a like hothouse - things emerged. When we were in government, they emerged from Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meetings on a regular basis. I notice the same tradition continues with the parliamentary party meetings of Fine Gael and the Labour Party. My understanding is, although I could stand corrected, that the Tánaiste's opening remarks were: "Your jobs are gone, boys and girls." So much for putting it to the people to give them a choice in this. The Government is quite determined that it wants to get rid of this House.

It is all very well for the Minister to talk about reform. When one looks at what he is trumpeting in terms of reform, what will it do to enact a more effective Legislature? What, for example, is the relevance of a reduction in State funding to a more effective form of government? I heard nothing whatsoever in the part in which he referred to the Government being committed to a radical overhaul of the way Irish politics and government work. I have heard nothing whatsoever about any attempt to dilute what is effectively the most centralised form of government in Europe outside of Stalinism. That is what we have in this country and it has been emphasised as a result of the last general election. This Government enjoys an unprecedented majority. The Executive can bring forward proposals to the Dáil to rubber-stamp Government policy, and it does so on a regular basis. The Minister can talk about having all the debates in the world. I am not a bit surprised some Deputies do not bother turning up for debates when Government proposals are introduced, because there is no chance they will be changed.

Is there any suggestion in these reform proposals of improving, enhancing or strengthening the role of the committee system, which is the norm in many European democracies? If a decision has to be made in Brussels, an Irish Minister can make the decision because he or she knows it will be rubber-stamped by the Dáil. However, a Danish Minister cannot do so and must go back to the relevant house committee to put the proposal before the representatives of the people. Why can this House not be used for that purpose?

Most people are anti-politics and anti-politicians and the sentiment may now be towards abolition. The Referendum Commission will be legally and constitutionally obliged to put forward the two sides of the argument and the information will be sent to every house in this country. No other party, of which I am aware, outside of the Government parties is committed to the abolition of this House. Parties may have differing views on how the House should proceed but Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the vast majority of the Independents would not support abolition. Indeed, even within the Labour Party and the Fine Gael parliamentary parties, there are people who are opposed to abolition.

I had better not give his name in case I get it wrong, but last year an academic who has a track record of analysing and assessing politics in this country, including elections and referendums, stated in, I think, The Irish Times that no referendum has ever been passed in this country in the absence of political consensus. It has only been when the political establishment has coalesced in the interests of the country as it saw them that referendums have been passed.

The Taoiseach and the Government may think they will have an easy ride with regard to how this House will proceed in the future and that it is only a matter of putting out a referendum Bill, which, according to Senator Crown, will cost the country ¤19 million. It is time another canard was nailed. The cost of this House is between ¤8 million and ¤9 million. I understand the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform said the abolition of the Seanad, if it happens, will not be a cost-saving exercise because the money will be deployed into an as yet unstated reform agenda. This was an opportunity for that Minister to talk about reform in the electoral context but there was no reference at all to the plan B in the event of the Seanad being abolished.

I welcome this opportunity to put a number of items on the record. I compliment Senator Crown on the Bill, which in normal circumstances would have a fair wind behind it, but I am afraid sentiment on the other side of the House is totally opposed to his thinking in this regard. However, that should not in any way diminish the efforts he has made, which I fully support.