John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I lend my support to the Bill and commend Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn and their background staff for contributing to the debate. I also thank Senators for their kind words on the other Bill on the Order Paper. The legislation advances the call for a mature debate on the future of the Seanad before the referendum is held in October. At least we will have theoretical constructs on the Order Paper. As Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said, the Bills are unlikely to get through the entire legislative process. However, they will stimulate the discussion on the real options available to reform the Oireachtas.

Let us be blunt - my primary motive in advancing my Bill - I am sure the same applies to my colleagues - is not to save the Seanad for its own sake but to reform the Oireachtas. I joined the House comparatively recently as an outsider. It appears, with no disrespect to those who run the country and work extremely hard at public representation, that the two Chambers are dysfunctional and have failed, although they have given us a constitutional democracy in the face of threats from various sources over a long period. On reflection, few countries have enjoyed such a continuous period of parliamentary democracy for as long as ours. The number is relatively few and in Europe there have been very few. In terms of where we are economically in the national crisis, it is plausible to blame it in part on the political structure in place. I have long argued that two forces are represented in the Parliament - parochialism and localism, owing to the way we elect Members to the Dáil, coupled with inexpertise. There was a cadre of professional politicians who did not, in many cases, bring a substantial life skills set to the Houses of Parliament. The original idea was to have a balanced Upper House that would introduce a different skills set. I was going to say it was created by the founding fathers, but I think we all know who the founding father was. Owing to the natural political evolutionary process and the way local councils are elected, the Seanad has become a mirror image of the other House. I am respectful, however, of the opinion advanced that the Seanad is a bulwark of democracy that needs to be defended. However, I am hard-pressed to think of a case, in the past two years, in which I have seen it act as a bulwark and a defender of democracy. As I said, the main reason to reform the Seanad is not that it is doing something so critically important that we need to protect it but that it will show up the other House. If we were to enact reforms, or a synthesised version of them outlined in the two Bills, there would be a Chamber in which the majority of the Members would be elected in national constituencies. That would be hugely important and would remove the element of parochialism, although I do not mean to run down the importance of local politics. The primary political motive of the good people in the other House and many in this House is to work out how to negotiate a local constituency organisation and a local constituency general electorate at the time of the next election.

I have a few technical difficulties with the Bill being discussed. In the event that it reaches Committee Stage - perhaps that is just fantasy - I shall table a number of amendments. I am most troubled by the nominating process for Seanad Éireann and its nominating bodies. The notion behind them is that they act as a filter between the wishes of the people and the those who appear on the ballot paper. In an absolute democracy, which is what I believe in, that filter should end. There is a contradiction between the Bill and the other Bill we will move at the end of the debate. I have been told that we have received the blessing of the Leader and the Government parties to do so, for which I am grateful. We propose that any citizen should be able to run for the Seanad as long as he or she has the signatures of 1,000 of his or her fellow citizens on a nominating paper. I shall not get into comparing and contrasting the two Bills. However, I am troubled by the idea of having nominating bodies, including two lots of people who sell alcohol, written into the framework for deciding who can be nominated. Why not let the tobacco industry also act as a nominating body? What about the muddying of the Medellín or Cali cartel? It makes no sense to me whatsoever that we should allow for this. We also have the banking federation. We have two groups representing advertisers who have done rather well historically from the Oireachtas. We also have the Road Haulage Association which I am sure will have an opinion when we debate legislation to decrease emissions.

I am unambiguously voting for and supporting the Bill and I am delighted that it will be passed. Let me be slightly light-hearted for one moment. I noted the mention of North Korea. I am delighted that, like North Korea, we, in Seanad Éireann, have a dear Leader.

I am delighted that the good offices of the Government parties have been used to foster democracy by allowing these two Bills to get to a nominal next Stage. That will enable us to create a template for a vigorous constitutional debate before the people vote in a referendum in October. That referendum is justified because it is what the Government indicated it would provide for before it ran for office. We need to have that referendum.