David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Independent Senators and the team supporting them on bringing forward an excellent Bill. Within the confines of the Constitution, they have come up with extensive provisions which are worthy of support. My party will fully support the Bill. There are areas in which we would like the Bill to have gone much further, but we recognise that an attempt was made to introduce a Bill which would not require constitutional change. While that imposed limits on what could be achieved, I welcome very much the proposals which have been put before the House in the Bill.

We have a very centralised system of governance in Ireland and we are having the wrong debate. The reason we are having the wrong debate is that the Government has offered up the Seanad as a sacrificial lamb. The Executive has far too much power. The role of a backbench Deputy in government or opposition is not robust or what it is in most countries internationally. It is a sad reflection on the institutions of democracy we have in the State. We have very few checks and balances. The Seanad was intended to be a check and a balance, but we must, if we are fair, agree that it has not performed that duty very well. That has not been because those who have served here have been incapable of doing the job, it has been because the Seanad was not given the powers it needed to be the real check and balance it could and should be. Checks and balances should be the starting point of any discussion on political reform. If there is to be a second Chamber, it must have a clear purpose and cannot be a shadow or carbon copy of the other one. It must offer something different and it must have real powers and functions. The democratic principles of inclusiveness, sovereignty, the all-Ireland approach, the diaspora and equality should underpin any discussion about the future of the Seanad.

We must be clear and frank as to why we are in this situation and why the Seanad faces abolition. The Seanad faces abolition because, when he was in opposition, the Taoiseach got a rush of blood to the head and decided on the back of an opinion poll to announce his preference for the abolition of the Seanad without consulting his own party. Amazingly, very few people in his party said "stop" or indicated the need to examine properly the consequences of abolishing the Seanad. They did not point out the need to allow for proper debate and scrutiny. Instead of crying "stop", members of the Taoiseach's party have supported him ever since. We have now arrived at a point where a Bill and a referendum are imminent. It is a bad way to do politics and to treat one arm of the Oireachtas.

The same Taoiseach and Government established the Constitutional Convention to look at important constitutional change.

The Constitutional Convention was established to examine the issue of constitutional change and it is in the process of having a number of important debates. I have attended all sittings, bar one. In the coming months it will discuss the issue of electoral reform. It is made up of citizens and Members of the Oireachtas who are discussing important constitutional changes, the most important of which, the abolition of the Seanad, is not being discussed by it. This is madness. I, therefore, call on the Government to hold off on holding the referendum. It should allow the convention to scrutinise properly the proposals the Minister has described as constructive, as good ideas that offer something to the debate. If he is really interested in having a debate on the Seanad, why not allow the forum established to examine constitutional change to have a debate and a discussion on the issue? The convention could then examine whether we need a second Chamber, what it should look like, what powers and functions it should have and how people should be elected to it. I can be prescriptive, as I have my views and my party will launch its proposals. The Independent Senators have launched their proposals through this Bill. Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators opposed to abolition of the Seanad and people outside the Houses also have views. People outside this Chamber have a view on whether a second Chamber is needed and the Constitutional Convention is the place in which to discuss the matter. It will be a sad day for democracy if the Government ploughs ahead with the referendum without giving the people a real choice. We are not giving them a real choice if we say it is a question of abolition or retention without bothering to examine the issue of reform. If the option of reform is not put to the people, it will be a sign of failure on the part of the entire political establishment which has failed to properly reform the Seanad during the decades. It had the opportunity to do so and all the reports it needed, but it failed to reform it. Instead, the Government will opt for taking the populist route of abolition and sacrificing one of the arms of the Oireachtas because it does not want to have a real debate on genuine political reform. It will be a sad day when the political reforms delivered by the Government for the people, after the crisis we have come through, are having fewer Deputies and councils, what was done to the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta and the abolition of the Seanad. We will retain the Dáil which is clearly not working, functional or fit for purpose, while the Executive will retain its powers and have further powers, if the Seanad is abolished. That would be a shameful legacy for the Government to leave to future generations.