Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill in the House and I am thankful for the time allocated. Public disclosure on this matter is of the utmost importance, which is why I am strongly supportive of this referendum being put to the people. It is the purpose of any referendum to change the Constitution in a particular way. In this case, the referendum would seek to make no fewer than 75 changes to the Constitution, and it is only proper that such a radical change should be put to the people in a referendum. The public must ask whether the country would be better off without the Seanad.

It is important to recognise the right of a Government to put this question to the people. Since 2009, the Taoiseach has put on record his desire to abolish the Seanad, such that following the 2011 election, the programme for Government included the forthcoming referendum. That came from the Taoiseach stating his intentions and the contents of the Fine Gael pre-election manifesto. We can safely recognise a mandate for the Government to pose this question but as a legislator and citizen of the country, I will contribute a view regarding the proposed abolition of the Seanad.

Since a Local Authorities Members Association conference almost two years ago, I have been on record calling for significant reform of this House. In my view, the Seanad in its current state does not function as effectively as it could. Only a fraction of the people get to vote for an institution that makes decisions affecting everybody, with a cost for everyone via taxation. Even in a democracy so limited, the Taoiseach appoints almost a fifth of the House, with some voters getting multiple votes, depending on whether they occupy an Oireachtas position or the number of universities from which they earned degrees. This democratic perversion is not the fault of these voters but rather the fault of all past Governments, which have so far failed to instigate any changes in the operation of this House, let alone implement them.

In asking the people what it wants, this Government is not only fulfilling a pre-election pledge but also engaging in a long overdue process of political reform. This political reform was given pride of place in the Fine Gael pre-election manifesto and in it the party pledged to engage in genuine reform of both Houses, with measures such as the reduction by 20 in the number of Deputies, this referendum on the Seanad's future and the broadest shake-up of Irish local Government in 150 years.

Some claim that the Seanad cannot be helped and it is simply a doomed cause. However, our nearest neighbours under former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the late 1990s took on the reform of the pinnacle of elitist institutions, the House of Lords, by removing vast swathes of hereditary accession to it. In doing so, Mr. Blair opened Britain's Upper House, and we can do the same in Ireland. At the same time we must recognise the benefits of bicameral governance, with a Parliament consisting of two Houses. The primary benefit is that one House keeps tabs on the other, and a Bill that the Dáil might guillotine can be analysed better and picked apart by this House, and it can act as a filter. The Seanad has often failed in such work in the past but that does not mean it would not succeed in future following sufficient reform.

One can use the building boom and banking crisis as an example. Could the Seanad have prevented the collapse that the Dáil-based governance of the day facilitated? If proper systems had been in place, it could have done so. The Seanad could have stepped in when tax breaks for builders were passed or stopped the bank guarantee in September 2008, but it could not achieve this without reform. To reform the Seanad would give it the ability and impetus to take such action, if necessary, in future, but to abolish the House would pave the way for a lack of accountability and reprimand, which could bring about similar catastrophes. Some 529 amendments have been proposed in this House in this term. For example, we debated the Animal Health and Welfare Bill for 14 hours in the House, with 85 amendments tabled that were later debated in committees and the Dáil. The Seanad exists to provide such a filtering mechanism on a regular basis.

To take a more statistical perspective, we can consider the differences between unicameral and bicameral parliaments.

For example, The Economist ranks the top ten democracies in the world, half have one parliament, the other half have two. When expanded to the top 20 economic countries, 12 have two houses of parliament. That statistic stands and demonstrates in the clearest possible terms the democratic boost that a second house provides.

One argument for abolishing the Seanad is to save money. This should not be used as one of the arguments or as a means for the public to punish politicians. On the subject of costs, the Seanad costs €8.8 million per annum for Senators' salaries, expenses and staff salaries. That is a mere €1.70 per person per year. As a replacement measure it has been suggested that a series of 14 committees would take over the work of the abolished Seanad. Furthermore, these committees would widely consist of outside experts. Who would appoint these people? How much would these committees cost? Would the positions be full time? Moreover, in the event of a member being unable to take part at a meeting, can he or she be quickly replaced and substituted with full voting rights being restored upon the appointee?

The Bill proposes the deletion of Article 27 of the Constitution which provides for the efficient resolution of a legislative conflict between the Houses. Why does it make sense to remove this article if the Seanad is abolished since no conflict could occur in the future? What provision is made for aforementioned conflicts between these committees and Ministers? What procedure will be put in place if two of these committees disagree on legislation? These are serious and legitimate questions which have not yet been answered but which need to be answered in order that we can have a more complete and more comprehensive picture in advance of the referendum. I ask that the cost of the new committee system be put before the House and the people and if outside experts are to be appointed, will it be on a full-time basis and, if so, who will appoint them?

Abolition of the Seanad is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Like a large oak tree it will take years to grow but one reckless chainsaw can abolish this tree, when maybe a tree surgeon could have pruned and reformed the tree. If we cut the tree down we may suddenly realise that we have made a mistake and may also realise the length of time it will take to grow this tree again.

Abolition of the Seanad will lose any leash the Lower House may have had on it. It scuppers any possibility of a more inclusive and comprehensive Irish democracy that Seanad reform would promise. Instead, a programme of reform led by the will of the Irish people, as ascertained by the referendum,
should be pursued not only in the Seanad but in the Oireachtas as a whole.