Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Let us talk about political reform. We are the only people who are talking about political reform. The Taoiseach does not talk about political reform but about putting a "Yes", "No" question to the people. Does he want this House to be kept or to go? What choice is that? As Senator Norris said so bravely and courageously in his contribution earlier - I applaud him for it and for the passion he brought to it - when speaking about the same points being made in relation to reform, he asked, what reform?

I can remember when the then Minister for the Environment, Noel Dempsey, brought forward proposals to the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party about abolishing the dual mandate that would prevent Members of the Oireachtas from being members of a local authority, which I and most colleagues at that time vehemently opposed. Here was another Minister that went off on a solo run, and we saw what happened to him - a salutary lesson for the Taoiseach in seeking so-called institutional reform.

When the then Minister brought this proposal forward, a Fianna Fail Deputy put a pertinent question asking him to outline this brave new world of reform in which Deputies would now find themselves, and if he could outline what extra and added responsibilities they would have. The Deputy was given a vague answer. We are asking the same question today and will be given an equally vague answer as to what will happen in the event of this House being abolished. Why? There are no plans. The Government and its predecessors operate in one of the most centralised democracies in western Europe. Before the collapse of the Soviet empire, I would have compared the manner in which they conducted their affairs at government level to how we did things and said our centralised systems were akin. We remained centralised and we are centralised in the reality that the Executive, the Government, makes the proposals, puts them before the Lower House and because of its numerical majority, the proposals pass.

The question to be put to the people in October needs to be put in the context of the reality of an unprecedented Government majority in the Lower House, where over 40 Members can be commanded at any one time to come in and take down any legislative proposals made by the Opposition. This Government has guillotined legislation on a variety of occasions, not just in this House but more so in the other House because it can do so. Why can it get away with it? It is because it can do it. It does it because it can and it will continue to operate that same system. The people should make no mistake that if the Upper House is abolished they will continue to have one of the most centralised democracies in western Europe.

Spurious arguments have been put forward, apart from the alleged cost of the Seanad and the arguments put forward by the Taoiseach and his tiny band of supporters who I think have been pulled kicking and screaming into the "support Enda camp" rather than coming in voluntarily. The other spurious argument that they raised was that like-sized countries were operating unicameral systems. Denmark was referred to. I wonder if research was done into the Danish system of democracy. They have three tiers of government in Denmark: the national Government, an effective and strong regional government and an equally strong and effective local council. They have more local councils operating in Denmark than we ever had in this country for its size. Unlike this country they are in control of health, education and a range of spending initiatives that are absent here. What are we doing? We are doing it in reverse, we are getting rid of the town council and there will be no elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta. We are emasculating local authorities by reducing their numbers. What is the next step? Abolish this House, lop off another arm of democracy in the country. We must ask the reason that this is being done. I cannot find an answer. I do not understand the motives behind it. If there were a logic to the proposal that is being put before this House, I would be the first to concede it.

The appeal goes out of here to the general public, it reminds them to think long and hard about how they will vote when the referendum is announced. It might be interesting if the Minister would give some indication of that date. To paraphrase a commercial that is currently running on radio and television, "When it is gone it is gone and it cannot come back".