Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This proposal will profoundly impact on our Parliament, our politics and the people. Even those with the most sketchy knowledge of Irish history know that a second Chamber was previously abolished for a short period in the mid-1930s, but that Seanad Éireann was reconstituted in the 1937 Constitution because of genuine democratic concerns and because bicameralism was, and remains, the best way to ensure proper scrutiny of legislation in an Irish context.

In 1935, when de Valera brought legislation before the Dáil to abolish the Seanad, James Dillon stated:

Let us in the Dáil resent the inclination to abolish the Seanad just as we would resent the inclination of the Seanad to abolish this House. Let both Houses realise that both are necessary for the liberties of the country and let us join together to improve the efficiency of both Houses rather than joining in a trial of strength between the two Houses, aimed at the destruction of one.

The insights of James Dillon, Fine Gael's former leader, are as relevant today as they were more than 75 years ago. Ireland needs a reformed Seanad that can play a constructive role in guarding our liberties, rebuilding our economy and society and ensuring all voices are heard in our democratic life.

Instead, Seanad abolition will mean losing independent and minority voices. A unicameral system would necessarily mean a greater dominance by party politics and less room for the independent and expert voices for which the Seanad has been known throughout its history. This independence was largely guaranteed by the six seats reserved for university Senators. With a reformed and democratically elected Seanad, as constructively imagined through two practical proposals by three Independent Senators, there would be more room for Independents and for those who could represent the various minority groups within the diverse Ireland of the 21st century.

Surely this country has learned the lessons of the past about the severe damage that can be done by cultural closure, insular debate, intolerance and a refusal to listen to voices bar those of the majority opinion. If the Seanad is shut down, we will have a national Parliament that is fully controlled by the Whip system and the guillotine. Writing in one of the national newspapers, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, propounded that freeing parliamentarians of the Whip system would increase the influence of the loudest and best organised lobby groups. Could this really be the case? Are the people to believe that Governments, including this one, have successfully withstood the influence of lobbyists? Those with the greatest resources, particularly our banks, have always had the best organised lobby groups. Where has that landed the people?

As pointed out last week by the Independent Deputies in the Dáil and some of our own Senators this week, nearly 60% of all Bills have been guillotined during the Government's short tenure. This means that the time to scrutinise bills by the Opposition, independent voices and the Government's own backbenchers is curtailed. Amendments put forward are not taken. Respectfully, how are the people to believe the Government's reform promises of more Dáil time to scrutinise legislation once the Seanad is abolished if its own track record for openness to opposing and independent views is so poor? If the Seanad is abolished, we will have a national Parliament that is rooted in the straitjacket of party politics with no space for individual principled commitment and experts who are not fearful of saying things to upset the Government.

The Taoiseach claims that the Seanad's vocational system is a relic of the past and is not fit for 21st century Irish politics. In contrast to his proposal to pull down a pillar of our parliamentary democracy, Senator Quinn and I tabled cogent proposals that have been commended by all shades of political opinion in this House in mid-May. Our radical vision of reform is that every citizen will vote for a Seanad candidate, not to represent geography, but to represent expertise and practical knowledge in farming, education, industry, equality, human rights, labour, literature, engineering or culture. If the Seanad nominations and electorate are no longer controlled by party politics, we could unleash the power of elected expert lawmakers. Contrast this with the Taoiseach's proposals to form unelected expert panels to assist Dáil committees. This sounds like more highly paid advisers for the Government. Do the people need less politicians and more Government-appointed advisers? I think not. This will not only cost us money, it will also cost us our democracy.

Some of the main issues that Ireland must confront concern figuring out how we care for our children and the elderly and how this is balanced in a compassionate way with the real demands of markets and business.

I call Senator Comiskey and he has ten minutes.