Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus fearaim fáilte romhat chuig an Seanad a Aire Stáit áit go bhfuil aithne mhaith agat air, do shean Teach. It has been a great honour and a privilege for me, as director of the Abbey Theatre, to have been nominated by An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, to Seanad Éireann. It has been an enormous privilege and a responsibility. Every day that I attend the Chamber I am aware of the historical connection and the constitutional obligation of my role in a constituent part of the Oireachtas. The fact also that I was nominated by An Taoiseach has given the Abbey Theatre and the arts community an endorsement, a recognition and a part to play in our parliamentary democracy. My role as a Senator has been to give voice to debates on legislation and topical issues from the point of view of my experience and my position as theatre person and an activist within the arts community. In other words, when I felt competent to speak or to vote on an issue, I did so, within the context of my background and vocational experience.

I have no particular mandate as such; I was not elected nor have I contested any election to any position within the Oireachtas. I do strongly believe, however, that the arts community should be represented in an upper chamber. This has rarely been achieved with the existing so-called cultural panel as a part of the Senate's obtuse election system. There are exceptions and my esteemed colleague, Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú, is one and of course among my predecessors, W.B. Yeats, Oliver St. John Gogarty, the late Éamon de Buitléir and Brian Friel, to name but a few.

Whatever about the technical specifics of the bicameral model with regards to constituencies and elections, if we advocate a two-tier parliamentary democracy, then the idea is that they both together should broadly reflect Irish civil society. In other words, the Upper and Lower Houses should not duplicate or look alike and should between both of them, and the Office of the Presidency, encourage a greater relationship of trust, connectedness and inclusivity between our parliamentary democracy and our fellow citizens. An electorate of fewer than 1,000 people electing 43 Senators is not that. My personal and philosophical challenge is that I do believe in bicameralism but not in the Seanad, and in the particular way it is constituted. To quote Professor Michael Laver "once the subject is put on the table it is hard to construct a principled argument in favour of retaining Seanad Éireann in its current form". That is what has been asked of us in voting on the 32nd amendment of the Constitution, abolition or retention.

I graduated from Trinity College, as did the Minister of State, with a degree in political science and, therefore, I have had the privilege of being able to cast my vote in the Trinity constituency of Seanad Éireann. During the Second Stage debate on the 32nd amendment of the Constitution Bill there has been a discussion about the benefits of a bicameral system. In other words, is it necessary to have a second chamber in our parliamentary democracy or is it just an old-fashioned nineteenth century mode of empowering the elite of the nation? I am a member of an elite class, whether I like it or not, a nominated Senator and a vote in Seanad Éireann as a Trinity graduate.

There is no universal suffrage for the election to the Seanad, a voting right which the overwhelming majority of our Republic is denied. The mode of election is anachronistic and byzantine. The constitutional and emotional connection between citizens of this Republic and the Seanad is limited, non-existent or at best peripheral. What this amendment to the Constitution proposes, for the first time, is to provide everyone who is eligible to vote an opportunity to offer an opinion on the Seanad. This is the closest they will have got to a connection to Seanad Éireann.

We have been asked in this Chamber to support or oppose this Bill as a way of endorsing the political reform agenda of the Government. It is a conundrum that I am grappling with because we are not voting in a vacuum and we are asked to take other proposals, such as reform of the Dáil and committees on trust or on the nod. I do not see any reform of the other two constituent parts of the Houses of the Oireachtas in this Bill. When I consider political reform, I do not think of saving money; I do not think of too many politicians; I do not think of Friday sittings. When I consider strengthening our parliamentary democracy, I think of the two objectives, namely, trust and participation. The Taoiseach described the abolition of the Seanad as modernising the political system. I respectfully disagree with him. Modernising our political system is about increasing the level of trust between our citizens and our system of democracy.

It is about changing the political culture of our Republic.

Modernising our political system is about a deeper engagement between our fellow citizens and the Oireachtas, other than just voting every four to five years. Modernising our political system is about enabling a greater accountability and transparency at local and national level. I agree with an Taoiseach that the Seanad does not work and, in truth, probably never has. In fact, in a bizarre way an Taoiseach has clearly contributed to the wider debate about the nature of our parliamentary democracy by proposing the abolition of the Seanad.

What concerns me, however, is that if the Seanad is abolished, what is left? If the Seanad is abolished in October, the Government's intention is to strengthen the Dáil through better working procedures, more committees with better organised and greater scrutiny of legislation. We are being asked to abolish the Seanad in a referendum on the basis of some procedural changes that will not be enshrined in the Constitution. The crux of the argument is what Professor David Farrell describes as “the serious power imbalance between legislature and government”.

What the Government is proposing is so much change and yet so little reform. If we decide to abolish the Seanad, can we trust the Government to give more power to the 158 Deputies of the next Dáil, decentralise power from the Cabinet and provide adequate space and time to legislate? I am not sure whether abolishing the Seanad achieves that. Reducing the number of politicians would be more a populist than a reforming move. I would not be in favour of reducing the number of Deputies if effective local and parliamentary reform were in place. Comparative analysis indicates that, as it stands, the Dáil is just about the right size for our population. According to the influential cube root rule set out by political scientists Taagepera and Shugart, with a population of 4.59 million, our Dáil should have 166 Deputies, not the 158 proposed for the next election.

In my two years as a Senator, I have noticed and come to recognise some traits and observations which I would like to comment on. I am doing this in light of the debate on reform and the fact that there are two Seanad reform Bills on the Order Paper, one of which was introduced by my colleague Senator Zappone. There is no doubt that every individual Senator whom I have come to know and work with in this Chamber has reform at heart and cares deeply about the future of the Upper House. There is always talk of reform and how to do our business better, no more so than from the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins. I congratulate him on his eloquent and elegant defence of the Seanad during this debate. However, the elephant in the reform room is not the Seanad nor the Dáil but the Cabinet. The Government controls the agenda of the Dáil and the Seanad. The Seanad gets choked and starved of legislative business and is dependent on the goodwill of certain Ministers to show up in this Chamber. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, has expressed that goodwill constantly and consistently. The Leader has toiled hard for the Seanad to remain relevant not only to the public but to his Government. The Seanad is under pressure to sit as many days as possible to justify its existence and our salaries. That is a dysfunctional, negative and ultimately soul-destroying motivation.

Collectively, it is impossible to reform the Seanad. I can imagine a reformed Upper House, sitting five days a month to do its business, debating important and topical issues, scrutinising, debating and amending legislation. An Upper Chamber does not need any more power but needs clarity, diversity, less power of political groupings, no Whip and fewer sitting days. I would also curtail the theatrics of the Order of Business.

I have witnessed and participated in excellent debates in the House. I am not questioning quality, just quantity. In the report on Seanad reform issued by the Seanad Éireann Committee on Procedure and Privileges in 2004, one single sentence stands out in lights: "It has no distinctive role in the Irish political system". This is what Senators collectively accepted. What we have in our democracy is an increasingly disenchanted and disenfranchised citizenry with no power, connection or participation at local government level. On the other side, there is a highly centralised, presidential-style government which is not de factoaccountable to the Dáil. In a backwater the Seanad has languished for 90 years.

Surely an Taoiseach and the Government must approach political reform holistically so that we can improve the political culture of our Republic. There is no joined-up strategic thinking. There are four roads being taken by the Government in devising its disconnected political reform plan. As the saying goes, when asking for directions in south Kerry, “Well, if you want to get there, I wouldn't be starting from here.” Elements of Oireachtas reform such as the President's term of office and electoral reform are being deliberated by the Constitutional Convention. That is one road. Another road is local government reform, which is driven by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, but this will not include real powers for revenue-raising or spending. A third road is Dáil reform, one that has not yet been built or delivered on in any meaningful way. This was alluded to by Deputy Charlie Flanagan, no less, chairperson of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party. The final byroad we are asked to venture down is Seanad abolition by way of constitutional amendment and this Bill. This is some Ordnance Survey map of political reform with no compass, no map and no idea. It is incoherent and confusing. I have no idea where we will finally end up.

The potential worth of the Seanad will only be at its highest the minute a Dáil with only 158 Deputies and no actual Dáil reform comes into existence. That is the challenge facing me today. There has been no appetite for Seanad reform from the only institution that can effect change - namely, successive Governments. So many reports, so little change. The major and possibly only current function of the Seanad is that it allows legislation time to breathe, to cool a little, as George Washington said of the role of an Upper House. Maybe the proposals put forward by an Taoiseach with regard to the reform of the committees would achieve this. My worry is whether this will actually happen. Yesterday, the Taoiseach promised a more serious look at reforming the Lower House. However, it has not been achieved yet.

I will not stand in the way of an Taoiseach's decision to put this amendment of the Constitution to the people. However, political reform is about increasing trust in our political institutions and encouraging greater participation in our parliamentary democracy that reflects and represents the pluralistic society of the Republic. This piecemeal, stuttering, incoherent political reform agenda does not invite confidence. My personal challenge is whether the abolition of the Seanad is the right question to be asking.