David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

In equal measure, I agree and disagree with what the previous Senator said. I also agree with a huge amount of what was said by earlier speakers. It is ironic that the debate is happening in this way, with every Senator being given ten minutes, with equality of speaking time and with everyone having the opportunity to speak. There is no rush and we will work our way through Second Stage and move onto Committee Stage with no guillotine and with sufficient debate. That should apply to every item of legislation but it is not the case. The reality is that 56% of legislation introduced by this Government was guillotined. Can someone in government explain to me if we have eight fewer Deputies and no Senators, how in God's name we will improve the situation?

The Taoiseach says we will have an added layer of scrutiny of legislation in the Dáil once the Seanad is abolished. How is that possible if the Dáil, as it is, is incapable of properly scrutinising legislation given that 56% legislation has been guillotined? That does not make sense. It feeds into what the previous Senators were saying. The Taoiseach bounced us all into this issue. He made the announcement in the heat of an election campaign but unfortunately he was not big enough to say that he made a mistake and that we need to take a step back and examine it in more detail.

There is merit in people putting forward the view that the Seanad should be abolished. I always held the view that the Seanad, as it is, should be abolished. I disagree with the previous Senator because I believed the Seanad, as it is, is undemocratic and elitist because the vast majority of citizens outside the Chamber cannot vote for people in the Chamber. As long as that is the case, people will not have an affinity or a close relationship with the Seanad. The starting point must be universal franchise. While I want the Seanad as it is to be abolished, the option of reform should be put to the people. We should have properly explored all options. Many ideas have been floated by all parties. I attended the Seanad Chamber in 2003, when I was a member of Waterford City Council, as part of a delegation from my party, with Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and Conor Murphy, MP, who was then in the Northern Ireland Assembly. At the time, Mary O'Rourke was the Leader of the House and was seeking presentations from all parties and outside groups. I took part in that discussion.

There have been several attempts to reform the Seanad. The Taoiseach made reference to this when delivering his speech on Second Stage on the Bill. He referred to successive Governments having failed to reform the Seanad. He is as responsible as anyone else for this. Simply to say that the political establishment has failed to reform the Seanad and, because of that, we should press the nuclear button and go for abolition is wrong and ill thought out.

The Taoiseach was given any number of opportunities to do the right thing. He set up the Constitutional Convention and my party supported him on that. I am a member of the Constitutional Convention and I have enjoyed all contributions. The reality is that the remit of the Constitutional Convention was very narrow. There have been very good debates on good issues but they should have been given the opportunity to have a profound look at real electoral and political reform. The only reform it was allowed to look at was the narrow issue of Dáil electoral reform. Surprise, surprise, the vast majority came back to say that the current system is working well. It is no surprise to anyone because the least contentious of any of the issues in respect of electoral and political reform was the PR-STV system in the State, which most parties support. They think it is a good system and do not want to fix it if it is not broke. It was no surprise that over 90% of the members of the convention suggested no change. They should have been asked to examine wider electoral reform and political reform.

This brings me to one of the reasons I do not support the abolition of the Seanad without the option of reform being put to the people. The first option should have been whether people want a reformed Seanad and to have that discussion at the Constitutional Convention, allowing the convention to discuss the issue and examine whether there is a need for a second Chamber. If they decide there is, the Government can come back with proposals and put them to the people. Unfortunately, that was not done.

Where is the Government at the moment in terms of its political reform agenda? The Government has flunked because it has been all about abolition and reduction. It started with local government. The previous Senator spoke about the importance of local government. I was a councillor and I will testify to the fact that councillors are the building blocks. They do a difficult job but it is also worthwhile and adds value to our democracy. The problem is that local government is very weak and, like the Seanad, the one thing it needs most is more power. Central Government has consistently refused to give local government more powers. Every previous Government has refused to properly reform local government, the same as they have refused to properly reform the Seanad. It is not the fault of councillors or local government or the people who work in local government; it is the fault of the system. We are not arguing that we need to abolish local government because of that. To reform it, we need to give local government the power it needs. The problem with the Government's approach is that it is about reducing numbers. I challenged the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, asking him to explain the new powers given to local government since he came into office. He has merged local authorities, abolished some councils and is reducing the number of councillors. I asked him to show us the colour of his money in respect of real reform and the new powers granted to local government. The reality is that there is none and he has been unable to show any real powers given to local government.

In this state we have a weak system of local government and a national Parliament with two Houses which are dysfunctional and need to be reformed. The Dáil needs to be reformed as much as the Seanad. The Minister is fortunate to be in office, but the vast majority of backbench Deputies, Government and Opposition, do not have the powers they should because all power is in the hands of the Cabinet. That is an unfortunate reality of our political system. It is often argued that perhaps four or five Ministers run the country. That is not democratic or healthy and not the way to do business.

The Government's solution is to reduce the number of Deputies and abolish the Seanad, with no consideration given to rebalancing power between central and local government and transfer powers from the Executive to the Legislature. We have Mickey Mouse cosmetic solutions, including sitting four days each week which is great for mná na hÉireann living in counties Donegal, Waterford, Kerry and Wexford. Few women's groups would be in favour of this and the implications it would have for enticing women into politics. The problem is the Government parties are not thinking through any of these proposals. They are rushing into cosmetic Dáil reform because they have not properly thought through the consequences of Seanad reform.

The Taoiseach made a comparison with other countries of similar size which have single chambers. What he has failed to point out is that every country with a unicameral parliament has a much stronger local government system. Some have presidents with executive powers, while in others there is a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. The Taoiseach, therefore, did not compare like with like. He was comparing apples with oranges. The Minister cannot argue in favour of a single chamber in a country with such a centralised system of governance where all power lies in the hands of the Cabinet and the Dáil and local government are as weak as they are. If so, he should explain where the checks and balances will be because I cannot see them. If the Seanad is abolished, there will be fewer Deputies and a weak system of local government. I oppose the Bill for the reasons I have outlined.