Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation. A ten minute slot is in no way sufficient to make the substantial arguments I need to present on this subject, but I hope I will have an opportunity on Committee Stage and during the referendum campaign to expand on my views.

I welcome the legislation because it fulfils a commitment given by both the Government and Fine Gael. I believe in parties keeping their promises. It is welcome that we will vote in a referendum, but I will not simply oppose the referendum on polling day because between now and then I will do everything possible to encourage people to vote "No" because I believe in democracy and, as I have said in the House on many occasions, that this proposal was never about political reform. I saw it previously and see it now as a cynical political exercise to win Dáil seats and not to change politics. I would be the first to say politics needs urgent reform at national and local level, but scrapping a House of the Oireachtas and demolishing one third of the Oireachtas is not real reform or brave politics; it is simplistic populism which the people will see through.

The Minister served in this House. I have served in it for many years and had the fortunate experience of serving in the other House. We can both compare and contrast the debates that take place in both Houses. I have often described the Dáil, as I did when I served in it, as a Punch and Judy show. Governments say "Yes" and the Opposition says "No". It has always been the case. This House, historically, has engaged in the great debates on legal, social, cultural and historical matters which led to societal change. I was privileged to serve in it when Professor John A. Murphy made mind-changing speeches about Ireland, Northern Ireland and the future of the island. I was honoured to serve with Mrs. Mary Robinson who some years previous to my membership had taken the courageous decision in this House, which she could not have done in the Lower House, to bring forward legislation on abortion and contraception as part of the social agenda. I am privileged that one of my colleagues, Senator DAaid Norris, used this House to pursue the rights of gay people on this island, which could not have happened in the Dáil. None of these advances could have happened without the Seanad.

We are debating a proposal that is bad politics. We often speak about flawed politics. When the Opposition tables a motion, the Government states it is flawed and vice versa. This is truly bad, cynical politics and I will stand over that statement. Unfortunately, I missed the Taoiseach's contribution to the debate last week. It was his second visit to the House. He suggested - I agreed with him at the time - when he was Leader of the Opposition that the Taoiseach of this land should attend the Seanad once a month. That was part of the radical, effective and real politics document put forward by the Taoiseach, the Minister and Fine Gael in early 2009. We proposed a new Seanad with significant new powers and a directly elected membership which would truly represent modern Ireland. It would not have been a mini-Dáil or a semi-Dáil but a new Seanad. I fully agreed with this, as did every member of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party who endorsed that document. I was present at the MacGill Summer School when the Taoiseach expanded on these views and referred to how we could play such a significant role in the turnaround of the economy. His views in spring and summer 2009 were correct, but something happened politically. Days before a famous Fine Gael dinner in October or November 2009, there was a transformation in political thinking within the party and I am not sure who was responsible. I know some of them work as well paid advisers in Government Buildings earning twice and three times the salary of Members of this House. Some might call that good politics or thinking politics, but I believe it is nothing but cynical politics.

The public will eventually make the decision as to whether the Seanad should be abolished and we must make the case for our existence and I do not mean for our individual seats. A new Seanad will have to have a new electoral system and it will probably not involve the majority of current Members, myself included. However, this is not about saving our seats; it is about saving an institution that has served the country well. No one can name a country that has been better served politically by reducing democracy or which has been better served by giving more power to government.

Some people talk about the cost of the Seanad. A figure of €20 million plucked from the air is presented, but the direct cost is €6 million. We are promised that the Dáil will suddenly become much more active. If the Dáil is to be more active, sit more often and have more committees, that will cost money. However, there will not be Dáil reform. The only reform of the current Dáil is the fraudulent Friday, whereby the House sits one Friday each month. No questions can be asked; no vote can be called and the Dáil generally adjourns at 12.30 p.m., with all of the Members going home.

That is Dáil reform under the current Administration. Of course, we are promised there will be an expanded agenda of Dáil reform, but I would not wait for that. Politics need to be reformed, the Dáil and Seanad need reform, the electoral system and local government need reform. The Seanad electoral system is a mystery to most people on this island and while I will not say it is exclusive it is certainly not an inclusive system of electing people to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Dáil's electoral system can also be quite mysterious. On the last occasion that I put my name before the people in a Dáil election I got 9,000 first preference votes but did not win a seat, while on the same day a candidate in another constituency won a seat after getting just 900 first preference votes. The Dáil, therefore, can be a mysterious political place and proportional representation can be a mysterious system too.

The Minister knows that this country needs new politics that are substantial and thinking, not sloganeering, simplistic, catch-all politics. Traditionally, in this House we do not generally refer to what is happening in the other House. When I first became a Member of this House, the then Cathaoirleach, former Senator Treas Honan, would jump out of the Chair if one mentioned the other House. However, let us call a spade a spade. There is a substantive debate taking place in the other House at present and, in a sense, it shows the need for the calm and reassuring debates that take place in this House, where Members are not afraid to speak, where they present their opinions in all their complexity and are listened to with respect. My question to the people of Ireland who will vote in this referendum is, do they really feel that the other House should be given all the power, for example, to remove a President? Do they feel that the Members of Dáil Éireann should alone decide whether, for example, President Michael D. Higgins should be removed from office? Do they believe that the other House alone should have the power to remove judges from office? I do not believe so. This House is about checks and balances, and Irish politics and the Irish public need checks and balances.

The Chair is going to call on me to conclude although I have a great deal more to say. Ireland needs new, substantial politics, new Government structures, a new Dáil, new Seanad and new local government. The Minister of State was with me some years ago when the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party was given an excellent presentation by a Mr. Molloy, who spoke about the structures of Government that need to be changed and about the drive and ambition we could have for this country. We must think bigger than simply saying that our problems will go away if the Seanad is abolished. The Seanad has not been perfect but it was not solely responsible for the grievous state in which this Government found the country. Members of the Dáil, Ministers and the Opposition, in terms of their excess and silence, were surely equally guilty.

In conclusion, I am proud to have been a Member of the Oireachtas. I am proud to have been a Deputy and very proud to have been a Senator. Perhaps the new electoral and political system which I believe must be put in place will mean that my time here will conclude, but I believe this House is worth saving. We need a space and place where people can speak freely and call a spade a spade, not the double speak that is often the only debate in the other House.