Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I was stunned the other day when Senator Sean Barrett revealed how much had been spent on legal advice in drawing up this Bill. Between that and the cost of holding the referendum, we are looking at a bill of some €23 million to ask the people whether the Seanad should be abolished. I will speak more about that in due course. Suffice to say, it seems an extraordinarily expensive exercise in these difficult times. We are all agreed that to retain the Upper House in its present form is not acceptable. The referendum the Government proposes, however, is not giving people a fair choice. We are asking a nation of 4.6 million people, a considerable portion of whom have never attended a Seanad debate, could not say where the Chamber is located and have no idea what they are voting for, to say either "Yes" or "No" to the question of whether it should be abolished outright. It is one thing to ask people which meat they would prefer, beef or horse, as most citizens are very sure which of those two flavours they prefer. From conversations I have had with people around the country, however, it seems clear that citizens are not altogether informed and furnished with the facts in regard to what the Government is proposing. As such, they are not in a position to reach a decision that is in their own best interests and which best safeguards the future of their country, its future generations and its Constitution.

There are never any journalists here to report on what we are saying, but I very deliberately chose the horsemeat versus beef analogy in the context of the brilliant Bill being presented to the House later today by Senator Feargal Quinn, which deals with food provenance. The food industry in this country endured a series of disastrous events at the end of last year and earlier this year. One of the great successes of our economy, as we work towards Food Harvest 2020, very nearly came toppling down. Senator Quinn has come up with an excellent proposal which would allow us to lead the way on this issue in Europe and restore trust and transparency for the consumer. Yet again it is the Seanad that is to the fore when it comes to legislative innovation. The financial argument for the abolition of the Upper House has gone out the window, as we have discovered. The Government's alternative plan for ensuring legislation is given the time and scrutiny it needs, a function which should be performed by the Seanad, will be a costly exercise with no appreciable savings. That is the word from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who is surely the person who would know. We are talking about a major constitutional change to the way in which our country has been governed for the past 91 years.

It is interesting to recall that the abolition of the first Senate in 1936 was a reaction to what was perceived as the unacceptable reach of its powers, which allowed Senators to obstruct constitutional reforms favoured by the Government of the day. The new Seanad created by Éamon de Valera - the gelded version - is the body we are left with today, a House which is badly in need of reform if it is to make a valuable contribution to Irish democracy. A more prudent, intellectual and sophisticated Government would see the public appetite for political reform as a remarkable opportunity to embrace the cream of the reform proposals that have been presented by Members of this House and others. Indeed, some very insightful and visionary reforms were proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, when he was a Senator. I salute him for listening to us yesterday and today, but the reality is that he is a poacher turned gamekeeper. I long to look into his head and discover what he is really thinking. He was passionate about reform of this House in his time here. Like Senator Paul Bradford and others, he has had experience of both Houses. I would love to know his real thoughts on the subject. In the extraordinarily challenging times in which we now live, where life seems to move at the speed of light, it is more important than ever that our Government seek to build a new process for leading and governing this country. There is an opportunity to set out new standards for the business of restoring a modern, fit-for-purpose, efficient and healthy nation that is the envy of all other democracies for many years to come.

If I thought that Irish democracy would somehow be improved by abolishing rather than reforming the Seanad, I would be swayed by the Government's proposal. I have heard nothing, however, to convince me it will, nor have I read any research which supports the case. In fact, I fear that the reformation of the Oireachtas envisaged by this Government will merely further concentrate power in the hands of a Dáil elite and exclude other voices or opinions in Parliament. When preparing for debates in this House, I am often dismayed and have low motivation when I consider that any such effort is essentially pointless as a consequence of the Whip system. Too often we see politicians voting against what they believe in because the powers that be tell them they must do so. Even when the 31 Government Senators have strong opinions or special interests and wisdom on a subject matter, it simply does not matter as they are obliged to vote as directed by the Whip. As a non-political person entering the Oireachtas for the first time, I was very demotivated when I discovered the tightness of the grip of the Government Whip on Senators and Deputies in what I thought was a democratic institution. This is one of the greatest problems we face in this Chamber - namely, that the rigid Whip system does not allow for independent thought. I appreciate the need for the Whip in some cases, but it should not be applied as rigidly as it is in the Seanad, particularly on social or moral issues. We will see the problems that causes next week.

The Government, in advancing its argument to abolish the Chamber, has pointed to several European countries and their parliamentary and political systems. I encourage it to consider whether we might also embrace the practice in those countries as it applies to the Whip system. Three areas in which a dedicated function for the Seanad would greatly enhance its relevance and bring it closer to the general public are scrutiny of European Union legislation, examination of public appointments and the holding of inquiries. More importantly, these are three functions in which the Oireachtas currently falls way short in its duty to the Irish people. That is particularly evident in respect of EU legislation, which is often not debated at all in the Oireachtas before it becomes law. Rubber-stamping of those proposals happens every week in the committees. There is serious cause for concern that a failure to subject EU laws to intensive examination could have an impact on the welfare of Irish people and the safeguarding of our beautiful country. The Seanad has clear potential to step up to the plate in this regard and fill the void. Such a role makes perfect sense in a context in which the Lisbon treaty strengthens the ability of the Oireachtas to scrutinise proposed EU legislation and assess its impact on the everyday lives of Irish citizens. Perhaps I am being very optimistic, but I remain convinced that the Seanad will ultimately be reformed rather than abolished. I agree with much of what Senator Marc MacSharry had to say, but I am very hopeful that the Irish public might surprise him. I certainly hope it does.