Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I hope the Cathaoirleach will not be too hard on me as this is an important debate. While I welcome the Minister of State to the House there have been many occasions lately when I have had major concerns about the direction this Government has taken. While this may not be the most important issue before these Houses in these days, it is an extremely important issue. The fact that we are in this place at this time in this particular way discussing this particular proposal reflects very badly on the Taoiseach.

This current proposal originates in a speech delivered by the Taoiseach at a Fine Gael president's dinner in 2009. The announcement that he was going to propose the abolition of the Seanad by way of a referendum - the only way to propose the abolition of the Seanad - took the commentariat by surprise and took people in his own party by surprise. This was not least because nine months earlier in the NewERA policy document he had committed himself to a reformed Seanad as part of a broader package of political reform. However, he has stuck doggedly to his idea since then, as he does stick doggedly to ideas, no matter how bad or dangerous some of them are. Notwithstanding the Labour Party's commitment in its election manifesto to place the issue before the Constitutional Convention, the programme for Government committed the Government to a referendum to abolish the Seanad. This is an Enda Kenny production, first and last.

When one considers the substance behind the proposal, one realises that it is a very shallow little proposal indeed. When the Taoiseach announced the referendum Bill he gave a number of reasons for getting rid of the Seanad. He said the Seanad had failed the people by not doing anything to stop the unattainable policies of the Celtic tiger. How farcical that was. What did he and his party do? He has been in the Dáil since 1975. The Fine Gael election manifesto of 2007 shows that the party was seeking lower taxes and more spending. It was brazen indeed to go offering that as a reason for abolishing the Seanad.

The Taoiseach said the Seanad was a relic of British rule. Again, that was farcical. The Senate of 1922 was elected, unlike the House of Lords. It was got rid of in 1935, as we all know, because de Valera thought it was not fit for purpose or perhaps it was too enthusiastic about its purpose. The same people who decided that and who ruled with one Chamber for a short period, decided to bring the second Chamber back. We have been down this road before. The Taoiseach also attempted - rather disingenuously in my view - to tie up the abolition of the Seanad with the question of Dáil reform, as part of a wider package of political reform. It is a case of live horse and get grass. It is a case of, "If you abolish the Seanad, I will reform the Dáil's processes." The Taoiseach said there will be an extra Stage at the start of Bills at which the heads of Bills would be considered by a committee, with experts brought in and a stronger Committee Stage to consider Bills in detail. All of that is farcical, to use that word again, because the issue of Dáil reform is separate from that of Seanad reform. The Taoiseach could amend the Standing Orders of the Dáil in the morning and Irish people are entitled to a stronger, more effective Dáil, a more effective process of legislative scrutiny, regardless of what they decide about the Seanad. In fact, they are entitled to Dáil reform and they are still entitled to have their Seanad.

Rather than changing the Dáil first and showing how it could work, the Taoiseach is asking us to take all of this on faith; pay up our money up-front and we might get delivery of political reform some time in the future. It seems to me it is difficult to give credit to such protestations of a desire to reform things politically when one looks at what happened to the promise to cut the membership of the Dáil by 20 seats. When the relevant boundary commission report was published we were told that it was no longer possible because in order to stay within the constitutional requirement, one would need to have at least one Deputy for every 30,000 people and no more than one Deputy for every 20,000. That is the current constitutional position. We were told we can only cut eight seats because otherwise a constitutional referendum would be required. However, we are having a constitutional amendment to abolish the Seanad. Where is the sincerity and the credibility? Why should we trust anything the Government tells us when even the Chief Whip has admitted that the current Government has not been great on Dáil reform to date.

Other people have spoken about the different foreign comparators which the Taoiseach has invoked to suggest that countries of our size can function well with one Chamber. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and New Zealand have all been mentioned. However, these are all false comparators because the Nordic countries have a highly decentralised form of government and the majority of issues affecting citizens in their daily lives are dealt with at local level. Denmark, for example, has one House of Parliament but five regional authorities and about 90 municipal authorities, dealing with roads, sanitation, schooling and so on. Denmark also has a system of local referenda so that the citizens in a particular area can decide on a particular issue in their locality. By comparison, in Ireland this Government is abolishing town councils, where local authorities deal with far fewer issues and where power is generally held by the county manager and not by the locally elected representatives. There is far more democracy in these Scandinavian countries than in Ireland. It is also a red herring to invoke New Zealand because its Upper House was a straight copy of the British House of Lords, membership was by appointment for life, it was completely undemocratic and the House did nothing. It only commented on about 8% of the legislation that came before it. That is the reason it was abolished in 1953.

I recall another important difference between the role of the legislature in some parts of Scandinavia and the role of the Legislature in Ireland. The constitution of Finland expressly provides that it is the responsibility of an individual legislator to act at all times in accordance with his or her conscience and for the common good. How I wish that conscience was the key decider on how Deputies and Senators vote in these days and particularly on the abortion legislation, a life and death issue.

Surely, we have a better chance of having a searching debate by having two Houses. This was evident during the civil partnership legislation. It does not matter what side of the issue one is on because we have, time and again, recalled the contributions in the Seanad, particularly on various social issues, which were the kind of contributions not heard in the Dáil because most people there were adhering too closely to the party line. It is fair to say that the university Senators and the Taoiseach's nominees have often brought a depth and a scope to debates, particularly on social issues, that has not been heard in the Dáil. That is not praising ourselves; it is a function of how we came to be here. I refer to the civil partnership legislation.

Amendments were introduced to protect freedom of conscience, for example, to allow people running businesses to act according to their particular perspective on the meaning and purpose of marriage. This did not happen in the Dáil where that debate was guillotined. The overwhelming power of Government was invoked but at least there was an attempt to ventilate issues and give expression to the sincerely held views of many thousands of decent people in the country who did not hear their views expressed in the Dáil on that occasion.

The same may well happen with the current abortion debate. Thank God for the 24 people - and counting - who are voting with their consciences on this issue. There is a better chance of a closer debate in the Seanad, where I believe issues will be ventilated thoroughly in a way that might not happen to the extent it should in the Dáil.