Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

-----and another decent man who tried to do the best they could in difficult circumstances and who succeeded in producing a roadmap which the Minister for Finance and others have followed since. It should not be forgotten that Fine Gael supported the bank guarantee at the time.

All that pales into insignificance compared with the arrogance of pulling the proposal for Seanad abolition like a rabbit out of a hat. The Taoiseach must have had a bad night's sleep in Mayo before waking up in the morning and having to come up with something. This is what he came up with. He did not discuss Seanad abolition with anyone nor did he consult anyone. It was a fantastic soundbite at a time when he was under pressure from his own backbenchers. Who will ever forget the look of shock on poor Senator Frances Fitzgerald's face, the leader of the Fine Gael group in the House at the time, as she looked on at her party leader announcing on live television that he would abolish the House without even consulting her? To describe it as ungallant and graceless is as understatement. It was a poor show.

The de Valera Constitution was passed by the people. It was an exceptional document by any standards and for all its flaws, it has stood the test of time. From time to time naturally, with society evolving as it does, particularly since our accession to the European Union, we have had to amend it, but no previous Taoiseach or Government countenanced the notion of putting a referendum such as this on a simple "Yes" or "No" basis to the people. This involves taking out one third of the entire Oireachtas and ripping the heart out of the 1937 Constitution. Is there a subliminal anti-de Valera thought in the Taoiseach's head? Who knows? Between that and the rogue gene, he has got it all wrong anyway.

The people are not being well served by having this question put to them. We are all democrats and I believe the more democracy there is, the better. Is it fair to the people to present such a question on a "Yes" or "No" basis? There is no simple "Yes" or "No" answer and we all realise that. I will vote against this proposal not because I am anti-democratic or anti the people but because the people need to be protected. If this behaviour catches on, a future Taoiseach could decide to do something crazy as well and go to the people with it. Checks and balances must be in place before one goes to the people on a subject of this enormity. How many articles of the Constitution are affected? It is not fair to the people that such a referendum should be put to them when no earthly attempt has been made to reform the House in the meantime. Every Member realises the House needs reform. All the proposals to do so have come from the Seanad and they were all blocked in the Lower House, including by a Government led by Deputy Enda Kenny. He refused to entertain reform proposals and to come to the House to debate them with us, but then he said the Seanad was no longer fit for purpose and it should be abolished. It is good that he is not into horse racing because if he was, we would have a horse in the Oireachtas with a ministerial title just like when Caligula put his own horse in the Roman Senate long ago. This proposal smacks of the same effrontery and craziness.

I am not an expert on the bicameral system of government but having studied politics all my life, I believe it is the best system and it works well. The Seanad takes a significant workload from the Lower House. Bills are initiated here and it makes it easier for the Dáil to go through them afterwards. An enhanced committee system would not do a better job on legislation than we do. Senator Terry Brennan made that point well yesterday. Committees are structured differently from the House. An unelected Star Chamber appointed by the Taoiseach would certainly not be better than the Seanad. The Taoiseach had talked about this for a while but he has been silenced on it. The proposal that the Taoiseach of the day would fill this room with his own appointees with special skills or experience instead of the Seanad represents a diminution of democracy.

Another old canard that has not been tackled and is a favourite with the media is that the Seanad is a stepping stone for those with political ambition or a retirement home for defeated Members of the Lower House. I believe that any young man or woman who aspires to go into politics should start at the bottom, in what W.B. Yeats described as the "rag and bone shop of the heart". They should get their experience serving on the town council, then the county council and if they are lucky enough to get a seat in the Seanad they will be highly equipped from what they learn in a short time to go to the other House and into the higher echelons of Government and become Taoiseach. I think that is a valid aspiration.

When a Deputy loses his seat, his choice is to retire or try to stay in politics. His wisdom and experience will be valid and useful in any Chamber. That is a legitimate aspiration.

We do not want the Seanad to become a second Dáil Chamber. We want something different. The main reform is that everybody can vote in a Seanad election. Under the current structure, the Taoiseach can appoint 11 members. All the Taoiseach's nominees need is one vote from the Taoiseach, but I am not underestimating them because the reason they got that vote from the Taoiseach of the day is because they had given a significant contribution to the community, were outstanding in the fields of social work, the arts, business, farming and so on. They earned that vote.

Six graduates are elected by the University Panel. I would not stand for that election even if it got me into heaven because they face the battle of finding the electorate, establishing where they live and getting them to register as electors, then they must get sufficient votes to be elected. My colleagues and I, the 43 Members that are elected by the county councils, have been elected by a system that only de Valera could have devised. It is electoral torture. One has to go around the country meeting all the county councillors and one will not be successful if one lands on the day with a smile on the face or a silk tie in one's hand. Members must be in touch with councillors way before that and for the duration of the five years in office because, if not, they will be forgotten about for the next election. Members must learn about local problems. As Senator Moloney said one learns from councillors the problems of the people they represent. We are a legitimate democratic conduit of opinion from the people, through the councillors up to the Seanad. Let me say that county councillors are no fools and they will not elect a fool. There are a great many of us but we are not fools.

It is easy to write a smart letter to The Irish Timesdenigrating politicians at large and we are the target at present. One can go on the "Joe Duffy Show" and have a great rant. How many of these people would go through the system of election that either a Deputy or a Senator has to endure? How many of them would go for it and how many would be elected?

I oppose this Bill because I think it is unfair to the people. It is badly thought out. It will create a terrible precedent that a Taoiseach can pluck an issue and put it to the people. If the people are asked to vote in a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, I will fight it tooth and nail. I would be very surprised if my colleagues on all sides do not have enough pride in themselves and in the position they hold and won hard to go out and defeat it.