Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State again. When I dealt with this on Second Stage I referred to the Act of Union and it has been brought home to me even more what it must have been like in the dying hours of the debate on the abolition of Grattan's Parliament as Members fought and strove valiantly to try to change the minds of not only the Minister but the rotten boroughs. I do not for one moment suggest the deafening silence from the other side can be in any way equated with rotten boroughs, but at the same time the effect and impact are the same. Those who had been bought kept their mouths shut and trooped through the lobbies when the appropriate time came, and so it ended.

Prime Minister Pitt was determined in the immediate aftermath of the 1798 rebellion that Ireland was full of sedition, and those in charge of England's economy were afraid the Irish were getting too stroppy. He was determined, and got into its head that he alone would pursue a policy of abolition of the Irish Parliament and enact the Act of Union. There is a parallel with the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny.

In discussions I have had with friends and colleagues on both sides of the House I have tried to understand and get inside the mind of the Taoiseach on that fateful evening when he made a decision in front of a shocked audience and went on a solo run. It was, is and will continue to be a solo run until referendum day. I have wondered what was the catalyst. Rather interestingly, and the Cathaoirleach will be interested to hear this if he has not heard it before, the House shut down for a week for perfectly legitimate reasons - I was not here at the time - at some stage during the previous 12 months and this is what got into the Taoiseach's head from what I have been told. He decided it was not an acceptable way of dealing with the Upper House and that enough was enough and it was time it went.

If this was the catalyst perhaps I am doing him an injustice because rather naïvely I had thought he had given it considerable reflection. If this anecdote is included in the evidence it seems it probably was a knee-jerk reaction. Some weeks prior to it, all of the focus in the Fine Gael Party and on its Front Bench was on reform and not abolition. Policy documents were being prepared in this regard. People are entitled to change their minds. Deputy Micheál Martin changed his mind; he may have been helped along by some of us but he did change his mind because in the previous election he campaigned on the basis Fianna Fáil supported abolition rather than reform.

Current Fianna Fáil policy, which needs to be repeated, is that we are opposed to abolition and are in favour of reform.

Professor Marsh of Trinity College, in an article about 12 months ago on the general context of referendums held in this country since the 1937 Constitution, said, "On each and every occasion where there was a lack of political consensus the referendum had failed." In other words, when over 90% of the representatives in the Houses agreed on a constitutional amendment and put the question to the country the question was carried. This was not the case when there was a lack of political consensus. One of the most obvious examples of that was the attempt by the de Valera Government to change the political system. It attempted to introduce the single transferable vote, single seat constituencies and do away with multi-seat constituencies. There was no political consensus in the Dáil and Seanad at that time because the main Opposition parties, the Labour Party and Fine Gael, were opposed to it. So it came to pass that not once but twice the Fianna Fáil Administration failed.

The most recent case was the referendum on establishing committees of inquiry. Again, there was no political consensus at the beginning or when the question was put to the people. Civic society, represented by former Attorneys General, came out within a week or ten days of the vote to point out a number of flaws in the Government's case. So it came to pass that the referendum did not pass.

I would be reasonably confident that when one considers all the component parts of referendum campaigns in terms of people who vote in referendums there is an absence of political consensus. Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil are not in favour of abolition; we are in favour of reform. The overwhelming majority on the Government benches, if they care to be truthful, in both Houses are not in favour of abolition, rather they are in favour of reform. I suggest if a straw poll was taken among the Cabinet the chances are it would be at worst lukewarm about abolition and at best opposed to it and more in favour of reform.

When one adds everything up, the portents look reasonably good. The hope is that the momentum which was started by some of our colleagues in this House, such as Senators Quinn and Zappone, to name but two, and those representing civic society will continue. Senator Zappone can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand some 500 or 600 people attended a meeting during which they pledged to be actively involved in overturning the Government's proposals.

A recent opinion poll followed familiar lines. When people are asked a question far out from a referendum date they tend not to be engaged and the figures tend not to be truly representative of their feelings. As a referendum date gets closer, the arguments start to mount and the momentum builds, things narrow. Last Sunday was an example. It is nothing new to people who have studied similar opinion polls which have taken place in the 12 or 18 months leading up to a referendum.

The electorate is volatile when it comes referendums. There is a totally different sense among the general public when they are electing a Government or voting for political parties. Referendums are separate, strange animals. Ultimately, what will happen, as happened in every other referendum, is that people will vote and answer a question they have not been asked. It happened most notably in the first Nice treaty referendum when a coalition of hard left representatives managed to convince a sufficient number of the mothers of Ireland that their sons and daughters could end up in body bags fighting for a European army in far-flung fields, when in fact Nice was about housekeeping details internally within the EU and had nothing whatsoever to do with European armies.

I ask both sides of the House whether we have heard any mention of European armies since the first Nice treaty referendum. They have not been mentioned. It forced the Government of the day to introduce the triple lock as a response to assuage people's fears. I mainly put that down to the mothers of Ireland, many of whom I met around my table, who genuinely believed that if they voted "Yes" there would be a European army and conscription.

The context and background in regard to abolition day are that there is still an awful lot to play for in this regard. When the arguments are put forward to the Irish people, the most potent of which is that a Government which enjoys a unprecedented majority in the other House and an equally unprecedented majority in this House, can call on up to 40 extra Deputies to support any legislative measure it cares to bring before the Dáil. That invariably leads to things fraying at the edges. Even the best democrats get drunk on the intoxication of power.

The saying that all power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely was not coined today or yesterday. I am not for one moment suggesting there is anything corrupt about the proposal. Rather, I am talking about the use and exercise of power. I saw it happen when my party was in government. It became tired, arrogant, unheeding and, in its latter days, as Mary O'Rourke famously said about another situation, it went around like headless chickens. I know that, as do most of my Fianna Fáil colleagues. Ultimately, the people were right to throw it out.

In a very cogent contribution Senator Crown talked about the main arguments presented by the Government for the abolition of the Seanad, namely, that it is costly, unnecessary for a unitary non-federal state with small population, has proved to be relatively ineffective since its establishment in 1937 and that the Government argued that Ireland has too many politicians. In another context I said most US states with, I understand, the exception of Nebraska - I am not sure why - have two houses, a senate and house of representatives. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the American constitution was that one house would look after the other and there would not be an excess of power.

George Washington summed up to some degree what I am trying to say when he said, "The purpose of a bicameral parliament is to act as a check on the power of the lower chamber." Second chambers were famously described by George Washington as, "Providing for a cooling period during which further deliberation on a piece of legislation can take place." Proponents of bicameralism argue that in allowing for additional deliberation by a different group of individuals the quality of legislation is enhanced.

Philosopher Henry Sidgwick saw the main purpose of a senate as being that all legislative measures may receive a second consideration by a body different in quality from the primary representative assembly and, if possible, superior or supplementary intellectual conversations. I would like to think that is possible every day in this House. Why would one want to get rid of the House which contributes that much to democratic norms?

We should forget about all the amendments which are passed or the other work done here. The main purpose of the House from its inception was to act as a check and balance on the other House. It was to bring forward legislation which would be dealt with in a reflective and expert manner. It was not set up as a challenge to the Government. In fact, de Valera, rather coincidentally, having been thwarted on more than one occasion by the first Senate, arrived in my town of Drumshanbo in County Leitrim during the general election of 1933.

It was captured on film. This was most unusual to see - a small country town in the west of Ireland with cameramen and there he was on the main street. We have a High Street in the town of Drumshanbo. It is a bit continental and rather unusual. He was on High Street looking down on this mass of people. I can still picture it. It was part of Seven Ages: The Story of the Irish State, which was shown on RTE several times and pops up in the archives from time to time. Before he said anything at all, the significant memory I have was of all the cloth caps that seemed to spread from the back where the camera was to de Valera on the platform. I am paraphrasing him here but he more or less said that if the Seanad did not pass the Bill, he would abolish it. That was the first time he came out in public and said it and of course, he did. For some rather interesting reason - I am sure Senator Barrett and others have more information than I have on the deliberations leading up to the drawing up of the Constitution and putting it before the people in 1937 - he changed his mind. He changed his mind in that he put in what in political terms was an emasculated Chamber. He was not going to agree to a second Chamber that would be like the first Seanad from 1922 to 1937 that could thwart or thumb its nose at the Government, which it did on a number of occasions. In a way, it was a pity that he was in power at the time and was able to carry that out because what a great Seanad it would be if it had been the continuation of that first Seanad. The names stand out. There have many iconic figures in the second Seanad but they were also in the first Seanad.

If this piece of legislation goes before the people and is defeated, somebody somewhere in the body politic might look at that first Seanad and say it is the way to go. Of course, it should be tweaked. It cannot be seen to be a challenge to the other House. However, if it needs to be elected by direct universal suffrage, as most reformers seem to suggest, it will put itself forward as a challenge to the other House to some degree because it will then be seen to have a democratic mandate, although I would question those who criticise this House for not having a democratic mandate.

They are the wonderful possibilities that arise out of the rejection of this proposal, of there not being an abolition day and of the Government being faced with a challenge the people will have given it. This challenge is how to construct out of the ashes of a Government proposal that has gone wrong a Seanad that will be relevant to the people, enhance democratic institutions and, at the same time, create the balance needed between the Dáil and the Seanad. The critical challenge is how one balances the two.

I will touch on another aspect that has not been mentioned. Much of the information I have comes from an excellent document prepared by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. It refers to the use of the guillotine by the Executive and relates to the Dáil. We hear much talk about the Seanad and its flaws but one of the great inherent flaws in the Dáil because of our centralised form of government is the use of the guillotine by the Executive. I was talking about the parties that favoured abolishing the Seanad. It seems that all the parties at one point agreed with the abolition of the Seanad, with the exception of the Green Party.

In his Damascus-like change, Deputy Martin described this particular proposal as a major power grab by the Government. It was a good soundbite but there was a certain element of truth in it. Looking at it from the outside, that is how it seems. When one allies a Government with a massive majority with its actions on the wider front of democratic accountability, one asks what has it been doing. What is its record? When one looks at the credit and debit sides of the balance sheet, what has it been doing so far that has encouraged the Irish electorate to think it is in favour of an all-embracing democratic norm? It is abolishing town councils completely. It is creating these new electoral areas around former boroughs where one individual will be nominally elected as a mayor. One can take any of the examples across the country one cares to mention. Most of the towns in question are expanding. I think Senator MacSharry referred to Sligo with 22,000 people as the seventh largest town in the country. The Mayor of Sligo will be competing with nine other councillors spread across a large geographical area way beyond the boundaries of Sligo town as it is currently constituted for borough council purposes in order to ensure they get a fair share of the allocation of money, services and resources from the county council. There is nothing terribly democratic or modern about that. Údarás na Gaeltachta is another example where elections have been abolished.

If one adds it all up and on top of that, the Taoiseach of the day says he is going to abolish the second House of Parliament for reasons that have since proved to be spurious, as we pointed out, particularly on the financial front, and puts it to the people as somehow being a saver, anybody who looks at the argument logically when he or she comes to vote on the day will probably think "Hold on a minute, something isn't quite right here. Why do they want to do this? Why don't they go for reform?" As the ad on the radio says, "Once it is gone, it is gone." That would be my greatest fear - that once it is gone, it is gone because what would be put in its place?

Here, I will adopt the position of a cynic of some years' standing in this House. Successive Governments have pledged reform, particularly reform of the Dáil. The ending of the dual mandate was wrong in my opinion because Deputies and Senators who sat on local authorities focused on the minds of the real power, namely, county managers who were much more careful than they have subsequently been in terms of watching their back. It is just an opinion but is one that many subscribe to. When former Minister Noel Dempsey proposed ending the dual mandate at a parliamentary party meeting, one Deputy responded by asking him what the brave new world for Deputies would be, what greater power he would have as a backbencher and what greater relevance he would have as a Government supporter. The Minister pointed out that there would be enhanced powers for committees and an enhanced role for the Dáil as a collective, none of which happened. The same mantra is being pronounced by this Government about reform. Of course, it can point to certain elements of reform. In every Government, the Whips have got together at some point and have agreed certain adjustments to procedures but there has been no fundamental reform.

When one looks at those countries referred to by the Taoiseach as being similar in size to us and which have ended the bicameral arrangement, it is salutary to learn that, taking Denmark as the best example, they developed a system of national, regional and local government that is interlocked and where the very lowest level of a town council is responsible for far more than our county councillors are or will be in the brave new world presented by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. That is real democracy. The Government could present that sort of reform package to the Irish people and tell them the Executive was going to be more accountable within the Dáil and by that, I mean strengthening the committees. I sat on the Council of Europe because I have a particular interest in European and foreign affairs, more so than any other subject and sometimes to my detriment. I remember inquiring how the system worked in terms of European Union directives in Denmark and the relationship between the Executive and the committees.

I discovered that the European Union Minister - in our case the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Lucinda Creighton - could not and did not take any decisions on behalf of her government in Brussels without first referring the matter to the European affairs committee in the Danish Parliament. Under its constitution, the Minister is precluded from so doing. Ministers cannot unilaterally make any decisions.

Let us contrast that with what goes on currently in Europe where, according to Senator Mark Daly who did the figures some time ago, 75% of the legislation coming through these Houses, comes directly from Europe without scrutiny or debate. Decisions that are taken around the Council of Ministers and proposals emanating from the Commission, passing through the Council of Ministers, are voted on at the Council of Ministers and are then, essentially, transcribed into Irish law with only the minimum of scrutiny. Many of us sit on committees where a form of scrutiny is in operation. While it is adequate, it is not comprehensive enough and it certainly does not get through to most Irish people that we are even engaged in that process.

That is one example of real democracy in action, where the Government and the Executive are held accountable by the elected members within it. Not only do they do that in Denmark but they created a form of regional government which was given real power, influence and resources. It subsequently took a third tier at the level of town councils in the smallest towns and villages, with real power. I am not sure of the number of these but it is in the hundreds.

There is nothing comparable to that here, nor is it on the agenda of this Government in terms of the reform package it is proposing. To suggest that Ireland is comparable to those states that have given up the bicameral system and that there will be a brave new world of democratic accountability, I am sorry, cynic and all as I am, I do not believe it.

In 1997, the All-Party Committee on the Constitution concluded that any savings from the abolition of the Seanad could be illusory because some of the functions it carries out would need to be reallocated to other parts of the political system. I am not going to dwell too much on this because it has been covered by many other people. The figure involved, according to Mr. Kieran Coughlan at the Committee of Public Accounts when he was pursued on this issue by former Senator, now Deputy, Shane Ross, was about €9 million. I think the Government's budget - the Minister of State will be more familiar with the figure than me - is currently around €55 billion of spend nationally. I think we are borrowing in the region of €1 billion per month.