John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House and thank my colleagues for returning and making up a quorum. For the sake of attribution, I called for the quorum.

While many sections of the press and commentariat have already had a mini-referendum on the Seanad and abolished it, it is as yet one of the two Chambers of our democracy, which is one of the longest continuously functioning democracies in Europe. It is perhaps without self inflation a somewhat weighty matter that when we are discussing matters related to abolition of one half of our national Parliament there is an appropriate audience present for the discussion. While I have not done so before, I would like to put my colleagues on notice that I propose to try to ensure we are quorate throughout this debate.

I was looking forward to getting to know the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, better over the course of this evening. I reckon we would have had a much lengthier interaction in this session that we are likely to have in aggregate in the remainder of our time in Parliament. I am equally pleased that the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, is in the House and that we will get to know each other a little better over the next while.

For the sake of fairness, I will return to the point I was making prior to the adjournment of the debate.

We were discussing certain aspects of the Bill, particularly the assumption that we are dealing with establishing an abolition day in respect of one House of our national Parliament. As already stated, this is a weighty matter. Democracy is an untidy form of government but its lack of tidiness is more than compensated for by the multiple advantages it has to offer. I also stated earlier that it can be a pretty gruesome form of government but it beats the hell out of all of the alternatives.

I am an absolute democrat and I fully believe in trying to transliterate the wishes of the people as closely as possible into the policies which are formulated for them and on their behalf. Parliamentary democracy has been the best means of doing this. As we are aware, however, one House of this Parliament is extremely undemocratic. When I first ran for the Seanad just over two years ago, in my one and only item of election literature I stated that I would campaign for its reform or abolition and that the affront to democracy which its existing electoral system represents outweighs any potential benefits the House, as currently constituted, has to offer. I am very much of the view that the Seanad must be reformed but I accept that we are not debating a reform option. I am a member of one of the two groups in this House which authored Seanad reform legislation. The Bill with which I was involved was dealt with in a spirit of noble co-operation by the Minister of State's party, which put the petty considerations that can sometimes guide discourse to one side and allowed it to remain on the Order Paper following Second Stage. This also happened in the case of the legislation tabled by my esteemed colleagues, Senators Quinn and Zappone.

Even though we are not debating a reform option, I am of the view that we must briefly consider both what might be the alternatives and why we are discussing the abolition of the House. The reasons which have been advanced in respect of abolition are in some cases very reasonably and in others greatly flawed. The democratic deficit relating to and the alleged elitism of the Seanad are the most sustainable reasons for abolishing it. This is why I truly believe that if we only ever have a choice of leaving the House as it is currently constituted or abolishing it, I would state - with a heavy heart - that it should be abolished. I have, however, decided to campaign for another outcome, namely, reform. In order to advance the reform agenda and ensure that it survives, we must oppose abolition in the first instance. Once the House is gone, it will be very difficult to get it back.

Why is it that the elitism and undemocratic nature of the Seanad emerged as they did? The reason is that the very people who are now most loudly decrying that elitism and undemocratic nature are those who allowed the latter to emerge in the first instance. It was they who created the reality. The original intent of the 1937 Constitution is actually relatively clever in that in the Dáil we would have a powerful, rigorously democratic Chamber elected by means of universal suffrage. It was envisaged that this would be where the power would lie and where decisions would be made. The Second Chamber was designed to incorporate a different - though not necessarily elitist - skillset among its Members which would contemplate certain technocratic aspects, life experiences and perspectives that might not be well represented in a single-chamber parliament exclusively and overwhelmingly comprising full-time politicians affiliated to large and well-organised political parties. This is why our system - with its various panels, university Senators and, to avoid logjams, Taoiseach's appointees - developed as it did. That system failed because we ended up with a Dáil and a Dáil lite or mini Dáil. The membership of the Seanad by and large comprises good and often very able people who have a good record of public service and representation. In general, however, they are also the same type of people as their counterparts in the Dáil. The seats relating to the Administrative Panel, the Agricultural Panel, the Industrial and Commercial Panel, etc., were not necessarily filled by people who brought the relevant expertise with them - although in many cases they did - but rather by individuals whose parties felt, for very good reasons I am sure, were deserving of seats in the national Parliament. What occurred, therefore, was what one might describe as a sort of gentle, low-level coup. It was certainly a subversion of the intent of the original authors of the 1937 Constitution. What they did effectively led to the Seanad developing into something that was never envisaged.

While the argument that the Seanad merits abolition because it is undemocratic is both defensible and sustainable, it must be countered by the fact that the people who created that sad reality are those who are now seeking to abolish it. The Seanad was never given the opportunity to fulfil the role originally envisaged for it. I have no intention of being judgmental and I am very cognisant of the unbelievably accomplished people who have been Members of this House and who made a far greater contribution to Irish life than I could ever hope to make. However, when considered in the context of its entire lifespan, it could be argued that Seanad Éireann has not been a successful political entity. If the House was seeking to ensure its survival on the basis of what it has achieved, then it would be a hard sell. I will paraphrase another old adage at this point and state that some see things as they are and say "Why?", while others look at things that never were and say "Why not?"

The second argument in favour of abolition, which is wholly illegitimate, is that it will save money. In the context of a debate which took place approximately 18 months ago, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, informed us about the necessity for a constitutionally reformed Oireachtas hearings process in advance of the failed referendum to allow committees of the Houses to hold inquiries. He also stated that the money saved as a result of the abolition of the Seanad could be usefully redeployed to powerful, interrogative Dáil committees. Let us stop for a moment and consider the case of an average person who thinks that we - a bunch of well-heeled fat cats sitting in leather chairs in Leinster House - should be fired because his or her daughter has been waiting two years for an operation to have her spine straightened at Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin. That individual is being misled into believing that the money saved as a result of the abolition of the Seanad will be redirected into the health service, the area of social protection or - in order to employ additional special needs assistants - the education system. If I knew that was going to happen, I would have a very difficult time trying to oppose abolition.

If I knew that the fights we are having on a near weekly basis to obtain cancer drugs for the patients would be aided by the redeployment of the moneys in question to this end, I might be on the other side of the argument. However, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has bluntly stated on three occasions, in this House, in an RTE interview two weeks ago and in a private conversation with me, that the moneys in question will be redeployed to Dáil committees. In fairness, I would not reveal what the Minister said to me in private had he not reiterated it in public. In that context, when I asked he if it was still intended to redeploy the money to the committees he answered in the affirmative. An argument can, perhaps, be made in favour of that. Let us consider, however, the committees which will be created and to which this money will be redeployed if the Seanad is abolished. Will those committees be more democratic? The answer is no.

I believe Senator Hayden wishes to ask a question.