John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a few more points to make.

Will abolition of the Seanad address the democratic deficit? Effectively, there will still be a second level of scrutineers fulfilling the role set aside for this House, namely, examining legislation in a more dispassionate, non-partisan, technocratic, expert and contemplative fashion. We will not get the latter, however. Instead, what will happen is that people from among the ranks of the commentariat, those in academia, etc., will probably be appointed. This will not happen on the basis of the peer review which leads to individuals such as Senator Barrett being elected to the House. Rather, they will be appointed because the Taoiseach will want to appoint them. The current Taoiseach appointed some fine people to serve in this Seanad. However, in the interests of trying to get legislation through - in the knowledge that there will no longer be in place a second Chamber place which will it in the way I have outlined - he will appoint those he is certain will ensure it is passed in an unhindered and uninterrupted fashion. That does not constitute good scrutiny, nor does it indicate that there will be proper checks and balances in place. It is the type of self-policing about which the profession of which I am a member was so criticised and which led to the Irish Medical Council being completely reformatted. The abolition of the Seanad will not lead to money being saved or to better scrutiny. It will instead give rise to a form of scrutiny in respect of which those who will be appointed by the Taoiseach ill be less answerable. I am of the view, therefore, that what is proposed fails on every single ground.

Two great arguments have already advanced in respect of this matter. The first of these, which is defensible, is that the Seanad, which the second, which is not defensible, is that it is a waste of money. There is a third great argument which is put forward and which, to me, is the most troubling.

At the time when I was still wrestling with my conscience on the issue of how much I wanted to involve myself in the Seanad retention or reform campaign, some of my other colleagues were taking early and vocal positions suggesting that there was a core threat to democracy implicit in the possibility of abolishing the Seanad. In theory that could happen. In some hypothetical constitutional scenario there may be some threat to the State, but it is not likely.

In looking over the history of Seanad Éireann it is clear that it has done some wonderful things. It has been superb in building bridges to the Northern community and giving a voice to fringe groups that might not have had a voice otherwise. It has also brought us expertise. I am sorry to keep pointing him out but we have someone with a doctorate in economics in the Oireachtas, some five years into our economic crisis. We got him three years into the economic crisis, but it was three years too late. The reality is that it is difficult to make a case that it has been powerful in defending democracy but it is easier to make a case that the way it is proposed to abolish it makes no sense when there is a Constitutional Convention that has not been given permission to examine the most fundamental and critical question of our Constitution, that is, how many chambers we should have in the Parliament and how to elect them.