John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Although I am not a member of his party, it is no secret that I took the view at the time of the last election that a change of government was necessary. I was vocal in my support of the alternative government with the implicit understanding that Deputy Kenny he would be the Taoiseach. I do not buy in to the theory that he is some kind of incipient autocrat or some of the somewhat uncharitable historical comparisons made between a certain fringe of his party at one time in the past and contemporaneous fringe political movements in other countries. I put it gently to my colleagues who have suggested as much that, in truth, that suggestion is unfair. I do not believe that the man's instincts are anything other than democratic. However, I believe he backed himself into an almighty corner when, on the spur of the moment, he made a decision at a time when he was having some internal political difficulties. I am not criticising him for it, but he latched on to a suggestion which appears to be completely at variance with everything he had said previously about the Seanad, that is to say, that it should be reformed and that it could be constructive. He quoted the extraordinary contributions that individual Senators of great standing had made over the years. Then, in a quasi-social environment he threw out the idea, apparently written on the back of an envelope and in a manner unplanned, un-counselled and not co-ordinated with any of his senior political staff, or , I strongly suspect, his Senators, that he would put a simple "Yes" or "No" abolition case to the people. He has been unshakeable in terms of allowing discourse to occur on this issue.

We have a situation where my good friend and colleague, Senator Norris, attended the Constitutional Convention and I was happy and proud to yield to him to try to force the issue and raise the discussion at that wonderful democratic assembly of 33 parliamentarians and 66 fellow citizens. It includes folk from North and South, from every walk of life, including people who are involved in politics and people who are not, people who knew who some of us were and people who had never heard of any of us but who were simply there to give their opinion. None of these people were given the chance to debate this critical question. While I do not believe it indicates any level of incipient despotism, autocracy or dictatorship, it may perhaps indicate a stubborn streak. I believe it would have been far preferable had the convention been given the opportunity to discuss this issue.

There is another obvious point that merits raising and I will call on the Minister of State to go on the record in that regard when I conclude - in several hours' time, that is. We have had a range of opinions from people occupying the ministerial chair in this House. They have stated how helpful they have found the Seanad and the contributions Members have made to legislation, how the House has pointed out things that slipped through the net following several Dáil Stages - that can happen in any area of human endeavour - and how the Seanad has greatly strengthened a good deal of legislation.

It seems to me that there was no great consensus among the Taoiseach's close advisers. Certainly, there was no consensus among those who strongly supported him at the time of the most recent leadership contest in Fine Gael that the Seanad should be abolished without any discussion concerning potential reform options. The Constitutional Convention was not given a chance.

We have seen a situation in the Houses whereby Members of the Seanad and Dáil have been effectively whipped to varying degrees on this issue. This has come across as undemocratic. Although the analogy about turkeys not voting for Christmas has been trotted out we could be left with an even more extreme example of what I term veterinary orthopaedics, because we are all aware of the idea that we may be lame ducks if the House is abolished but we are still sitting here drawing a salary for several years.

This brings me to a final point from this initial section of my contribution. The Taoiseach himself raised a particular issue in a somewhat off-the-cuff speech recently. He stated that one of the key reasons the Seanad needed to be abolished was because it failed to do anything to stop the Celtic tiger. We all get face-slapping blinking moments of incomprehension from time to time - I have had several of them in recent years since I came to the House - but my face was truly red with self-slapping when I heard that comment and I could not quite believe what I had heard. The Taoiseach, who, to his great credit, is the father of the Lower House, our longest serving Dáil Member, despite his youth, has been deeply dug in to the system of politics in the country, in opposition, in government, on the frontbenches, on the backbenches and every kind of bench around. In truth he was a member of the party that did not really do much to try to deflate the Celtic tiger. I mean no disrespect to my current colleagues from the other party, but while the principal fault lay with the Government of the day, it was aided and abetted by the principal party in opposition at the time.

Is there a record for the number of Ministers of State who can attend one speech? I would like someone to keep a record of it for me.