David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State remarked that democracy would be strengthened and that the quality of our democracy would be better if the Seanad was abolished. I simply do not believe it. We would be getting rid of one undemocratic institution, but we would not be strengthening our democracy because we are not properly reforming the one Chamber that would remain. Senator Bradford made the point that if we are to compare single chamber systems, then we should compare like with like. We should examine countries with a single chamber and the checks and balances they have. They have regional structures and robust local government. In some cases, they have a separation of power with the executive and the legislature. They do not have a country that is run by four or five Ministers. That is not how those countries operate. This will not improve democracy. In fact, I believe it will make it worse.

I wish to make a final point on this section on a matter the Minister State raised as well. It is an issue of fundamental importance. Since the Government has bounced itself into a referendum on this issue, it is now looking at cosmetic Dáil reform. The Government has not considered the consequences, the out-workings or what it will mean.

The Minister of State referred to four-day week Dáil sittings. I genuine believe that would be a mistake. The Dáil can do its business in three days. It is a mistake because we spent a good deal of time in the Chamber talking about wanting better and more representation from women and people generally, including parents, men and women. There was a Bill in the House yesterday relating to child care, maternity and paternity care. I do not see how a four-day week sittings will attract working mothers from rural parts of the country. They would have to spend four days and three nights here, rather than two nights and three days. I do not see how that would entice more women into our political system. The Government should consider that. I believe when women's groups consider this proposal, they will be outraged that the Government is making it more difficult rather than less of an impediment for women and parents. I am not only talking about women. I am a father of two young children and I do not see enough of them. If I was elected to the Dáil and I was here for four days and three nights, I would see less of my children. That should be a consideration as well. I do not see why three-day sittings are not enough.

I agreed with some of the points made by the Minister of State. I agree that this House is not fit for purpose. Even the people who have put forward the reform Bills have agreed as much. The Taoiseach has said that there is no consensus and that since we cannot agree on the nature of the reforms we should go for abolition. However, I return to the point I made earlier. If the Constitutional Convention had been given the opportunity to examine the issue in a thoughtful way, then we might have had a different outcome. The convention might well have come back with the view that there should be one chamber. However, I imagine that if it did, it would have done so having asked all the experts as it did in the case of all the other issues it examined. It would have considered what improvements should be made to the Dáil and how to make the single Chamber more effective, robust and fit for purpose. We would have attained a far better outcome for everyone. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been lost.