David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have made two contributions on this Bill thus far, a Second Stage speech and a semi-Second Stage speech on Committee Stage. Owing to the way in which Committee Stage was taken, that is just the way it turned out. There was a series of Second Stage speeches. This may be the last chance I have to speak on this Bill. I do not intend to give a third Second Stage speech but I want to make a number of points.

It seems the Government, with the assistance of the Government Senators, is intent on passing this Bill. We are all realistic and believe that is what will happen. The day of its passage will be a sad day, but not because I believe this House should be saved in its current incarnation. I said in my Second Stage and semi-Second Stage speeches that I genuinely believe this House is undemocratic, elitist and not fit for purpose. I stated that if it is to have any future, it must be reformed radically. The people would not accept anything more or less than radical reform. It may not make me popular in this House to say this was not a good week for the Seanad. We face a campaign and increasingly there will be a focus on this House. We must examine our performances in the House in the coming weeks and months as the campaign progresses.

What I am genuinely concerned about is not whether this House is retained but the political institutions of this State that we will be left with if the Seanad is abolished. That is my chief concern. Will we have an overly centralised system of governance? I believe we will. Will there be considerable power in the hands of a very small number of people, the members of the Cabinet, or an even smaller number, given the number of Ministers who actually run the State? I believe there will. Has this State a very weak system of local government? It does. Do we have enough checks and balances in our political system? Are our political institutions fit for purpose in the 21st century, and are they serving the people well? Do we have proper accountability? Do we have proper scrutiny? The answer is "No".

My argument with the Government is not that it is going too far by abolishing the Seanad but that is not going far enough because it is not reforming local government or the Dáil, nor is it making the political institutions any more democratic, accountable or representative. Inclusiveness and all the principles that underpin political reform are being cast to one side. If we and the Government were truthful and honest about this, we would admit that, in reality, the Seanad is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb in the absence of genuine and meaningful political reform.

Subsequent to Deputy Enda Kenny’s first contribution as Taoiseach in the Lower House after his election, there was much excitement among people who voted for the Government parties. The Government won a massive majority in the Dáil, having received a huge number of votes for its two constituent parties' members in the general election. Many people genuinely believed there would be change. The Taoiseach said there was a political revolution and promised profound social, economic and political change. All people have seen is more of the same; in fact, circumstances have got worse. We have seen very bad social and economic policy and absolutely pathetic policy on political reform. The reforms have all been about reducing numbers and saving money.

There is something shameful about what is occurring, despite the views people might have on the Seanad. There is a range of views among various parties. There are different opinions in my party on whether we should have a unicameral or a bicameral system.

I am sure there are also different views within the Minister of State's party, the Labour Party, the Fianna Fáil Party and among Independent Members. What people want, first and foremost, is an informed and genuine debate. After that, they want real reform, not a tinkering at the edges. It is not all about reducing numbers.

What is most reprehensible about the Government's conduct in all of this is the decision to hold the referendum a few weeks in advance of the budget while claiming it is all about saving money. My own view is that the Seanad, as constituted, is undemocratic, elitist and not fit for purpose. I also believe the Dáil is not fit for purpose, although it is at least democratically elected. The claim by the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, that the money saved by the abolition of the Seanad could be used to provide services for people with disabilities was a particular low. Even the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, must accept that it was inappropriate and not the right way to make a genuine argument for political reform. That is not the way to conduct the campaign. It is absolutely inappropriate and, more importantly, unfair to all those suffering under austerity policies and cutbacks to claim that if the Upper House is done away with, everything will be okay. Fortunately, because people have been fooled so often in the past and have seen so many bad decisions by the Government, I am confident they will not buy that argument.

The greatest tragedy in all of this is that the people are not being given the option of reforming the Seanad. That is the point I have emphasised in all my contributions and it is the focus of all the amendments we have tabled. I have spoken to many people about this issue in recent weeks. Members will know that people like to come up to talk to elected representatives about all sorts of matters. Everybody to whom I have spoken, with one exception, has said he or she is in favour of reform rather than abolition. If that option were put to the people, I am confident they would choose it. Unfortunately, they are not being given that option and are instead being presented with the simple proposition that this House will either be kept as it is or it will be abolished. It might very well transpire that people who have grave concerns at the continuation of an undemocratic and elitist institution will opt, in the absence of a choice for reform, to abolish it. That is the most regrettable aspect of all of this.

The Government will succeed in getting the Bill through the Seanad and holding a referendum on the abolition of the Upper House. Whatever about making the case for retention of the Seanad, I hope the coming campaign will allow for a genuine debate on political reform and how we can ensure our political institutions are fit for purpose, inclusive, representative and relevant to the 21st century. If we are honest, we will acknowledge that the institutions of the State have failed the people for far too long.