Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fáilte romhat thar n-ais arís, a Aire. The process here of discussing the referendum is exactly what it should be.

It also is what the Seanad should be, in that if the Government has a proposal to put to the people and if that proposal concerns the future of Seanad Éireann, then democracy allows and demands that Members have an opportunity to express their view. In doing that and in the context of reform, it is important that Members are careful to understand how the word "reform" entered the debate. It virtually has become the mantra of this debate and one must ask how that word rose to the top of the debate. One must ask how did the Government not foresee this would be the case. While Members already have gone through this on Second stage, one reason is that much of what happened was exceptionally impulsive and precipitative. Everyone was taken by surprise when An Taoiseach announced in the middle of an emotional general election campaign that not only was he in favour of the abolition of the Seanad but, if elected, he would proceed along those lines. Members are aware of what happened as a result of that precipitative strike because no opportunity was given to consider the pros and cons.

I made this point earlier, which is the reason I make the same points in the context of reform. In the face of such a major proposal, I can never understand the reason a White Paper was not produced. Everyone is familiar with the purpose of such a White Paper, which collects together the various information that is required to be central to the debate itself. Had that been the case, I am almost certain that reform would have formed part of such a White Paper. What now is happening is an effort to catch up, to fill the gaps and to fill the vacuum. This is one reason the word "reform" has come to the top of the debate. Incidentally, it is not merely coming from Members of this House but also is coming from media commentators and the people on the street. I acknowledge everyone moves in different circles and I can only speak about the circle in which I move but in the past three or four weeks, I have been absolutely amazed and of course delighted by the number of people who have availed of the opportunity to speak to me about the Seanad. I reiterate we all move in our own circles and so one always must make allowances for a degree of prejudice but without exception, everyone who has spoken to me is in favour of its retention. As Members can appreciate, I did not raise the issue. Second, almost in the second breath, the word "reform" is mentioned. I am a great believer in consensus and the more I find this consensus coming forward, the more I realise the opportunity that has been lost by not having reform as part of the referendum. No one is suggesting there should not be a referendum and no one is suggesting the choice should not be left to the people. While the choice of course should be left to the people, Members also owe it to them to provide them with as much information as possible.

I have been looking back on the history of the Seanad in so far as I have been involved over a long number of years and I remember people like Senator Shane Ross sitting in this Chamber. Invariably, the contributions he made on issues relating to banking, finance and the economy of the country to a large degree were ahead of time. Members used to listen to him in the Chamber in the realisation he had taken a time to research the issues. Consequently, the suggestion that Members come into the Chamber simply to have rows or arguments is not true. Of course there is a bit of heat here but there also is a fair degree of light in the debates. I will not get into the area of comparing the Lower House with the Upper House as I do not believe that serves any purpose but one must look at the track record of the House and I have given Members one example. I could make the same point in respect of Senator Norris. It does not matter how many punches are thrown at him as he still comes forward to make his point. I did not hear him on the "Today with Pat Kenny" show this morning but I am reliably informed he did an exceptionally good job. It is great that even if punches are thrown at one, one still bounces back if one believes in democracy and in one's contribution to the fabric of democracy. I have seen that in this House many times. While partisanship of course exists, it largely comes from the Whip system. I do not suggest Members should not have a Whip system but it should be examined in the context of reform because it has been sacrosanct, which is not correct. Members always will argue for its imposition, just as the devil also will argue, in a given situation but I refer to this issue in a general sense. It should not follow that the Whip system is absolutely and utterly sacrosanct. There are times when one would have a much more edifying, revealing and informative debate, were the Whip system not to exist. I sat on the Government side of the House and saw precisely the same thing, that is, people were absolutely straining to express a contrary point of view to that of one's party or the Government if the party also was in government. Is that not good for democracy? Are Members so stifled and so much in a straitjacket that this cannot even be considered? This should have formed part of the debate regarding the Seanad.

When one considers the Seanad being the central issue of reform and debates at present, one knows no major reform is evident. Certainly, no major thrust towards a radical reform is discernible. While there may be a certain amount of cosmetic change and a certain amount of window-dressing, it is a terrible feeling when one knows within oneself this is not correct and one is dealing with public relations gimmicks in that regard at a time when the country is in such a terrible state. Members are all told - and it is true - that politicians are not held in the highest esteem. While a person may feel he or she is held in high esteem, that is not the case as the entire body politic is not held in high esteem at present. There is great cynicism, scepticism and lack of trust and consequently, the suggestion that with a stroke of a pen one may abolish one House of Parliament and that in some way, this will give one greater oversight, responsibility, accountability or transparency does not stand up to any logical examination. All Members in this House know this to be true but if this is the case and they are trying to sell a pig in a poke to the people, who already do not trust them, do Members honestly believe, whatever the outcome of the referendum, the body politic will be enhanced and enriched? It will not and what will happen eventually is there will be a breakdown in the democratic structures in the State and one already can discern a degree of erosion in this regard.

Consequently, one should consider the position in respect of the Seanad and one should consider reform. That Members of this House went to the trouble of drawing up Bills with regard to the reform of the Seanad demonstrates how seriously they were taking it. However, one can go back far further than that point and I recall the review conducted under the former Leader of the House, Mary O'Rourke, into which many Members put a lot of time. I do not suggest for a moment that Members were not conscious of in some way defending their own little territory. That is a human thing and one should forget about it for a moment. However, the extent of the consultation and the amount of time given to it by Members of this House were huge. At the time, I believed Members were on the right road and I still look back at the proposals that were put forward. They refer to the method of election, to the duties and so on and two of those possibilities for reform kept rising to the top. At a time when Members thought everything was settled and placid, Senator Barrett raised a very important point the other morning regarding the dangerous potential of the riots in Belfast. It was the same earlier this year in respect of the flags controversy. If one looks back on the documents on reform, the authors suggested this House was the only one that had the potential to interact with Northern Ireland.

Perhaps we were the only ones who had the opportunity to do something to ensure that a fragile peace process would not be sundered. That was important. For example, when representatives of the Orange Order came to the House, that in itself was historic. People had doubts about it but we could see that one could have debate and one could still think of the present and the future and not be a prisoner of the past. There was an opportunity in the context of reform.

How often do we hear, out among the public, that we no longer have control of our own destiny and that our sovereignty has been diluted because we are now subservient to Europe? Let us look at the smallest issues. Where, for instance, one had a few hens that were fed with offal and had eggs at home, one now must register the hens to satisfy Europe. People who were doing some home baking and selling apple tarts and cakes to the local shop as wholesome food have had to change their kitchens and use stainless steel. I am taking the most insignificant examples merely to indicate where we are. There are directives coming in by the tonne from Europe and it has been suggested that there is a committee to look at that. The committee structure is not working. It is as simple as that. One sits at a committee, as I do, and sees it as little more than a talking shop. It is a cosmetic exercise. It has no teeth whatsoever. Even in the case of the committee dealing with European issues, there is absolutely no way it is in any context looking at these directives and examining their impact. There is an opportunity, incidentally, within the structures of Europe to confront those types of directive. I think we have done this only once. Here was a very capable House with plenty of experienced Members, who are prepared to do their research and who are genuine and positive and trying to make change. Here was an opportunity. Those were two of the main proposals. It was not within the remit of the Seanad to do anything about that reform. We do not have that power. That power rests with Government. When we talk about no reform for 75 years, we all know full well that is a distraction. It does not add up. We did our homework and the proposals are still there. I still ask people to look at that homework. Even the public would be surprised at our efforts. However, we were stymied. The Government did not accept our proposals.

Let us be frank in stating that we provide the people with the opportunity to make this decision. We have not given them a choice, or at least it is a stark choice - to be or not to be. Is that what our present difficulties require? Is that what democracy requires at present?

Looking back to the beginning of this campaign, it was quite evident that little thought had gone in to the arguments being put forward by the Government. On the cost of the Seanad, for instance, I have heard figures gradually fall from €100 million to €50 million as people became a little sceptical. Then they came down from €50 million to €20 million. Now we know the cost is €8.2 million. I have come to the conclusion that if we wait long enough, we will not be costing anything but will be making a profit. That is the type of debate. In the circle in which I move, many people have been coming forward because they see what is happening in this regard.

We were then promised a super-committee. The other committees are not working. We have amalgamated committees in the past two years and there is not even time to talk. Now there will be this super-committee, which will be a Seanad by another name. It will not be democratic because it will not be elected. As to who will select the members, it will be the Government. As to who will be on this committee, it will largely be members of the Civil Service. This is meant to fill the gap that will be created by removing a House of Parliament.

We seem to be left with little or nothing to propose or to support the idea of this referendum, but there is still the strong mantra of reform, and that suggests to me, as I have always felt, a discerning electorate. There are people who are very well informed and they realise that no case has been made - one may exist, but I do not know - for the abolition of the Seanad.

I was somewhat surprised in recent days when one commentator wrote that a comment somebody made in the House was the reason we should get rid of the Seanad. Is that the level of that we are talking about? Is that what democracy means to us - a single comment by a single person? Would that not also mean we should get rid of the Dáil, when one looks at some of the comments being made there every day? That is a little disturbing.

I do not regard myself as an intellectual. I am an ordinary person, but I am a person, like all of the Members, who feels strongly for the welfare of the country. I also feel strongly for the people who are suffering. I felt this particularly strongly this morning when listening to the radio, when I heard there would be a large number of evictions. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, knows as well as I do - I will not go too deeply into that - that the very word "eviction" strikes terror and anger into the heart of an Irish person.