Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank those Senators who played a pivotal and influential role during the campaign. They have done the State a service in that we have maintained one of the democratic institutions of State.

I am somewhat surprised by the result. I had conceded to my colleagues that the temptation to dispense with 60 politicians would be irresistible, but I am happy that did not happen. The debate showed a paucity of argument on the "Yes" side for the abolition of the Seanad. That was sad and begs the question as to why a referendum was held. It was a pet project of the Taoiseach. I would not remove from the line of fire those senior civil servants who planted the seed in the first place in an bord snip nua. Some in the Department of Finance were extremely anxious to do it.

The denigration of politicians during the campaign by people involved in the profession only fed into elements in the media who were constantly looking for avenues to denigrate the political classes. As I said to some of them, unfortunately, as a consequence they are undermining our democracy. I know of many good young people who have an interest in politics but would not touch it with a barge pole because of what is going on. They do not want to put themselves in a position where they would be involved in a profession that could not stand up for itself. That is regrettable. It cost €15 million to hold a referendum, of which the Taoiseach needs to be reminded.

I am amazed in the current climate that the person in charge of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation was given six or seven weeks to travel the country to campaign for the abolition of the Seanad.

It showed a lack of focus on what needed to be done and what the priorities in government should be. We have a 49% youth unemployment rate in County Wexford. The Minister came to Wexford during the campaign, but I did not get an opportunity at a public meeting to make the point to him that his responsibility was to those who were unemployed and perhaps this task might have been more appropriate to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

The public has decided that dismantling our democracy is not a recipe for real reform. I hope this message will be learned by the Government. Many of us in this House objected to its decision to abolish town councils. The urbanisation of society and the challenges within urban areas all mean that there should be political leadership and political institutions to address these issues. At this late stage I appeal to the Leader who was some influence with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to ask him to go each town and let the people decide whether they wish to retain their town council, as there is provision in local government legislation for the holding of a plebiscite. I think the overwhelming answer would be to retain the town councils. We need to respect democracy in this country and not try to engineer it in order that it suits our own political agenda.

We need real meaningful political reform, not just in the Seanad but across the two Houses of the Oireachtas. The Dáil is the main organ of the Oireachtas and has shown enormous group think. It is extremely partisan in debates. There is an urgent need to separate the Executive from the workings of the Oireachtas and the ordering of business. Providing more hours is not reform. The only effective reform I can think of in the past ten years in the Dáil was the introduction, under a Fianna Fáil Government, of Leaders' Questions.

The Presidency should also be examined. It should be retained. The President is the person with the strongest political mandate, in that he or she is elected by the people. We should look at empowering the President with some executive functions, one of which could be a right to appoint two members of the Cabinet. Why should the Taoiseach have the sole prerogative to make appointments to the Cabinet? Two good independent people with expertise in different areas could be appointed.

The Seanad certainly needs reform, but I appeal to Members not to focus solely on the Seanad because we will only have a tinkering around the edges of it, rather than the overall context of political reform, which we need. The Taoiseach said during the campaign that the Seanad was in some way responsible for the economic collapse. Any impartial observer would say the dysfunctional nature of the Dáil was a much larger contributor to it. I would like to think we would not shy away from holding another referendum on the Seanad. For example, I do not believe the Taoiseach's nominees should be taken out of the equation. The Seanad would then speak with a more objective and independent voice on the business before it. We would still not have a veto on legislation and the Dáil could still overrule us, but that would be a better system. We do not want the American system where we would have two Houses with equal status, which would lead to a logjam. That is not the way to go either.

I compliment the Leader, as others have done. One reform he should examine is allowing more time for some of these debates. Some of them are too concentrated and in many instances we are only given sound bites. I appeal to the Leader to allow for more adequate time to be allocated to these debates.