Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Seanad Bill. It is certainly a Bill that will encourage much debate in the House and reflection on the role of Seanad Éireann.

One aspect baffles me in that, since the recession, the only institute of democracy within the State to come under the microscope of reform has been Seanad Éireann. Other institutions of State, including Dáil Éireann, how the Executive or the Cabinet forms its powerful position and, indeed, local authorities, have not been given the same scrutiny in terms of reform, powers and democracy. It has been the easy option to kick Seanad Éireann and to look at reforming it.

The Taoiseach opted for abolition in the famous speech that he gave at a Fine Gael dinner in 2012 and there was a referendum. My party was the only parliamentary party that opposed the abolition of Seanad Éireann. We strongly opposed its abolition because of the principle of democratic accountability and oversight. Doing away with the Seanad would obviously lead to a democratic deficit, by removing the second Chamber and allowing the Executive to have more power. In other words, it would centralise power. Subsequently, the 2014 local government reform legislation was brought forward by the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Phil Hogan, the objective of which was to reform local government. However, that objective has not been met. A number of studies on that have been carried out. I carried out a comprehensive analysis as part of a master's of finance degree I undertook on the 2014 local government reforms, which included research and survey analyses in respect of local authority members across the political spectrum. It is very clear that said legislation has halted democracy. It has centralised power in the Executive and away from councillors in the local government setting. Local government is starved of financial resources. The reforms were within the realm of efficiency, and we know what that means. Efficiency without effectiveness of services means that costs are being cut. That is what has happened.

In the spirit of the reforms contained in the Bill before us, we support any reformation of Seanad Éireann that would make it more effective in its role. However, I have concerns, some of which have been expressed, about the manner in which the reforms are being brought forward, particularly those relating to the electoral process. I agree with Senator Ó Ríordáin that the House has a major role to play at national, not local, level. The manner in which the Seanad is structured can instil a greater level of debate on and scrutiny of legislation than perhaps the Lower House because of the local and casework demands on Deputies.

There is a need to examine the way we do our business. If we are serious about reform, the first change we should examine is the manner in which we do our work on a week-to-week basis and consider some of the aspects that have been touched upon, including the scrutiny of European legislation, and sitting four days a week. That could be a good start. A report I read recently indicated that over 95% of the laws made in Brussels that impact on our citizens in Ireland go unchecked. They are filtered through the parliamentary committee system but those committees - due to their workload - often do not have the time to scrutinise such legislative proposals and demands from Brussels. We could start with that aspect.

There is an all-Ireland agenda which has to be developed in a better way, particularly in the aftermath of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. Those are matters in respect of which we could introduce reforms.

The electoral reform of the Seanad is another area. I would be slow to disenfranchise local government any further by reducing the democratic power of local authority members in electing Seanadóirí to the House.

There is another difficulty - political theorists, not just in Ireland but in other jurisdictions also, have reflected on this - where the same person has two votes to elect people to either Chamber. For example, the electorate would have a vote to elect a Member to Dáil Éireann and the same person would have a vote to elect a different person to Seanad Éireann. There are issues around that. It is a matter on which we need to reflect.

Regarding the Taoiseach's nominees, and I welcome Senator Lawless, who is here representing the diaspora. The Taoiseach, and my party leader, made excellent choices this time around in selecting Seanadóirí, particularly those from sectoral interest groups. We can criticise that and say it is undemocratic for the Taoiseach to do so, but it was Eamon de Valera who changed the manner in which 11 Members were nominated by the Taoiseach. I have been critical of this in the past but that is not to say that in the future party politics would be the dominant feature in terms of the way a Taoiseach would put forward his or her 11 nominees. That process has to be changed. If we are to elect people representing the diaspora abroad, there should be one Seanadóir elected. I know the structure is different in the Bill but these are issues we can tease out on Committee Stage. We will not object to the completion of the Second Reading of the Bill today, but we reserve the right to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage.

I emphasise that local government in this country, which is the point of democracy closest to the citizen, is actually the weakest in Europe. We should not be proud of that. We will disenfranchise local government further if we remove the power of local authority members to elect 43 Senators. We have to examine the overall picture and not just engage in a knee-jerk reaction. I am all for political transformation and reformation, but it cannot be done on its own. It must be done in the round. There is a need to reform the way we do politics in this country and make decisions about spending public money, but we cannot do that in a knee-jerk fashion.

Yesterday's budget was an opportunity to reform more areas but it did not occur. We had a massive opportunity to carry out major reforms in the aftermath of the financial crisis of the past five years when there was a strong Government in power. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Some good things were done, particularly in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, but much more needs to be done, particularly around value for money. As politicians, we often say that we should spend more. All political parties want more to be spent, including those that criticise the Government. However, what is the point in spending more if we are not getting value for money for what is currently being spent? There are issues around that. This goes back to the power of the Executive, the debate in the Dáil and the debate in the Seanad - they are all interlinked. Local government has been reduced, with 80 town councils brought out of the equation and democracy, at the point closest to the those councils, removed. This has resulted in a further centralisation of power. What has happened at local government level is that the power has been centralised to the county manager and away from councillors who were democratically elected.