Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House. I remind Members that the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Constitution for the purpose of abolishing the Seanad and not, whether we regret it or otherwise, reform of the Seanad. I do not wish to stymie the debate but I cannot allow Senators to stray too far from the purpose of the Bill.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Crown who was in possession when the debate adjourned.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we quorate?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House and thank my colleagues for returning and making up a quorum. For the sake of attribution, I called for the quorum.

While many sections of the press and commentariat have already had a mini-referendum on the Seanad and abolished it, it is as yet one of the two Chambers of our democracy, which is one of the longest continuously functioning democracies in Europe. It is perhaps without self inflation a somewhat weighty matter that when we are discussing matters related to abolition of one half of our national Parliament there is an appropriate audience present for the discussion. While I have not done so before, I would like to put my colleagues on notice that I propose to try to ensure we are quorate throughout this debate.

I was looking forward to getting to know the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, better over the course of this evening. I reckon we would have had a much lengthier interaction in this session that we are likely to have in aggregate in the remainder of our time in Parliament. I am equally pleased that the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, is in the House and that we will get to know each other a little better over the next while.

For the sake of fairness, I will return to the point I was making prior to the adjournment of the debate.

We were discussing certain aspects of the Bill, particularly the assumption that we are dealing with establishing an abolition day in respect of one House of our national Parliament. As already stated, this is a weighty matter. Democracy is an untidy form of government but its lack of tidiness is more than compensated for by the multiple advantages it has to offer. I also stated earlier that it can be a pretty gruesome form of government but it beats the hell out of all of the alternatives.

I am an absolute democrat and I fully believe in trying to transliterate the wishes of the people as closely as possible into the policies which are formulated for them and on their behalf. Parliamentary democracy has been the best means of doing this. As we are aware, however, one House of this Parliament is extremely undemocratic. When I first ran for the Seanad just over two years ago, in my one and only item of election literature I stated that I would campaign for its reform or abolition and that the affront to democracy which its existing electoral system represents outweighs any potential benefits the House, as currently constituted, has to offer. I am very much of the view that the Seanad must be reformed but I accept that we are not debating a reform option. I am a member of one of the two groups in this House which authored Seanad reform legislation. The Bill with which I was involved was dealt with in a spirit of noble co-operation by the Minister of State's party, which put the petty considerations that can sometimes guide discourse to one side and allowed it to remain on the Order Paper following Second Stage. This also happened in the case of the legislation tabled by my esteemed colleagues, Senators Quinn and Zappone.

Even though we are not debating a reform option, I am of the view that we must briefly consider both what might be the alternatives and why we are discussing the abolition of the House. The reasons which have been advanced in respect of abolition are in some cases very reasonably and in others greatly flawed. The democratic deficit relating to and the alleged elitism of the Seanad are the most sustainable reasons for abolishing it. This is why I truly believe that if we only ever have a choice of leaving the House as it is currently constituted or abolishing it, I would state - with a heavy heart - that it should be abolished. I have, however, decided to campaign for another outcome, namely, reform. In order to advance the reform agenda and ensure that it survives, we must oppose abolition in the first instance. Once the House is gone, it will be very difficult to get it back.

Why is it that the elitism and undemocratic nature of the Seanad emerged as they did? The reason is that the very people who are now most loudly decrying that elitism and undemocratic nature are those who allowed the latter to emerge in the first instance. It was they who created the reality. The original intent of the 1937 Constitution is actually relatively clever in that in the Dáil we would have a powerful, rigorously democratic Chamber elected by means of universal suffrage. It was envisaged that this would be where the power would lie and where decisions would be made. The Second Chamber was designed to incorporate a different - though not necessarily elitist - skillset among its Members which would contemplate certain technocratic aspects, life experiences and perspectives that might not be well represented in a single-chamber parliament exclusively and overwhelmingly comprising full-time politicians affiliated to large and well-organised political parties. This is why our system - with its various panels, university Senators and, to avoid logjams, Taoiseach's appointees - developed as it did. That system failed because we ended up with a Dáil and a Dáil lite or mini Dáil. The membership of the Seanad by and large comprises good and often very able people who have a good record of public service and representation. In general, however, they are also the same type of people as their counterparts in the Dáil. The seats relating to the Administrative Panel, the Agricultural Panel, the Industrial and Commercial Panel, etc., were not necessarily filled by people who brought the relevant expertise with them - although in many cases they did - but rather by individuals whose parties felt, for very good reasons I am sure, were deserving of seats in the national Parliament. What occurred, therefore, was what one might describe as a sort of gentle, low-level coup. It was certainly a subversion of the intent of the original authors of the 1937 Constitution. What they did effectively led to the Seanad developing into something that was never envisaged.

While the argument that the Seanad merits abolition because it is undemocratic is both defensible and sustainable, it must be countered by the fact that the people who created that sad reality are those who are now seeking to abolish it. The Seanad was never given the opportunity to fulfil the role originally envisaged for it. I have no intention of being judgmental and I am very cognisant of the unbelievably accomplished people who have been Members of this House and who made a far greater contribution to Irish life than I could ever hope to make. However, when considered in the context of its entire lifespan, it could be argued that Seanad Éireann has not been a successful political entity. If the House was seeking to ensure its survival on the basis of what it has achieved, then it would be a hard sell. I will paraphrase another old adage at this point and state that some see things as they are and say "Why?", while others look at things that never were and say "Why not?"

The second argument in favour of abolition, which is wholly illegitimate, is that it will save money. In the context of a debate which took place approximately 18 months ago, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, informed us about the necessity for a constitutionally reformed Oireachtas hearings process in advance of the failed referendum to allow committees of the Houses to hold inquiries. He also stated that the money saved as a result of the abolition of the Seanad could be usefully redeployed to powerful, interrogative Dáil committees. Let us stop for a moment and consider the case of an average person who thinks that we - a bunch of well-heeled fat cats sitting in leather chairs in Leinster House - should be fired because his or her daughter has been waiting two years for an operation to have her spine straightened at Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin. That individual is being misled into believing that the money saved as a result of the abolition of the Seanad will be redirected into the health service, the area of social protection or - in order to employ additional special needs assistants - the education system. If I knew that was going to happen, I would have a very difficult time trying to oppose abolition.

If I knew that the fights we are having on a near weekly basis to obtain cancer drugs for the patients would be aided by the redeployment of the moneys in question to this end, I might be on the other side of the argument. However, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has bluntly stated on three occasions, in this House, in an RTE interview two weeks ago and in a private conversation with me, that the moneys in question will be redeployed to Dáil committees. In fairness, I would not reveal what the Minister said to me in private had he not reiterated it in public. In that context, when I asked he if it was still intended to redeploy the money to the committees he answered in the affirmative. An argument can, perhaps, be made in favour of that. Let us consider, however, the committees which will be created and to which this money will be redeployed if the Seanad is abolished. Will those committees be more democratic? The answer is no.

I believe Senator Hayden wishes to ask a question.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I raised my hand to indicate a desire to contribute.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I do not want the Senator to get repetitive strain injury but I must inform her that she may be waiting a little while for me to conclude.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak whenever Senator Crown concludes.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few more points to make.

Will abolition of the Seanad address the democratic deficit? Effectively, there will still be a second level of scrutineers fulfilling the role set aside for this House, namely, examining legislation in a more dispassionate, non-partisan, technocratic, expert and contemplative fashion. We will not get the latter, however. Instead, what will happen is that people from among the ranks of the commentariat, those in academia, etc., will probably be appointed. This will not happen on the basis of the peer review which leads to individuals such as Senator Barrett being elected to the House. Rather, they will be appointed because the Taoiseach will want to appoint them. The current Taoiseach appointed some fine people to serve in this Seanad. However, in the interests of trying to get legislation through - in the knowledge that there will no longer be in place a second Chamber place which will it in the way I have outlined - he will appoint those he is certain will ensure it is passed in an unhindered and uninterrupted fashion. That does not constitute good scrutiny, nor does it indicate that there will be proper checks and balances in place. It is the type of self-policing about which the profession of which I am a member was so criticised and which led to the Irish Medical Council being completely reformatted. The abolition of the Seanad will not lead to money being saved or to better scrutiny. It will instead give rise to a form of scrutiny in respect of which those who will be appointed by the Taoiseach ill be less answerable. I am of the view, therefore, that what is proposed fails on every single ground.

Two great arguments have already advanced in respect of this matter. The first of these, which is defensible, is that the Seanad, which the second, which is not defensible, is that it is a waste of money. There is a third great argument which is put forward and which, to me, is the most troubling.

At the time when I was still wrestling with my conscience on the issue of how much I wanted to involve myself in the Seanad retention or reform campaign, some of my other colleagues were taking early and vocal positions suggesting that there was a core threat to democracy implicit in the possibility of abolishing the Seanad. In theory that could happen. In some hypothetical constitutional scenario there may be some threat to the State, but it is not likely.

In looking over the history of Seanad Éireann it is clear that it has done some wonderful things. It has been superb in building bridges to the Northern community and giving a voice to fringe groups that might not have had a voice otherwise. It has also brought us expertise. I am sorry to keep pointing him out but we have someone with a doctorate in economics in the Oireachtas, some five years into our economic crisis. We got him three years into the economic crisis, but it was three years too late. The reality is that it is difficult to make a case that it has been powerful in defending democracy but it is easier to make a case that the way it is proposed to abolish it makes no sense when there is a Constitutional Convention that has not been given permission to examine the most fundamental and critical question of our Constitution, that is, how many chambers we should have in the Parliament and how to elect them.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even if we did, they would ignore it. They ignored 94% of the people who wanted a presidential involvement. They ignored 94% of the people. That is democracy Fine Gael style.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Crown, without interruption.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I beg Senator Crown's pardon.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris's pardon is accepted. We have a bizarre situation. I have no wish to trivialise any issue but perhaps some of the old political heads in the House who know more about this stuff than me could explain something to me. How it is a more crucial and fundamental constitutional question, that needed all the huffing and puffing of a weekend in Malahide, to determine whether the President should serve for seven years or five years rather than whether we should abolish an entire chamber of our Parliament. To me, it is incomprehensible and it speaks to what I believe is the core problem with the abolition campaign.

I am rather reluctant to criticise our Taoiseach. I believe he is the best Taoiseach we have had for a number of years, although I will not specify the timeframe exactly.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Two years.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Although I am not a member of his party, it is no secret that I took the view at the time of the last election that a change of government was necessary. I was vocal in my support of the alternative government with the implicit understanding that Deputy Kenny he would be the Taoiseach. I do not buy in to the theory that he is some kind of incipient autocrat or some of the somewhat uncharitable historical comparisons made between a certain fringe of his party at one time in the past and contemporaneous fringe political movements in other countries. I put it gently to my colleagues who have suggested as much that, in truth, that suggestion is unfair. I do not believe that the man's instincts are anything other than democratic. However, I believe he backed himself into an almighty corner when, on the spur of the moment, he made a decision at a time when he was having some internal political difficulties. I am not criticising him for it, but he latched on to a suggestion which appears to be completely at variance with everything he had said previously about the Seanad, that is to say, that it should be reformed and that it could be constructive. He quoted the extraordinary contributions that individual Senators of great standing had made over the years. Then, in a quasi-social environment he threw out the idea, apparently written on the back of an envelope and in a manner unplanned, un-counselled and not co-ordinated with any of his senior political staff, or , I strongly suspect, his Senators, that he would put a simple "Yes" or "No" abolition case to the people. He has been unshakeable in terms of allowing discourse to occur on this issue.

We have a situation where my good friend and colleague, Senator Norris, attended the Constitutional Convention and I was happy and proud to yield to him to try to force the issue and raise the discussion at that wonderful democratic assembly of 33 parliamentarians and 66 fellow citizens. It includes folk from North and South, from every walk of life, including people who are involved in politics and people who are not, people who knew who some of us were and people who had never heard of any of us but who were simply there to give their opinion. None of these people were given the chance to debate this critical question. While I do not believe it indicates any level of incipient despotism, autocracy or dictatorship, it may perhaps indicate a stubborn streak. I believe it would have been far preferable had the convention been given the opportunity to discuss this issue.

There is another obvious point that merits raising and I will call on the Minister of State to go on the record in that regard when I conclude - in several hours' time, that is. We have had a range of opinions from people occupying the ministerial chair in this House. They have stated how helpful they have found the Seanad and the contributions Members have made to legislation, how the House has pointed out things that slipped through the net following several Dáil Stages - that can happen in any area of human endeavour - and how the Seanad has greatly strengthened a good deal of legislation.

It seems to me that there was no great consensus among the Taoiseach's close advisers. Certainly, there was no consensus among those who strongly supported him at the time of the most recent leadership contest in Fine Gael that the Seanad should be abolished without any discussion concerning potential reform options. The Constitutional Convention was not given a chance.

We have seen a situation in the Houses whereby Members of the Seanad and Dáil have been effectively whipped to varying degrees on this issue. This has come across as undemocratic. Although the analogy about turkeys not voting for Christmas has been trotted out we could be left with an even more extreme example of what I term veterinary orthopaedics, because we are all aware of the idea that we may be lame ducks if the House is abolished but we are still sitting here drawing a salary for several years.

This brings me to a final point from this initial section of my contribution. The Taoiseach himself raised a particular issue in a somewhat off-the-cuff speech recently. He stated that one of the key reasons the Seanad needed to be abolished was because it failed to do anything to stop the Celtic tiger. We all get face-slapping blinking moments of incomprehension from time to time - I have had several of them in recent years since I came to the House - but my face was truly red with self-slapping when I heard that comment and I could not quite believe what I had heard. The Taoiseach, who, to his great credit, is the father of the Lower House, our longest serving Dáil Member, despite his youth, has been deeply dug in to the system of politics in the country, in opposition, in government, on the frontbenches, on the backbenches and every kind of bench around. In truth he was a member of the party that did not really do much to try to deflate the Celtic tiger. I mean no disrespect to my current colleagues from the other party, but while the principal fault lay with the Government of the day, it was aided and abetted by the principal party in opposition at the time.

Is there a record for the number of Ministers of State who can attend one speech? I would like someone to keep a record of it for me.

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very disappointed to be leaving.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. He may be on the 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. shift as well. We may get to meet again.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the former Senator.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, prefers I can begin my speech at the beginning.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear. Let us have it again. Encore.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Crown, without interruption.

Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was listening to Senator Crown on the monitor outside.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Naturally, the famous monitor.

The accusation that the Seanad deserved an unpardonable death sentence, with no possibility of a plea-bargain, in expiation for its great crime in inflating the Celtic tiger would have been extraordinary coming from anyone, but it was particularly extraordinary coming from our current Taoiseach, a former Leader of the Opposition, who, in truth, for reasons known to everyone in Irish politics, was never going to be the person who while in opposition adopted the Cassandra position, warning people that we needed to slow down the economy.

While the Seanad fell asleep at the tiller during the meltdown of our economy it was not the first, second, third or fourth most guilty entity in that meltdown. The most guilty entity was Dáil Éireann, which elected the Ministers who were insufficiently expert in economic matters to see what was happening and who in turn supervised the appointment of the senior officials and advisers who, incredibly, were not in a position to either predict a problem or to see it unravelling in real time. I have, perhaps uncharitably, said that the Taoiseach criticising the Seanad for failing to stop the tiger was perhaps about as valid as if Neville Chamberlain had decided to blame the Mexicans for failing to stop Hitler even though he had been appeasing the Nazis throughout the immediate pre-war years.

All of the arguments which will be advanced in favour of section 1 of the legislation, which gives us an abolition day are arguments which, in the case of the economic one, are utterly unsustainable, in the case of guilt of the Seanad unsustainable and in the case of the democratic deficit, in truth, remediable. I freely acknowledge the great contributions of Senators Quinn, Zappone and their supporters in formulating their Bill, about which I am sure we will here in the coming days. We articulated an alternative vision for the Seanad because we need to fix the whole darn Parliament. Within the constraints and confines of our current Constitution there is a limit to what we can realistically do. We attempted to maximise radical Seanad reform within the confines of Bunreacht na hÉireann such that it would not require any constitutional amendment and which exists within the existing Constitution, including the various amendments and legislation passed over the years.

If we abolish the Seanad as proposed in section 1 of the Bill, we will never get the chance to look at the alternative mechanism short of there being a near insurrection-like democratic coup in the country which would shake the party system to its core and install a new wholly reform-oriented entity which had as its first item on the agenda writing a new constitution. I must admit that in the odd moment of megalomania, the thought occurred to me that perhaps we should try to do that, but that is another day's work.

Today we are discussing what alternatives might be available if the abolition, as outlined, is rejected. Our Bill proposed a universally enfranchised electorate electing the Members of Seanad Éireann. They would elect all 49 non-Taoiseach nominees - a constitutional referendum would be necessary to change the selection process for the other 11. The 49 would sit on the existing constitutionally mandated panels and on the day of a Dáil general election every voter would also pick the Seanad panel electoral ballot of his or her choice and would elect to vote in any one of the panels. There would be certain restrictions in terms of who could vote on the university panels to satisfy the Constitution. However, a university graduate who voted in the university panel could not vote on the other panels so we would be preserving the principle of one vote. That is fine.

An entire constituency is currently affected by section 1. A currently enfranchised body politic of our citizenry will have rights taken from them by other citizens if section 1, which we are trying to amend into extinction, is passed. They are the graduates of the universities who currently live outside the State. At the moment they have a voice in electing Seanad Éireann. If the Seanad is abolished, they will lose their voice in having any say in electing any Member of the Oireachtas, our national Parliament. It is offensive to democracy at its most core level that one group of people within a currently enfranchised electorate are making a decision to exclude the input of a group currently enfranchised and to disenfranchise them. What other precedent do we have? It would be as if all of the men passed a vote to take the vote away from all the women without letting the women vote or if people over a certain age made a decision to take the vote away from people under a certain age or if people who paid tax made the decision to take the vote away from people who do not pay tax. It is wrong and offensive. It is very worrying that no thought has been given to this.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the repartition of Ireland.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other essential element in our reform was that not only would we democratise the election process, but we would totally "de-elitify" it. I may be making up a new word, which has a medical name, neologism. People with various illnesses sometimes make up new words. I hope I am not going to be diagnosed by any of the tens of thousands watching us right now. In an attempt to remove elitism from the selection process, our reform proposes that any citizen could run for the Seanad if he or she had the signatures of 1,000 of his or her fellow citizens. In addition we would extend the franchise to Irish citizens living abroad. Great fears have been expressed over the years that we might have some horribly artificially inflated input of misty-eyed sentimentalised Irish abroad who were not really in contact with the realities of our country. I believe that does a disservice to our diaspora and our system would have a check and balance in it. A person living abroad wishing to vote would need to be a citizen and would need to go to the trouble of registering as a voter in his or her local Irish consular service. This would be a wonderful way to bring the voice of our diaspora into the House.

In addition we proposed extending the franchise to non-Irish citizens legally resident here and who are currently eligible to vote in local elections. We are culturally not used to being an immigrant society. We think of ourselves as the praetorian guard of emigrants but do not tend to think of ourselves as immigrants. We have neither the cultural skill set nor in many ways the administrative procedures to deal with immigrants. In other countries the passage from legitimate immigration status to citizenry is smoothed rather more easily than it has been here. This would give another opportunity for those wonderful contributors to our society who were not born here and have been contributing by working and they may be paying taxes. Their children may be taking part in our sports events and they are enriching the cultural potpourri which is our country.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Popery? No popery here.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Crown, without interruption.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does one compete with that? It would have given them expanded access into the halls of Parliament. If we vote for section 1, I am afraid all those opportunities are cut off at the knees and we will not be able to pursue that any further.

Why is this political nirvana so important? I believe the real political problem in the country is the composition of and the electoral system used for the Dáil. I mean absolutely no disrespect to my Dáil colleagues. I have come here as an outsider and still consider myself somewhat of an outsider and not a real politician. My respect for their work and the commitment they show to what is in general an extremely difficult job has increased enormously. I have a professional sense of understanding of the concept many of them have of being continually on call - at the end of a phone for somebody who has a problem in a way that I can relate to in my day job.

However, there is still something very wrong with the way we are doing it because we have a three to five year electoral cycle, depending on political variables, at the end of which we have a large number of simultaneous local elections. The principal skill sets that get one elected, and I say this not in an insulting way, are, first, negotiating the Byzantine ways of the local party structure and getting on the nominating process and, second, being a sound, solid constituency worker. In general, if one sits at home in one's lonely garret on a quiet Thursday night in any rural or urban place in Ireland and thinks about what we need to do to fix the education system, the health system, the welfare system or something we need to do to increase equity in our society, no matter how good the idea it will never be one's highest professional priority as a politician because one's highest priority in our localised system - the word "parochial" is correct and I use it not in any pejorative sense - is how one can impress sufficient numbers of local people that they will return one to Leinster House at the next electoral cycle. It makes it difficult to be the bearer of bad news or the person who, as the political equivalent of Morgan Kelly, could have stood up during the time of the previous Government and said: "Guys, it has never happened in the history of commerce that a bubble of the kind we are experiencing did not stop and in the overwhelming majority of cases, when they blow up that fast they crash disastrously, and they stay crashed." It must be said that not all economists were clever enough to see that coming, but the reality is that there were no PhD economists in the first line either of our Government or our Department of Finance.

The current system in the Dáil is dysfunctional and is resulting in people being elected who have refocused on local rather than national issues. The Minister will be aware that in general in the other House, and even among the Members of this House who may aspire to being a Member in the other House, often one's bitterest political rival and most proximate threat to one's own career advancement in terms of being elected or re-elected is not the person who is one's ideological foe but the person in one's own party who is in the same constituency. There is something fundamentally crazy about that. If our country is to be run by a bunch of people who believe they have a set of ideas to try to fix it, they should at least be able to work in unison and in a way that maximises their collective chance of getting to where they can make the decisions and have the power to do something about it, but instead we have the opposite. We have people who are wondering what part of the constituency so and so from their party is strong in, and what they can do to undermine him or her in the constituency and make themselves stronger there. Again, because of the system we have, we end up with people who are not only not fixated on the national issues but are not particularly incentivised to be fixated on thought and thinking things through. It is a much more visceral reaction.

Into this heady mix of dysfunction we throw the rather strange structure of our two major political parties who, in truth and with no disrespect to them, and I look at them from the outside, are indistinguishable. There is a cultural difference in terms of remote Civil War affiliations and a somewhat more subtle cultural difference in terms of some of the extreme aspects of their demographics of support but, by and large, they occupy the same part of the left-right debate in economic matters. It is interesting that in the current debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, one group was subject to the Whip and one group was not, but the same spectrum of opinions is apparent across both parties. I suspect that if both were subject to the Whip and both were not subject to the Whip, we would see a roughly similar proportion of Deputies going with and against the party's wishes on this Bill and its contentious amendments. We have this strange system that places a high premium on personality, because if one's policy vision is the same as that of the next man or woman and one is looking for what we call product differentiation, one is differentiating it on matters other than one's political ideas.

I would love to see fundamental reform of the entire Oireachtas. Imperfect as the Seanad is, and we are speaking on section 1 of the Bill to abolish the Seanad, if the contention in section 1 were defeated and instead the reforms Senators Quinn, Zappone and I had suggested, and there are only nuanced differences among them, were included as part of a reform process, we would at least have one House of our national Parliament that was elected with a national focus. It would be a less powerful House, it would not be one which could thwart the wishes of the other House under our Constitution, but it would still be nationally focused. Instead, what we will have is one House that will be regionally focused, with no one with a national focus, and which will have a scrutineer function that will be taken from the imperfect quasi-democracy that is the electoral system of Seanad Éireann and entrusted completely to a group who will be appointed by the Taoiseach. Everything about section 1 is wrong, and that is the reason I believe it should be defeated.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Senator that section 1 is about the definition.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct.