Deputy Tuffy was in possession and is sharing time with Deputy Anne Ferris.
Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed)
Thairg an Taoiseach an tairiscint seo ar an Déardaoin, 13 Meitheamh 2013:
Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois.
The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Thursday, 13 June 2013:
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Atógadh an díospóireacht ar leasú a 1:
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "that" and substitute "Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a second reading on the basis that it seeks to abolish Seanad Éireann without affording the opportunity to reform Seanad Éireann as set out in the Seanad (No. 2) Bill 2013".
(Deputy Shane Ross)
Introducing the Bill, the Taoiseach stated that we had too many politicians in Ireland. To address this, he proposes to cut the number of politicians by one third - more than 700 Deputies, councillors and Senators. One of the five countries with similar populations to which he compared us was Finland. Finland has an elected politician for every 550 people whereas Ireland has one elected politician for every 2,476 people. In both cases, I am counting the total number of local and national politicians. After the Taoiseach's cuts, Ireland will have one elected politician for every 4,144 people and rising, given the fact that our population is increasing year on year. Ireland will have one eighth of the elected politicians of Finland. It is a nonsense to suggest that Ireland has too many politicians compared with countries such as Finland.
Norway was another of the five countries mentioned by the Taoiseach. It has 169 MPs for a population that is slightly larger than ours and has 12,000 councillors, more than 400 local councils and county councils - in reality, regional assemblies - for its 19 regions. Norway has more than ten times Ireland's number of elected politicians.
I could make similar points about the other countries that the Taoiseach mentioned - Denmark, Slovakia and Croatia. These and other countries have levels of representation at local and regional level that Ireland does not, both in terms of the number of representatives and self-governing powers. Ireland is a most centralised democracy, yet the Taoiseach is proposing with his cuts at local and national level to move even more power to the centre. With so few elected politicians in Ireland, they will be stretched to the limit in their duties to connect with voters. This will make our political system less representative and less efficient, not more.
Ireland is erroneously compared with large countries when some commentators argue that Ireland has too many politicians. This assertion is equally false. For example, the UK, France, Germany and Italy have levels of government that Ireland does not and could not have, including directly elected regional assemblies and provincial parliaments, as in the case of Italy. Neither is Ireland over-represented at national level regardless of whether we are compared with countries that have two houses of parliament or one.
At the Constitutional Convention this month, it was pointed out by political scientist Professor David Farrell that, following empirical studies comparing countries with similar population sizes, Ireland was just about right. A widely accepted formula in political science places the optimum size of a lower house as the cube root of its population. According to the 2011 census, the cube root of Ireland's population is 166. We have exactly the right number of Deputies. This formula has been empirically tested.
Interestingly, the convention was polled on whether the number of Deputies should be changed. The majority of its members - citizens and Oireachtas Members - believed that it should not be changed. In the event that it was changed, 48% favoured having a number of Deputies greater than 159. They wanted to keep within the existing constitutional range.
The cuts to Deputy numbers will move us in the wrong direction, as will the proposed abolition of the Seanad and the cuts to councils. After the next election, we will have one Deputy for every 29,000 plus people compared with Finland's one for every 27,180. We have the same number of Deputies as we had when we had 1.2 million fewer people. On the other hand, the number of unelected advisers, spin doctors and speech writers has grown exponentially since then. Power has not only been moved to the centre and into the hands of the Executive thanks to this Government's so-called reforms, but it has also been put further into the hands of unelected advisers and spin doctors, many of whom earn more than twice a Senator's salary with no accountability whatsoever.
It is populist nonsense for the Taoiseach to claim that Ireland has too many politicians. He is anti-politics and anti-democratic when making that assertion and is contributing to the ongoing denigration of politics, which is good for none of us and is not good at all for our democracy.
The Taoiseach also stated that of the ten reports on Seanad reform published since 1938, none had been implemented. This is untrue. I do not know where he is getting his figures. The 2004 Seanad reform report, with which the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is familiar, given his involvement in drawing it up, referred to 11 other reports since 1928. The 2004 report would have made 12 in total.
The assertion that the reports have not been implemented is not borne out by the facts. I refer the House to a letter published in The Irish Times recently. It reminded me of this debate. Mr. Joe Stynes wrote:
The figure 12 is derived from the 2004 report ... which lists 11 previous reports and itself forms the twelfth. Of the 11 earlier reports, those of 1928, 1936, 1947, and 1953 were in fact largely implemented, while those of 1937 and 1959 made almost no recommendations because the committee members disagreed ... The 1967 and 1996 reports were reviews of the entire Constitution [and also made recommendations on the Dáil that were not implemented] ... The only report which is both specific to the Seanad and unimplemented was the Seanad’s own 2004 report.
This factual position is borne out by a book about the Seanad written by its former Clerk, Mr. John McGowan Smith. He went through the details of a number of the implemented reports. Amendments were made to Articles 31 to 33, inclusive, of the pre-1937 Constitution in 1928 following a report of a committee of both Houses, including recommendations on the Senate. Powers to delay legislation were introduced at that time.
In 1937 the new Seanad was introduced. There was a report by the joint committee on the Seanad panel elections in 1947 and its recommendations were put into effect in the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947, with further modifications made in the Acts of 1954 and 1972. These form the basis of the electoral system to the Seanad. Those were two key assertions made by the Taoiseach, both incorrect.
The Taoiseach continued, "No Parliament would abolish a House of Parliament simply to reduce the number of politicians", and stated he was in favour of abolition because the Seanad "has not worked". He made no back-up to this assertion; there was no in-depth analysis. Unlike the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who has put some thought into the matter, the Taoiseach offered no analysis as to the benefits or otherwise of bicameralism versus unicamerlism. He does not appear to have any grasp of the purpose of the Seanad in our democracy and has been very flippant about it. I have the impression he is very caught up in a presidential style of leadership which is destroying our Parliament in terms of its accountability. The media laps this up to the detriment of all the other Members of this House and of the Seanad.
The Taoiseach does not even grasp the purpose of the Seanad - where the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, served with me - namely, to slow down the passage of legislation and ensure that the more controversial aspects of legislation have time to come into the public domain. That is very important. The mere existence of the Seanad is a deterrent to Governments wishing to introduce draconian legislation. Deputy Boyd Barrett described the Offences against the State (Amendment) Bill, which we have just discussed, as "draconian" but if we did not have a Seanad it might be a lot more draconian. That Bill must be next debated in the Seanad, which means it will be discussed in both Houses and has more chance to be in the public domain. This acts as a deterrent against the Government overstepping the mark and giving too many powers to the State against the citizen.
The other purpose of the Seanad is to improve legislation and allow time for spotting flaws. Legislation has been introduced by Senators over the years - I can give some examples of good legislation passed. In 1973 Mary Robinson introduced the first Bill to make contraceptives available, a very brave move at the time. She got a lot of abuse and flak, including hate mail, for doing this. Mary Henry is another example. Her Private Members' Bill in respect of child sex tourism was incorporated into the Government's Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act 1996. Many amendments made by Senators to legislation introduced by Government have been accepted throughout the years. I refer to my experience as a Senator, when I was a spokesperson on justice. I put amendments that mattered to legislation and these were accepted by Government. The Taoiseach does not seem to grasp that the nitty-gritty of working through legislation, not merely making soundbites or positioning oneself, is what actually matters. It might not be glamorous. Many Senators, both famous and less famous, have been effective in their role. I refer again to my own experience. The immigration legislation I dealt with in the Seanad, thanks to amendments put by me and my party, improved citizens' rights vis-à-vis the legislation so that they would have due process in the courts. That is just one example.
Bills have been rejected in the Seanad. As late as 2001, a Bill on the publication of opinion polls was stopped there. In 1959 a Bill to put a referendum to the people to abolish proportional representation through the single transferable vote, or PR-STV, and bring in single-seat, first-past-the-post constituencies was rejected by the Seanad. Its initial delay in that House has been said to have contributed to the fact the public had more time and thereby decided to reject the Government's proposal to abolish PR-STV. We can thank the Seanad for that to this day.
The Seanad has obviously contributed to the peace process. Gordon Wilson made a key speech in the Seanad about inviting the IRA to talk to him in the aftermath of three deaths that had just taken place in the Northern conflict.
We take for granted our democracy and our institutions at our peril. This matter should not be the subject of an after-dinner speech by a Taoiseach who needs a headline to grab in the run-up to a monthly opinion poll by a newspaper. It is much more important than that. We have a stable democracy. We have never had a fascist party come to power. We have had a peace process to which many people in both Houses have contributed. It is very important that we remember that.
I hope that when the electorate votes on this they look at this in the round. The Taoiseach has made brave decisions throughout his career, as do most politicians. However, brave men and women have served in the Seanad over the years. When the Senate, as it was then called, was first established it helped to bring the State out of the Civil War. People put their lives at risk to do that. I hope it is to the spirit of those people the electorate will look, not to the soundbites and the flippant way in which the abolition of the Seanad has been proposed by the Taoiseach.
I have my doubts about the need for this Bill. Although I support the passing of the enabling legislation, I have doubts about its intent. The decision to abolish a House of Parliament should not be taken lightly or rushed through, but that is exactly what is happening this week. The Seanad serves a purpose but abolishing it serves none. The need for reform, as advocated by others, is something I agree with and I believe this approach is the more favourable road to take. Having spoken to a number of colleagues in both Government parties, I am certain that when it comes to campaigning on this measure every assistance will be given - short of actual help.
I reiterate, the Seanad serves a purpose. It acts as a check and balance against the powers of the Executive. To remove one check without adequately addressing the consequences is something all of us must take care to prevent. If the circumstances are right, an over-mighty Executive can trample the inalienable rights of a person in a short space of time. As it stands, the Seanad strengthens the parliamentary process by ensuring prospective legislation receives closer examination. In addition, it has the capacity, not fully realised, to meet a broader representation of a changing Irish society.
It is clear there have been paper attempts at reform but with few tangible results. In fact there have been ten attempts at reform. For some, that in itself is enough to condemn the House. However, it is my experience that if there is enough political will behind an issue things can be accomplished that had not seemed likely. Just because something has not been done does not mean it cannot be done. The latest admirable attempt at reform is being led by Senator Katherine Zappone and the proposals offered should be given serious consideration. Past reforms have advocated a more equitable electorate than the elitist one prevalent today. These proposals include having a much broader direct base from which Senators can be elected, as well as having a gender quota that could reflect our population more accurately by giving the 50-50 percentage of men and women that is so noticeably absent in both Houses.
There should be legislation to address the seventh amendment. What is the point in putting an amendment before the people, getting it passed and then doing nothing with it? At very least, in legislating for this amendment, a more inclusive constituency of all third level graduates could be enabled to vote, as opposed to the situation now where only a handful of university graduates can elect six Senators. Proposed expansion of the Seanad's remit has included further scrutinising of both European and secondary legislation. Proposals have also been put forward for close examination of Acts to assess whether they are meeting the policy objectives envisaged for them. These are reasonable proposals.
It is also important to deal with the argument that there are cost savings to be made by abolishing the Upper House. That may well be true but there would be a cost to democracy. It is better to pay a reasonable sum than have the cause of democracy checked or wrecked.
I want a reformed second Chamber that can better meet the needs of our diverse society. The rise and fall of that House will be up to the people. I wish that direct reform had been included in the options presented to the people at the voting stations but by rejecting the proposal a message can be sent to the Government that reform is wanted and needed. The other option means the end of a check and balance. Should reform not achieve what it sets out to do, abolition could then be considered. When it comes to my ballot paper, I will choose the message of reform and I hope it will be heeded.
I am not feeling a lot of love for this Bill on the Government benches. If this was Facebook, the relationship status between the Government and the Bill would be complicated at best, and divorced in some instances. Every Deputy should study Deputy Tuffy's contribution before voting on the Bill because she outlined the strengths of the current Seanad and what it can do. A large number Government Deputies are saying they want a referendum but will be voting "No". Some, like Deputy Ferris, are calling for a reform option. The only way to change the options being presented to the people is to vote against this Bill. Deputy Olivia Mitchell and other Government Deputies have stated that as the Bill is solely concerned with providing for a referendum they are happy to support it and went on to spend their remaining eight or nine minutes having a go at the Opposition and, as usual, throwing in matters that have nothing to do with the debate. It is clear that the Government lacks the support of its dressing room in regard to this Bill. The team captain and chairman of the board might be for it but the players clearly do not have confidence in the chairman. That is a serious issue.
Everyone agrees that the Seanad is in need of reform but the notion put forward by the Taoiseach that it slept through the crisis is very unfair. The Financial Regulator slept through the crisis but is anyone suggesting that we should abolish that office? The regulator was instead strengthened and given additional powers. That is what we need to do with the Seanad. I do not want to personalise my arguments but it is disingenuous of the Taoiseach to make such an accusation given that he made a deliberate decision on becoming leader of Fine Gael in 2002 that the Seanad would be used specifically as a means of getting people into this Chamber, in the process ending the Seanad careers of distinguished Senators like Maurice Manning, who might have been in a position to sound alarm bells. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, was a Member of the Seanad between 2002 and 2007. I am sure if he was to make a confession about the focus of his efforts during that period, he would say it was on getting back into this Chamber.
Deputy Tuffy referred to the many Senators over the years who had the capacity to hold the Government to account. As a Minister of State, I found that the contributions from Independent Senators, in particular, enhanced legislation, added to the quality of debates and made me think about the proposals I was making to the Chamber. I acknowledge that the Seanad needs reform but we should not throw it out on the basis of a populist bandwagon in the same way that we abolished town councils and direct elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta. Running away from democracy is not the way to reform our nation. Blaming institutions for causing the crisis or sleepwalking through it is not a justifiable reason to abolish them without first attempting reform.
Reform could and should include a Seanad that is directly elected on the same day as the general election, as opposed to afterwards, so that it does not become a holding chamber for former or future Deputies. I agree with the proposal that it should have a 50:50 gender ratio. We need to shake up our Parliament and, while admirable efforts are being made on temporary gender quotas, there is potential for the Upper House to make a significant difference in this regard.
I continue to believe that a reformed Seanad can reflect vocational panels. Vocations can still make a contribution in this country and people with specific interests can bring their experience to the challenge of legislating. It should reflect an all-island ethos. Deputy Tuffy and others have reflected on those who came from the northern part of the island to serve in the Seanad over the years. In a week when the G8 met in Enniskillen, which is the home town of former Senator Gordon Wilson, we should consider the contributions that he made to the House. Gordon Wilson, John Robb, Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rogers all used the Seanad as a constitutional institution when others were having recourse to the armalite. These were individuals with the courage to represent the views of their people in a Parliament when others were determined to use violence to get rid of them. The Seanad gave them that chance and it can become an all-island institution working with cross-Border bodies such as those prescribed under the Good Friday Agreement.
A number of Deputies noted at last week's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts that the information which had emerged would have more appropriately been addressed prior to the appointment of the Chairman. A directly elected Seanad could have a role in scrutinising appointments to Dáil and joint committees in order to challenge the clubby atmosphere of this Chamber. Those who seek to be elected Chair of a committee would make him or herself available to answer questions. The appointment of a European Commissioner could also be scrutinised. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was dismissive of the proposal that the Seanad would take responsibility for EU scrutiny. Let us face the fact that this House does not do EU scrutiny particularly well. Committees include it on their agendas and we receive fantastic briefings from the European service and the Library and Research Service but issues tend to be discussed at the beginning or end of committee meetings. Many issues that impact on our daily lives come through cracks that would not exist under a properly resourced Chamber. Proposals could be sent on to this House accompanied by the views of Senators with experience in the relevant areas.
We should completely abolish the university panels, although they served this country well it he past. Over the years the TCD and NUI panels gave us excellent Senators who stood against the consensus and challenged the way things were done. I refer to people like Mary Robinson, T.K. Whitaker and others with distinguished parliamentary careers. However, they belong to a different era.
If this referendum is lost, I suspect the Government will not initiate reform. At the end of the day, Government Deputies will look to the Seanad as a lifeboat in the event of the tide going out on the coalition. If Members want a reform option to be included on the ballot paper, they need to vote this legislation down. They can support the Bill while announcing they will vote "No" in the referendum but that means they are depriving themselves of the option of reform. There is no sense in supporting the Bill if the only choice in the referendum is between killing the Seanad or keeping it alive.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and commend Deputy Tuffy and others on outlining their views in a frank way. It is good that Deputies are not afraid to speak their minds and are not too worried about the Whip.
All of a sudden the Seanad has become a monster of which we must rid ourselves but it has served the State well over the years.
Every political party has used the Seanad to get members elected to the Dáil. In the past, Deputies who lost their seats and new candidates for political parties utilised membership of the Seanad to be elected to the Lower House. There is nothing wrong with providing for such an opportunity.
The Seanad probably needs to be reformed and many reports have been published on reform, most recently in 2004, 2002 and 1997. None of these reports recommended abolition of the Seanad or increasing the powers of the Upper House as to do so could lead to legislative gridlock. The reports, however, recommended that the Seanad assume a number of additional roles, including scrutiny of EU and other legislation, to which Deputy Calleary alluded. They also proposed changes in the composition of the House to better reflect the population of the country, for example, by having representatives from Northern Ireland, as well as representation for emigrants and various voluntary organisations. This would have resulted in a less politically motivated Seanad Chamber.
The Taoiseach has decided to go on a solo run on this matter and appears to have secured the support of the Cabinet for abolishing the Seanad. From listening to speakers from the Government parties in the past two days, it is clear that he does not enjoy the support of Government backbench Deputies.
We should be concerned about democracy. According to a Sunday newspaper published last weekend, many Cabinet members believe the country is being run by a group of four wise men consisting of the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Ministers for Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance. It appears other Ministers have little say in the proposals that come before the Cabinet and what the four wise men say is law. We have a form of dictatorship in which four people are running the country. The Government, through its decisions to abolish town councils and the Seanad, is proposing to remove several strands of our democracy. This is not in the best interests of the country or its population.
On a lighter note, the first Senate in Ireland met in Wexford in 1798. In 1998, when we celebrated the bicentenary of the 1798 Rising, the wise men of the 1798 committee decided to re-establish the Wexford Senate. At the time, the committee came up with the fund-raising idea of inviting people to pay £2,000 to become a senator for life. I paid the sum required, as a result of which I am now a senator for life. It is amazing that I had to buy my way into the senate, while we are now trying to defend the rights of the Seanad to ensure people will not have to buy their way into politics.
Some things never change.
I hope there is a lesson to be learned from this. Wexford now has a large number of senators for life. Those of us who paid £2,000, which we will never get back, received a lovely medal and held a meeting to discuss the events of 1798.
It is wrong to abolish the Seanad. The House should be reformed. I and Deputy Charles Flanagan have been Members of the Oireachtas for a long time. During our time in the House, various parties and Governments have proposed reform. I do not believe we will ever have significant reform of the Dáil or Seanad. Deputies are elected to represent their constituents and Governments are elected to do what is best for the country. I am not sure the discussion about reform and what should or should not be done will make any difference because ultimately the Government will take the decision on the issue.
The current committee system is a farce because membership of committees is controlled by the Government. For example, despite being the Fianna Fáil Party spokesperson on the marine, I cannot become a member of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine because only one member of my party can become a member and the position has been allocated to our spokesperson on agriculture, Deputy Ó Cuív. Moreover, given that committees are always controlled by the government of the day - this was also the case under Fianna Fáil governments - they cannot do much apart from scrutinising legislation and the Government usually gets its way. I do not envisage that we will ever have a position where the committees will overrule Government proposals.
To return to the proposal to abolish the Seanad, many great people have served in the Upper House over the years. We all know who they are and what contribution they made to democracy. I visited the Seanad on many occasions in a previous role as Minister of State and always found debate in the Upper House much different from debate in this Chamber. One had a much greater spread of views as Senators included Independents, academics and all kinds of other individuals who had their own take on how legislation should be implemented. I always found wise heads in the Upper House and it would be a pity if it were abolished.
Few Deputies believe the Seanad should be abolished, with the majority favouring reform. While the people will ultimately decide its fate, I am concerned that the proposal to abolish the Seanad follows the decision to abolish town councils. When the Taoiseach refers to the position in other countries he is not comparing like with like. Many other countries in Europe have local, regional and national governments, which is much different from the system proposed for this country. It is a pity citizens will not be given a choice between reform and abolition of the Seanad. I accept that they will make up their own minds on this issue.
Recently, a local radio station in my constituency featured a debate on abolition of the Seanad. A significant number of callers to the programme in question indicated they would vote to retain the Seanad because those making the case for abolition were Members of the Dáil. The public does not trust politicians or hold them in high regard. I hope citizens will vote to retain the Seanad and the Government will respond by agreeing on the reforms required to change the way in which the Upper House works. I do not have a major issue with having both Houses elected on the same day, although I am not sure how such a system would work. Moreover, I do not have a problem with people using the opportunities provided by the Seanad to get elected to the Dáil. Different political parties benefited from this approach in the past. Perhaps we are running from the media too often as we try to be whiter than white. The current democratic system has served us well and while slight changes are needed, we should not dispatch with it on the whim of a Taoiseach who wants to do something differently.
Cuireadh an díospóireacht ar athló.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.