I am conscious that many Senators have already contributed to the debate on this amendment. The next speaker is Senator Mary M. White. I remind the House that, with the exception of the proposer, Senators may speak only once on individual amendments.
Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Report Stage (Resumed)
Atógadh an díospóireacht ar leasú a 28:
I leathanach 9, línte 8 go 11 a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:
“2° Is é an lá dá dtagraítear i bhfo-alt 1° den alt seo an 91ú lá a thiocfaidh Dáil Éireann le chéile den chéad uair tar éis an olltoghcháin do chomhaltaí de Dháil Éireann is túisce a bheidh ann tar eis an tAirteagal seo a achtú.”.
agus
I leathanach 9, línte 26 go 29 a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:
“2° The day referred to in subsection 1° hereof is the 91st day on which Dáil Éireann first meets after the general election for members of Dáil Éireann that next takes place after the enactment of this Article.”.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 28:
In page 8, to delete lines 8 to 11 and substitute the following:
“2° Is é an lá dá dtagraítear i bhfo-alt 1° den alt seo an 91ú lá a thiocfaidh Dáil Éireann le chéile den chéad uair tar éis an olltoghcháin do chomhaltaí de Dháil Éireann is túisce a bheidh ann tar eis an tAirteagal seo a achtú.”.
and
In page 8, to delete lines 26 to 29 and substitute the following:
“2° The day referred to in subsection 1° hereof is the 91st day on which Dáil Éireann first meets after the general election for members of Dáil Éireann that next takes place after the enactment of this Article.”.
We are in the final hours of a process which is intended to lead to the abolition of this House of the Oireachtas which has operated for 74 years in accordance with the Constitution. It is a shameful process conceived in a moment of expediency. I am reminded of another shameful process 213 years ago when the Irish Parliament of the day voted itself out of existence to facilitate the Act of Union. As a result, in the words of Professor Elaine Byrne, "Ireland was robbed of legislative independence for 120 years."
In this case, by removing the second legislative Chamber, the intention of the Government is that its already powerful position in the Oireachtas in ramming legislation through is made even stronger.
There are also Members of this House appointed by the Taoiseach who I would have expected to exercise their Independent mandate but who have so far backed this Bill. They no longer can call themselves Independent yet they can help this House demonstrate its independent role, and their own personal independence, by voting against the Bill before we conclude. I will refer to their role later.
At least one difference from the events preceding the Act of Union is that the people in Ireland will have the last say in the planned referendum if this House proceeds to endorse this expedient Bill. If we can have an open debate in the public arena on the choice before the electorate in a referendum, the result may not be the done deal the Government believes it will be.
Regarding abolition or reform, I will not repeat or rehearse the main arguments put forward against the Bill to date but the failure to offer a choice to the people to opt for a reformed second Chamber is reflective of an arrogant determination by the Government in pursuit of its expedient objective of not having to deal with a second House of the Oireachtas.
The most stunning failure to achieve a partial reform of the Seanad has been the failure to reform the electorate for election to the six university places as decided by the people in a referendum in 1979. I see the university Senators are not present.
Yes, we are.
In particular I would have liked Senator Barrett to be here. On Thursday, 5 July 1979, the Irish people voted in a referendum to support a Bill to broaden the electorate for the university seats beyond Trinity College Dublin, and the NUI, incorporating UCD, Maynooth, UCC and UCG, to the graduates of other institutions of higher education in the State such as the equivalent of today's University of Limerick, Dublin City University and the institutes of technology. Over half a million people voted in favour of this amendment to the Constitution, with only 45,000 voting against it. As the proposal was duly approved by the people of Ireland, it was signed by the President in August 1979 and promulgated as a law.
Over the past 34 years since the 1979 referendum, Governments of all political hues, including our own Fianna Fáil governments, have failed to pass the regulations to implement the legislation providing for the extension of the university electorate beyond the current universities. Those Governments should apologise to the tens of thousands of third level graduates who were let down by their failure to implement the amendment passed in the referendum in 1979 that they would be entitled to vote. It is a total failure. What does this say about the political will over the years to implement a straightforward modification of the Seanad electorate agreed by the people?
What is equally shocking is that the six elected Senators of NUI and Trinity College, who are generally most articulate and radical in their contributions, seem to have a vow of silence when it comes to implementing the one change in the Seanad the Irish people voted-----
No, that is untrue.
They have opted to remain silent and not call for a modest extension to their relatively elitist electorate.
On the other hand, in my 12 years as a Member of this House, I have witnessed a disrespectful and elitist attitude towards my electorate, including my Fianna Fáil colleagues sitting beside me, but primarily towards county and city councillors from every district of the country. Forty-three Members of this House are so elected after very competitive contests, certainly among Fianna Fáil Seanad candidates. As former Senator Martin Mansergh has pointed out, this "form of indirect democracy is very similar to the French system which ensures that there is no conflict of legitimacy between the two chambers".
Today's city and county councillors are elected by the people in ever more vigorous and hotly contested elections in every one of the electoral districts of the country. They could not be closer or more accountable to the people in their local areas. They do an immense amount of work in resolving social problems and mediating between the people and the State administrations at all levels. That is a most valuable contribution at this time of economic and related social stress on families. These city and county councillors - the electorate of the majority of the Members of the Seanad - deserve the respect of this House as the foundation layer in our democratic system. Already the Government has abolished the town councils, and 300 town councillors have been deprived of their contribution to democracy.
I spoke to Senator Cullinane last week and only one Sinn Féin candidate is going for election to the Seanad. All the Sinn Féin Senators vote for the one person and he or she is appointed to the Seanad, along with the Taoiseach's 11 nominees. Regarding the Labour Party candidates, can Senator Landy say if it has more than one candidate on its panel because I suspect-----
I remind the Senator that we are on Report Stage-----
This is very important. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-----
-----and her contribution is more like a Second Stage speech. I am being very-----
We are talking about history.
I know, but this is not a history lesson.
I hope the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, is crucified at the end of the day.
There are 11 Members of this House whose electorate is one person, namely, the Taoiseach. Those without political affiliations are expected to bring a different perspective and a more independent approach to this House. In the votes on this Bill, Senator Katherine Zappone and Senator Mary Ann O'Brien have maintained that tradition by opposing this Bill, and I commend them for it. The other three non-aligned Taoiseach's nominees, namely, Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell, Senator Jillian van Turnout and Senator Fiach Mac Conghail, have so far supported it.
Senator White, I have been very kind to you. Do not name people who are not in the House to defend themselves. It is most unparliamentary. You have been a Member for 12 years-----
I find it impossible to believe that their stance was based on a conviction that the Seanad should be simply abolished and that the people should not have the option of voting for reform of the Seanad. It is more likely that they had a moment when their courage failed them and they chose to follow the Taoiseach's path of expedience in regard to the Seanad. Individually, they have made distinctive and impressive contributions to this House but it is tragic-----
Senator White, respect the Chair.
-----that on this issue they have been found wanting.
You are breaching the protocol of this House.
This is like the Act of Union, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.
No. You are referring to people who are not here to defend themselves and I am sure if you-----
I do not mind.
Listen to me for a moment. If somebody laid a charge against you when you were not here, I am sure you would resent it also.
I could not care less whether they do or not.
I do care and if you continue-----
If they are participants in-----
-----in that mode, I will have to stop you speaking. Do not refer to or make charges against people who are not here, whether they are fair or not. We are on Report Stage, and I am being very lenient with you.
One of the powers of the Seanad, in opposing a Bill, is to delay the passing of that Bill by at least 90 days. This Bill deserves more consideration by the Oireachtas, and the three Senators in question can ensure that extra time is available by voting against it on Report Stage. In continuing to support this Bill, they are denying this House one of its most important constitutional powers of delaying rushed legislation. I would appeal to each of them, even at this stage, to reconsider their position and oppose Report Stage of this Bill.
Well said.
As no speaker is offering on the opposite side I call Senator Norris.
I am horrified-----
(Interruptions).
I offered it to the other side but nobody was offering and therefore Senator Norris is next, apart from going back to the Fianna Fáil side. Has Senator Norris spoken already?
No, I have not.
I am just checking whether the Senator has spoken already on Report Stage because if he has he cannot speak again.
Yes, but I asked and I was told I-----
No. The Senator seconded the amendment and therefore I cannot allow him speak again. I call Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú.
I beg your pardon.
The Senator seconded Senator Barrett's amendment. It is on the record. This is Report Stage. We are still on that amendment and therefore I cannot allow the Senator speak.
I accept your ruling, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, but I want to put a challenge, and I might even-----
-----take it further to a legal point that-----
No, Senator Norris. I have made a ruling.
-----out of 78 amendments, 77, and less than 12 of mine, have been consistently ruled out of order.
Senator Norris, please. I call Senator Ó Murchú.
I will be taking advice about that. I challenge the ruling of the House. It makes the process a farce but I will obey your ruling on this occasion.
I have no choice.
I know.
I call Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú.
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 on 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.
Quite rightly.
Many of these people are not responsible for the position they are in. They are looking to those of us in public life whom they hold responsible. We see well educated people leaving the country in their thousands; these were the very people whom we had looked forward to being the future of this country. We look at people who have no reason to get out of bed in the morning because they are living on €200 a week. One should try living on €200 a week. There is many a person in public life having one meal in the evening for €200. These are the big issues and it is not right to try to create some type of distraction from that. It is vulgar. It is incorrect. It is not something to which we should lend our names. Therefore, we should look seriously at reform.
Are we too late for a change of direction on the part of the Government? Is there still a possibility that it will see the messages coming back in favour of reform? There is no doubt that everyone should review his or her position at a given time. Society changes, the world changes, we change and the media change. There is no doubt that we all change. We would be foolhardy to think that we are perfect. We are not perfect. There is no question of it. No group is society can claim to be perfect.
We are in favour of reform. Even at this late stage, even if the detail of reform was not available in the referendum, would it not be wonderful for the Government to state, "Maybe we got this wrong. Maybe we were precipitate. Maybe we did not give enough thought to it. Maybe the people will not like us for the way they are handling this." Would it not be great if, for once, the Government could step back, put the hand on the heart and state, "Right, we still have time to bring reform into this referendum"?
Young Fine Gael did it last weekend.
Exactly.
Let us look at what will happen, assuming the referendum does not succeed. I have a feeling it may not be as straightforward as the populist approach was in the beginning. Through the contributions of many fine Members in this House and the media, as we saw in the Sunday Independent and other newspapers, I get the feeling that we are filling the vacuum where the White Paper should have been. Assuming the referendum does not succeed, we have lost the opportunity for reform that would require constitutional change. Nobody will be rewarded for having made that mistake. The abolition of the Seanad is becoming a much bigger issue than the Seanad itself. The Government's suggestion of abolition and the way it is being handled will cast a spotlight on the way Government operates here.
We talk about democracy. What democracy is there for a backbencher in Dáil Éireann? I have never served there but, having observed it, I believe its Members fill a gap and press a button. Can one sleep at night if one sells one's soul like that? There are only a few Ministers running the country at present. They may be lucky and get it right but if they get it wrong, which is always possible, people will suddenly ask why they got rid of the Seanad and whether they had not realised that only four people were running the country and everybody else was just pressing a button when told to do so. That type of democracy may have served in the past when the partisanship that goes with party politics was accepted. As I stated, times, society and the world change, and we change as individuals. The discerning electorate has now been given a single focus to be able to examine the bigger picture. The single focus is the fact that a Government, in the present dire straits of the country, wants to get rid of a House where accountability would be to the fore and where we could help and work together for the good of the country.
That is all I want to say on this but I am possibly whistling in the wind. Sometimes, however, people stop and listen when one does that. There will be other contributions along the same lines. It is interesting how a single sentence can trigger a reaction. The trigger will not be the big headlines or megaphone diplomacy but a single issue. Suddenly, the people will ask whether they are being made fools of in the biggest way possible, namely, through the taking away of a House that would give Members responsibility and allow for accountability. I urge the Minister of State, a decent man who served here with us and impressed us all, although I know he will not change the view of the Taoiseach on this matter, to say to the Taoiseach that Members of this House are not trying to be anti-Government. We are not trying to be smart or insult anybody; all we are genuinely trying to do is reflect what we know to be the case on the ground. Sometimes arrogance is an obstruction to that reflection and echo. Perhaps we should all be less arrogant in our approach and do that for the good of the people.
It is always wonderful to listen to Senator Ó Murchú, whose interventions are always very thoughtful and considered. I hope what he said today will be reported. I had not intended to speak but earlier events have encouraged me to do so. I take my role as a legislator very seriously. In addition to being a legislator, I am a citizen who is directly affected by the legislation we pass and referendums to change the Constitution, as will be the case when the question of Seanad abolition comes before the people in the autumn. As such, in approaching this Bill I endeavoured to balance my Senator's hat and my private citizen's hat appropriately and honestly. As an active Member of Seanad Éireann, I see its flaws, live the frustration and understand the criticisms. On the other hand, I have experienced the capacity of the Seanad to scrutinise Bills, secure greater human-rights-proofing of legislation and policy and add a layer of expertise and consideration that is often lacking in Dáil debates. At the very least, the Seanad is in need of radical reform, but so too is the Dáil if we are to resuscitate political democracy. As it stands, I am utterly unconvinced about the Dáil's ability to deliver the self-reform needed to plug the hole in checks and balances that would be left by Seanad abolition.
I went into some considerable detail on these points in my Second Stage intervention and made it clear that I would not impede the passage of the Bill through the House. Arriving at my position on this incredibly important question is a journey I am still in the process of making. However, as reflected in my intervention on Second Stage and my vote against the motion tabled by my colleagues to recommit the Bill to Committee Stage and consequently delay the referendum, I believe this is a question for the people alone to answer. If we were to have invoked the 90-day delay, I wish we had done so regarding respite care. I could not, in good conscience, have this as the first occasion in my term as a Senator on which we would invoke the delay. I do not believe I should have to. The only conversations I had with people last week prior to my vote were with colleagues who wished me to vote in support of the motion. Most were respectful but, unfortunately, not all were. I will let that sit in the past, however. The record of this House will clearly show that, on each and every decision, I vote with my conscience and with courage.
Tá lúcháir orm an deis a bheith agam labhairt anseo ar an mír seo den díospóireacht agus ar an leasú atá curtha chun tosaigh anseo. Is lá brónach é seo do Sheanadóirí den Teach seo atá ag freastal ar phobal na hÉireann. Tá an Seanad iontach stairiúil, ní hamháin i mBunreacht na hÉireann ach i mbunú na tíre seo. Tá an Teach seo ann ó 1922. Bhí guth i gcónaí ag daoine sa Teach seo, go háirithe ag mionlaigh na tíre. Anois, de bhrí go ndearna ceannaire Fhine Gael cinneadh polaitiúil roimh an toghchán deireanach, tá sé ag iarraidh deiridh a chur leis an Teach seo agus ag cur brú go rachaidh sin tríd an Teach. Ní hamháin go bhfuil sé ag tabhairt an rogha sin do phobal na tíre, ach tá a pháirtí ag dul ag caitheamh suas le €250,000 sa phróiseas sin fosta. Is masla iomlán é sin do dhaonlathas sa tír seo. Is masla iomlán é sin don obair atá ar bun sa Teach seo. Cuireann sé díomá orm go bhfuil an Taoiseach ag cur an oiread sin béime ar seo agus ag iarraidh deiridh a chur le remit daonlathach don tír seo agus don Oireachtas.
I have listened to the debate on this issue and know that certain Members of the Seanad have been criticised for their passion during the course of the debate. That was wrong. Every Member has an obligation to speak passionately about this issue. It is on our watch that legislation will be passed to extinguish or abolish this House. Therefore, we have an obligation not only to ourselves and the House but to every past and prospective Member to uphold the Constitution and speak our minds freely and openly on this very issue.
We are living in the best of times but also living in very dangerous times. I use the word "dangerous" because of the dictatorial attitude of the Government towards our democratic institutions. Four members of the Cabinet are ruling the roost and deciding that democracy comes at a price. That price, as we know, is power. I say this because, before the last general election, the current Taoiseach, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, committed, against the better judgment of many respectable people within his party, to abolishing an institution of the Oireachtas, Seanad Éireann. The reason, of course, was to gain political popularity for Fine Gael, not to bring about the political reform the country requires. That was wrong and no one, irrespective of what office he holds, should play politics with any institution of the State, particularly the democratic institution of Seanad Éireann.
There will be a vote on this issue this afternoon. Members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party, as well as a number of the Independents, will most likely vote in favour of the legislation, which is regrettable, but it shows that the party whip system is clearly being imposed, although not on the Independents, to ensure Members vote in accordance with the Taoiseach's wishes.
That is exactly what is happening here, nothing else. The Taoiseach is imposing a party whip system whereby people are voting against their own beliefs. I appeal to people, even at this late stage, to challenge it and ask whether it is the right thing to do. In recent weeks, we have spoken about conscience in this House and it has also been discussed in the Lower House and the media concerning another piece of legislation. Conscience comes into every piece of legislation, however, particularly one which will affect our democracy now and long into the future.
Ireland does need political reform and that was talked about before the last general election. We all subscribe to that, including my own party Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, Labour and Fine Gael. We need to reform the political institutions of the State. The economic crisis has clearly shown the limits of governmental structures. In the years leading up to the banking crisis the topic of financial regulation was only mentioned three times in both Houses. That demonstrates that the Oireachtas suffers from a real lack of perspective and depth. We need root and branch reform of State institutions, reviewing all aspects of how we make the decisions that govern us as a people and which achieve the common good. At stake here is the potential for our democracy to thrive and flourish in future. No one could disagree with that.
In their election manifestos, both Fine Gael and the Labour Party proposed to abolish Seanad Éireann. However, the Government's failure to implement a holistic package of political reform measures means that the abolition of the Seanad will be little more than a cynical side-show, diverting attention from the Government's inaction on creating new politics. The severely limited Constitutional Convention, which avoids the big issues of Irish politics, exposes the lack of ambition and imagination by the Government for far-reaching reform. A referendum on the future of Seanad Éireann is little more than crude, knee-jerk, populism that will disrupt a significant part of our constitutional architecture with no clear thought of what impact it will have.
We fully recognise that serious questions must be asked about the continued role of Seanad Éireann. We all subscribe to that. If, after 75 years, we are struggling to justify the existence of Seanad Éireann, then it is only right that we should ask those questions. The proposals being put forward by our own party answer those legitimate questions by building on the work of expert reviews and the lessons of the past few years. It puts forward a fresh vision for the Seanad and will act as a check on the Government, scrutinise legislation, and represent voices that would otherwise not be heard in our national Parliament.
There are other ways of doing this, for example, by examining a reformed, holistic Seanad. Before the last general election, the Government promised political reform. The Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, made a big issue of this and said that the way politics was done in this country would be changed forever. He went before the people promising that and, of course, everyone believed him. The Irish people voted for Fine Gael on the basis that politics had to be cleaned up and changed. Everybody subscribed to that idea, but what has happened since? More quangos have been created and more State jobs have been filled. I have the facts to prove it. The biggest quango of all was created when the direct elections to the State board, Údarás na Gaeltachta, were dropped. Some 16 people were democratically elected to it since 1979. However, a piece of legislation was driven through this House but when I and others tried to amend it not one amendment was accepted. Since then, those 16 places have been replaced by 12 Fine Gael and Labour Party activists.
It is outrageous.
They are not from Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin or Independents, but people with political affiliations to the Government parties.
I must remind the Senator that we are on Report Stage and I have been very lenient to all speakers.
I am making a point about the promises that were made and where we have gone.
I am not sure that is relevant to amendment No. 28.
I agree that I may have gone off the point slightly.
They are abolishing elected bodies over there.
Exactly. Senator Barrett has articulated his arguments very well on this issue. I come from a county which adjoins the Border, but of course we no longer recognise the Border. We live in a 32-county Ireland, which is the way I envisage it. As someone who spent five years living in the North of Ireland just before the Good Friday Agreement, during a time of relative peace, I can say more than most that the part played by this Republic in bringing about that peace was substantial. It has proved to be long-lasting and we all welcome that, but we should not disenfranchise any community in the North of Ireland by an action that would remove a democratic institution in this State. The abolition of the Seanad would remove an opportunity for the people in the North to be represented in the Upper Chamber of the Oireachtas.
I travel through the North of Ireland when going up and down to Donegal. I have many friends in the North of Ireland with whom I went to college and others who live in the North. I visited the North of Ireland the weekend before the Twelfth celebrations. I witnessed at first hand the peace and tranquility that exists there. There have been outbursts during the last week or ten days but the part being played by the Oireachtas to highlight those outbursts is particularly articulated by our university Senators, given that many graduates - particularly from Trinity but also from NUI - are living in the North of Ireland.
This House has always been a place where the views, expressions and concerns of the minority within our population were expressed but also, more importantly, were represented. Down through the years, exceptional Members of this House have come from the North of Ireland, including Séamus Mallon and others. It would be a disservice to the people of the North of Ireland, and to this Government's commitment to the North of Ireland, if the Seanad were to be abolished in one fell swoop.
What explanation can the Minister of State give to the people living in the North of Ireland for whom Fine Gael has proclaimed to work hard over the years? I acknowledge the work that was done by the late Dr. Garret FitzGerald through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am sure, however, that Dr. FitzGerald would not subscribe to the abolition of Seanad Éireann. One of the founding fathers of Fine Gael, Michael Collins, played an integral role in the establishment of this House. He certainly recognised the need to represent people in the North of Ireland.
The plan to abolish the Seanad does a grave disservice to those living in the North. I want to hear what explanation the Minister of State can offer to those people. What consultations have taken place with minority groups in our society concerning the abolition of Seanad Éireann? One can only presume that those discussions have taken place. No Government in any democracy would ram through a piece of legislation without consulting minority groups in the Republic or the North. I can only assume that such consultations have taken place. Perhaps the Minister of State can outline what those consultations were, where they took place and how many members were consulted from each community. I refer in particular to members of the Protestant communities, both in the Republic and the North of Ireland.
This House has many great opportunities. Apart from building and developing on its potential to build a greater Ireland, North and South, and to work closer with the Stormont Assembly, it can work with minority groups in our society, religious or otherwise, to develop the holistic Ireland we all want to achieve. This House has a role to play in all of this.
Members have an obligation to protect this House and ensure future generations can be represented through it. We must ensure, however, that the representation they receive is better than what the House is providing now. This House needs to be drastically reformed. It is no accident that the Government ignored 12 reports on Seanad reform since its foundation. I accept my party also ignored it when it was in government which was a grave mistake. Action should have been taken at the time to deal with some of those reform proposals, particularly the excellent 2002 report by the former Minister and then Leader of the House, Mary O’Rourke. There was also a referendum in 1979 on the Seanad franchise which was never implemented.
There are alternatives to abolition. They should be provided to the people by way of referendum where they can have an honest say and a choice, not a knee-jerk reaction because it is politically popular. I subscribe to what Senator Ó Murchú said regarding the sentiment of the electorate. I have consulted widely on this particular issue in my constituency in Donegal. The feedback I have received, even on the street, is a positive one. People do not want to see the Seanad abolished. They certainly want to see Seanad reform but they are very afraid of this dictatorial attitude coming from the Government with its huge majority in Dáil Éireann.
We have seen over the past week how this House made the Government uncomfortable. That is the way it should be. We also now know why the Taoiseach wants to get rid of this House. He envisages that he will still be Taoiseach after the next general election. He has a greater plan to ensure he has more control and fewer long speeches against his own popularity coming from this House. He wants the four Ministers at the heart of Government in the fiscal Cabinet sub-committee to be insulated with their power not undermined while the majority in the Dáil will continue to vote in favour of their policies. We are going down a dangerous road. If we are serious about reforming politics, then we need to examine every aspect of it, including the party Whip system within certain divisions. No party in any other parliament in the world would throw out honourable and respectable party members just because they voted in accordance with their consciences.
We are not a long way from Fianna Fáil’s past in this regard too.
The Taoiseach chose to do so. This is the man who is showing a dictatorial attitude to politics and people’s opinions where they count.
By ensuring more power for the Executive, we will turn Ireland into the most undemocratic country in the world. We have the weakest form of local government anywhere in the world. That is being ripped apart as well with the abolition of town councils. We are going down a very dangerous road.
The cost issue was raised earlier. Last weekend, in an excellent newspaper article, former Tánaiste, Michael McDowell, touched on the cost issue. The director and deputy director of Fine Gael’s referendum campaign referred to the Seanad costing €20 million a year. They were way off the mark. Seanadóirí salaries come to €4.5 million. With levies, the universal social charge and taxes, that figure is reduced by €1.6 million, meaning salaries come to under €3 million. Why will the Government not look at reducing Dáil numbers? We are spending €15 million this year to fund the European space programme. Will the Minister explain to me what the programme is about?
We will be sending the Senator into space.
The Minister of State may like to do that but some might argue the Taoiseach has already sent him into space by asking him to be his scapegoat when he does not bother to come into the Chamber to answer some of these questions. Up to €15 million will be spent on the European space programme. How does this benefit any of our citizens?
Repopulation.
Has any debate in this House over the past 77 years benefited any of our citizens? Have amendments been made to legislation in this House? Yes, 1,500 amendments were made to legislation in this House over the past year alone. This has benefited citizens far more than spending €15 million on the European space programme. If the Minister were to ask anyone on Grafton Street if that spend has made a difference to their lives, I am sure the answer would be quite simply, "No".
The better weather?
We have a right to know if this money spent is beneficial. The Minister may have an explanation as to how the money spent on the programme is making a difference to any citizen.
If the abolition of the Seanad is about saving money, then we should examine all of the moneys spent by the Government. As Michael McDowell stated in his article, if the Seanad were to be abolished, the cost saving per year to each citizen would be €1.60, less than the price of the Irish Independent. It really is not about money. It is about grabbing and holding on to power. I feel sorry for Seanadóirí from Fine Gael and the Labour Party because they are being undermined by their Government.
Hear, hear.
It is a disgraceful kick in the teeth to honourable Members of Fine Gael and the Labour Party to be asked to vote against their better judgment to make dinosaurs out of us all.
We are on Report Stage.
The young ones are good.
Yes, Young Fine Gael is impressive and, perhaps, it will build the future Fine Gael talks about.
Young Fine Gael will probably be disbanded for standing up for the Seanad.
Yes, the Taoiseach will probably throw them out of the party as well or stop its members running in future elections.
Can I remind the Senator we are on Report Stage and amendment No. 28?
I am trying to speak to amendment No. 28.
He is making a bad job of it.
Unfortunately, it is the only option I have to address these matters. Senators Norris and Barrett tabled excellent amendments but they have all been ruled out of order. I am not sure whether the Chief Whip’s office was instructing that they be ruled out of order.
Senator, I can assure you they were not.
I accept the Cathaoirleach’s reply. We are going down a slippery road. At this late stage, will Government Members, including the Independent ones, consider if they are doing the right thing by allowing a flawed referendum to proceed? If there were a referendum held on any institution of the State, including the Dáil, without a proper choice made available, the people would probably vote to get rid of the Dáil as well. We have to be honest with the people. We cannot send a referendum to the people under a charade of lies. Misinformation is being given about the cost savings.
Will Government Members abstain from voting or vote against this Bill? This is an issue of fundamental importance to future generations. It will define how democracy is carried on and how people are represented long into the future. It will tear up our Constitution. As Michael McDowell, a man whom I respect, has written extensively, it would be easier to rewrite Bunreacht na Éireann than to let this referendum proceed.
I appeal to those Members on the opposite side to consider their options when this vote comes up today, because this is not the right thing to do. One can argue that we should let the people have their say, but what are we actually saying? We are giving people a smokescreen of a political gimmick of a choice when they should be afforded a real choice and when we should have a real debate on whether this Seanad should be retained or reformed. That is what the debate should be about, but it will only be about whether the Seanad stays as it is or is extinguished. If we allow the referendum to go ahead on that basis, we will not have the debate this House deserves. No Senator who votes for this piece of legislation can appear on any media outlet and say credibly that he or she supports reform, because he or she is not giving the people the opportunity to vote for reform.
It is never wrong to change one's mind and it is never too late to do the right thing. Members should either abstain from the vote, make themselves scarce or vote against this piece of legislation, because the people deserve an option. Members should reflect on the €15 million that the Minister and his Government are spending this year on the European space programme. How is that benefiting any of us or any citizen of the country? This is a sum of €15 million. It is outrageous and disgraceful and does not help this country to get out of austerity. At least we can play a role in parliamentary democracy. Whether we are here or not does not matter. It is about who will be here in the future and the future of the House, our democracy and our Constitution as we know it. I see the Minister of State has a copy of the Constitution sitting on his desk.
The Senator is being repetitive. This is the fourth time he has said the same thing.
If this vote goes ahead tonight, that Constitution is ripped up.
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I did not intend to speak on section 28 but there is a misapprehension among some of my esteemed colleagues about my rationale. We are opposing each other on this occasion. I will explain my rationale in very slow and methodical language. I regret that I also hear that my esteemed colleagues Senators Barrett and Darragh O'Brien and my eloquent and esteemed colleague Senator O'Sullivan all feel either ashamed or disappointed on my behalf.
In my business I produce many plays, which are normally three-act plays. I suggest that the first act of this process is a farce - a farce in terms of the Government's response and approach to political reform. I do not intend to repeat my Second Stage speech but if Senators Darragh O'Brien and Barrett and, in particular, Senator O'Sullivan had read or indeed attended the Chamber and heard my Second Stage speech, they would not have lost too much energy and would not be surprised at why I voted the way I did. I explained how I was going to vote and will continue to vote in the same way. I will explain in a minute, including to that other esteemed Senator, Senator Ó Domhnaill, why I voted the way I did and how clear it was.
The farce related to the Taoiseach's approach to political reform and having multiple avenues of reform. First of all, the Dáil reform package is just non-existent. We are having this debate on Seanad reform without seeing any clear-thinking and accurate presentation of Dáil reform. I said this to the Minister of State in my Second Stage speech, so I will not repeat it. The committee process does not work. There are not enough committees. Some committees are dependent on enlightened Chairmen and Ministers who take the committees seriously. We know some Ministers just do not take them seriously. We then had the Constitutional Convention, as I explained in my Second Stage speech.
If the farce I described in Act One is about that, Act Two is about the melodrama of this House and the pallor of disappointment and perceived shame felt by Senator Barrett about the way I voted. The third act has yet to be written and concerns the reason I voted against the recommittal motion and the fact that the Government ruled my amendment out of order. The aim of my amendment was to include in the Bill a clause suggesting that if this referendum is defeated, the reform of the Seanad would go straight to the Constitutional Convention, which would report back to the Oireachtas. That is why I am voting in favour of this Bill. This could be difficult for Senators Barrett and Ó Domhnaill, so I will give them the A, B and C. By voting for this Bill, I am not voting for the abolition of the Seanad.
Well said.
That is the point. I am disappointed that Senators Barrett and Darragh O'Brien, to whom I am referring because they are not in the House, feel disappointed on my behalf. I am also disappointed that they feel ashamed on my behalf. To be clear about it, I have been consistent. I admire much of Senator Zappone and Senator Quinn's Bill and much of Senator's Crown's Bill. What is abusive about this debate is that the Taoiseach has given us a very narrow choice with which I am extremely uncomfortable and which I do not like - abolition or retention, when it should be abolition or reform. However, let us do the numbers. With the Whip as it is, regardless of whether the recommittal was voted for, we would have wasted another 90 days in this House. The more we talk about ourselves in this House, which is where the melodrama comes in, the less likely it is that this referendum will be defeated. That is a fact. That is Act Three. We need to get out of here as quickly as possible and allow civil society to debate what I consider to be one of the most important elements of our democracy, which is our parliamentary democracy. It is the connection between our parliamentary democracy and our citizens through participation and trust. I believe in a bicameral model and an Upper House that is reformed and I believe this will be achieved by voting "No" to the referendum and not by filibustering or agreeing to the recommittal of the Bill. The longer we speak to ourselves and the more dramatic we are in our speech, the more likely it is that the extremes on both sides will be reported in the newspapers and that the middle ground will not be achieved.
The sense of disappointment and the pallor of melodramatic fugue in this House are not found outside. Even though they have been given a very convoluted and almost perverted choice, I believe that Irish citizens will vote "No" and for reform. The sooner we get out of here, the sooner we will have that debate. Let me be clear once more, because an impassioned speech was made. I voted against the recommittal because we will do damage to the debate on a bicameral model if we continue to spend time on this. That debate needs to be a national conversation outside Parliament because there will be a movement and coalition of politicians, activists and community workers from all sides who believe they cannot trust 158 Deputies at the next election and a Presidential-style Government. The great weakness in the Government's argument is that it has not shown any Dáil reform. It has introduced the famous Friday sittings but there is no evidence of reform that works. It has crowded the committee system and there are mixed signals. What are we afraid of?
Are we afraid of reform or are we afraid of not being elected once reform is complete? I am in the lucky position of not having been elected but I expect future reform will not include nominated Senators. Perhaps some of us are afraid that we might not have the capacity to be elected.
I am voting in favour of the legislation in order that our citizens will become more involved in the debate through a referendum campaign but I am not voting for abolition. The referendum can be defeated as along as the conversation occurs nationally and not in this Chamber. That was the reason I voted with my conscience on Second Stage, although "conscience" is an overabused word. Members have expressed sympathy or anxiety about how I reached my decision and whether I was influenced. I was influenced by my own political beliefs and interest in how I think reform should occur. I had those discussions with myself but, in fairness to myself, I plead with Senators O'Sullivan, White, O'Brien, Whelan, Ó Domhnaill, Quinn and Barrett to read my Second Stage contribution and not to in any way over exert their anxieties about me or over exert their own consideration for me. I acknowledge they are worried sometimes about how I might vote but my record stands, as does that of my colleague on respite care.
I am in favour of reform and the Bill being put to the people as soon as possible because the numbers do not stack up in the House and we should get it out there. I will vote "No" when the referendum takes place.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I thank him for visiting Sligo last week. I do not disagree with Senator Mac Conghail because I still hold out the hope that he will cast me in a production in the Abbey Theatre.
On a point of order, our next production will not be a melodrama.
I have a much better chance than other Members of getting a part.
Is the Senator auditioning for a part?
No.
Much of this discussion was covered on Second Stage and the Chair has given everybody a great deal of latitude given the nature of the debate. How the Taoiseach has approached certain issues has been a massive disappointment. I am hugely proud of the fact, irrespective of my political leanings, that somebody from the west is Taoiseach. His election was a proud day for all on the western seaboard. However, most recently, the shenanigans relating to membership of committees last week and the nature of this proposal have been disappointing. They make Mugabe and Idi Amin look like Kofi Annan. There is nothing wrong with asking the people whether the Seanad should be retained except when the full energies of the State are ploughing in one direction. I would be much more comfortable with a recommittal of the Bill to give us an opportunity to ask whether we get rid of the House or reform it. That would be reasonable and if the Bill was recommitted, that could be done on Committee Stage. I favour that approach and I would be all for a referendum if that were done. It is not a question of fearing the people. I do not know, irrespective of whether I continue my political career, whether I will ever seek re-election to the Seanad. Hopefully, I will have a long life with many options. I have changed career a few times and I am sure I can again.
However, democracy in this State is managed and prescribed. If we seek to remove threads of democracy without considering in advance what will be used to replace them, that is a serious problem. To only ask the people to abolish the House is dangerous because we do not know what will come after. Given the cynicism and understandable anger and frustration among people at the system failing them politically over the years, regardless of who was in government, although I have no problem admitting Fianna Fáil was in government more often than any other party and it will take its share of the blame, as it did in the most recent election, some of the commentary by the director of elections on behalf of the Government, including during a radio debate I had with him last week, only adds to this. I mentioned on Second Stage that I asked him how many times the Government amended legislation in the House last year and he could not answer and I asked him how many times as Minister he had amended legislation and he was not able to tell me. There is a credibility issue. If a Minister is going to direct a campaign on behalf of the establishment and says this is good for the people and they must get rid of the House, the least he should do is be fully informed about what the House does, albeit in its flawed state as he sees it.
In a retort to me during a somewhat intemperate outburst, he said on air the numbers are rigged in the House to guarantee the Government's success. That is true but the Government Whip ensures that is the case. Senator Ó Murchú and others have questioned who ensures that outcome. I recall the frustration of sitting on the Government benches reading a Private Members' motion penned by Senator Brian Hayes at the time and waiting for the Government amendment to be sent over from Government Buildings. Such Government motions commend the Government on this, that or the other. I used to hate it and it was frustrating but it is still happening. Who ensures that remains the case? The Taoiseach of the day has control. Deputy Richard Bruton in his capacity as director of elections live on Highland Radio with me last week was right to say that it is a rigged scenario where the Government is guaranteed as a majority but, as Senator Norris correctly pointed out earlier, with 78 amendments tabled on Report Stage and 77 ruled out of order, one must wonder by whom? It is the same people who rig the situation.
The Cathaoirleach makes the decision on the amendments.
I am sorry but one wonders about the method of his deliberations.
I ask the Senator to read the Constitution regarding referendum Bills.
I will. It is the most peculiar coincidence that of 78 amendments, 77 were ruled out of order. We had the shenanigans last week regarding committee membership, which undermine the entire democratic fabric of the country. Regardless of who has been in government since the 1950s, I refer to the tangible direction of the changes from one Government to the next. The Progressive Democrats is the only party that can take credit for pushing politics further right that some of us were happy with. However, directionally, little has changed. That tells us the permanent government is in full control. We have all been in meetings with civil servants even at our minnow level where the boxes do not connect and, for example, we hear, "We cannot do that with the Ardvarney school bus in County Leitrim because it does not connect to this box over here."
Instead, the very function of our job here, whether it is as politicians or civil servants, is to make the boxes connect, not to decide that something cannot be done because the boxes do not connect. Our job is to connect the boxes. I would like to see a recommittal on the basis that people would be asked whether they preferred reform, along with a schedule of suggestions which would be kicked to the convention out in Malahide, with a White Paper followed by a Green Paper, or abolition. That is a real question, one worthy of a leader to put to the people. However, the notion that the Taoiseach wants to abolish the Seanad because he made a populist suggestion outside the Citywest Hotel and one of his advisers said it would capture the public imagination, - which it clearly did, as it flabbergasted the poor leader of the Fine Gael group, the then Senator Frances Fitzgerald - certainly did nothing to enhance democracy in this country.
The Fianna Fáil group will later in the week launch a reform paper in this regard. What we need is for the Oireachtas - the Dáil and Seanad - not to be subservient to the Cabinet of the day but for the Cabinet of the day to be subservient to the Parliament.
Hear, hear.
That would certainly be difficult. There is not a single Minister who would not celebrate the demise of the Seanad because they hate coming in here - present company excluded, I am sure - and officials hate coming in here. Does anyone think, when the Finance Bill is being dealt with in October and there are 13 officials from the Department of Finance in the ante room, they will feel they should be here? They will not. They say: "What are we doing in here, talking to these muppets? We are the people. We are the machine. They are only the tools." It ought to be the other way around.
While I do not know if many would agree with me on this, our system needs to be similar to the Congressional system, so that a Taoiseach is elected and then picks Ministers, and perhaps five of those Ministers could come from civil society. For example, Senator Mac Conghail could be the Minister responsible for the arts - we could not have a better person - and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, might be chosen given his educational background. These Ministers would then step out of Parliament and there would be a panel of people to take their seats. The Ministers would have to come to sell their policy to the Parliament of the day. If there are contentious issues such as abortion or measures with regard to banking, people can put their genuine views on the floor of the House without fear of being removed from a committee or without fear of losing the Whip. Deputy Mathews has shown respect to this House by coming to listen to the debates when he could be on his holiday break. That is real democracy. The other democracy is more reminiscent of the Mugabes, the Imins and much worse individuals.
I know the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, is a decent man. I have been hugely disappointed, personally, at how he has approached certain things, but it was reminiscent of countless Taoisigh before him. Believe me, I know what goes on in the Labour Parliamentary Party room or the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party room because I have watched it go on in the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party room. The line is: "If you do not like it, there is a queue at the gate to take your place." For democracy, that is simply not good enough.
Is the Senator speaking on the amendment?
I am. I will conclude as I know others want to speak. In essence, real leadership is about having the courage to take on the vested interests and ask the real questions. When we are talking about playing the man or playing the ball, or playing both, there is something legitimate about that. However, if we are going to dig up the pitch just because last year's team did not win the league, that is foolish. Clearly, however, it is a done deal and we are going for the referendum. I agree with the referendum but not one that asks a flawed question based on political gimmickry.
I want to make a few points on the amendment. I have put on record on previous occasions that I am disappointed that the potential abolition of the Seanad was not put before the Constitutional Convention. I suppose talk about that is futile considering how soon the referendum is likely to be.
I want to pick up on a point made by Senator Mac Conghail in regard to the drama and melodrama that has gone on here. It struck me on the various occasions on which I listened to soundbites from the Seanad that we really are, on occasion, putting a nail in our own coffin in the sense that we are giving fodder to the media, which is not well disposed to the Seanad, to get rid of us. I agree with Senator Mac Conghail that this debate now needs to go outside the House because on so many occasions we let ourselves down with the shouting and the type of language that is used. Senator MacSharry referred to how other people would call us "muppets". Even using the word "muppet" towards ourselves and repeating that is very negative towards us. We need to be very careful of what can be picked up from this House and put out into the wider media.
The more of those from civil society who come out in favour of the Seanad and the work we do in here, and the potential it actually has, the better. I understand Senator Norris was excellent on the radio this morning. However, the more of those from civil society and the fewer Senators who are on the radio or any other media on this issue, the better for any potential reform.
Senator Mac Conghail also said that many of us would not relish the thought of an election. I can tell him there are many of us who would. Even if we have come through the process we have, we would be quite willing to face the people.
The point was made that there might be 30 civil servants in the ante room feeling disgruntled at the fact they are here at all. We should look to a situation in which we challenge the civil servants and Ministers, as we have done on many occasions. I would love to be in a Seanad that was not just seen as a hoop that had to be gone through to get the legislation or the budget through, and where it was genuinely seen as a challenge. While I am not sure the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, would be kind enough to say it, on many occasions Ministers and civil servants are genuinely challenged in this House.
I will not delay the House as I have already contributed on Second Stage and on a number of occasions on Committee Stage. Suffice to say I have been watching with some interest the media campaign that has been going on, which has been alluded to by a number of Senators. It staggered me that because of the way the debate went here in the last week or two, particularly in regard to the abortion issue, which perhaps is the most emotive and divisive to come before both Houses, somehow there was a suggestion among the commentariat that we had let ourselves down. I do not understand that. This is a political Chamber as much as anything else. It may not be seen to be as adversarial as the Dáil but it is still a political Chamber and people still have opinions. People hold very strong opinions in regard to the Bill on abortion and also in regard to the Bill before us here - why would they not, particularly in regard to the abolition of Seanad Éireann? Are we to go meekly like lambs to the slaughter? It is important, indeed essential, that people on all sides of the House should express their opinions. What I have noticed is that there is a continuing exchange or dialogue going on through the letters pages of all of the national newspapers. Unlike some issues that tend to come and go as flavour of the month, this one has been running for quite some time, and I believe it will run right up to the time of the referendum.
I agree with everybody who has made the following point. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Taoiseach decided that it was going to be a "Yes" or "No" vote on abolition. However, it is plainly obvious that he wants to be rid of the House and that he does not really want to have any debate or discussion about it. As far as he is concerned, and listening to the deputy director of the campaign most recently on radio, there is no need for it whatsoever. That is what this debate has been about, namely, to have an exchange of views to justify the reasons this House should continue. We are now in the final analysis and it will be down to the people to decide.
I will leave the House with this thought, which I mentioned on Second Stage. It has been only on very rare occasions that a lack of political consensus on a referendum has actually ensured the passage of that referendum.
There is no political consensus on this matter in the country. Let the people decide.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the Chamber. I am sure he would prefer to be on his holidays.
Not for another three weeks.
It was with interest that I listened to some of the debate in the Chamber on this Bill, particularly today's contributions by Members who are apparently independent. Yesterday Senator Ned O'Sullivan referred to them as quasi-Independents. The debate spurred me to enter the Chamber. I have already made my feelings on this legislation well known, but I must take exception to Senator Fiach Mac Conghail's contribution. With respect, the Senator is well versed in treading the boards and acting the part. When it comes to theatre, theatrics and acting, one must be sure one has learned one's lines before taking to the stage. It is clear to anyone who received today's Order Paper - it is even on the television screens now for those who have not seen it - that the first item to be dealt with is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution - in brackets for slower learners - (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013. That is what every Member will vote on. It is as simple as that. I do not know whether Senator Fiach Mac Conghail or some of the other Independents are being prompted from backstage, but they certainly have not learned their lines or certainly do not know what they are talking about. It is there in black and white for all to see that we will vote on the abolition of Seanad Éireann. Obviously, they are not clear on it.
I want to make this point because I took exception to the speech made. Although I see it happen a great deal in political life, one cannot talk out of both sides of one's mouth. One nails one's colours to the flag; one cannot be all things to all people. Too many Members are trying to do just this. I respect many of my colleagues on the Government side who have refuted the Bill. They object to what it is about and see it for what it is, namely, a slap in the face for democracy and a solo run by a man who, after having a couple of jars at a presidential dinner, decided-----
On the amendment, please.
Maybe he was on Ballygowan. I apologise and withdraw that comment. I will focus my fury on the Independent voices who claim to be independent but do not act like Independents at all. Senators are as one in what the Bill is about. We reject it, yet we must vote for it. That is ridiculous. I urge Senators, particularly the Independents, to be honest, to throw the Bill out and vote against it.
How does one follow that? I agree with every word of Senator James Heffernan's contribution. I welcome the Minister of State, but I am disappointed that the Taoiseach has not spent more time in the House, apart from a few minutes on Second Stage. He acted like a school bully, throwing a box before running away to leave someone else deal with the ensuing chaos. I was disappointed last Wednesday when he chose to launch a colleague's book instead of attending this House for even half an hour or an hour to listen to comments from both sides on Committee Stage of this important Bill. It is not important for me or colleagues on any side of the House but for the people and the Constitution. Without a doubt, the Bill is tinkering with the Constitution and wrong. Those Senators who vote for the Bill - not me - are voting to get rid of the House. They may delude themselves by claiming that they are voting to lay legislation before the people in a referendum. These are the facts.
The least the Taoiseach could do is spend a little time in the House to listen to our debate, not the spin of those reporting to him. I am referring to the facts, as outlined by colleagues on all sides of the House. As Senator Sean D. Barrett pointed out on Second Stage, it is disappointing that the Taoiseach spent four times more time cycling the Ring of Kerry than he has spent in this House since becoming Taoiseach. That is not acceptable. It is an insult to the House and every Senator.
Arguments have been made by the Government as to why the referendum is going ahead. I welcome Senator Fiach Mac Conghail's comments, in that he has clarified his position on the legislation and his reasons for voting with the Government. However, it is a sad afternoon for those Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators who will be forced to vote for legislation to which they are opposed. Not one Government Senator wants to vote for it, if the truth were told, and it is wrong that they are being forced to do so. A colleague on the Government side has alleged that an attempt was made to bribe him. He needs to clarify the position. I am aware of Government Senators who have been promised certain projects if they stay in line. That is a fact.
Name them.
The Senator should speak to the amendment.
This is important. This is our only opportunity to speak to the amendment, as the others have been ruled out of order. However, I respect the Cathaoirleach and his decision in that regard. It is a fact that Government Senators have been promised projects for their constituencies if they vote for the abortion legislation and this Bill. Hearing this may be uncomfortable for the Minister of State, but it is the fact.
The Senator should name them.
I hear that we should not name people.
I have no intention of naming them. The Leader knows this to be a fact.
The Senator has the privilege of the House to name them.
On the amendment, please.
I genuinely welcomed Senator Hildegarde Naughton to the House today and look forward to working with her for the two and a half years left in this term. However, it is important that she realise what the Taoiseach and his colleagues think of her and the rest of us.
This has nothing to do with the amendment.
The Taoiseach believes she is surplus to requirements, a waster, not fit for purpose and irrelevant. That is what the Taoiseach and the Government think of each and every one of us in the House. This fact must be noted. I wish the Senator well, but that is what the Taoiseach who appointed her to the Seanad thinks of her.
It is regrettable that, in attempting to do away with the House, the Government is disenfranchising the island's only 32 county electorate.
That includes university graduates from Trinity College Dublin and the National University of Ireland. That franchise should be expanded to all graduates, and the 1979 referendum indicated that should happen. Nothing was ever done about that, and my party was in government for the bulk of that time. It is disgraceful that the matter was not dealt with.
Many good proposals have been put before the House by colleagues in dealing with Seanad reform, both in this Seanad and in the first Seanad in which I was privileged to serve. There was a report from Mary O'Rourke, along with the Minister of State and other colleagues. Nothing was done about that either.
It was buried. The Government of the time buried it.
Yes, I agree with the Leader that it was buried or shelved or dumped, whatever one might call it. Truth be told, no government wants a properly functioning Seanad as we are an inconvenience. As Senator MacSharry outlined, we are not only an inconvenience to the Minister, we are an inconvenience to the Civil Service. How dare we have any say in amendments to legislation?
I also take exception to Deputies from the Lower House or the many commentators who say we are not democratically elected. I have been democratically elected to the House under the Constitution of this country.
Hear, hear.
The 11 Taoiseach's nominees are democratic Members of the House under the Constitution. I take grave exception to any suggestion otherwise, with a portrayal that I sneaked in the gate and grabbed one of the seats in this House. I was nominated to this House and elected to it, and I am very proud of the fact. That story should be struck on the head. We should be elected in a different way, but currently, that is the way it is. Should the public have a say in the election of Members to this House? Yes, they should, although perhaps not for every Member. The public should certainly have a say in the election of the majority of Members to this House. On Second Stage of this Bill it was argued that contributions were made through the decades by excellent people but most of those would not have had a chance of being elected to the Dáil. The contributions made, particularly by Independent Members and university Senators, have been exceptional, and it is a disgrace that the Government and the Taoiseach in particular is proposing to do away with us.
I had many disagreements with the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell, but I have great respect for him. He started out thinking we should get rid of the Seanad but because of the time he spent as Minister before the House and since, he has changed his mind. He wrote an article to which some of my colleagues have alluded, stating many sensible things. It is entitled "Scrapping the Seanad is about a bid for total power, not saving money", and that sums up exactly what this piece of legislation is all about. He argues that there are 37 politically appointed Government advisers, costing €3.4 million per year; so much for change and a new form of Government. Those advisers cost much more than the Members of this House cost on an annual basis.
I will be brief, as I made a speech on Second Stage and made my opinions on the matter known at that time. I would like to make one point. It has been put across in the media very clearly that Government Senators are voting to abolish the Seanad. In fact, Government Senators are being asked to put a referendum to the people, who will decide whether the Seanad will be abolished. That is the basic question, and I personally resent having to listen to other claims. The earlier stages of this debate were very respectful but it has deteriorated in this session.
What is dishonesty? The matter of the abolition of the Seanad was put into the programme for Government, the jointly negotiated agreement between the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. It would be dishonest for any Member who ever stood as a Senator for Fine Gael or for the Labour Party or was nominated by the Taoiseach to fly in the face of that commitment. It would be dishonest of me to oppose this motion, because I knew when I accepted the Taoiseach's nomination that this was in the programme for Government. I respect Senator Mac Conghail for taking a similar perspective, and in my opinion, every Independent Senator should take that perspective. Any Labour Senator elected in this Seanad for the Labour Party should similarly take-----
I did not take that position.
-----that perspective. It is dishonest to have been elected as a Labour Party Senator knowing that it was part of the programme for Government-----
It was not my party's position.
-----that the matter would be put to the people. Anything else is dishonest.
We are supposed to be democrats.
I will finish by saying I am supporting this Bill and I hope every Government and Independent Member will do so as well. I would respect them for doing that. This is a matter for the people and the Taoiseach will not determine the discussion that will take place over the summer. It will be a matter for any of the Senators who wish to make any contribution they want in the public domain to do so, and it will not be a matter for the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny. I hope there will be a very robust debate, not just about the role of the Seanad but also about the role of local government, Dáil reform and all the other matters that should be discussed in the context of the abolition of this House.
I make one request of the Taoiseach. I am entitled to personally hope that the referendum is defeated, as a "No" vote is a vote for reform, and in such a case I ask the Taoiseach to put the matter of Seanad reform to the Constitutional Convention.
This is really about dismantling the Constitution and a grab for power. The Dáil should have been reformed first, and the promises of such reform were to reduce the numbers of Deputies by 20 and the number of junior Ministers by eight. I am not referring to the Minister of State before us, I hasten to add. If that had happened, the issue of the cost of this House would not arise.
Daniel O'Connell fought for Home Rule all his life and his political life's work ended in failure because Home Rule was not achieved in his lifetime. There is a portrait near the Dáil staircase of the first Lord Oriel, John Foster, who did not believe in Catholic emancipation or that any Catholic should sit in an Irish Parliament. He did not even believe they should have had the vote, but his portrait is in a place of honour in these Houses because, as the last Speaker of the old Irish Parliament, it was his job to read the result of the vote of the Act of Union, which he fought long and hard to try to prevent. He fought those who accepted bribes, titles and land, and he succeeded with the first vote before failing on the second. As he read the result and went to take the mace that symbolised that the Parliament was in session, he believed he would some day have the honour of bringing that mace back to the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which was just over the road from us. It took 118 years to bring a Parliament back. Many people like Daniel O'Connell, who fought to bring it back, were not able to achieve it in their life's work.
In the past two and half years we have seen a loss because the Government legislated for a 40% reduction in representation, at local authority level, by the dismantling of town councils. If today's proposal goes through we will lose one third of the Parliament and a democratically elected body.
My colleague, Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill, pointed out the loss of the democratically elected members of Údarás na Gaeltachta who were replaced by experts, as is proposed for Seanad Éireann. If Údarás na Gaeltachta is an example of how experts will be picked then they will all have some link to the Government. If Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin or some other party were in power, in years to come, the same thing would happen and supporters of the Government party or parties would be appointed in our place. Such people will replace the Seanad just as was done with Údarás na Gaeltachta.
We have yet to see the Dáil or the legislative process reformed. The Leader has heard me talk about our lack of legislative scrutiny many times. The real work of the Parliament and this House is not to block legislation but amend it. We have witnessed a democratic deficit on a monumental scale that has not been addressed. In one calendar year 1,291 EU regulations were brought into this country and Ministers signed 164 EU directives without referring to the Dáil, the Seanad or the committees and passed the legislation without scrutiny. In one calendar year we have seen 594 statutory instruments, that can amend legislation, passed by this House without ever being referred back to this House. That is a national democratic deficit of monumental proportions. Ministers use statutory instruments to change and amend primary legislation. As many as 28,000 statutory instruments have been signed since the foundation of the State but 25% were signed in the past ten years. There is more and more centralised power, by the Government, resting in the hands of the few in Cabinet.
We have seen Bills guillotined. The previous Government could also be accused of guillotining Bills. We know, at this moment in time, that Bills are being guillotined at an alarming rate. We have also seen the impact of regulatory impact assessments. They are supposed to be carried out in advance of legislation to see how will it impede business, and how they will improve or disprove the current situation when it comes to regulations and red tape in this country. The Government has produced virtually none. When I asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform about how many regulatory impact assessments, RIAs, had been carried out on legislation by his Department in two and a half years, his reply was “One”.
We are tied up in red tape. We need to cut it in terms of job creation. When a report was conducted on Valentia Island, which has a population of 600 people, we found that removing red tape in terms of planning and foreshore licences could create 72 jobs. That number would be badly needed in any community were it not for red tape.
Secondary legislation, for example, statutory instruments, is amending primary legislation without being referred by Ministers. There is a little known term called the King Henry VIII clause, which gives Ministers the power to change legislation passed by the Houses without referring it to the Deputies or Senators who passed it in the first place. Does this sound like a functioning democracy? Does it sound like a republic or Legislature that is working? It most certainly does not.
There is a significant absence of scrutiny, which we need to change. Instead of considering a Bill like this, we should be considering the opportunities afforded to us. Many Senators have discussed the democratic process and the question of people in the North. I have referred to how long and hard we struggled to achieve the vote for all citizens. Daniel O’Connell fought for Home Rule and achieved Catholic emancipation 184 years ago. Women fought for and won the franchise only 95 years ago. In Derry, people marched 45 years ago for one man, one vote. This is how hard and long the struggle has been to achieve the vote.
However, not all citizens have that vote. As has been pointed out by other Senators, only those in the North who came to the South for an education in certain universities have the right to vote in our election. Under our Constitution, they are entitled to be citizens. The first benchmark of any republic is whether it gives its citizens the right to vote.
The Senator is moving away from the amendment.
I will return to it in one second. I am discussing the Constitution, which is about to be amended by this Bill.
Articles 2 and 3 relate to the special relationship between people on this island and in this House and people of Irish heritage overseas. Rather than deciding that the House should be transformed to accommodate those citizens’ right to vote in this Parliament, we are removing that opportunity. The establishment, the Government and the economic council will never give citizens living outside the State the right to vote in a Dáil election. The only place where they can be given their voice is in the Seanad.
Not only are we dismantling the 75 elements of the Constitution that refer to the Seanad, we are also failing to fulfill the most important parts of the Constitution, Articles 2 and 3, as regards citizens in the North and overseas.
The Minister of State has had a long affinity with the great Kerryman, Daniel O’Connell. He well knows that Daniel O’Connell was lambasted for his achievement of Catholic emancipation, in that he did not achieve the vote for everyone. People’s voting rights were qualified. His entire life’s work was not achieved, but neither was Home Rule achieved by others, including John Redmond, to whom the Leader referred.
When one dismantles something, it does not return easily. It took 118 years to get the old Irish Parliament back into Ireland and for us to have our own Parliament again. We are wasting an opportunity to reform a political process that clearly does not work, as the Minister of State is well aware. Our scrutiny of EU legislation and directives is minimal and derisory. When people wondered whether officials were examining EU directives, a former Taoiseach replied that he was unsure of how much time departmental officials spent reading them. These are the facts. Neither we nor the committees are scrutinising directives properly. Deputies and Senators do not have support staff of their own to ensure that legislation is being handled correctly.
Scrutinising legislation should be the function of this House. EU directives outnumber Acts of the Oireachtas 3:1, yet the number of amendments being made by the Dáil or the Seanad to those directives is zero. Amendments are not allowed, as there is no process to provide for them. Ministers sign directives into law without referring them to the Parliament for scrutiny. This is an affront to the democratic process, as the Minister of State is aware.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence. Will the Minister of State consider what Daniel O’Connell would have done in this situation? He would not have allowed the Seanad to be abolished until the Dáil was reformed.
I was not going to speak, as I contributed on Second Stage. If only I had a button to delete repetitions from contributions in the Seanad. They should be banned. There should be a machine to survey regurgitation-----
It is called a referendum.
That is why we are voting for it.
Let us get on and have it.
I was spurred to rise.
A Senator referred to the Title of the Bill and said it was an abolition of the Seanad Bill. This House is noted for putting facts on the record and for scrutinising Bills in detail and not allowing misinformation that this Bill is about abolition of the Seanad go out. The Bill's Title is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of the Seanad) Bill. Abolition of the Seanad is in brackets. I will give a definition of what brackets mean to those who have not read the Bill correctly. Brackets are punctuation to interject text within the main text and can be omitted without destroying or altering, in any way, the meaning of the main text. The main text of the Title is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill.
The Constitution is the book of the people, who will speak. Not a word, a full stop or anything else can be changed without the people speaking. We, on this side of the House, are giving the power to the people and are giving them their right. There have been ten reports on the Seanad but nothing has been done; there has been no action from anybody. Members on the other side of the House were in government for a long time. It is time to give the people the choice. We are always talking about participative democracy. Let the people choose. Senator Maurice Cummins has brought the people into this House to ensure they are included.
We are being true to the pledge made in the Fine Gael general election manifesto in 2011 to hold a referendum. The Government would have been accused of breaking pledges if it did not have one. I am sorry but one cannot have it both ways. The Bill, if approved by the people, will make many changes to the Constitution and it would serve this House better if it concentrated more on the minutiae of the amendments and the details of the 70 odd changes to the Constitution which will be made. We had a good debate on Second Stage, as another Senator pointed out, and I would like such debate continue.
I would like to hear more debate on the transition provisions in the Bill because one cannot leave the House hanging without any provisions being made. Transitional arrangements will have to be made. The Taoiseach, Fine Gael and the Labour Party are giving the choice to the people. No action has been taken heretofore.
I think Senator Daly spoke about red tape. If there was one bit of red tape I could change in this House, it would be repetition. We talk about a family-friendly environment and time management but I have listened today to much of what I had heard on Second Stage. We should reform how we do our business in terms of repetition. Somebody referred to women being given the vote. Women would get home to their families, as would men, if we engaged in a bit of time management and ensured we said things once and well rather than often. Something will not get any better even if one repeats it ten times.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes. I do not think it was ever envisaged that there would be a constitutional amendment to remove one part of the Oireachtas. It was never considered possible that this would come about. The Taoiseach and Fine Gael promised to reduce the number of Members of the Dáil by 20 but found that would be in breach of the Constitution and, strangely enough, decided it would not put an amendment to the people on that. However, when it came to the Seanad, they decided to go ahead with the referendum. That has never been explained. The commitment was made to reduce the number of Deputies by 20, with which I would not particularly agree, but it is only going to be reduced by eight, which is constitutional. This was referred to in the Fine Gael manifesto, which had to be honoured, but it is not being put to the people. That is not made up, it is a fact. The Government decided it would not have a referendum on a reduction in the number of Deputies by 20 but it would reduce the number of Oireachtas Members by 60 by abolishing the Seanad.
On 15 October 2009, the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act allowed the State to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. During the debate, in particular on Lisbon II, it was felt there was a democratic deficit - a distance from the legislative epicentre in Brussels and a growing knowledge gap between the citizens of member states and the Union that may be countered by a strengthened and bolstered role of the Seanad within the European sphere. Previous fora, such as the National Forum on Europe, which was disbanded, played a role in bringing attention to citizens the mutually beneficial role and future role of Ireland and Europe in their lives. The Lisbon II campaign saw the activist and mobilizing effect of certain civil society groups, which was welcome. The Seanad could step up to the plate here.
The White Paper on the Lisbon treaty, published by the Department of Foreign Affairs, referenced the national parliaments and Houses of the Oireachtas at least 14 times. Articles 9 to 12 of the Treaty of the European Union deal with the relationship between citizens and the EU institutions. In addition to references to the relationship between EU institutions, representative associations and civil society and the citizens' initiative, there is reference to the role of national parliaments.
The White Paper states:
The Treaty will give the national parliaments of the Member States a direct input for the first time into European Union legislation. These provisions are contained in two additional Protocols, one on the role of national parliaments and other on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
The people voted on the second Lisbon treaty referendum on the basis that there would be an enhanced role for the Dáil and Seanad and not only the Dáil. The Seanad was the ideal forum to bring this about - the Leader made every effort in this regard in the past two years - that we would be allowed to scrutinise EU legislation. This would have been a major and a worthwhile role because one can refer Bills back. The Minister of State will know the procedure in this regard but it is not being operated.
The protocol on the role of national parliaments provides for a process where Commission consultation documents - Green and White Papers and communications - shall be forwarded directly by the Commission to national parliaments upon publication. Draft European legislative Acts sent to the European Parliament and to the Council shall be forwarded to national Parliaments. Draft European legislative acts originating in the EU Commission, European Parliament, European Central Bank, European Investment Bank, European Court of Justice or member states shall also be forwarded to national Parliaments. Article 3 of the protocol provides that national parliaments may send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion-----
The Senator is moving away from the amendment.
No, I am not. This is the kernel of the Constitution. We are taking away the power of the amended Lisbon treaty, on which the people voted. They voted for it on the basis that there would be a direct connection between the treaty and the Seanad. Given all these factors, the President should refer this Bill to the Supreme Court to assess exactly the position in which it puts the House vis-à-vis a decision by the people. I would be very satisfied to hold a referendum if the Supreme Court decides what we propose is legal, irrespective of the view of the Attorney General's office. The Attorney General is appointed by the Government. Although she has an independent position, she relies on the Government for appointment. She is at the bidding of the Taoiseach and the Government to bring forward the legislation and the regulations to gut the Constitution in regard to the abolition of the Seanad. The real independent voice in Irish society is the Supreme Court.
The President will be informed of the wishes of this House. The President is someone who would read most of the debates, as did Presidents McAleese and Robinson, who were very well informed on the overall discussion on this issue.
I think the Taoiseach would read most of the debates, as President McAleese and President Robinson did. They were very well informed on the overall discussion regarding this issue. To finalise this important point, Article 8 provides that where the national parliamentary system is not unicameral, the above provisions - Articles 1 to 8 - shall apply to the component chambers. In Ireland's case, both the Dáil and the Seanad will be involved. The protocol provides for timeframes within which national parliaments will be afforded, advised and furnished of European Union institutional documents, together with the timeframe in which national parliaments are to respond. In such circumstances, the Seanad or the Dáil would be allowed to refer any legislation back to Europe. I suggest that would be a very important role for the Seanad. I have made the point previously that the Seanad can have a role in protecting the rights of the people and Senators can do some work in that regard.
As I have said previously, I have been a Member of both Houses. I was a Member of the Dáil for longer than I have been a Member of the Seanad. As I have pointed out, I have also been in the Minister of State's position. I will not go through that again. I am not speaking here as someone who has ever shown any disrespect for the Seanad. I have enormous respect for the Seanad. I brought the Companies (No. 2) Bill 1987 through this House. Many companies are going into protection at the moment under the terms of that legislation, which I brought through this House and the Dáil. The protection afforded to companies under the legislation in question has saved thousands of jobs over the years. When I brought Bills through this House, I did so with the full support of the Civil Service. I gave each Bill the time that was necessary. I did not rush any legislation through. I was available to take each Bill on behalf of the Department of Industry and Commerce, where I served as Minister of State with responsibility for trade and marketing, the Department of Health or whatever Department I served in. Aside from that, I am speaking on the basis of the work I have done since I became a Member of this House. I have represented Irish people abroad at many events in my capacity as a Senator, sometimes in very difficult circumstances. I will not go into the details of the case of a particular Irish citizen-----
On the amendment, Senator.
I am making the point that being a Senator involves more than being in this Chamber.
The Senator spoke at length on Second Stage.
I did not get around to this point. When I represented an Irish citizen in the courts of Greece, I was successful in persuading them to release this man, who was up on a charge. The point I am making is that the Greek courts respected the fact that a Senator in the Irish Parliament was speaking on behalf of an Irish citizen. There will have been many cases of Members of this House going abroad to successfully represent individuals in difficult circumstances. More than being in the Seanad Chamber is involved in being a Member of the Seanad. I am not doing this from any personal point of view. I know the Bill is going to go through and the question will be put to the people. At the end of the day, I hope the people will reject the proposal. If it is rejected, there should be a complete review of the Seanad and it should be sent back to the protocol like the current consideration of things. Then there might be a Seanad that is more reflective of modern requirements.
While I have not spoken during the Report Stage debate on this Bill before now, it feels like I have spoken in this House in the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, on many occasions recently. He is practically living here at this stage.
It is quite shameful that the amendment we are debating - No. 28 - is the only one of the 78 amendments that has been accepted for debate. I am worried that democracy is being endangered in this House. I have a real concern that democracy is very much in danger in the Oireachtas as a whole - in the Dáil and the Seanad - given that just one of the 78 amendments that have been proposed has been deemed appropriate for debate. If this Bill is accepted, we will not necessarily have a Seanad to debate these matters unless the citizens vote the right way on referendum day.
This amendment proposes that an additional 90 days be provided for consideration of this matter. I do not believe the 110 nominating bodies that have a vested interest in this Seanad have been consulted on this proposal, so we need to make sure they get an opportunity to express their thoughts on it. It would be appropriate to extend the relevant time period by 90 days so that these bodies can have a say and we can hear their views.
Senator Barrett has pointed out that quite a few graduates from Northern Ireland have a voice because they can vote in the elections for the NUI seats and the Trinity College seats. Although they might feel they have some ownership of this House, it does not seem that they will be asked for their opinions before this referendum takes place. They will not have an opportunity to debate the matter. They will not even have a chance to vote on it. It seems wrong.
What will happen if this Bill is passed and the abolition of the Seanad is debated but the proposal is ultimately defeated by the people? I hope it will be defeated. I do not believe we have given it enough attention. What will happen if the majority of those who vote - only citizens will have the opportunity to do so - vote "No"? The Taoiseach has already said he does not plan to reform the Seanad in such circumstances. He is planning to leave it as it is. I believe that is the topic that should be debated in the next 90 days.
I know the Taoiseach has said he does not intend to organise a preferendum. That is okay because it may not be allowed under the Constitution. The Taoiseach should at least accept that if the people decide to vote "No", there will be a need for a discussion on Seanad reform. He has not said that, however. He has said there will be no reform in the event of a "No" vote. I think that is undemocratic.
My real concern about this legislation relates to the whole area of democracy. I have had an opportunity this week to read an interesting book I have had for the last five or six years, Judging Dev by Diarmaid Ferriter. It takes us right back to the period when the Constitution was written. The book focuses on a number of different aspects of that process, including the Seanad, of course. Senator Keane said that speakers should not repeat themselves.
During the debate on the compilation of the 1937 Constitution, there was a debate on the position of women. I have always assumed that a subservient place was given to women in that Constitution against the wishes of a large number of women. It turns out that a high proportion of people in Ireland wanted that constraint and control to be imposed on women in the Constitution. I did not understand that. I assumed it was pushed through and forced through. In fact, it would appear that there was strong and substantial support for that measure. I mention this as a reminder of how a Constitution can last 75 years in spite of the need for it to be reformed.
We have been able to reform the position of women and other things in more recent years, but we have not reformed the Seanad even though we have had an opportunity to do so. The 1979 referendum proposal was brought forward after it was accepted that there was a difficulty with not recognising the new colleges by allowing their graduates to vote in the same way as university graduates. Although that proposal was accepted, none of the Governments we have had since then did anything about it.
It is frustrating that Government spokespersons are suggesting that neither individual Senators nor the Seanad as a whole did anything about the need to reform this House. We were not able to do anything about it. I have been here for 20 years. Senator Norris has been here for almost 30 years. We have called for the reform of the Seanad, but the power to provide for such reform has not been in our hands. It has been in the hands of various Governments. We have not had a chance to reform the House.
When we look back on the events of 1937, we should reflect on how various aspects of the Constitution have influenced this country over the years.
The word "neutrality" did not feature in the 1937 Constitution, yet it was pursued as a policy.
The decision not to establish a replica or duplicate of the Lower House was considered. Having the various panels elected by elected representatives is not undemocratic, although it could be argued that the five panels are no longer representative. If one were establishing panels now, one would probably have the disability sector and other groups represented. The Seanad is not in a position to change the panels, however.
I was pleased to support the Seanad reform Bill introduced by Senators Zappone and Crown. Senators recognise the need for reform. For the Government to turn its back on reform and choose abolition is wrong. If we choose not to delay the Bill for 90 days, we will not have an opportunity to consider the option of reform.
Reference is made to the Seanad 75 times in the Constitution. The number of changes required were the Seanad to be abolished would devastate and tear apart the Constitution. This issue had not been given sufficient thought. When the Government was elected I was not enthusiastic about its idea of holding a constitutional convention because I did not understand its purpose. The Constitutional Convention has earned its keep, however, as its chairman and members have shown great commitment and demonstrated that the convention is capable of doing a valuable job. Despite earning the respect of citizens, we were not given an opportunity to put before the convention the greatest proposed change to the Constitution, namely, the abolition of the Seanad. The Taoiseach and a small coterie of four Ministers have decided they will not allow the issue of Seanad abolition to be discussed at the Constitutional Convention, whereas issues such as voting age and the length of the President's term may be discussed. I do not understand the reason the proposed abolition of this House may not be discussed, especially given the 75 references to the Seanad in the Constitution.
The number of times the Seanad has amended Bills that have been passed in the other House demonstrates that the abolition of the Upper House would damage democracy. According to the information we have received, approximately 450 amendments have been made in this House since the Government was formed two and a half years ago. While some of them were introduced by the Government, a large number were introduced because Senators identified improvements to the Bills in question. This would no longer be the case if we did not have a second Chamber.
This Bill has not received sufficient attention. Delaying it for 90 days would give citizens an opportunity to debate the legislation and ensure that, if they decide to vote in favour of abolishing they House, they will have at least done so having given the matter some thought. Citizens are not being given this opportunity. For this reason, I urge the Government to accept the amendment to ensure the proposal receives the attention it deserves.
I welcome the opportunity to speak. Senator Leyden, who was an important officeholder in a number of Administrations, raised an important issue. He indicated it may be possible for the President to refer the legislation to the Supreme Court. Article 26 expressly states that this is not allowed. According to the article, a Bill expressed to be a Bill containing a proposal to amend the Constitution is not an issue for consideration by the President of the Supreme Court. There is, therefore, no provision for the scenario Senator Leyden has suggested.
I thank the Minister of State for clarifying the issue, although I am surprised that is the case.
We have been up and down and around the houses debating this issue for several weeks. The most honest contributions were made by Senators Mac Conghail and Hayden who stated openly they will vote "No" but allow the Bill to pass in order that people are given their say. That is the nub of the issue. The Government is seeking the support of the House to ask the people of this great constitutional Republic to finally determine its view on this issue. After all of the reports and having excluded citizens from the Seanad for 75 years, we want to allow them to come to a view on the issue.
The reason we chose this route as opposed to asking the Constitutional Convention to examine the possibility of abolishing the Seanad was that we gave a commitment in the course of the previous general election. This commitment was joined by Sinn Féin and the Fianna Fáil Party, both of which stated they would hold a referendum if they were in government. That is the reason we did not ask the Constitutional Convention to examine the matter. We are holding good on a commitment we gave to the Irish people during the election campaign of 2011.
I reassure the House that, contrary to the views expressed by some Senators, this is not a power grab by either the Taoiseach, a select group of Ministers, the Government or anyone else. These are not the last days of the Weimar Republic, as some would have us believe. I heard outrageous claims being made about the Taoiseach, for example, when he was painted in some pitiful contributions as being somewhere between Robert Mugabe and Mussolini. The Taoiseach is holding good on a commitment he made, which was subsequently included in the programme of Government. This is a difficult decision for any Taoiseach to make because he must effectively tell 20% of his parliamentary party that he proposes to radically reduce the number of politicians in Leinster House. He has shown enormous courage in holding good on the commitment he gave the Irish people. It would have been easier for him to go down the reform route, ask the Constitutional Convention to examine the issue or find some weasel words to allow him to abandon his commitment. Instead, he chose to honour it and in doing so, he has shown authority in circumstances where the country has gone through the mire and the political establishment, including me, the Senators present and the Deputies elected to the other House, must radically change the way in which we present politics. In stating they believe it is possible to function with one House of Parliament, the Taoiseach and Government are making a public statement. This is the proposition that will feature in the referendum campaign. I agree with colleagues that the sooner the campaign commences, the better. It will be for the people to decide whether they want a unicameral or bicameral Parliament. To present this proposal as some form of power grab or the decision of a dictatorial cabal consisting of the four Ministers who make up the economic management council is childish nonsense.
This is a radical move for which the Government does not make any apologies. Politics must radically change if we are to ensure the crisis that befell this country does not happen again.
We think we can do that with one parliament, but that requires radical change. We do not suggest the abolition of Seanad Éireann alone will be the catalyst for that change. There is a host of things we need to do. To be honest, the winning of this campaign by the Government which is committed to holding this referendum will prove to the people that we can reform Dáil Éireann and that it can be the place where the required radical change and shake-up of politics takes place. That will be the campaign.
I respect utterly the fact that colleagues in my party will vote "No" in the campaign. I suspect the majority of Senators in front of me will vote "No". Equally, I respect those colleagues who are backing the Bill and allowing the people to come to a view. I respect the fact that they are willing to put this issue before them. We should not forget the fact that under the Constitution, it is the people who are sovereign. It will not be some group of parliamentarians whose career plans may be upset but the people who will decide this issue. They are sovereign and they will change the Constitution or choose not to amend it. I will live or die by that decision.
What the Government is doing in holding the referendum is asking the people to decide. It is asking the one group whose view on this issue has been singularly ignored in the past 75 years. It is not asking some elite or group that has been given a vote because it happens to have a university education, nor is it asking some group of politicians. No, it is the people who will be asked for their view on this issue and the Government will accept that view.
Senator Diarmuid Wilson made a charge that I am obliged to rebut. He is a man of good standing, but he suggested some inducement or bribe had been offered to Members of this House to vote a certain way.
Most undoubtedly.
That is a very serious charge.
Indeed and I have asked for it to be investigated.
It is a very serious charge. Senator Diarmuid Wilson has parliamentary privilege under the Constitution, as I have in the other House, to make the charge he has made.
There is parliamentary privilege in this House also.
I encourage Senator Diarmuid Wilson to substantiate that charge. Otherwise, it will remain on the record.
For the Minister of State's information, I have asked for it to be investigated by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. There is not the slightest doubt that inducements will be offered all over the place. Jobs and preferment will be offered, as we all know. If the Minister of State is too innocent to see that, God bless him.
The Senator should resume his seat and allow the Minister of State to continue. He should not ignore the Chair. Will he, please, allow the Minister of State to reply?
With respect, I have listened for 20 hours to this debate without interrupting Senators, but the Senator cannot even show me that bit of respect.
The Minister of State certainly did interrupt. He has interrupted all the time. I will show him the record.
I ask the Senator to respect the Chair.
The comment I have made is fair. The Senator should stop abusing privilege in this House.
Privilege is precisely to be used for the business of unearthing corruption.
I want to turn to the issue that is the substance of amendment No. 28, on which we started the debate last week and which we have spent eight hours debating. Very few Senators have referred to the substance of the point made by Senator Sean D. Barrett in the amendment, including the Senator himself. The suggestion made by him is that when it gets to the point of establishment of a new Dáil, a further 90 days after the reassembly of the next Dáil, a new Government could decide whether it wished to abolish the Seanad. That is undemocratic and flies in the face of the referendum which I hope will take place. Effectively, the Senator is trying to second guess the will of the people in this matter. As I said, this is an issue for them decide, not the Senator, any group of us, the Executive or any part of it. This is an issue for the people to determine. Therefore, we will not accept the amendment. It would effectively kick off the issue again and second guess the express wish of the people.
As I said during the course of my contribution to the debate, the net issue is whether we require a one House or two House system. That is the issue for debate in the next couple of months, leading up to the referendum in the autumn. It is the task of the Government and those who support us on this proposition to promote the reforms we will make. I accept that there is legitimate scepticism about the scale of these reforms and how they will deliver the kind of political system we need. That is why this debate needs to be about the pre-legislative and the pre and post-enactment stages we propose, which I set out in my Second Stage contribution.
I found the mention of the Constitutional Convention very interesting. I have read in detail the remarks made by Senators on all sides of the House about the convention. The majority of them opposed the establishment of the convention and refused to have a debate in the House on it. They filibustered on that issue, as they have on this. However, everyone is now speaking in defence of the convention. What hypocrisy. The convention was designed by the Government and initiated by both Fine Gael and the Labour Party. It has happened under the Government, yet the allegation is that this is some sort of power grab. What utter rubbish. Look at the record. When this issue was debated in the House, the Tánaiste could not get an opportunity to speak because of the filibustering that occurred on that occasion. That is the record, as against the hypocrisy I have heard in the past three weeks from some Senators. Therefore, the so-called Constitutional Convention-----
It is the so-called convention now, is it? That shows the Minister of State's attitude towards it all right.
The so-called Constitutional Convention, as referred to by the Senator and others and opposed by their filibustering tactics, is now the means through which we will extrapolate reform.
I never opposed it.
The convention has been a very good exercise and having panels of experts to work with it is the means through which we can ensure better legislative scrutiny in the future. We stand over this.
Senator Sean D. Barrett made a number of claims on which I ask him to reflect, in particular his remarks on Northern Ireland. Like Senator Terry Leyden, he is not over the Constitution. Clearly, he has not read it or refuses to understand the bits of it that do not suit him. I refer him to Article 47.3 which states: "Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at a Referendum". Therefore, the question does not arise in regard to Northern Ireland for the reason that only those who can vote in a Dáil election will have a vote when it comes to the holding of a constitutional referendum. If someone is living in Northern Ireland and not registered to vote in a Dáil election, he or she does not have a vote in a referendum. Therefore, the proposition outlined by the Senator is constitutionally suspect to say the least.
The second issue relates to voters who have a vote in the university constituency. Those people in Northern Ireland who have a vote have it because they are graduates of the universities. What about the rest of the people living in Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens and part of the Irish nation? Are they to be excluded? Are they children of a lesser god when it comes to the less than 40% who turn out to vote for the university Senators? The Government has a different view. It believes people who live in the Republic should vote on this issue. The question does not arise in regard to Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland because they are not entitled to vote in a Dáil election. This is not about one category of voter and their entitlement to vote. The issue is whether this republic needs a one-House or two-House parliament. That is the issue that will be debated in the course of the campaign.
The issue of the public information campaign was raised by Senator David Norris, but I want to rebut his suggestion. The Government will not be running a publicly funded Government information campaign. The suggestion is that in some way Government funds will be used for the purpose of winning this campaign.
Political parties will spend money on this campaign in the normal way and will account for that in the normal way. A referendum commission is being established and a sum of €2.1 million is being set aside for the purposes of that campaign in an independent way, as has been the case in recent referendums in a very honest transparent way.
Senator Norris is confusing a number of issues, which I hope to explain to him now. On the ballot paper, we will have a very clear reference to the proposed abolition referendum. The statement for the information of voters will be sent to all homes and will make it clear that we are talking about the abolition of the Seanad. There will be an information campaign conducted by the referendum commission, which is an independent body that will set out the arguments and encourage people to vote and take part in the process. The commission has been established. There has been much criticism of previous government decisions for the late establishment of commissions and the like. In this case, the commission is being established and is getting ready for its work in informing voters.
As a Minister of State of the Government, I have always enjoyed coming to this House. I have always found the debate to be of use to me as a Minister of State. Although Senator Barrett ignored it during his contribution last week, on two separate occasions I overruled the advice of my officials and took his Bills. I am not so sure I will do it in the future, given his remarks to me already.
I think the Minister of State should withdraw that remark. It is unworthy of him that he would refuse to enact legislation for the benefit of the people-----
That was meant in jest. Even Senator Norris should have the humility to accept that.
I certainly accept that, but I do not have any humility.
I accepted them in good faith, and I ask the Senator to accept my good faith on this issue. I have come to the conclusion and it is the firm view of the Government that this is the way to proceed. However, it is not my view or the Senator's view that will prevail. It is the view of the Irish people. Can we all agree on that at the very least?
I thank the Minister of State for concluding on that note. We sent the material to Brussels last week. I will be joining with him because we need anything that can be done to get the banking sector in the way we both want it. I am glad he appreciated the contribution of this House. That is the spirit in which we came here two years ago. He came in as a reforming Minister of State. We were all here to help and I am afraid this is an issue which has poisoned the atmosphere around here, and I regret that. I look forward to the restoration of the kind of relationships that he described there.
It is a tribute to this House that the Government wants collectively to get rid of us and the Title of the Bill contains the words "Abolition of Seanad Éireann". There should be natural tensions. Checks and balances require that. If we were such a teddy bear that nobody in the Cabinet ever noticed us and we were drawing pay and doing nothing, that would be a far more serious situation. These checks and balances are absolutely necessary in my view and that is why I will be arguing the opposite case to the Minister of State when this goes to the public. It is regrettable that we did not have a Green Paper, a White Paper or an impact assessment. Some of the things that have happened in recent days have weakened the reform cause that the Minister of State and I share. I think the inquiries Bill proposed by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, which was before this House last Friday, was seriously undermined by the fact that the strong impression given beforehand was that the committees are in some way in the gift of the Government. Deputy Peter Mathews, who knows much about finance, and other Deputies who knew about medicine, as pointed out by Senator Crown, were removed from it. If committees are to replace this House, they must have credibility. We are already in trouble with the Abbeylara judgment, and I suspect that what will happen in committees will damage us and weaken the possibility of reforming banking, which is what we all want to do.
The Minister of State spoke about reforms. Nothing in this Senate prevents the reform of the Dáil. I mentioned last week that the Ceann Comhairle should be chosen by secret ballot. Government Senators should be allowed to put down amendments. They may be required to vote, but it would enhance the debate here. There should be far more freedom from the Whip than has been the case heretofore. The Minister of State has heard people say that they are going to vote "No", but will vote "Yes" today. It is like a problem that we encountered when we were trying to change the economy and there were absolute prohibitions on international trade. We gradually reduced them by 5% and 10%. Could we start with 5% of Whip free days or Bills and gradually increase that freedom?
Senator Crown has proposed that we should make the pledge to Ireland and its Constitution. It is rather strange to see people voting one way because they made a pledge to a political party. The Constitution stands above that. We could go further down the reform route and the Minister of State will not find many obstacles to that reform in here. However, it is rather blunt to abolish the 60 people in here as part of that reform programme. There could be other elements in the reform programme as well.
I have SI 563 of 2012 in front of me, signed by Deputy Simon Coveney and Deputy Michael Noonan, who gave the official seal. It allocated on 12 December 2012 the sum of €841, 771,713 to the horses and dogs sectors, 80% of which went for horses and 20% for dogs. Savings on this House of Parliament might come to €3 million or €4 million and then the Government allocates over €841 million on 12 December by a statutory instrument which is not even discussed here, because that is part of the flaws in our system as Europe and the statutory instruments do not get discussed.
Some of the costings which make up the €20 million figure struck me as bizarre. This is in respect of a statement to The Irish Times that the €20.1 million figure is not exaggerated. We find that each Senator makes €32,000 worth of telephone calls and that the Bills Office cost €47,000 per Senator. Most Senators do not put down any amendments or never run Bills. Those of us who do run Bills, including those that the Minister of State likes, must cost the State an absolute fortune, if we are to judge them by the costings that make up the €20.1 million figure. Indirect costs are allocated at €155,000 per Senator, compared to a €65,000 basic salary. It just seems that there is an attempt to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, on top of us.
Cleaning.
I note Muiris MacCárthaigh's article in yesterday's edition of the Irish Independent, entitled "Executive accountability in the Dáil still elephant in the room". I quoted the article from The Irish Times and I met its author.
He gave the name of the Minister who, during a break said, Ministers decide, the Civil Service then takes over and if anybody in the Dáil puts his head above the parapet it is not going to happen. I shall tell the Senator the name in private conversation. I did not ask Stephen Collins who it was but he volunteered the name. That Minister is obviously concerned.
I come from a long line, dating back to 1607, of TCD representation in College Green, in Westminster and here. We have never let the side down. I will be sorry to see our constituency abolished if this is passed. The people whom I admire most from the past are David Plunkett and John Ball, the two TCD MPs in Westminster who, on 12 March 1873, voted against Gladstone's Irish Universities Bill which would have absorbed Queen's University into Trinity, run down Cork and closed Galway as uneconomic. Those two voted out Gladstone's government and voted Disraeli in. They had the courage of their convictions. We have always been like that, right up to the modern era, for example, Skeffington arguing against the ill-treatment of children when that was the norm, Mary Robinson favouring human rights long before that was the norm and Trevor West's stand on anti-sectarianism North and South. That is a proud record and I will defend it. I agree with the speaker - I think it was Senator Quinn - who said that if we ever do discuss reform, we cannot really expect to end up with a Seanad that is the same as the Dáil. That is not the purpose of the Seanad. This is a review Chamber, for putting forward views which are not otherwise represented.
I thank everybody who spoke on this amendment and I am proud to respond to their comments. I feel somewhat strange in this role. There were 77 amendments with something like 180 signatures-----
There were 78.
Yes, there were 78 and 77 were dropped. I am not yet aware how I succeeded where 177 other signatures did not work. I was quite surprised to be called upon.
They picked it out of a hat.
Whatever is included in this, I am delighted to accept whatever accolade is implied.
I had nothing to do with it. My hands are clean.
Senator Zappone said the Seanad has the job of providing checks and balances, to engage in deliberation and to generate new ideas. I think it does so. That is why I disagree with Lord Edward Fitzgerald who said that Leinster House does not inspire the brightest ideas. I find it to be the most exciting and interesting place. It is certainly far superior to any of the committees, quangos and bodies on which Taoisigh, including John Bruton and others up to the previous Government, asked me to serve. I agree with Senator van Turnhout that we need to do more on legislation. The Taoiseach should come in here more often. I do not want to make any melodrama out of that.
Dáil reform is needed. I have spoken about the Whip system. We need the diverse voices because group-think got us into the mess that we all, the Minister of State, I and everybody here, are trying to correct. We need more diverse voices, more elected people. When we consider the disasters from 2008 to now, the political part was solved, our Fianna Fáil friends are 58 Deputies lighter as a result. The other parts have not been solved and they will be pleased because there will be a much smaller Oireachtas without the Seanad to call them to account. The people have solved the political bit and I hope that it will be solved by the people the right way around on this occasion.
Senator Noone mentioned the media. The media has turned in our favour in the recent past. The longer this discussion goes on, the more the media sees a role for this House. People said that not one Government Senator is in favour of this.
Senator Wilson referred to tinkering with the Constitution. My research assistant tells me this will change the Constitution and its schedules in 96 places. That is virtually writing a new constitution. I would like the literature given to people to include a remark to the effect that the Constitution will be altered in 96 places if this goes through. We do need transitional arrangements and I will come to those in a second. The people will decide but I have been in court cases for the citizen versus the State and the State holds all the aces. That is the fear people on our side have. I appreciate the Minister of State's assurance that it may not in this particular case.
I have to stick to the point about Northern Ireland being neglected. Indeed, the Minister of State mentioned it in his response. We will be using a Dáil electoral register to abolish the Seanad which has a different electoral register, the main difference being Northern Ireland, as the Minister of State said. Those voters are being put out of the Oireachtas by a referendum in which they have no say. That is the point I am sticking to. The Minister of State cannot give votes to my constituents in Northern Ireland because the Constitution does not allow it. If the Minister of State, and the Government, get their way they will no longer have any say in this House.
There is a most interesting article in the current issue of The Church of Ireland Gazette by Martin Mansergh, a distinguished former Member of this House. He feels that the way the two parts of Ireland relate to each other has been going wrong for a long time not least because the Parliament in Northern Ireland was already in session in the June before the talks took place in November and December to sign the Treaty. He feels that the Home Rule solution and more accommodation between the two sides would have been a better way to run things. He has always been a voice for reconciliation and was a major voice in the peace process. In his book The Legacy of History Dr. Mansergh says that we have lacked the generosity needed for the two parts of Ireland to talk to and relate to one another. They do it with me but that is a historical accident. I can draw bigger numbers at a meeting in Enniskillen and the first one I held after being elected was in Belfast. That is a historical accident. These people are scorned in the documentation the Minister of State has cited. Dr. Mansergh quotes the manifesto of the Belfast Whigs in 1790:
That the Protestant Dissenters, fully convinced of the constitutional principles of their brethren, the Roman Catholics, and of their zeal to support and defend the Liberty of their country will on all occasions support their just claim to the enjoyment of the rights and privileges of freeborn citizens entitled to fill every office and serve in whatever station their country may think proper to call them to.
Martin Mansergh goes on to write:
The generous tones of the 1780s and 1790s which in this country would have made an enormous impact in building confidence, harmony and reconciliation between the communities, have been conspicuous by their absence.
I have no doubt that this will be felt North of the Border.
James Madison, the fourth American President, one of the framers of the American Constitution, said that the founding fathers did not intend the United States Government to be partisan, the question is how to incorporate in a republic people who differ from us. That is what Arthur Griffith did when the Provost of TCD and others approached him. The undertakings were specified in a letter written to Arthur Griffith by Lloyd George. That is what Arthur Griffith agreed to. That spirit may be evident at the meeting of Young Fine Gael at the weekend. On page 75 of his book, Donal O'Sullivan writes that they argued that there should be Senate. Griffith said he was in favour of a second chamber and believed his colleagues would be. The purpose was to provide safeguards for the representation of minorities and the general protection of their interests. The TCD seats have done that. The need for that is still felt. That is why there are people demonstrating against the PSNI and the Parades Commission. Two of the Northern Ireland parties will campaign against the Government on this issue.
The Church of Ireland notes in The Irish Times on 13 July 2013 about the commemorations state: "These are valuable initiatives for they provide a voice for the small minority which is the Church of Ireland – a community which has something significant to say but whose voice could be so easily overwhelmed by the national scale of commemoration".
These valuable initiatives provide a voice for a small minority, the Church of Ireland - a community which has something significant to say but whose voice can be so easily overwhelmed by the national scale of commemoration. I refer to the Steve McDonagh book about Barack Obama's Irish connection, which documents the decline in the Protestant population in the Republic from more than 10% in 1900 to around 3% now. The goals of Arthur Griffith and company have not been realised. We need a voice for all of the different strata of Irish society. The book refers to such elements of unhappy history as the Mayo librarian controversy; an incident in which a Galway obstetrician, a graduate of TCD, was forced to surrender his appointment as professor of gynaecology at UCG and had to emigrate; the Fethard-on-Sea boycott - I remember my father going there on business to break that boycott; the TCD ban, which was in place right up to the 1970s; the threat to small rural Church of Ireland schools and the threat to the fee-paying schools of the Church of Ireland; and the treatment of the Church of Ireland College of Education and TCD itself. Now the seats here in this Parliament are to be abolished. That is very regrettable and a very sad occasion for those who believe in an Ireland of inclusiveness, as we all do.
Let me quote from Gordon Wilson when he spoke at the New Ireland Forum. He was one of the great Senators.
My being here stems from my love of this land and of its people but also from convictions nurtured from earliest days and sharpened by personal sufferings through the conflicts of the past years. I am no mere Northerner but one whose heritage, religiously, socially and culturally, has been woven into my being, the person I am. I am no foreigner in an alien land but in a land due to me and mine.
I strongly agree with Gordon Wilson's comments.
I clarify that I am against the abolition of the Seanad. I will be voting against the Bill today in the interests of consistency, because, unlike some of our colleagues, I see emblazoned in large type, "Abolition of Seanad Éireann".
Exactly.
It is not a vote for anything else. It has been very helpfully included by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, for which I thank it.
It is a principle of republican government - as in the United States - that structures are needed to exist to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That is what we are getting now. The Seanad was a beacon in preventing two sectarian states in Ireland. It is a task that becomes no less urgent now than it ever was in the past.
The 90-day delay is the normal time period allowed between the Seanad and Dáil elections. It allows time for reflection. The constitutional changes are profound - 96 changes, according to some calculations, and 75 according to other calculations. This is no small alteration to the Constitution. The issue cannot be covered by the Constitutional Convention. I have vague memories of the debate the Minister of State describes. All I can plead is that I had been here as a Member for only around two weeks at that time and I was not familiar with the procedure. Senator Quinn and I went to see the Taoiseach. I am of the same view as the Americans, that the Constitution should not be changed very frequently. My goal is to go to the Seanad and to make it work. We also offered the Taoiseach some advice on the use of the electoral register as a way of ensuring that the real people were included. We actually mentioned to him that people from Belmullet would have a say and not just everybody from the same quangos in Dublin 4. The Bill to use the electoral register for the first time for that purpose was introduced in this House. My aim was to assist the Government and to make this House work. What is before the people is not an amendment of the 1937 Constitution. The proposal will fundamentally change how the business of government is performed. All these checks and balances provided by Senator Quinn, Senator Crown and all the Senators here will be gone. There will be a rigid whip system which must be obeyed, or else one cannot sit on a committee or one will be fired out of one's office or subjected to some other form of torture, because people made a pledge not to the country nor to the Constitution but to a political party. I am glad I was never a member of a political party when I hear some of those things. It seems to be an awful situation into which people lock themselves.
Governments certainly take time to reflect on referendum results. They have been reflecting on the referendum on university representation since 1979. They did not get rid of the existing university seats at midnight before the Dáil reconvened. In the case of referendums on Europe, it seems that if the result is not liked, the referendum can be run again. We have done that a couple of times. The fact that a new Government might like to reflect on the gravity of what is proposed in the Government's Bill is very well worth considering. It may even be the secret reason that amendment No. 28 survived and the other 77 were turfed out. Some amendments were proposed by 20 Senators, and they cannot all be wrong. Senators Zappone and Mary Ann O'Brien have four pages of amendments. I am speaking on their behalf by default. We could have had a far different discussion. It devolved to me because 28 is a nicer number than any other number between zero and 78.
This legislation is wrong. I respect the Minister of State, as always, but I do not think it illustrates political courage. It is foolhardy to tear in like this. More scrutiny is exhibited in these islands with the success of the new parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Unless we change other aspects of our political system, getting rid of the Seanad will be a fatal blow to Irish democracy. Political parties should reflect on the way in which they have behaved towards dissidents in the recent past. The Seanad was the home of dissident views. That is why Arthur Griffith put it here. I wonder how a distinguished Member in the Gallery, Deputy Peter Mathews, feels about how the new system will treat dissidents.
I am very much cheered up by the vote of Young Fine Gael. I have found that young people like this House. I checked the debating list in college the other evening. Trinity College regularly debates and defeats Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge. When Senator David Norris and myself shuffle off, there will be much better debaters coming up. We are not even Old Testament prophets for the kind of people that are coming along the way. One of the Senators on the Government side asked me to find a research assistant. Seven candidates were identified and they all had brilliant degrees, including two candidates who had obtained 600 points in the leaving certificate examination. These brilliant people want to serve in this House. They are perhaps not as cynical as the Government in proposing to get rid of 60 politicians because they might have 60 far better people in mind.
It will be a turning point in the history of this country if this Bill goes through today and if this House is abolished. We will be turning our backs on Northern Ireland and turning our backs on ideas. We need ideas; they are not here. There were no dissident voices when all the money was being spent.
In 2002 I argued the case that Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly should oppose any proposal for the North to join the euro. That was my contribution to the dissident voices on that issue. There is too much groupthink in public discourse on a range of matters. That is why the Seanad is needed. When the Minister of State goes into the ballot box in Tallaght or Terenure, I hope he will think of us.
I referred on the first day of the debate to the observation by John Kells Ingram that might will sometimes conquer right. That is what I fear will happen in this case. The last poem Ingram wrote before his death seems suited to the situation in which we find ourselves:
Unhappy Erin, what a lot was thine!
Half-conquered by a greedy robber band;
Ill governed with now lax, now ruthless hand;
Misled by zealots, wresting laws divine
To sanction every dark or mad design;
Lured by false lights of pseudo-patriot league
Through crooked paths of faction and intrigue;
And drugged with selfish flattery's poisoned wine.
Yet, reading all they mournful history,
Thy children with a mystic faith sublime,
Turn to the future, confident that Fate,
Become at last thy friend, reserves for thee,
To be thy portion in the coming time,
They know not what -- but surely something great.
The Seanad can be something great. A great Upper House can assist the Government in bringing forward the necessary reforms we all support. I ask everybody here to support the amendment and to vote "No" in the referendum.
Bravo.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh na focail a thairgtear a scriosadh."
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Daly, Mark.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Heffernan, James.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Norris, David.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Sean D. Barrett and David Norris.
Question declared carried.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltú don leasú.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 78, inclusive, are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 29 to 78, inclusive, not moved.
Cuireadh an cheist: "Go nglacfar an Bille chun an breithniú deiridh a dhéanamh air."
Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 31; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Níl
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Daly, Mark.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Heffernan, James.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?
Cuireadh an cheist, "Go ndéanfar an Cúigiú Céim a thógáil anois", agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh léi.
Question, "That Fifth Stage be taken now", put and declared carried.