John Crown (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----that I would work to either reform or abolish the currently undemocratic Seanad, which I specifically said was an affront to democracy as it is currently constituted. It is an affront because it was designed to be an affront. It was designed to sacrifice popular democracy on the altar of vocationalism. The vocationalism had a sound theoretical background although I would not have supported it at the time if I had been privy to the deliberations of the original Constitution. The main reason vocationalism did not work was that the parties subverted it. They were the ones who made it a second Dáil. It was not the will of those who would be vocational Senators that it would become a mini Dáil, a waiting room, or an exit room for people on either end of a Dáil career. That is why I authored a Seanad reform Bill, to which the Taoiseach referred directly in his presentation. It has the 11 Taoiseach's nominees because we try to live within the Constitution. We tried to reflect the maximum degree of reform that could be achieved within the current Bunreacht. That reform would have thoroughly democratised the nomination process with any citizen able to run for the Seanad if he or she had 1,000 nominations and would have thoroughly democratised the voting process for the Seanad with every citizen having the franchise to vote in a panel of their choice.

In a recent speech, the Taoiseach mentioned that one of the reasons the Seanad should be abolished was that it had done nothing to stop the inflation of the Celtic tiger. With great respect, I do not hold the Taoiseach personally responsible for what happened in the economy but his party was also a supporter of the bank guarantee. I was not aware of his party being a group which attempted to put a break on the inflation of our housing bubble. Please do not think I am drawing any unfortunate powers when I say that it would be a little like Neville Chamberlain blaming the Mexicans for failing to stop the Germans from invading Poland. We had in the Dáil at that time a dearth of trained economists. In the Seanad today we have Senator Sean D. Barrett. If the abolition goes through without reform we will lose the only senior trained economist in the Oireachtas. There is something wrong with the logic which will allow that.

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, has on two separate occasions, once in this House and once on radio yesterday, stated that there will be no net saving to the Exchequer from abolishing the Seanad because the money would be redeployed to Dáil committees. In addition to redeploying the money to Dáil committees, the proposed reform package which we are told will follow the abolition of the Seanad, will involve replacing the quasi-elected democratic Senators with unelected external experts. At least in the current system we have a mechanism for getting some degree of popular validation for the involvement of the experts. This will not save money and it will decrease democracy.

In addition, we heard that the figure of €30 million was plucked out of the air, in truth, one of the cleaner places figures have been plucked out of in the national debate this week. At this stage I must give a gentleman's challenge. I would ask that the Taoiseach give authority to the Leader, to Members of the Seanad and to Members of the Oireachtas to allow the two reform Bills to pass one more Stage before the date of the referendum and to allow people to make Committee Stage amendments. He was keen on the idea that we would not have a preferendum but a "Yes" or "No" vote on abolition. We will still have the referendum but at least people like me will be able to campaign with a clean conscience if we campaign against abolition. We are working to reform and not working to retain a Chamber which, in truth, has not been the bulwark of democracy that some have alleged is the principal justification for its continuation. I thank the Taoiseach for this attention.