Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now move on to item No. 1 on the Order of Business, the Second Stage debate on the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013. Item No. 2, motion pursuant to section 23 of the Referendum Act 1994, prescribing a formal statement for the information of voters to be included on the polling card, will be debated in conjunction with Second Stage of the Bill. The motion will be formally moved when debate on the Bill is concluded.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I wish to bring to the Taoiseach's attention the fact that not all parties in this House will be given an opportunity today to address the Taoiseach ---

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order. The Order of Business has been agreed.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the Order of Business, not one Sinn Féin Senator will be given the opportunity to ---

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane, resume your seat please.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

--- to address the Taoiseach on the important issue of Seanad reform and political reform.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator must resume his seat.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that is wrong and the Taoiseach ---

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order. The House has decided on its business for today ---

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Leader of the House and the Cathaoirleach are wrong in excluding a political party from the opportunity to address the Taoiseach on something as fundamentally important as this.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane is showing discourtesy to the House. The House has decided on the business today. I now call the Taoiseach.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas don Chathaoirleach as ucht an chuiridh don Teach seo chun labhairt faoi seo.

The purpose of this Bill is to fulfil a programme for Government commitment to hold a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad in the autumn. The Government also intends to hold a referendum on the establishment of a court of civil appeal on the same day and other issues arising from the early reports of the Convention on the Constitution may also be considered.

As this referendum is proposing a major change in the structure of our Oireachtas, it is both right and appropriate that I, as Taoiseach, should come before this House today and outline the reasons for this action. The proposed abolition of the Seanad is part of the Government's comprehensive programme of political reform, a programme that will establish a new politics in this Republic, one that is more accountable, democratic and more responsive. In fact, it will be the biggest package of political reforms since the passing of the Constitution in 1937. No Government would ever propose changing the Constitution lightly. It is our fundamental law and the main blueprint for our system of government and it has served this country well. However, the Constitution is not, and must not ever be, fixed in stone. The ultimate source of sovereignty in our Republic is the people and the people have the right to amend and update their Constitution as they decide, including those articles of the Constitution which define the nature of our country's Oireachtas.

For 75 years the political establishment has debated reform of the Seanad.

For 75 years that same establishment has failed to introduce a single reform of this country's second House. After 75 years of failure to do so and ten separate reports on Seanad reform all of which have been ignored, the Government has decided to ask the Irish people a simple yet profound question, "Does Ireland, in your view, need a second House?" It is the people who will decide, not this Government or Oireachtas.

Members of the House will be aware that when our nation's first Oireachtas was established in 1919 it was composed of just one Chamber, Dáil Éireann. It was the drafters of the Free State Constitution which established a Senate in 1922 and that was largely to reassure members of Ireland's Unionist community. It soon became clear, however, that creating a properly functioning second House was a lot easier in theory than in practice.

Over ten constitutional amendments were made relating to the Free State Senate before its final abolition in 1936. The early drafts of the 1937 Constitution envisaged an Oireachtas that was, like the first Oireachtas of 1919, unicameral in nature. A second House was included in the final document only very reluctantly by Éamon de Valera and only on the basis that it would be under the strict control of the Government of the day. That is why the Seanad was given so little power and why the Taoiseach of the day is allowed to nominate 11 Senators, effectively giving any Government a permanent majority in the Chamber.

Vocational panels were supposed to deliver independent expertise into the Seanad but the first election to the Seanad demonstrated conclusively that even this idea was not going to work, as the following quotation from The Irish Timesin 1938 shows: "The idea of electing a Senate on a vocational basis has proved futile. The complete defeat of nearly every representative of the learned bodies and of those who purport to represent interests other than those which are frankly political was a marked feature of the results".

Almost 60 years later, at the MacGill school in Donegal, I announced Fine Gael was embarking on a root and branch analysis of the political system. Although the party favoured reforming the second House - a position I reiterated in my MacGill speech - this review did something which my party had not done since the drafting of the 1922 Constitution. It asked the fundamental question, "Does modern Ireland actually need a second House?" The conclusion reached was that it does not.

Constitutional theory has moved on since Seanad Éireann was established. Given the huge difficulties in creating workable second houses in any unitary state, modern constitutional theory now places the emphasis on establishing strong unicameral parliaments with appropriate checks and balances. Some five European countries have roughly the same population as Ireland, of between four six million, namely, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Croatia and Slovakia. None has a second house. In fact, no unitary state in the OECD with a population of less than ten million has a second house, with the exception of Ireland and Slovenia.

Some of the most effective democracies in the world have abolished their second houses. All of the Scandinavian countries, for instance, have done so. New Zealand also has, even though its political system is derived, like Ireland's, from its history as part of the British Empire. Significantly, most of the emerging democracies in Eastern Europe have also decided they do not need a senate. If second houses are so essential to democracy why have so many small states, emerging from years of dictatorship, decided they do not need a senate?

Some have asked why this Government has not put reform of the Seanad as a possible alternative to abolition. There are three reasons for this. First, and most important, both parties of Government gave a commitment to hold a referendum of the people on the abolition of the Seanad. Fianna Fáil also gave this commitment but decided not to follow through on it. Second, we do not believe that a second house is necessary in a modern republic, for the reasons already specified. Third, experience in Ireland and elsewhere suggests that genuine reform of the Seanad would be almost impossible to achieve.

There have been over 20 major proposals for constitutional senate reform in Canada since the early 1970s, and all have failed. Supporters of Seanad retention are, in fact, deeply divided. Some want it to be an elected second Dáil, others a House of experts and yet others some form of citizens' assembly. This lack of consensus suggests two likely possibilities. Either no change will be made or reform of the Seanad will be tokenistic at least and, at best, the very minimum that can be agreed on. Recent proposals to reform the Seanad's electoral system, which leave in place the Taoiseach's 11 nominations and do nothing to change the Seanad's powers, fall squarely into this category.

Instead, we need more effective Dáil reform. We have made a start. There are Friday sittings, additional Leader's Questions, Topical Issues debates, a Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions chaired by a member of the Opposition and the establishment of an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to focus solely on this area of Government policy.

The Government believes that in tandem with the abolition of the Seanad, further change is required to strengthen the role of Dáil Éireann to reform the way we deal with legislation. In that regard, legislation will first be submitted to the relevant Dáil committee in the heads of Bill format. A new schedule will increase the amount of time available for legislative scrutiny. Four day sittings will become the norm. Each Bill will be required to be referred back to the committee that originally considered it for final examination. Ministers will be required to revert to the relevant Dáil committee within 12 months of the enactment of a Bill to review and discuss its functioning to see it is effective in what it is supposed to do.

The new legislative process will ensure, therefore, that legislation is fully considered before, during and after it is enacted. Committees will carry out investigations and inquiries into matters of major importance. The legislation to give effect to this has been recently published and is currently before the Dáil. It will come before the Seanad in due course. Furthermore, we also propose to radically overhaul the committee system. Some 14 Dáil committees will be established. Outside experts will be invited to come before them, as is necessary. We will introduce the d'Hondt system to distribute chairs of key committees on a proportional and equitable basis. If approved by the people, I and the Government are convinced we will create a better, more effective political system with better accountability, oversight and scrutiny of legislation.

It should be clearly understood that the constitutional responsibility to hold the Executive to account is vested in Dáil Éireann. That is where the clarity and requirement for greater capacity for scrutiny and accountability is vested.

I will turn to the provisions of the Bill. Under the Bill, and assuming the referendum is passed, Seanad Éireann will be abolished from midnight on the day immediately before the day on which Dáil Éireann first meets after the next general election. This will enable an orderly transition to be made from the outgoing bicameral to the incoming unicameral system of parliament. From abolition day, the Oireachtas will consist of the President and Dail Éireann only.

Articles 18 and 19 of the Constitution, which deal with the composition of the Seanad, elections and nominations to it, etc., will be deleted. Also, the Bill provides that no general election to the Seanad will take place after the next dissolution of the Dáil that occurs following the referendum.

It will be necessary to amend or delete all the articles in the Constitution which either relate directly to the functions of the Seanad or which are premised on its existence. Many of these changes are purely technical. In such cases, it will be necessary to amend the references to both Houses, each House and so on in order to take account of the situation that will arise if the Seanad is abolished. Other references in the Constitution relate to the functions of the Seanad and I will now deal with these.

The articles relating to the Oireachtas legislative process will have to be amended or, where appropriate, deleted. As a result, Articles 20, 21, 23 and 24, which deal with the relationship between the Dáil and Seanad with regard to the passage of legislation through the Houses, will be deleted because they would no longer be needed in a unicameral parliament. Article 20 deals with the initiation of Bills in either House and the Seanad's power to amend Bills, while Article 21 limits the Seanad's powers as regards money Bills and the time within which the Seanad must consider such Bills. Article 23 deals mainly with the time for the Seanad to consider other, non-money Bills and while Article 24 provides that where the Taoiseach certifies that, in the Government's opinion, a Bill is immediately necessary to preserve public peace and security in an emergency, then the Seanad's time for considering the Bill can, if the President agrees, be shortened by a resolution of the Dáil.

As well as deleting these articles, it will be necessary to amend Article 22 which deals with money Bills. That article defines what a is money Bill and provides a mechanism to resolve a dispute between the Dáil and the Seanad on whether a Bill is actually a money Bill. This is because the Seanad can only make recommendations on, and cannot propose amendments to, a money Bill. The Ceann Comhairle's certificate that a Bill is a money Bill is final and conclusive unless the Seanad asks the President to refer the matter to a committee of privileges. If the President agrees, he can appoint a committee consisting of an equal number of members of Dáil and Seanad and chaired by a Supreme Court judge. This procedure relates only to whether a Bill is a money Bill; it is not concerned with the merits or otherwise of such a Bill. The reason for maintaining and amending Article 22 is because, under the Constitution, the President cannot refer a money Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. In order to provide clarity on whether a Bill is a money Bill in the context of the possibility of a reference to the Supreme Court, an Article 22 procedure would still be needed even after the Seanad is abolished. The Bill proposes that the Ceann Comhairle's certificate that a Bill is a money Bill will be final and conclusive unless the Dáil resolves that it is not a money Bill.

The Bill before the House proposes the deletion of Article 27 of the Constitution. This article provides for the possibility of a petition from a majority of the Members of Seanad Éireann and at least one third of the members of Dáil Éireann to the President to refer a Bill to the people on the grounds that it "contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained". The President must consult the Council of State before deciding whether to agree to such a petition. This procedure does not apply to money Bills or to legislation. It applies only where a Bill is deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas under Article 23. In other words, it applies only to a Bill that is not passed or rejected by the Seanad within 90 days or that is passed by the Seanad with amendments that are not agreed by the Dáil. For Article 27 to apply, the Dáil must also pass a resolution to deem the Bill to have been passed by both Houses. Essentially, Article 27 provides a way of resolving a dispute between the two Houses on a legislative matter. If the Seanad is abolished, there will no longer be a need for this provision and it is, therefore, proposed to delete it. As with the money Bill procedure, the Article 27 procedure has never been used.

Other articles involve the Seanad in actions relating to legislation or to measures proposed by the Government. Article 28.3 provides immunity from challenge on constitutional grounds of any law - other than one imposing the death penalty - that is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or around rebellion. The article provides that the term "time of war" includes a time when there is an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but where each House of the Oireachtas has resolved that, arising out of that armed conflict, a national emergency affecting the vital interests of the State exists. This article also provides that the expression "time of war or armed rebellion" includes such time after the end of the war, armed conflict or rebellion as may elapse until each of the Houses of the Oireachtas has resolved that the national emergency has ended. The powers in this article for each House will, with the abolition of the Seanad, necessarily reside in the Dáil.

Article 29.4.7o and 29.4.8o relate to the exercise by the State of certain powers conferred on it under certain provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. The State may exercise these powers only with the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. The abolition of the Seanad will mean that the power of approval will reside in the Dáil alone. It is far more satisfactory that it will be for a democratically-elected House to make approval decisions in this area.

I will now deal with the Seanad's role in the procedures laid down in the Constitution for the removal of certain officeholders. In the context of the impeachment of the President, abolition of the Seanad will remove the current arrangement whereby the House that prefers a charge of stated misbehaviour against the President cannot be the House which investigates that charge. The Dáil will retain the power under Article 13.8 to ask a court, tribunal or other appointed body to conduct an investigation on its behalf. In order to ensure the highest level of protection for the independence of the office of President, however, the Government is proposing that a resolution to prefer a charge against the President and if an investigation sustains that charge, a resolution to remove the President, must each be passed by four fifths of the total membership of Dáil Éireann.

In respect of the impeachment of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of judges, the Government has also considered the procedures in the Constitution for the removal of the Comptroller and Auditor General under Article 33 and of Supreme Court and High Court Judges under Article 35. The removal of the Comptroller and Auditor General requires a resolution not just of the Dáil, but also of the Seanad. The abolition of the Seanad raises the question of whether some additional safeguard should be provided for the independence of that office. The independence of the Judiciary is central to our system of government and to the constitutional balance of powers. This is reflected in the fact that, as in the case of the Comptroller and Auditor General, a resolution must be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in order to remove from office a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court. The Government is anxious to ensure the continued independence for these offices. Accordingly, we are proposing that a two thirds majority of the total membership of the Dáil should be required in order to remove either the Comptroller and Auditor General or a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court.

The Bill proposes that, following abolition of the Seanad, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will replace the Cathaoirleach on the Presidential Commission. Abolition of the Seanad would reduce parliamentary representation on the Presidential Commission to one member and would reduce the commission itself to two. In order to maintain the current constitutional balance, the Bill proposes that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the Dáil will replace the Cathaoirleach of this House as a member of the commission. It is also necessary, however, to designate substitutes should the former be unavailable. Accordingly, the Bill provides that Dáil Éireann shall nominate, as soon as may be after it reassembles following a general election, two Members to act as substitutes for the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should either or both be unable to act on the commission or if one or both of the posts are vacant. The Bill proposes that the Leas Cheann-Comhairle should replace the Cathaoirleach on the Council of State.

The Bill proposes to amend Article 12.4 of the Constitution to provide that not less than 14 serving Members of Dáil Éireann may nominate a candidate for President. At present, a nomination under this provision requires not less than 20 Members of both Houses.

The reduction to 14 is proposed in light of the proposal to abolish the Seanad as well as the planned reduction in the number of Deputies after the next general election.

Transitional arrangements will be necessary in the move from a bicameral to a unicameral parliamentary system. Thus the Bill provides that any Bill not passed or deemed to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before abolition of the Seanad will be deemed to have lapsed. Any such Bill may, however, be introduced or re-introduced in Dáil Éireann following re-assembly after the general election. However, any Bill passed or deemed passed by both Houses, but which has not been enacted before abolition of the Seanad, can complete the process of signing and promulgation into law, subject of course to any other constitutional provisions, such as a reference by the President to the Supreme Court.

I wish to make reference to the transitory provisions in Articles 51 to 63 of the Constitution. These provide for the transition between the Irish Free State and the new State created by the 1937 Constitution. In accordance with their terms they are not published in official texts of the Constitution. The Bill proposes to delete two of them. Article 53 dealt with the election and assembly of Seanad Éireann after the coming into operation of the 1937 Constitution. Article 55 dealt with the composition of the Oireachtas and the signing and promulgation of Bills passed by it in the period between the coming into operation of the Constitution and the entry into office of the President.

This Bill will provide the electorate with the opportunity to give their verdict on the future of the Seanad. It is the people, not anyone in government, the Dáil or this House, who must make this decision. We await their decision. I realise some Members have said that I do not spend enough time in the Seanad. I hope, following the Irish Presidency of the EU Council, that I will have some time to come to observe the debate on the Bill as it is going through. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Taoiseach on his second visit to this House in the two and a half years since he assumed office. I respect the Taoiseach and his office but I expect the Taoiseach to respect the Oireachtas, as elected. I put it to the Taoiseach that the fact that he has only once, prior to this day, attended the Chamber in his tenure shows he does not fully respect the Oireachtas as it is currently constituted and this is concerning.

I speak, first and foremost, as a citizen of this country, as an Irish citizen, and, second, as a Senator and a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, someone who has served in the Dáil and the Seanad. I have seen where reform is required in both Houses and I see the legislation that the Taoiseach has put forward and his explanation of it as nothing short of rushed and vague.

I would not take the task lightly should I ever get to the heady heights of Taoiseach of the country, which is unlikely, nor would I propose a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad that would make more than 75 specific changes to Bunreacht na hÉireann. As the Taoiseach has noted, it is a document that has served this country well in the main. The proposal is more concerning in the context of the Government, led by the Taoiseach, having an historic majority in the Lower House. Power in the Government, the Executive and the Taoiseach in the past two years in particular has been further centralised in Cabinet and the Executive by the creation of the Economic Management Council, on which the Taoiseach and three other Ministers sit.

This proposal is all the more concerning because the Taoiseach is proceeding with the referendum without referring the issue of reform of the Seanad or what should be done to the Seanad to the Constitutional Convention. When the Taoiseach returns to the House for his third visit I will be keen to hear about his rationale for not referring this important change in how the Oireachtas operates to the Constitutional Convention. I speak as someone who has attended the Constitutional Convention. I was impressed with the work done there. I was cynical when I went in first but I was impressed subsequently with how the work was done. It was a reasoned debate. I do not see in any shape or form any reason not to refer this to the Constitutional Convention.

Further, I call on the Taoiseach to explain the timing of this referendum and whether he intends to hold the referendum in October. Do I take it the Taoiseach intends to hold it before the budget? Is that his intention? If that is his intention, I put it to the Taoiseach that this is simply a diversionary tactic from the difficult decisions that he will have to make in the upcoming budget. I realise they will not be easy decisions and that choices have to be made by the Government.

I can inform the Taoiseach from talking to people where I live, in north Dublin, that reform of the Seanad is not even in the top ten items that people discuss. The vulnerable people, the victims of the economic downturn referred to, rightly, by the Taoiseach yesterday, are keen to see Government action on matters such as mortgage arrears, jobs, employment and emigration.

The Taoiseach has put this forward as a cost-saving exercise. I call on the Taoiseach to ask those within the Government - clearly not many of them agree with his proposal - to be honest in the debate and during the course of the campaign about what this is really about. The Taoiseach has bandied about figures of savings of between €20 million and €50 million. More recently, Deputy Paschal Donohoe in an article in the Irish Times referred to a figure of €50 million. That is absolute nonsense and it should be put to bed.

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

It is nonsense.

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

We are going to have a debate, which I welcome, by the way, and I welcome a referendum on this in the context that we can actually discuss real reform. I call on the Taoiseach to reflect on the reform that he and his Government have brought through since he was elected. He has abolished Údarás na Gaeltachta and reduced the number of county councillors. The Taoiseach referred to the Nordic unicameral systems. What the Taoiseach did not mention about Denmark is that it has 98 local authorities and 2,500 local councillors. Finland has 304 local authorities and 10,000 local councillors. Norway has 423 local authorities and 12,000 councillors. They have these not simply for the sake of it, but because they have proper local government.

Let us consider the work of this House, which I joined in early 2011 after a period in the Dáil. It might come as a surprise to the Taoiseach to learn that in 2011 some 59 Dáil Bills were debated in the House as well as 25 Seanad Bills. In 2012, some 87 Dáil Bills and 37 Seanad Bills were debated. In 2013, so far, a total of 51 Dáil Bills and 18 Seanad Bills have been debated. Further, in this year up to May some 529 amendments to the laws of the State and to proposed legislation have been made in this House.

I cannot decipher what the Taoiseach is proposing instead. Some weeks ago it was reported in the media that the Taoiseach was proposing to set up a mini-Seanad of appointees of Government, experts that he would bring in. It is still remarked on in the House that the Taoiseach is effectively planning to have a four-day sitting and allow heads of Bills to go to the Dáil and invite in outside unelected experts. I agree that there remains absolutely an issue of a democratic deficit in this House. Reform Bills and reports have been published in the past ten years. It is certainly not my fault or that of many of my colleagues that reform of the House has not been brought forward. I do not envisage reform coming in the guise of abolition.

Let us consider from where most of our laws emanate. Since 2009, some 1,291 EU regulations have been automatically transposed into Irish law without any systematic or detailed parliamentary scrutiny. Let us consider the Oireachtas joint committee system and the level of scrutiny that goes on. Since I came to this House in 2011, I, the Leader opposite and many others have requested of the Chief Whip and the Government assistance to enable the House to scrutinise European legislation in this House, but we have not been allowed to do so. Since the Lisbon treaty, and, in particular, since the second Lisbon treaty, in every state, including Ireland - this point covers the previous Government and the current Government - some 139 tranches of legislation were released for comment and consideration by a member state in advance of being passed.

During the campaign on the second Lisbon treaty referendum we all spoke about how important it was for us to have a say on EU law so that we would not be just led by the nose. We said we would comment and make submissions. Ireland has made only one submission since the passing of that referendum, which is a sad indictment of the previous Government and this one. I have great regard for every Senator in this House. Even in a system that is not perfect they bring a high degree of scrutiny, professionalism and experience to the debates that take place here. Many Ministers have commented on this and if the Taoiseach were here a little more often, he would understand that. The Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Creighton, said the Seanad could carry out that role.

I would be gravely concerned about the provisions for how a President can be impeached and how a Comptroller and Auditor General can be removed, as the Taoiseach outlined in his explanation to the House. Is he proposing that impeaching a President would require the support of four fifths of the Dáil? Is that without a Whip system? Is he proposing any change to the Whip system in the Dáil should the Seanad be abolished? He is also proposing that it would require the support of two thirds of the Dáil to remove the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose role in the State is vital. I say that as someone who served as Vice Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Dáil. As the Whip system is operated today, a Comptroller and Auditor General could not be removed. Will the Whip system be changed? Will the Taoiseach allow free votes on certain aspects, particularly the impeachment of a President or the removal of a Comptroller and Auditor General?

Regarding the Taoiseach's crusade on reform, I watch the Friday sittings with interest and find that in the main they are farcical. He pointed to the Topical Issue debate and the additional Leaders' Questions. What happened to the programme for Government commitment to allow debates to proceed without using the guillotine? Last night saw the 55th Bill out of 93 taken in Dáil Éireann that the Government has guillotined; in other words, it stopped the debate before it had finished naturally. The Government allowed 40 minutes for the Committee Stage debate on removing one third of the Oireachtas. It is not about the Members here - I will live if this happens. I am concerned as a citizen. I welcome the debate and I will welcome a referendum if it is an honest referendum and if the Taoiseach does not continue to put out figures such as savings of €20 million to €50 million and if he does not erroneously try to lay the blame for problems that happened in the past on the Seanad alone.

I put it to the Taoiseach that, as father of the House and having served more than 35 years in Leinster House, he would know a considerable amount about the lack reform in this House over the years. I say that as someone who has only been here since 2007. I welcome that he is in the House today and I hope he will come back to answer the specific questions I have asked. Amending Bunreacht na hÉireann, which is owned by the people, is not something to be taken lightly. I fear and believe that he is taking it lightly and he is vandalising the Constitution with this proposal.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Taoiseach on this, his second visit as Taoiseach to Seanad Éireann. Based on the atmosphere that one can feel here, I cannot guarantee that he will have a warm welcome coming with his intention to advocate the abolition of the House. However, I am sure Members will treat him with respect, observe the dignity of the House and be constructive in their comments on the Bill to be debated here today and over coming weeks. I have assured the Members that adequate time will be offered on all Stages of the Bill, which deserves the considered and collective contribution of all Members of Seanad Éireann.

This is a very difficult Bill to deal with for all of us - Government, Opposition and Independents. In the general election campaign Fine Gael gave a commitment that a referendum on the future of the Seanad would be held. This commitment was subsequently written into the programme for Government, which is why we find ourselves dealing with this Bill today. As the Taoiseach rightly pointed out, countless reports on Seanad reform are gathering dust, consigned to the scrapheap by successive governments. In the main these reports dealt with how the Seanad should be elected, but no Government had the courage to implement the recommended reforms. The Seanad is not to blame for not implementing the recommendations contained in these reports. It is the responsibility of the relevant governments which failed miserably to act on all the reports. There was no action - just silence and total disregard for the Upper House of the Oireachtas.

As a young man, I joined Fine Gael Party, whose founders were so instrumental in the foundation of the State and in defending democracy and the institutions of the State. Those formative years of our State when elected Members were murdered were difficult times. Later during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the State was again under threat from subversive elements when members of the Garda and the Defence Forces, and a Member of this House, Senator Billy Fox, were callously murdered. Fine Gael was always seen as the party that could be trusted in defending the State and its institutions. I mean no disrespect to the many Fianna Fáil governments that stood firm against terrorists who tried to subvert democracy and overthrow the State. After such courage and dedication over the years in this regard, it is difficult for many Fine Gael Members now to advocate abolishing an integral part of these institutions, Seanad Éireann, as the Bill proposes.

I am the first to acknowledge that time never stands still, that change is inevitable and that reform of the political system is urgently required to address the disconnect between the public and politics, which is a cause of concern in many democracies. Whether abolishing this House and going to a unicameral system addresses this disconnect and the need for greater interaction between the people and politicians will be a matter for the people to decide upon.

On the issue of change and reform, this Seanad has initiated many reforms despite the archaic rules and Standing Orders under which we work. We established a public consultation committee at the suggestion of the Independent Senators nominated by the Taoiseach. We have engaged with many organisations from people dealing with the rights of older people to professionals and groups dealing with the necessary lifestyle changes needed to prevent cancer. We have consulted with representatives of Social Entrepreneurs Ireland, CoderDojo and Change Nation, who inspired us with their ideas for improving Irish life and society. Each of those consultations has produced a report which we have submitted to the relevant Minister not only for debate, but also for action. As long as we have the co-operation of Government, we intend to continue with this work which gives a voice to people who may not otherwise be heard by Government, but are nonetheless carrying out essential work in wider society.

The House has always been to the forefront in highlighting human rights issues at home and abroad. The former President, Dr. Mary Robinson, and the former Leader of the House, Dr. Maurice Manning, as chairman of the Irish Human Rights Commission, addressed the House on that subject. The Members were greatly appreciative and better informed following those excellent contributions, which were informed by many years of expertise in that area. This type of debate then informed Senators when they raise important matters with members of Government who have the capacity to act. This is where this Seanad is particularly effective, in giving a voice to those who otherwise might not have it.

We have heard from the Nobel laureate, Christopher Pissarides, an expert in the area of youth unemployment, whose observations and counsel I have often heard repeated to various Ministers, again keeping the spotlight on an issue of critical importance. Ms Margareta Wahlström, the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction, spoke to us recently about disaster relief and rescue, and also on the economic opportunities to be harnessed from disaster prevention.

This is another matter we can bring to the attention of the Government for action.

Of course the address which received most attention during the life of the 24th Seanad was that made last summer by Mr. Drew Nelson, head of the Orange Order. This historic event was, we were told, more significant in the history of the organisation than all of the steps thus far in the peace process, as it demonstrated just how far the Unionist community had travelled on the road to lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Preceding this event, the House was always a champion for peace in Northern Ireland given that we were privileged to have people such as Seamus Mallon, Bríd Rogers, Gordon Wilson and Martin McAleese as former Members, all of whom played a pivotal role in their own way.

During the Irish Presidency of the European Council which, under the Taoiseach's stewardship was a tremendous success, I decided to provide a platform for our Irish MEPs in the Seanad, as the Taoiseach suggested in the MacGill Summer School. I invited all 12 to come to discuss their particular areas of expertise and inform us of the work of their committees so that we as legislators are better informed about the procedures at European level before we are asked to enact legislation in Ireland which has been largely drafted elsewhere. This initiative was long overdue, particularly given how important it is to engage with our representatives in Europe. Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn also gave an excellent address to the House and spoke of the need for greater dialogue between politicians and EU representatives and institutions. As Senator O'Brien mentioned, when the House tried last year to take on a greater role in the scrutiny of EU legislation, the legislative work programme, EU directives and other significant EU policy decisions which affect us in Ireland, it was prevented from doing so. We asked for an additional staff member to be assigned two days a week to bring the relevant documentation before us and forward our observations to the relevant EU institutions if it was deemed fit. The request was refused, but the Members of the House intend to proceed with this task from within their own resources without in any way duplicating the work of existing committees which, frankly, rubber-stamp EU legislation in many instances without proper analysis of the implications of how policy developed at European level will work practically on the ground in Ireland.

It is my duty to outline the work in which the House engages on a daily basis. Our primary function of scrutinising legislation often goes unnoticed, and recently I have heard many comments in the media and elsewhere asking when the Seanad has ever blocked Government legislation. Blocking legislation is not what the Seanad is about; improving and enhancing legislation is the key contribution we make to the legislative process. As has been mentioned, approximately 600 amendments to legislation have been accepted to date and this is testimony to the contribution made by Senators to the legislative process.

The Taoiseach gave a commitment to the Irish people to hold a referendum on the future of Seanad Éireann and he is honouring this commitment in bringing forward the Bill. I know, from listening to his speech in the House and on Second Stage in the other House, that he firmly believes in a unicameral parliament as the best method to serve democracy in a country of our size and composition. Democracy is a fragile flower which must be jealously guarded at all times. Should the Irish people feel democracy would be diminished in any way by the abolition of this House, they must vote "No" in any referendum.

Senators:

Hear, hear.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Likewise, if they feel a unicameral system would best serve democracy in Ireland, then they must vote "Yes". As a democrat, I will embrace and accept the will of the Irish people, as I accept this Bill which gives the choice to the people of Ireland.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As leader of the independent group of Taoiseach nominees, with Senators Fiach Mac Conghail, Mary Ann O'Brien, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Katherine Zappone, I begin by stating clearly that each of us has our own individual perspective on the Bill before us today. We are, as everyone knows, a group of Independent Senators in the truest sense, independent of Government and of each other in the positions we adopt in the course of our Oireachtas work. We come from a wide range of backgrounds and disciplines, including civil society, NGOs, the arts, education, business and human rights. It is this diversity in our expertise which prompted the Taoiseach's choice of appointment.

Seanad Éireann was established to give a voice to different and challenging opinions in Irish society. I am confident we are fulfilling this role with honesty and integrity. On behalf of us all, we thank the Taoiseach for the privilege of the position in which he has entrusted us. We have taken time to reflect on our individual viewpoints in this debate today on the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill. I look forward to hearing the deliberations of my colleagues as the debate ensues. From this point onwards, the views I express are entirely my own.

I was greatly honoured to accept this position as Senator and at the time I was cognisant of the Taoiseach's position with regard to the abolition of the Seanad and the commitment in the programme for Government. In trying to work through my position on the Bill, I have had to separate my role as a Senator from that as an individual citizen who will vote in the referendum. When it comes to Committee and Report Stages, I will, as I do with all Bills, consider each amendment tabled and will vote on the merits of the rationale behind it. That said, and as a matter of principle, I will not impede the passage of this Bill through the Seanad. This is a decision for the Irish people to make.

Finalising my personal position on the Bill and its ramifications has not been an easy journey, and in fact it is a journey I have yet to complete. I have embraced my role as Senator with enthusiasm and dedication. I relish the opportunities presented to me to further issues through legislative amendments and policy debates. I am one of life's optimists but I do not wear rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the Seanad. I see the flaws, I live the frustration and I understand the critics. The Order of Business can sometimes seem more like a recital of "It Says in the Papers" and all too often is dominated by local issues, making us seem more like a council meeting. I decided some time ago to participate on the Order of Business only where I believed an issue of national relevance needed to be raised and debated immediately and where there was no other channel through which I could raise it. Several colleagues remarked this decision would mean I would reduce my media presence, as it is the only part of our work in the Seanad on which most media report. I stand by my decision, as the record will show. However, these comments make me wonder how the public is supposed to get a true picture and understanding of the work we do.

Proponents of abolition have stated small countries such as Ireland do not need second chambers, which are more common in large, federal countries or countries with deep divisions. The countries cited as good models for us to follow have a strong system of local democracy. Ireland has widened the role and functions of local authorities, but very few powers have actually been devolved. Increasing powers over the years have absorbed by the Executive, and one only needs to watch Bills as they progress through the Houses to see the quality and openness of debate is really up to the approach of individual Ministers. I have sat here and watched, in dismay, as some Ministers have basically rammed a Bill through the House. Equally, I have had the ultimate privilege of being able to robustly and appropriately debate my points and amendments with Ministers who respect and engage fully in the parliamentary process. On a few occasions I have even won my point. Moving Ireland to a unicameral system is something I can understand in theory, but I am concerned we are being asked to take this decision without having any safety nets in place.

I was very interested in the proposals for reform outlined by the Taoiseach at the opening of Second Stage in the Dáil and today. There are many worthwhile proposals which are not contingent on the abolition of the Seanad so why do we not progress ahead with these reforms? George Bernard Shaw stated, "The best reformers the world has ever seen are those who commence on themselves". This is a sentiment with which I fully concur. I respectfully put it to the Taoiseach that all of the questions we are debating about the ability for the Seanad to reform apply in equal measure to the Dáil and local government. There have been a number of reports on Seanad reform.

I imagine we could stack this room high with articles and books on all aspects of political reform in Ireland. If we were to take all decisions based on the number of reports written then I would like to know how many more reports on alcohol-related harm we need before action is taken on marketing and minimum pricing?

I have seen first-hand how difficult it is to change a procedure or a Standing Order in the Seanad. People do not resist change in principle but they do resist being changed. Is there a reason some of the proposed changes cannot be immediately commenced? What is the incentive to change for Deputies? Will the proposals get diluted as time progresses and why wait for the result of the referendum to effect wider political reform? From working in Leinster House I see the competing demands on Deputies' time, not to mention local and constituency demands. Will they be able to free up the time needed to take on an increased legislative role? I would have greater confidence if I saw more evidence of actual change and ability to change. In the words of US President Barack Obama, "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we have been waiting for. We are the change that we seek".

Considering the committee process in particular and the proposals put forward to strengthen it, we have seen a small number of Ministers bringing the general scheme or heads of Bills to joint committees for an initial consideration, which should be welcomed. I am an active member of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, which is ably chaired by Deputy Jerry Buttimer; I find my work on this committee very rewarding and I believe there is scope for members to influence legislative and policy outcomes. However, holding our work up to scrutiny one can see there is only a cohort of members who regularly attend for more than 20 minutes and who actively participate. One can consider the metrics. In July, we will have our quarterly meetings with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Health respectively. One month in advance of these meetings we are asked to submit questions; I have a long list but we are only allowed to ask three questions of each Minister, so I must make a shortlist. With 21 members on the committee, one can imagine the potential range of questions. However, I note that with regard to the Minister for Health's quarterly review meeting on 25 July, only ten of the 21 committee members have submitted questions, and even more disappointingly, only six of the 21 committee members have submitted questions for answer by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Is this because of the competing demands on the time of representatives or is it because of resource constraints? Will this be addressed by the proposed reform?

We can critically examine the important issue of the child and family support agency that was announced in the programme for Government, with an anticipated budget of €546 million. Why was the committee process not used to give the heads of Bill the scrutiny they deserve, as this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for reform. I want to believe but the evidence suggests otherwise. I have on numerous occasions expressed my willingness to support and actively engage in the process to establish the new agency and yet, to date, I have never heard silence quite this loud. In any proposal to reconstruct and reform we need to ensure that there are members who are looking at issues with a national focus. We need balance in our discussions, and the Seanad has at times represented views that have otherwise been unheard.

EU scrutiny is another area in which the Oireachtas has, to date, been lacking. We are not using the red and yellow card system of the Lisbon treaty, for example. I would also have liked to address the issue of costs with the Taoiseach, as we should examine equivalent costs for strengthening competencies and resources. There is also the issue of timing of this referendum and the rush to hold it in the autumn. Why not hold it with the European and local elections in May next year? Why not introduce changes to the Dáil and local government while stepping up EU scrutiny? The heart of my dilemma is a question of why one action is contingent on another. I question the constitutional changes relating to the President, judges and certain officials like the Comptroller and Auditor General. We need a distinct debate on the constitutional impact of such changes.

I believe the events of recent years and days clearly show we need a political system that ensures we have a democracy built on accountability and transparency. We need to bolster our defences to ensure that powerful interests cannot have a free rein, and there is a clear and urgent need for political reform. My dilemma is that on the one hand I am unconvinced the Dáil will reform to the extent that is needed in order to compensate for the losses that will be accumulated through the abolition of the Seanad, while on the other hand, one must ask if a second Chamber is the most effective way to achieve the accountability, transparency and openness that we need to resuscitate political democracy in Ireland. I remain undecided.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Taoiseach and I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the Bill, which has already been the subject of a great deal of debate already in this House and elsewhere. I am glad that today's debate is being conducted in a most respectful and thoughtful manner on a question of principle, and there are very principled arguments to be made both for a unicameral and bicameral system. It is unfortunate that some of the debate in other quarters has become personalised, and I am glad we will not descend to that level here.

As leader of the Labour group I will be voting for the Bill as I recognise and accept that we signed up to the programme for Government in February 2011 in which a commitment was given to hold a referendum on the future of the Seanad. As the Taoiseach stated, there is a political imperative that the question is now put to the people. However, I will not be voting in favour of abolishing the Seanad and I will urge others to do the same, as we should be able to reform rather than abolish the Seanad.

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

Hear, hear.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would strengthen rather than weaken our democracy. I regret that the position of the Labour Party in advance of the last election - that the matter should go to the Constitutional Convention - has not been ultimately adopted within the programme for Government.

The case for fundamental and substantive reform of the Seanad is clear and unanswerable, and nobody within or outside the House would argue for retention of the Seanad in its current form. Reform of the Seanad has had cross-party support for many years, although it is fair to say that the political will to introduce the necessary legislation or constitutional amendments has been lacking. I will return to that point, and it is important to note there are two Bills before us that have passed Second Stage which provide for significant reform within the terms of the current constitutional provisions. They have been put forward by Independent Senators, so there is a blueprint for reform in a legislative format. There has also been a cross-party report, chaired by a former Senator, Ms Mary O'Rourke, which made some very significant recommendations for change when it was published in 2004.

The basic composition of the Seanad is currently provided for in Articles 18 and 19 of the Constitution and in legislation such as the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts of 1947 and 1954 as amended and the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937. There are many references to the Seanad throughout the Constitution and they are addressed in the terms of the Bill. It is fair to say that the majority of Senators are elected by a very limited electorate, with those of us elected by the universities having a bigger numerical electorate. My electorate of the University of Dublin has over 50,000 people, with the National University of Ireland electorate at twice that number. There is a significant number of people, both inside and outside Ireland, who vote for the university panels.

To return to the question of political will, Seanad reform was in the 2007 programme for Government in the year I was elected to the Seanad. In the same year a Minister, former Deputy Gormley, initiated an all-party working group on Seanad reform based on the Mary O'Rourke report I mentioned. There was a momentum for reform at that stage but it ran out of steam as it was overtaken when the true extent of the economic crisis became apparent. It is unfortunate as in that period of 2007 and 2008, we could have seen significant reform introduced through legislation that would have addressed some of the very serious and justified critiques of the manner of election and the business we do in the Seanad.

This was overtaken by the announcement made by the Taoiseach in October 2009 that he would seek to abolish the Seanad, which caused some surprise. The position was subsequently followed by other political parties, and in Labour we took the more nuanced position that a referendum should be carried out as part of a broader process of reform and as part of the Constitutional Convention process.

We know that if the legislation is passed, the referendum is likely to be held in autumn this year. It is important to say that this 24th Seanad has already become a stronger and more worthwhile institution in the short time since we have been elected. With the Taoiseach's choice of nominees, he moved away from a traditional party hack appointment system-----

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----to choose a group of genuinely independent individuals, and I pay tribute to that group, which has contributed enormously to the quality of debate and business done in this House. They have formed a new Independent nominees group, which means the Government does not have a clear majority in the House, making debates more interesting, lively and worthwhile.

I do not know if I am misquoting the Taoiseach but he is reported to have said that in his choice of nominees, he had taken the view that if this was to be the last Seanad, he wanted it to be the best Seanad. This is a positive note to make. I hope I am not misquoting him.

Another point to make about this Seanad is that it is a considerable improvement on the Dáil in terms of gender balance. As we know, only 15% of Deputies in the Dáil are women while nearly one-third of Senators are women. Six out of the 11 Senators in the Labour group are women, constituting a majority, so we have a much better gender balance in the Seanad than exists in the Dáil. This is not a coincidence but is something we have seen replicated in previous Seanaid. We have introduced significant procedural reforms. Senator Cummins has led on those and has already mentioned them. They include the public consultation process and the question-and-answer sessions with Ministers, such as the session in which the Minister for Finance revealed the true extent of the bailout required for credit unions. That was a result of a change of procedure.

Along with the public consultation process, we have introduced a series of distinguished speakers. For me, the speech by former President, former Senator and current chancellor of Trinity College, Mary Robinson, was an outstanding contribution. Today, on foot of a suggestion by the Leader, we are looking at inviting the chair of the Constitutional Convention, Tom Arnold, to talk to us in September about the very important work of the convention, which may lead to further referenda as the Taoiseach noted.

The arguments being made about unicameral versus bicameral sometimes miss the point of other levels and layers of government. Senator Darragh O'Brien mentioned that in many of the Scandinavian countries, we see a great deal of power and strength devolved to local or regional government. We have not had that tradition in Ireland. It may well be that if we were to put in place the sort of local government reform to give local government the kind of powers it has in other jurisdictions, the case for a unicameral system would become much stronger. I do not think we are there yet. If we look at the powers our own councils have and the business they conduct, we can see it is not at the level where we have seen councils running local education or child care facilities and having very strong powers to raise local taxation. That level of power has not yet been devolved to our local government system. The debate about unicameral versus bicameral often misses that point. One cannot look at national Houses of Parliament in isolation from other layers of government and governance within any political system. That is a point that will be brought out more and more in the debate over the coming months.

A key question in this debate is the purpose of the Seanad. The Taoiseach said that those in favour of retention have various different views on reform. I do not think that is a bad thing. It is useful that we have seen many different ideas around how the Seanad can be reformed both within the terms of the Constitution through legislation alone and through constitutional change. There is one common theme that runs through those who argue in favour of retention and reform. This is that the key strength of the Seanad is in its function of scrutinising legislation. I am struck that Article 20.1 of the Constitution gives the clear purpose of the Seanad and states: "Every Bill initiated in and passed by Dáil Éireann shall be sent to Seanad Éireann and may, unless it be a Money Bill, be amended in Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann shall consider any such amendment." The key power and function of the Seanad is to scrutinise and, if necessary, propose amendments to legislation. That envisages legislation being initiated in the Dáil. Of course, we are increasingly seeing legislation being initiated in the Seanad largely because many Ministers see the Seanad as a very useful forum to test out ideas and run arguments that may be conducted in a more conciliatory and considered fashion than the more adversarial setting of the Dáil Chamber. The real strength of the Seanad and its power of scrutiny in the short time I have been here lies in the Committee Stage debates. I have seen some excellent Committee Stage debates here involving very deliberative sessions on particular amendments where Senators with particular expertise in significant aspects of legislation can express their views in the House. We do not have the sort of constraints that operate in the Dáil select committee sittings on legislation.

Many amendments proposed in the House are accepted by Ministers. Other speakers have referred to the number of amendments that have been accepted to date. Very recently, our education spokesperson Senator Moran and I had two important amendments accepted in respect of the Education and Training Boards Act 2013 initiated by the Minister for Education and Skills. One concerned ensuring greater gender balance on the boards and the other was a technical amendment picking up on a drafting anomaly in the Bill that had not been noticed previously. That is the sort of strength the Seanad brings to the scrutiny of legislation. It is no coincidence that nearly one third of Bills are initiated in the Seanad. That is an important point to make.

I also wanted to mention the role of the Seanad in initiating Private Members' legislation and to pay tribute to former Senators like Mary Robinson whose Bills on contraception in the 1970s, while not accepted by the then Government, undoubtedly helped to change public opinion and prepare the ground for the subsequent Government legislation on contraception passed in later years. I also want to pay tribute to Senator Norris, who sadly announced his illness this morning but who I know will be back with us very shortly, and his work in initiating civil partnership legislation. Again, this paved the way for subsequent Government legislation. Other examples include former Senator Mary Henry's work on assisted human reproduction and IVF, Senator Quinn's construction contracts Bill and other legislation that other Members, myself included, have initiated in this House and that has subsequently been accepted by Government and passed into law. That has strengthened our democracy and is exactly the sort of work the Seanad should be doing.

We provide a forum where views that are sometimes not represented in the Dáil or other fora can be represented. We constitute a forum where legislation can be scrutinised in detail and in a less adversarial way. While significant and substantial reforms to the way we are elected and the business we do are undoubtedly needed, on balance, a reformed bicameral system is preferable to a unicameral system.

I very much welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I know we will have a very strong and worthwhile debate over the coming months as people delve into the issue of unicameral versus bicameral. For that reason, we will support the Bill but I know many of us in this House may oppose the referendum itself.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share three minutes of my time with Senator Crown if that is permitted.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after ''That'' and substitute the following:
"the Bill be read a second time on 17 September, 2013, for the following reasons:
(i) to request the Constitutional Convention to consider the constitutional role of the Seanad and to allow time for such consideration;
(ii) to facilitate a consultation process with the Nominating Bodies and the Nominating Universities who have for more than 75 years fulfilled the constitutional role for Seanad General Elections as required by Article 18 of Bunreacht na hÉireann;
(iii) to allow other interested parties to make submissions; and
(iv) to have the views arising from these consultations and discussions available to the people as they prepare to vote in the Referendum."

I have said before that the proposals in the Bill are anything but reforming. They will damage our democracy, vandalise our Constitution and concentrate more power than ever before in the hands of Cabinet members, not just in the Dáil. What must be kept in mind is that there is real alternative which has been referred to today. It is the Seanad Bill proposed by Senator Zappone and I. Senator Crown has also proposed a similar Bill. That was introduced last month and both Bills have passed Second Stage.

Those Bills are worthy. Our Bill is a roadmap for radical reform to involve a broader range of voices in our Parliament by finally creating the vocational Chamber for which the people voted in 1937, involving all civic society and giving everybody a vote, giving a vote to emigrants forced out of this country by the failures of our political system and giving voters in Northern Ireland a voice in our national Parliament for the first time, building on the progress of the peace process. The last proposal is very interesting. Senator Barrett spoke about it earlier today. This Seanad is unrepresentative and I hope it will cease to exist and be replaced by a real opportunity to have a cost-effective, gender-equal, functional second House that can provide a second look at the legislation instead of the current system whereby the Government merely gets its way and pushes its interests through both Houses.

With the Bill we proposed, we would have a Seanad comparable to the United States Senate. We must reform the Seanad so it can ensure that we can protect citizens from legislation which may have a negative effect on their lives and on that basis I think we can do so.

I wish to touch on one other aspect, namely, the cost of the Seanad. It seems clear that the €20 million figure of savings has been plucked out of the air. As Senator O'Brien has said today there are savings figures of €50 million, €20 million or €10 million. An Oireachtas finance officer is quoted in the Irish Independent as saying that a cost-benefit analysis for abolishing the Seanad has not been carried out. Is this the way the Government should go about doing its own business? I reiterate that I do not believe the Seanad is working now, therefore, I understand the frustration. What is needed is reform of the entire Oireachtas and singling out the Seanad is a very strange way of doing that. We must remember that the Seanad in its current form presents many thousands of amendments through Senators, many of which contribute to better legislation. There is so much that can be done in that area.

Senator Ivana Bacik has just referred to the Construction Contracts Bill which will go through shortly and last week the Public Health (Availability of Defibrillators) Bill 2013 went through Second Stage. Do people really want all the power in the hands of the Cabinet, dominated by the Whip system, or a Seanad that can put a break on Government when things are going the other way? Up to May 2013, the Seanad had made a total of 529 amendments to 14 Bills that had passed through the Dáil in an inadequate or incorrect fashion. What would have happened if these amendments had not been made? The answer is, bad law is much more likely to result. An argument has been made that the number is actually higher than 529 amendments. That amount of bad legislation came to his House and had to be amended. Nobody is going to do that if we are not around. We have got to find a solution to that. I believe the solution is that proposed in the Seanad Electoral Reform Bill 2013 that we have put forward.

Bad law affects everyone in society, it damages trust in politics, it undermines economic renewal and impacts negatively on the way we all lead our lives. Before voting to abolish the Seanad I urge people to ask themselves a couple of fundamental questions. Who will monitor and where will they amend the legislative work of the Dáil? Recently, Darren Lehane said:

Prior to 1918 women could not vote in parliamentary elections but the answer was not to abolish parliament, the answer was to extend the vote to women and to open up the franchise to all. Reform the Seanad, open up a democracy to all. I believe that is the way we have to go.

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

I welcome the Taoiseach to the House. In the three minutes at my disposal I am sorry if I give a Micheál O'Hehir impersonation. I ran for the Seanad two years ago on the promise to my constituents-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator seconding the amendment?

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

Yes.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

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

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Taoiseach to the House for what is a very important debate. As we face into the referendum on the Seanad, it is important to be mindful that it is part of our parliamentary system which has, as other Senators have alluded to, on more than one occasion faced an uncertain future. The first national assembly established in Ireland, following the Act of Union, was a single Chamber body, Dáil Éireann, which convened in January 1919. It was only in 1922 that our parliamentary system became bicameral or dual-chambered with the establishment of Seanad Éireann. At the time it was an unusual move to jump from being unicameral to being bicameral and we were alone in that sense. However, in many respects Ireland has always been somewhat different.

While many countries entered into war, Ireland embraced neutrality. I do not follow the argument that just because a system suits one country, it works for all countries. The world is a little more complicated than there being any single correct answer. Unicameral and bicameral are not one-size-fits-all solutions. Different countries require different systems. In 2013 I am proud of our system while recognising, as other Senators have done, the shortfalls and the need for radical changes. I am proud of the work we achieve in this House. From the outset, Dáil Éireann resisted efforts by an assertive Seanad to encroach upon what Deputies saw as being properly their own territory. Tensions between the two Houses intensified after De Valera and Fianna Fáil came to power in 1932.

The manner in which the Free State Seanad was abolished and the decision to re-establish it, albeit in a different form in the 1937 Constitution, is also interesting in the context of the current debate. When the Free State Seanad was abolished in 1936, De Valera clearly indicated that the idea of a second Chamber was not anathema to him provided it could be shown that a second Chamber would be of value. De Valera then established a commission to investigate how it believed a second Chamber should function. This commission recommended that the second Chamber should have the power to regulate its own business and to elect its own members.