Ivana Bacik (Independent) | 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.