Feargal Quinn (Independent) | 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."

The Taoiseach is very welcome. I have been here for 20 years and know many very good decisions have been taken. One decision I do not understand is the Taoiseach's decision to keep the debate on Seanad reform and abolition from the Constitutional Convention until after September. He set up the convention but will not allow it to debate the issue until after the referendum has taken place. It is for this reason that I propose an amendment to Second Stage.

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.

Surely, we should learn from the mistakes of the Celtic tiger and realise that what we need is more oversight in the system, not less. I appreciate the opportunity to have the referendum but I urge people to vote "No".