Deirdre Clune (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish to take up a point made by the previous speaker. I stood for election and canvassed on behalf of the Fine Gael Party during the last general election. Its manifesto contained a commitment that the matter would be put to the people in a referendum. The same commitment was stated in the manifesto of the Labour Party and the Senator was a candidate for that party. The referendum was also mentioned in the programme for Government. The Taoiseach made that point clear when he was in the House last week. The matter was not referred to the Constitutional Convention because we did not want to sidestep the question but wanted to put it straight to the people.

I have listened to many of the contributions and read some of them. It is clear that most people who have contributed to the debate recognise that the Seanad cannot continue as it is and needs to be changed. A question has hung over it for a long time and, as we all know, numerous reports have recommended changes. The reports were worthwhile and should have been considered, but this and previous Governments did not do anything about them.

This Seanad differs from others because we have invited many speakers to attend such as Mrs. Mary Robinson and, recently, Mrs. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. Other speakers have made worthwhile contributions to the debate. The attendance of Irish MEPs here in recent months has been a constructive and worthwhile exercise. The Government has also been requested to allow the Seanad to consider EU legislation. That would be an invaluable use of the Chamber and the request still stands. Since the Lisbon treaty, the Parliament has been granted more powers and functions, which means that we must supervise and scrutinise EU legislation. The committees carry out this task, but EU legislation still does not receive enough attention. The Seanad could play a valuable role in scrutinising such legislation.

I have been a member of local authorities and the Dáil and I am now a Member of this House. The problem with the Seanad is that it is a mini-Dáil and has a Government majority which allows for legislation to be voted through. A criticism of both Houses is that the hierarchy has the power and the numbers to pass legislation. The same criticism can be levelled at Irish politics in general. Members of Parliament, be they in the Dáil or the Seanad, really do not have an opportunity to contribute as much as they would like because power is centralised and lies with the Executive, the 15 members of the Cabinet. "Power" is a strong word and needs to be used to emphasise and describe the situation in this instance. As somebody said, this House and the committees are about ideas, information and bringing forward issues that would not necessarily receive the same attention as in the Dáil. That is the history in this House.

We need to change politics. We need to change the way we operate right across the board. I would like to see stronger regional authorities and assume that many Members of both Houses would be interested in serving on them. I look forward to seeing how the changes introduced at local authority level will manifest next year and hope councillors will step up to the mark. I am sure that they will, if they are given further powers. Like many Senators, I travelled the country during my Seanad campaign and gained a wonderful insight into the strength of councillors. I have met people who serve their local community and make decisions on a regular basis for their local community, town and the area in which they reside. I greatly admire local authority members and the valuable role they play is not appreciated enough. This House provides a connection to local authority members by way of their nominating Senators. That is the one say they have. Some of us are better than others at communicating with them and it is important that they communicate with us.

I have examined the various options proposed for Seanad reform and view it as a weakness that Senators are not directly elected by the people and do not receive a direct mandate from them. I am concerned that if they were directly elected, it would be done on party lines and party politics would infiltrate the House again. I have listened to the contributions here on reform and do not think that is what people want.

Reform should also mean that we reduce the number of Deputies. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has told us that he cannot reduce the numbers in the Dáil as he is prevented from doing so by the provisions of the Constitution. The referendum is expected to take place in October. If we are serious about reform, why not include a question on the ballot paper a question on whether to reduce the number of Deputies? If we were to do so, we could then prove that we had introduced real reform the next time the political parties faced a general election.

The Taoiseach has spoken about committees and announced that he will establish new ones, but I have not seen the details. The current committee system can be and has been good. We can point to very fine examples such as the health committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Jerry Buttimer and the hearings it has undertaken. That is an excellent example of how a committee can work. The Committee of Public Accounts also meets on a weekly basis and commands respect, particularly for the DIRT Inquiry. I hope a banking inquiry will be established. However, the regular committees do not seem to have taken off as originally envisaged and we should take the opportunity to strengthen them. Committees will break down along party lines and any question tabled will be voted on in the way the Government wishes.

I have been a Member of the House for a number of years and know that the Independent Senators have played a valuable role in previous Seanads. They continue to play a valuable role in this Seanad.

I have received an email from my cousin who lives in Qatar. He has asked me not to support the proposal to abolish the Seanad because it is the only opportunity he has to have a say. I thought he did not have a vote, but as a graduate of the National University of Ireland, he can vote in Seanad elections. He has made the valid point that he values that vote.

Of course, not everyone is a graduate of our universities. The university Senators play a very valuable role and connect with emigrants. This man says he is living in Qatar and I have two sons who are away. The one who lives in Boston listens to RTE and Newstalk throughout the day and reads The Irish Times, the Irish Examinerand the Irish Independentonline. My son in Chicago recently got up at 5 a.m. to watch a Lions match. Emigrants may be abroad, but they are working to get back here and maintaining their connections. They have Skype and come home as often as they can. Those who are fortunate enough to have a qualification from our universities have a say in the election of six Members. If we could expand the franchise further, it would be an opportunity to include the emigrant voice. The prospect of giving the vote to emigrants in presidential elections was raised, but that would not be enough. While the details of any condition can be ironed out, including an obligation to hold an Irish passport and time limits after which a person living abroad could no longer vote, the concept is very worthwhile.

I will support the Bill today. We should put the matter to the people whose House this is. I look forward to the public debate. If the question were put now, people would vote to abolish the Seanad. The campaign will be important and provide a focus to articulate the way the House operates and its potential.