Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I agree with my colleague, Senator Darragh O'Brien, that this is a sad evening, particularly in the light of the vote earlier. It did not make sense that we should not be given time to recommit the Bill. As Senator Feargal Quinn said, we were not able to debate and discuss many articles of the Constitution and, as matters stand, the people will now have to vote in the referendum without having had the opportunity to hear these deliberations.

We are dealing with amendment No. 28, as the amendments put forward by me and Senator Darragh O'Brien were overruled. An esteemed Member asked previously:

What added value does the Seanad give? We should be prepared to face the awful prospect of asking what it would be like if there was no Seanad. Would matters be any worse? I happen to believe they would, but it is a case to be made. The case is that we are a revising Chamber, that we can have more thematic and reasoned debates than the other House, that the atmosphere is not as adversarial and that business can be done. However, I often wonder if that is enough for the general public. We must show that we are in some way different from the other House and not just a pale replica thereof.

Those are the words of the now Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, around the time of publication of the O'Rourke report. We are aware that he has changed some of his views and have heard some of the reasons for this. However, his question of what added value the Seanad gives is a good one.

What difference has this Seanad made? I wish to say something about this and will base my comments on three questions. Has it been an effective check and balance? Has it been a substantive forum for democratic deliberation that improves our policies and legislative choices? Has it been a House that generates new ideas for law?

On the first question, many of my colleagues, as well as the Minister of State, have referred to the fact that in the past couple of years some 529 amendments have been made by this Seanad to Bills that have been passed. All of these amendments came about in the context of deliberations in this House. I noted that the Minister of State indicated on the first occasion we gathered to debate the Bill that many of these amendments had been Government amendments. I went back and reviewed the Bills amended here and the amendments we had made in terms of checking and balancing the work of the Oireachtas. I looked at the list and noted, for example, that with regard to the local property tax, a Government amendment had originally been recommended by Senator Jillian van Turnhout, namely, the exemption for children and youth organisations. This amendment was accepted by the Government and became a Government amendment.

In the case of the personal insolvency legislation, many proposals made here regarding that legislation became Government amendments. The Minister of State was gracious enough to meet me in regard to that legislation. I have e-mails from some organisations with which I work and these organisations have noted to me in my work with them that this was the first time they were able to raise the issue that the State provide decent, minimum income guidelines for people who were insolvent. This became part of the personal insolvency legislation, but they were not my amendments. However, they came about because of my work with these organisations and the robust exchanges with the Minister of State who was gracious enough to meet them in his office and listen to them.

The Education and Training Bill provides another example of our effectiveness. A critical amendment brought forward by the Government had to do with putting a learner on the boards. This came about because my experience and that of others here encouraged the Government to do this. It may be the case that a number of the amendments made in this House were Government amendments, but they were made because of the exchange here with people with expertise.

When I looked at the list of 529 amendments made here to 14 Bills, I noticed some Acts had been omitted. For example, three finance Acts which had been influenced by exchanges I had had were not included. The Minister of State is aware of this and was gracious enough to hear me when I raised the fact that there was no equivalence of treatment to an adequate level between spouses and civil partners in tax matters. Three finance Acts were changed because of this. However, the amendments made were not my amendments but Government amendments.

The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was also influenced by exchanges here and issues raised by me. This is not about me, but these are just some examples that I have noted which were not even listed on the list of 529 amendments. In the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, because of exchanges here, the Government brought forward amendments to ensure equivalence of treatment between civil partners and spouses in seeking citizenship. Many of the amendments made to the Health and Animal Welfare Bill were as a result of exchanges here. These are just a few examples from one Senator on the question of whether the Seanad was an effective check and balance in the past few years. Even as it stands, we could answer "Yes".

My second question was whether this had been a substantive forum for democratic deliberation. I will give some examples from my experience, but I know colleagues can identify others. The Independents group to which I belong put forward two motions on the issue of the future of prostitution legislation, as a result of which the issue was brought to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. A huge public consultation took place and a report has issued, with radical recommendations for changes in legislation, and is being laid before both Houses. Yes, this is an effective forum for deliberation.

Another example is the motion tabled by Senator Mary Ann O'Brien on charities and the need for a charity regulator. The Minister for Justice and Equality announced last week that we were now going to establish such a regulator. I know this is the result of the work of Senator Mary Ann O'Brien and others on a motion that was debated here. Therefore, on the question of whether this House is a forum for democratic deliberation on improvements in policy and legislative choices, the answer is "Yes". I have given some examples from my experience.

My third question was whether this was a House that generated new ideas for law? I congratulate my colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, whose Construction Contracts Bill has moved to the Dáil. Other Bills have also been brought forward here, for example, Senator Ivana Bacik's Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill which will allow humanists to officiate at marriages.

Senator Kelly's wind energy Bill went to Committee Stage but is sitting there. Just a couple weeks ago, with a couple of my colleagues, I published the Legal Recognition of Gender Bill and, today, the Government unexpectedly published the heads of Bill on gender recognition, so I wonder if that had any impact. Senator Averil Power addressed section 37 of the Equal Status (Amendment) Act. Two Ministers came in to debate that and it was agreed that this issue would go to the new Irish human rights and equality commission, if it is established relatively soon.

New ideas have been generated even in the past couple of years, and these are just a couple of examples. However, this is before we have reformed the House. Senators Crown, Quinn and I prepared two big Bills with many recommendations for reform that would make this House distinct from the Dáil and enable it to have perhaps even more expertise than it does now and greater diversity. There has been a lot of discussion, debate and reflection on the two big Bills on Seanad reform that are here but sitting waiting.

Let us contrast that with the ideas in regard to Dáil reform. This is where I am quite surprised, and perhaps this is my political naivete, given I have only been a politician a couple of years. I think that is part of my identity-----