Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt that political reform is needed. I am here just over four years and I can share the frustration, disappointment and anger at how business is done. On the one hand we have rushed legislation, with increasing use of the guillotine, and on the other hand it can take an inordinate amount of time to get business done. One answer was to increase the size of the committee system but I must ask how productive that has been.

We also see serious inequalities when it comes to representation. There is a lack of democracy vis-à-vis the Independent Members of this House because we do not have the same rights and opportunities as the members of political parties. Most glaring of all is the lack of detailed, comprehensive discussion on reform of the Seanad. It is as if political reform equals reducing the number of TDs and abolishing the Seanad, without adequate discussion and that will tick the box on political reform.

When one talks about political reform, it is first important to look at the underlying reasons for introducing it, that is, the principles under which it has to happen. For me, it has to happen on the basis of greater democracy, more transparency and more accountability. A reformed Seanad could play a significant role in providing greater democracy, accountability and transparency. However, the Irish electorate is not being given a real choice here, a wider choice which includes the option of a reformed Seanad. If the referendum is carried, the Senate is gone but if it is lost, it stays as it is. I do not think anybody wants it to stay as it is.

I wish to acknowledge the work of the Seanad in the scrutiny of legislation. The perspectives of Senators have added to legislation and debates and produced worthwhile amendments. It must also be acknowledged that the Senate has a greater representation of women than the Lower House. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Senator David Norris in initiating the first ever debate on AIDS, introducing the Civil Partnership Bill and calling for a special committee of inquiry in to the use of Shannon Airport for rendition flights. The latter move was later subverted by a group of local councillors in the Shannon area. The Seanad also saw the first resolutions against cluster munitions and Members did challenge the Celtic tiger and the bank guarantee.

There is no doubt about the need for reform and the first area is in the way in which members of the House are elected, which is not democratic. There has been a long debate over many years on the need for reform and many Governments, of varying political hues, have had the opportunity to do something on reform but did nothing. One must ask why and the answer is that it suited the political parties because of the way they used the Senate. While not wishing to be disparaging to individual members of the Senate, we all know the way the parties used the House as a training ground for new recruits or a reward for service. Maybe that did produce good Senators. Indeed, I am sure it did but the process was extremely restrictive and undemocratic. I have never seen such a complicated and convoluted system of electing people as that which operates through the panels. As a university graduate I have a vote on the university panel, but I do not see why, in a democracy, one citizen should have an extra right because he or she happened to get a third-level education.

I am one of the independent members on the Convention on the Constitution and one of the topics for consideration by the convention is Dáil electoral reform. Most people at the convention believed that we really should have been looking at political reform and Dáil reform that is not just confined to electoral reform. I cannot understand why reform of the Senate was not on our agenda. An attempt was made to include it more recently but I understand the reasoning of the Chairman, Mr. Tom Arnold, that the convention could not really add any more topics to the eight that it was given. It was suggested that it could be added later but there is no point in it being considered under "other relevant constitutional amendments" because by that time it could be abolished. One must ask why it was not included in the first place. Independent members have played a very significant role in the Senate, as have the Taoiseach's nominees this time around, who did not fall in along party political lines.

I am all for doing more with less, as long as that is applied to everybody. One of the arguments against the Senate is that it is too costly but costs will be involved in what is being presented as the alternative, that is the wider committee system. Furthermore, those countries with one chamber also have a much stronger and better-resourced system of local government, so that will involve a cost too. I believe there is a role for reformed, more democratic elected Senate, perhaps smaller than the one we have now. The Senate could play an important role in scrutinising EU legislation because I do not think the Oireachtas committees have the time to do that properly. It could also play a role in revising Government programmes, furthering public consultation and direct democracy, as well as in reducing the highly concentrated power that lies with the Executive in this country. Tá sé riachtanach go mbeidh níos mó díospóireachta ann maidir le hathchóiriú an tSeanaid in ionad é a scriosadh ar fad.

See this speech in context