Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am not feeling a lot of love for this Bill on the Government benches. If this was Facebook, the relationship status between the Government and the Bill would be complicated at best, and divorced in some instances. Every Deputy should study Deputy Tuffy's contribution before voting on the Bill because she outlined the strengths of the current Seanad and what it can do. A large number Government Deputies are saying they want a referendum but will be voting "No". Some, like Deputy Ferris, are calling for a reform option. The only way to change the options being presented to the people is to vote against this Bill. Deputy Olivia Mitchell and other Government Deputies have stated that as the Bill is solely concerned with providing for a referendum they are happy to support it and went on to spend their remaining eight or nine minutes having a go at the Opposition and, as usual, throwing in matters that have nothing to do with the debate. It is clear that the Government lacks the support of its dressing room in regard to this Bill. The team captain and chairman of the board might be for it but the players clearly do not have confidence in the chairman. That is a serious issue.

Everyone agrees that the Seanad is in need of reform but the notion put forward by the Taoiseach that it slept through the crisis is very unfair. The Financial Regulator slept through the crisis but is anyone suggesting that we should abolish that office? The regulator was instead strengthened and given additional powers. That is what we need to do with the Seanad. I do not want to personalise my arguments but it is disingenuous of the Taoiseach to make such an accusation given that he made a deliberate decision on becoming leader of Fine Gael in 2002 that the Seanad would be used specifically as a means of getting people into this Chamber, in the process ending the Seanad careers of distinguished Senators like Maurice Manning, who might have been in a position to sound alarm bells. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, was a Member of the Seanad between 2002 and 2007. I am sure if he was to make a confession about the focus of his efforts during that period, he would say it was on getting back into this Chamber.

Deputy Tuffy referred to the many Senators over the years who had the capacity to hold the Government to account. As a Minister of State, I found that the contributions from Independent Senators, in particular, enhanced legislation, added to the quality of debates and made me think about the proposals I was making to the Chamber. I acknowledge that the Seanad needs reform but we should not throw it out on the basis of a populist bandwagon in the same way that we abolished town councils and direct elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta. Running away from democracy is not the way to reform our nation. Blaming institutions for causing the crisis or sleepwalking through it is not a justifiable reason to abolish them without first attempting reform.

Reform could and should include a Seanad that is directly elected on the same day as the general election, as opposed to afterwards, so that it does not become a holding chamber for former or future Deputies. I agree with the proposal that it should have a 50:50 gender ratio. We need to shake up our Parliament and, while admirable efforts are being made on temporary gender quotas, there is potential for the Upper House to make a significant difference in this regard.

I continue to believe that a reformed Seanad can reflect vocational panels. Vocations can still make a contribution in this country and people with specific interests can bring their experience to the challenge of legislating. It should reflect an all-island ethos. Deputy Tuffy and others have reflected on those who came from the northern part of the island to serve in the Seanad over the years. In a week when the G8 met in Enniskillen, which is the home town of former Senator Gordon Wilson, we should consider the contributions that he made to the House. Gordon Wilson, John Robb, Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rogers all used the Seanad as a constitutional institution when others were having recourse to the armalite. These were individuals with the courage to represent the views of their people in a Parliament when others were determined to use violence to get rid of them. The Seanad gave them that chance and it can become an all-island institution working with cross-Border bodies such as those prescribed under the Good Friday Agreement.

A number of Deputies noted at last week's meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts that the information which had emerged would have more appropriately been addressed prior to the appointment of the Chairman. A directly elected Seanad could have a role in scrutinising appointments to Dáil and joint committees in order to challenge the clubby atmosphere of this Chamber. Those who seek to be elected Chair of a committee would make him or herself available to answer questions. The appointment of an European Commissioner could also be scrutinised. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was dismissive of the proposal that the Seanad would take responsibility for EU scrutiny. Let us face the fact that this House does not do EU scrutiny particularly well. Committees include it on their agendas and we receive fantastic briefings from the European service and the Library and Research Service but issues tend to be discussed at the beginning or end of committee meetings. Many issues that impact on our daily lives come through cracks that would not exist under a properly resourced Chamber. Proposals could be sent on to this House accompanied by the views of Senators with experience in the relevant areas.

We should completely abolish the university panels, although they served this country well it he past. Over the years the TCD and NUI panels gave us excellent Senators who stood against the consensus and challenged the way things were done. I refer to people like Mary Robinson, T.K. Whitaker and others with distinguished parliamentary careers. However, they belong to a different era.

If this referendum is lost, I suspect the Government will not initiate reform. At the end of the day, Government Deputies will look to the Seanad as a lifeboat in the event of the tide going out on the coalition. If Members want a reform option to be included on the ballot paper, they need to vote this legislation down. They can support the Bill while announcing they will vote "No" in the referendum but that means they are depriving themselves of the option of reform. There is no sense in supporting the Bill if the only choice in the referendum is between killing the Seanad or keeping it alive.

See this speech in context