Rónán Mullen (Independent)

We have moved from being somewhat hopeful to very disappointed to massively disappointed and it seems that amounts to progress around here. It is regrettable that, given all the reports that have been produced during the years involving Members of this House and the efforts of Senator O'Toole and others to advance the issue, we are being mocked, not only by the failure to obtain clarity on what will happen and when, but also by the technique the Government sometimes uses in picking out and rubbishing a small net point in what has been proposed in order to be seen to be making a substantive argument.

The example I want to pick is the pathetic argument and sheer waste of time by the Government in addressing the point that Senator O'Toole is proposing an increase in the overall number of Members of the Seanad, albeit by one, rather than five as previously proposed. It makes a mockery of the debate to focus on such a point and engage in posturing in respect of concern for the public purse. God knows the Government has wasted enough money and I need not recount the various white elephants about which the public has heard in recent years. Spending time on making such a pathetic argument shows how little thought has been given the Government's response to the motion. It is very disappointing. Everybody knows we would be happy with a Seanad with 60 Members, if only there was a proper system for electing its Members.

We must accept that our parliamentary system has fallen into disrepute in recent years. There is widespread awareness of how the Oireachtas has failed to hold the Government to account. We can look at the economic crisis and can see instances of how the hard questions were not asked, either by backbenchers on the Government side or by Opposition Members. We have a weak parliamentary system and there seems to be no will to change it. In this context, I would like to state that, unlike some of my colleagues, I believe we do need to strengthen the role of the Seanad. As our parliamentary system has failed to hold the Government to account, let us look at giving more powers to the Seanad. Let us look at a future where the Seanad might vote against Government legislation and the sky would not fall, much less the Government. If Senators were allowed to vote against Government legislation, they might be less subject to the party Whip and in that way there might be a genuine debate about proposals instead of the nod and wink when we make sensible suggestions on legislation and a Minister glances at his or her civil servants who say "no can do" and the Minister offers a glib refusal without ever engaging intellectually or in any substantive way with what has actually been proposed.

We should look at a strengthened Seanad which would not merely scrutinise public appointments or prison visitation committees, although we could certainly usefully spend some time doing this type of work, but would also have the power to knock down badly thought out or problematic legislation. This will only happen if we change the way the Seanad is elected, making it more directly accountable to the people and in some way seeking to mitigate the negative aspects of the party Whip system as it operates in the other House. We should take seriously the idea that the Seanad should be a forum for people with alternative and varied ideas about issues who would have the power to force back legislation if it was desired to do so.

Somebody mentioned one could not justify how the House of Lords was selected but often it manages to do the job. Turning back legislation happens more often in Britain, where legislation from the House of Commons is turned back by the House of Lords. Sometimes it even suits the House of Commons to hide behind the skirt of the House of Lords, so to speak. The Leader would have a conniption if the Government even lost a vote on the Order of Business, on something as pathetic as that. This is not taking democracy seriously; it is contributing to the circumstances whereby we are a laughing stock among the public. It is simply no argument for the Leader to state the low turnout in graduate elections for university seats is relevant when he claims 99% or 99.5% vote under the panel system. Be honest with people-----