Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank the House for its consideration of this Bill, which is important. When discussions took place last Monday in my Department about the progress of the Bill, my party and the Green Party, which I fully acknowledge was outside government, insisted upon the Seanad sitting on a Saturday. That was important because it meant the debate in the Seanad was not truncated to one day in its consideration of all Stages of the Bill. Senator Norris illustrated one way how it was of value that the House sat to consider the Bill in detail.

I have always found the Seanad's consideration of legislation in detail to be a valuable constitutional provision. In the context of the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Bill 2010, which we were criticised for rushing before Christmas, there was no detailed, substantive debate in the Dáil on it whereas the Committee Stage debate in the Seanad dealt with half its provisions. That, I understand, was of considerable assistance to the Council of State when it had to consider the issue of advising the President of its opinion on whether she should refer the Bill to the Supreme Court.

All this points to the fact that in the contemporary debate about the utility of a second House, there is real value in a second House. There will be a public focus on this issue in the months after the general election because the issue has been raised and it is inevitable that action will be expected by the public on this issue in the course of the next Dáil. It is politically inevitable at this stage, given the issue was raised by the Fine Gael Party. It will not get away with electing a vast number of Senators and then pretending it will not change the Seanad or with coming to an arrangement with another party whereby it will not change the Seanad and using that as a get out of jail clause. Seanad reform will happen.