Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this important topic. I am sure this will be the first of many occasions on which we will be afforded the opportunity to discuss Seanad reform, a matter on which I have much to say. Given the time constraints, I will be obliged to withhold a great deal of what I wish to say until a later date. I congratulate Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone and their colleagues on the work they did in producing this consultation paper for our consideration. I attended the launch on Friday last and what was said certainly provided much food for thought.

Asking any Government of any hue or any group of Members of Dáil Éireann to consider the future of Seanad Éireann is akin to asking Dracula to reform the Irish Blood Transfusion Service. It is not in the interests of the Dáil or any Government to have a strong Seanad. That is simply how politics works in this country. We are engaging in this debate at a time when there has never been a more urgent need for new politics and new standards in politics. In the light of the number of documents that have been written about the need for new politics, it is easy to become cynical. Any development of new politics must begin with the Dáil, the electoral system and the relationship between the Government and the Oireachtas. It is in these areas that the focus of political reform must rest.

I read a recent Government report on political reform and really did not know whether I should laugh or cry. It provides information on the progress being made on political reform and indicates that the Dáil now sits one Friday each month. As far as I am aware, no questions can be asked and no votes can be taken during those Friday sittings, but this is heralded as political reform. It is time we got real with regard to political reform. Members of this and the Lower House must recognise what every citizen knows, namely, that massive political reform is required as a matter of urgency. Such reform is required in this House, but it is also required in the Lower House and at all levels of government. We should allow the debate in this regard to begin, but we must ensure it will be serious and fair rather than superficial.

There are many reasons to criticise Seanad Éireann. Those who criticise what we do present different planks to support their arguments.

The first well known plank is a silly, immature argument about the cost. It is unfortunate that people have been allowed to present the argument that Seanad Éireann is costing ¤25 million or ¤30 million per annum. To put it mildly, that is a deliberate falsehood. If the Government wants to save money and I am in favour of saving money, it should look at the cost of Government advisers and the cost of the apparatus of government which has been built up in the past ten or 20 years. Is one Government adviser worth three elected Senators? In my view, the answer is "No". Is one unelected Government adviser worth two elected Senators? I do not think so. If people want to argue about the cost of politics, they are looking at the wrong House. It is possible that Seanad Éireann costs ¤5 million or ¤10 million per annum under its current structure but in my view the taxpayer is getting value for money. I do not know of any society, any country, any civilisation, which benefited from less democracy rather than more. Some people will say that we are a talking shop. I think there is value in a talking shop. The problems of Northern Ireland and many other such problems across the globe would not be solved without dialogue and talking, therefore, sometimes talking shops are important.

This House has always been a reflective Chamber where difficult subjects which may not be approached with ease in the other House have been dealt with in a fair and balanced fashion. To those who say we are a talking shop I would say that we are the House which initially dealt with subjects which are very sensitive in Ireland such as divorce, family planning, Northern Ireland, gay rights, etc. Those subjects were a no-go in the other House but here in this House of calm debate those topics were debated and dealt with. This is a role we can play in the future.

The system for election to the House comes up for much mention. I refer to the document produced by Senators Quinn and Zappone and others which is so useful in this regard. Our electoral system has served its purpose and probably has passed its sell-by date and needs to be reviewed. We must all concede that there has to be some form of universal franchise for the Seanad and every citizen must have a role in electing the Seanad. When that involvement with the political system is introduced there will be a different public response. The current Seanad electoral system is confusing both for those who are elected and certainly for the people on the outside. If people do not understand an electoral system they have a mental difficulty with the whole concept. We are beneficiaries of the present electoral system and we have to be brave enough to admit to ourselves that in a new type of Seanad with a new electoral structure and system it is possible that most of us will never have the opportunity to serve here again. However, this debate must not be about saving our personal seats but rather it must be about saving Seanad Éireann and a new electoral system must be part of that equation. One possible scenario has been presented by Senator Quinn and other Senators that there would be five panels and a universal franchise. This is a very worthwhile suggestion.

I refer to a very fine document produced by Fine Gael in the summer before the autumn when we went into an abolition mode. Our official Fine Gael policy of June 2009 - a policy which was very mature and far-seeing - suggested that approximately half of the Members of the Seanad would be directly elected by the public on the same day as the European elections. I hope we will consider that suggestion. We have a lot to talk about and it will require more than one debate. Our first position must be that a Seanad that has served this country with such distinction and which provided a political forum for people such as W.B. Yeats, Mary Robinson, John A. Murphy, Gordon Wilson and Douglas Hyde and many more, is a House worthy not just of respect but is also worthy to be retained. We must reflect on the need for radical change and in tandem with the radical change in politics which is urgently required. Let us not be the whipping boys of those who are unwilling to reform their own House.