Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I disagree with Senator Susan O'Keeffe in that the Seanad is an especially appropriate forum in which to debate radical Seanad reform. According to voices in the press today, this debate will involve Senators discussing themselves and their jobs, but that is not the case. We are discussing the State and the country, the Seanad and the system of checks and balances. Perhaps none of the Senators present will return to any new Seanad.

I welcome this debate on radical Seanad reform and commend Senators Feargal Quinn, Katherine Zappone and others on the publication of their consultation document. The debate on the future of the Seanad has been ongoing for many years. Of the 11 reports published on the issue, none has been implemented. Perhaps if action had been taken on foot of some of them, we would have an improved and reformed Seanad. I applaud all of the Senators who contributed to the reports in question. The document before us proposes a range of measures to transform the Seanad without the need for constitutional change.

It is time to give people an opportunity to vote on the Seanad. People must be informed and given a voice. Debates such as this will inform people about the Seanad. If one were to ask any member of the public what the Seanad does, one would be given a blank stare. The most recent and extensive report published on the issue of Seanad reform was produced by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in 2003. None of the 11 reports on Seanad reform advocated abolition of the House. Instead, they all advocated reform and the report before us proposes reform through legislation. I do not agree with that proposal because the debate has moved beyond that point. I advocate instead holding what is known as a "preferendum" rather than a referendum. People should be given three choices, namely, abolition, reform and one other option.

A fundamental problem with the Seanad in its current guise is the electoral system and representation, which do not extend to wider society and are correctly described in the consultation paper as being over-politicised. The House was not highly politicised when it was established, but the position changed under President de Valera. The Seanad was abolished previously because Members of the Lower House did not like it. We are back in the position that obtained in 1937.

The Seanad was established for a worthy reason, namely, to ensure legislation was critically examined. We must ask ourselves whether the House is fulfilling that role. Critical analysis is sometimes stymied by the Whip system. My party Whip is a good person who works the system. For this reason, I propose changing the system rather than the person. The Government has advocated change and this document also proposes changes. When the Seanad was founded, its emphasis on providing a voice for civic society enabled it to offer opportunities for building bridges to citizens. It was supposed to develop into a political platform in which citizens representing different sections of society would be given a voice and an opportunity to demand from the Government answers to difficult questions. I am not certain the Seanad demands answers to difficult questions today because it did not develop as envisaged. For this reason, I commend the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, for pursuing change by inviting citizens to come before us. I also commend the Independent Senators who advocate giving citizens a voice in the Chamber. While the citizens present in the Visitors Gallery may not speak today, perhaps they will be able to do so if they vote for a reformed Seanad.

The cost of the Seanad is frequently raised in the debate on the future of the House. The consultation document suggests it costs ¤10 million per annum. Senator Paul Bradford noted that Government advisers cost as much as the House. How can one compare a cost of ¤4.7 million for advisers and ¤4.2 million for Senators? We should allow people an opportunity to get value for money in a democratically elected Seanad.

I note that the first commission appointed to make recommendations on the Seanad proposed quotas for women and those competent in Irish. The commission members were enlightened and well ahead of their time because the Government is only now getting around to introducing quotas for women.

Senators have noted that the Constitution makes 75 references to the Seanad. Eminent barristers will be able to circumvent this issue by rewriting the Constitution after a referendum or preferendum has been held.

One of the contributors to the report before us was the former Minister and Attorney General, Mr. Michael McDowell. From memory, I believe he described the Seanad as a crèche for failed politicians. He was, however, man enough to change his mind when he saw what the Seanad did.