David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

-----one of the matters on which they comment is the fact that the Dáil, when important debates are taking place, is often empty, and that is not an issue that is peculiar to the Seanad.

We must look at a number of matters in looking at the future of the Seanad. There have been many position papers put forward in the past by individuals, political parties and organisations. Many consultation processes took place - one here under the stewardship of then Leader of the Seanad, Mary O'Rourke. I took part in one of those representing Sinn Féin when I was a city councillor. The establishment and various different political parties in power never implemented any of those proposals and that is why we see those same parties who were in government in the past simply going for the abolition option when they never looked at implementing any of the proposals put forward, both by Senators and individuals, to make the Seanad more relevant.

There are a number of critical issues if we want to succeed in having a second Chamber. The first is it should be smaller. Sixty Members is too many. I would favour something like 32 Senators, one for each county in Ireland. Perhaps more Senators could represent the Irish Diaspora, but 60 is too many.

The Seanad must be relevant which means it must have a clear purpose. We should not make any apologies for having a role in shaping legislation. That is important. We need to offer checks and balances against the Dáil.

Part of the problem, which also is not peculiar to the Seanad, is our system of governance where the Executive essentially controls legislation. Many will argue that one can table amendments and those amendments are not accepted, but how many Opposition amendments in the Dáil are accepted? It is not any different in the Dáil. It is exactly the same.

We have similar debates to those in the Dáil. Often it is said that the quality of debate can be better in the Seanad. The problem is not necessarily the lack of power the Seanad has in terms of legislation. The problem is that the Executive has far too much power and if one looks at other models in Europe and across the world, that is not the case.

If the Seanad is to have any relevance, people must have an affinity, have ownership and be able to vote for those who sit in these Chambers. Meaning no disrespect to anybody who has been appointed, I do not like any system where people are appointed to positions where they can make decisions. There are excellent Senators who were appointed, but that should have no place in any reformed Seanad. I also do not believe that Senators should be elected through the university panels. They should be elected by those across the State on the basis of one person, one vote, through panels, or a list system.

Talking shops in and of themselves are not a good thing and I would be very critical of, for example, the health forums. They are a good example of a talking shop where politicians do not have the power to hold decision makers in the health service to account. We have powers in this House, particularly with regard to scrutinising legislation but sometimes it is also important to create space for debate. We have had a lot of good debates in this House, where Ministers were not here to discuss a particular motion but were here to tease out issues which are important. It does not always have to be about amendments and legislation. We can have as much legislation as we want - some argue that we have too much - but it is an important part of any democracy that we create space to have proper informed debate, where statements can be made, people can offer views and from that process, legislation can flow. We should not make any apologies for that being part of what this House does.

It will be up to the people to decide on the future of the Seanad and a referendum should go ahead. I do not like the fact that there are only two options, namely, "Yes" or "No". That is a mistake. Many position papers, policy documents, ideas and suggestions on the Seanad have been put forward in the past, including the one we are discussing today. We have a constitutional convention which is examining the future of the Constitution and the fact that the Seanad is not being discussed in that forum is absolutely nonsensical. Imagine if members of the convention had the opportunity to discuss all of this. The fact that this referendum is happening because of the capriciousness, or stubbornness, of the Taoiseach is wrong. The constitutional convention would have been the best forum to tease this out and then have a referendum. Obviously, the Government did not go with that option and we will have a referendum. My party will not be supporting any referendum which seeks the abolition of the Seanad. We will fight for a reformed, democratic Seanad that is relevant and that can act as a check and balance against the Dáil. Despite the fact that it may be unpopular, it is the right thing to do because we need to make sure that in the current economic downturn, one of the institutions of this State, one of the arms of the Oireachtas, is not simply severed at the whim of one politician or a group of politicians. That is not political reform and those who believe it is are kidding themselves. That strong argument will be made by my party during the course of any referendum campaign.