Catherine Noone (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this debate and thank Senators Quinn and Zappone and others who were involved for their hospitality last Friday. I was delighted to go along, as a newer and younger Member, and meet so many former Senators who are still so interested in the Seanad as an institution and to hear their words of wisdom.

There is no doubt that the Seanad is at a pivotal time. It can either become a more relevant institution by proposing new ideas, representing other voices and showing why Ireland needs a second Chamber, or it can go into the referendum facing a near certain fate. In short, it can either reform or die. The suggestions in the document we are discussing are extremely useful and it puts the debate on the agenda.

I wish to focus on a number of problems with the Seanad in its current form, one of which is the whip system. There is nothing wrong with the person who acts as Whip but the system itself does not make any sense. If one goes back to why the Seanad was created, the idea was that it would be a checks and balance system for the Lower House. The one fundamental change we could make would be to abolish the whip system. That would radically reform the entire body politic. As others have said, the electoral system for this House is also a serious weakness.

The cost argument is a crude one. I know we are in very difficult times and are having to make cuts in areas like disability services, but Mr. Michael McDowell gave some very useful examples of cost comparisons that can be made and Senator Bradford has already mentioned the cost of advisors. There are all sorts of things that we spend money on in this state and the Seanad is a really easy target. I am sure there are plenty of people who would be prepared to be Senators and only accept expenses if it came down to the cost. The cost argument is quite weak although because it is populist, it is quite effective.

In terms of the things that are wrong, the body politic itself has damaged the Seanad. As Senator Keane pointed out, it was always seen as a crèche or a retirement home and the belief was that Senators were only here because they really wanted to be somewhere else. The entire body politic is at fault. Even Senator Cullinane, whom I respect, has said that he does not intend to be here after the next election but in the Lower House. That type of thinking is, unfortunately, why the Seanad is where it is today. Less respect has been shown to it as an institution because Members would rather be elsewhere, for reasons that others have alluded to, chiefly because the power rests in the Lower House.

When thinking about Seanad reform, we must frame it in context. We are absolutely certain that it will face a referendum. Senator Keane has alluded to a preferendum but I understand, although I am open to correction, that a preferendum is not currently possible under the Constitution. Therefore, it must be either a "Yes" or "No" option. There is no possibility of a preferendum, which is unfortunate, because that would show us what people think on the matter. To even introduce the notion of anything else is a red herring. There will be no reform option in the referendum. As such, we need to frame the issue of reform as something that will be promised in the referendum and introduced either before or immediately thereafter. This reframing of context needs to happen very soon which is why this discussion and the document before us are very useful.

Seanad reform is necessary, especially regarding the electoral system. As colleagues have said, under a reformed electoral system, it is unlikely that many of us here today would be sitting in this Chamber, but that is okay. As Senator Gilroy said, I do not expect to be in a reformed Seanad. It has been suggested that the very fact that we are here, speaking for our jobs, is cynical. Perhaps some people are here only in an effort to save their own position but the vast majority of us see the value of this Chamber.

I wish to cite one instance that highlights how effective the Seanad could have been in the past. In 2008, a discussion took place on the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act. The then Senator Frances Fitzgerald said "...it is not possible, unfortunately, to amend this legislation... in the Seanad and we are merely debating and giving our point of view on it here today." That line of thinking is so familiar to me and it still seems to be the case. Senator Fitzgerald went on to say "We consider a question and answer session on this matter to be very important...", but such a session never came in the desired format. This was unfortunate and many would now reflect that the Seanad could have had a vital role in questioning and scrutinising that Act. During the subsequent statements session, many prescient comments relating to the cost of the scheme and the number of Government members on the board were made. I cannot help but wonder now whether, if we had had a reformed Seanad then, with more powers, teeth and responsibility, we could have arrived at a different outcome on this matter and many other important issues.