David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this debate and compliment the authors of the document, which is very useful. I do not agree with all of it and some of it is vague.

The best part is the last, which is very clear, direct and specific on the issue of costs and nails the lie that there would be significant savings to the Exchequer. This information comes from an independent source, namely, the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Kieran Coughlan. We now know that the estimate of ¤150 million is grossly inflated, but even if it was accurate, it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the nonsense of bailing out the banks. I was one of the voices in this House who spoke against the bailout and gave the reasons and figures behind my argument. I was right, but what we said was not reported. I recall several dramatic occasions in this House, including one morning at 3 a.m. when former Senator Joe O?Toole and I managed to have inserted significant amendments into the legislation on NAMA to make it accountable to the people through the Oireachtas, but there was no coverage. That is a tragedy.

It is not all one way because there are also faults on this side. If this is a debating Chamber, we need an audience, for which we require the co-operation of the media. I do not wish to trash or attack the media, but in a democracy we need coverage. There must be an end to the pap and nonsense about empty benches. Intelligent Irish taxpayers would know they were being cheated if this place was full throughout the entire session because we would not be doing our other work. Everybody knows we have television monitors, but it is a cheap and easy shot. It is stupid. I spent this morning at the annual conference of the International Bar Association, at which I addressed practitioners of law as a legislator. I was able to speak about some of our achievements which were of interest to members of the association. When I returned to Leinster House, I attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. So what if my seat was empty, except when I spoke on the children?s right referendum? I often work between 16 and 18 hours a day. Would I really be working if I was sitting in the Chamber? I do not think so. Even somebody of limited intelligence would be able to see that. Therefore, let us nail that lie.

I have an affection for this place. It is a beautiful environment and this august Chamber represents what the country can do. It can give us hope. The magnificent 18th century ceiling is the handiwork of Michael Stapleton, but when I first came here, the Chamber was closed because the central section had started to collapse. During tours people would remark about the great talent and wonderful work on exhibit and lament that crafts people could no longer do similar work. They can, however. The ceiling was replaced within the last 20 years by young Irish crafts people, which gives me hope. We can use the Seanad to give hope to young people.

There were occasions in this House when we did not agree. Social progress would have been seriously inhibited in this country without the existence of Seanad Éireann. When the HIV pandemic was starting 20 years ago, the Dáil would not touch the matter with a barge pole, but we held a magnificent debate on it after a briefing given to us in Buswell?s Hotel by a priest and a doctor. They were unimpeachable people. All the silliness was drained from the subject and we had a debate of which we could be proud. I spoke about civil partnership legislation during my address to the International Bar Association. That legislation was initiated in this House. It would not have been introduced as rapidly or as well without the debates we started ten years ago. I was proud to be a Member of this House on the day the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabiting Couples Bill 2012 was passed. I would not have had a chance of getting elected to anything in this country 25 years ago, other than Seanad Éireann. Now I might have a chance of being elected to something. That diversity is important, as we need to provide a range of voices.

The amputation of one arm of democracy would be a dangerous step. I do not impugn anybody?s motives, but the coalition has a full house in the county councils, the Seanad, the Dáil and the Presidency. The President is a man of extraordinary brilliance and independence of mind and fulfils his role wonderfully, but he came through the party system. Every single lever of power is dominated by the party system, but dissenting voices can be heard in this Chamber in which one can hear debates on issues of significance. The electoral process is flawed. Everybody in this House was properly elected under the Constitution drafted by Mr. de Valera who made the mistake of abolishing the Seanad in 1936 and had to restore it one year later. Let us not waste that time. We need to consider reform, but we must be careful about being too populist. For the past 25 years I have argued that the university Senators? process has worked reasonably well, partly because of the process whereby the nominating body confers on the ordinary membership the right to vote. Some wonderful groups act as nominating bodies, but they lack the power to vote. That needs to be examined, but we also need to ensure the voting body is not so large that it becomes unmanageable and impossible.

We are all serious about Seanad reform. However, we were never serious about it in the past. Time after time I sat on committees which made recommendations that received all-party agreement - I have tabled some of these proposals, perhaps mischievously ? but they were voted down by the incumbent Government. That is a shame, but we have woken up and smelled the coffee. We can do a good job of introducing real reform to an essential part of our democracy.