Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Leader for arranging this debate so speedily and thank Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone, with Mr. Michael McDowell, Mr. Noel Whelan and former Senator Joe O'Toole, for preparing this document. I am not sure about the timeliness of this debate, as it may be somewhat premature. However, that opinion may not be shared. I do not agree with everything contained in the report, but I welcome it as a serious effort. The debate may be premature because the country is facing difficulties and we will be taking over the Presidency of the European Union during the first half of next year. Perhaps this debate would be better held in one year's time, but nonetheless I welcome public discussion on the matter. I do not want to agree with some contributors who spoke earlier, but there are people in society who are more important than us. Rightly or wrongly, we are seen as having a vested interest and, to be frank, we do. I do not know of a single Senator or of many in the other House who would vote in favour of abolition of the Seanad in a secret ballot.

I welcome what has happened in the Seanad by way of the public consultation committee, question and answer sessions with Ministers and the other means through which we are trying to give communities a say. We have backed the Leader in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the scrutiny of European affairs. The volume of European legislation and directives being transposed into Irish law is considerable and we have to deal with the issues arising in the short-term without duplication of efforts or encroaching on the work of other Oireachtas committees. However, there is still plenty to be done. We have often raised the question of scrutinising senior public servants and appointments to State boards. The Seanad, like a certain other famous institution in another country, could do an admirable job in that regard.

Checks and balances are important, as are second opinions.

Across the floor is the distinguished consultant who, I am sure, would concur on the need to obtain a second opinion, which is needed in all walks of life and the provision of which has been one of the values of the Seanad which, as we would all agree, is a more reflective and less partisan Chamber and, on balance, has been more objective. On the legislation it has to deal with, it has performed its function very well. I think of the Leas-Chathaoirlech and all the efforts he has made, as well as those of all other Members. I admire the work done by all Members in dealing with legislation. This Seanad has seen improvements. The Leader has had more Bills initiated in this House and continues to work in that regard with the support of all Members. In regard to the constitutional requirement on the scrutinising of legislation, the Seanad has performed well, as we saw today and yesterday in the debate on the Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012.

The eminent senior counsel, former Attorney General and Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell, has been referred to by others. I admired his input in this House and conversion in regard to its role. He had some famous jousts with many Members, not least Senator Maurice Cummins who was our spokesman on justice when in opposition. He spent many hours in the House arguing with him which, perhaps, helped to change his mind. Abolition of itself, as Mr. McDowell has said, would leave the Constitution a mutilated wreck. He has outlined that it would require 75 amendments to the Constitution and the deletion of entire articles, many of which contain some very important safeguards. Would the public like to see these safeguards being swept away?

These are important matters to be referred to in the debate. As the Leas-Chathaoirleach is well aware, given his legal background, the President may only be impeached by both Houses; the same applies to a judge. The Comptroller and Auditor General who is accountable to the Dáil, through the Committee of Public Accounts, cannot be removed without the say-so of this House. Article 29 provides for the prior approval of the Seanad for EU proposals for enhanced co-operation and the opting out by Ireland from EU measures on freedom, security and justice issues. The House has to be involved in dealing with these issues. Likewise, the Government's capacity to retain the requirement for unanimity on European Union matters requires the prior approval of the Seanad. These are all vitally important checks and balances.

Other than what I have said, I am not taking a position. I am not sure if any Member would vote for abolition. I am sure there will be more time for debate, as these are early days. I commend the efforts of our two colleagues and those with whom they collaborated in compiling this document. I look forward to listening to the public debate that will take place on the issue.