Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím roimh an deis mo thuairimí agus tuairimí Sinn Féin a thabhairt ar an tuairisc iontach spéisiúil agus iontach maith seo. I dtosach báire, ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis na húdair, go háirithe leis an Seanadóir Zappone agus an Seanadóir Quinn a tharraing an tuarascáil seo le chéile agus a fuair tuairimí ó chuid mhaith daoine éagsúla maidir leis an ábhar seo. I ndáiríre, tá sé deacair dúinn labhairt orainn féin agus ní bheinn ag glaoch le haghaidh díospóireachta den chineál seo. Ach os rud é go bhfuil sé ann, tá sé tábhachtach páirt a ghlacadh ann mar níor mhaith linn go mbeadh daoine ag rá go bhfuil muid ag tochas ar ár gciorcailín fhéin. Sin ráite, tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuil muid ag fáil deise an t-ábhar a phlé.

Tá sé dochreidte go bhfuil an Taoiseach fós ag rá go bhfuil sé ag brú chun cinn le reifreann ar an Seanad, gan aon phlé a bheith á dhéanamh agus gan é a bheith curtha os comhair an chonartha atá ag plé leis an mBunreacht sa tionól bunreachtúil.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of the future of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas and wish, in particular, to commend the very good consultation paper on radical Seanad reform and all those involved in it, including Senators Quinn and Zappone and others outside this House. There are many points worthy of consideration in this document. I will not go through all of them and I will try not to repeat the points other Senators have already highlighted, although I will note a few key points from my perspective.

We are having this debate because, as the report notes on page 26 and as has been highlighted by previous reports on Seanad reform, the Chamber lacks a clear and distinctive role and is, in many respects, seen to be merely mimicking the Dáil. This is very much the case, However, as this and numerous other reports have highlighted, and as my party has highlighted, there is an infinite number of purposes a second chamber could usefully fulfil and which would add to the political life of the State if only we were willing to consider them. A number of these suggestions mirror those I have previously highlighted in this Chamber. Point 8.4 on page 26 gives a considerable and persuasive exposition of the role the Seanad could undertake in scrutinising European legislation. As a state, we have failed to really engage with this whole process and I note Senator Colm Burke also alluded to this.

The fiasco surrounding the septic tanks issue and the turf cutting debacle shows what the costs can be when we do not have an eye to what legislation is passing through the EU and through these institutions as statutory instruments. I welcome the new weekly update we get of legislation that is laid before the Houses. There is a substantial amount of documentation every week, much of it from the EU, which we do not have time to debate in these Houses or for which time is not set aside and some of that needs to be debated and cross-checked.

There is a value in the Seanad examining ordinary legislation. This report highlights that the Seanad has played a considerable part in improving legislation over the years, with point 5.4 highlighting examples where Seanad suggestions have later reappeared as Bills such as in the case of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011.

The report also highlights the very obvious need to make the Seanad more democratic. We have consistently made clear that we believe the Seanad in its current form is not acceptable. This is due to its limited function and clearly because its manner of election is totally anti-democratic and elitist. It is for that reason the public considers that its function is limited. The report usefully highlights that even without constitutional reform we can make the elections to the Seanad more democratic by expanding the franchise and even to the point of providing for a substantial bulk of the Seanad to be directly elected. There are many ways in which people could be elected, whether through the European constituencies, through a list-type system format or through the panels and assigning voters to panels. However, clearly it is not appropriate to have a House of the Oireachtas where ordinary citizens do not have a vote. Clearly, the Seanad is also a very appropriate place to provide representation to Irish citizens in the North and to the Diaspora. It is very welcome that this point is being considered in the report and highlights that numerous bodies have made such suggestions. These are categories of citizens who currently have no say in the political life of the State and that must be corrected.

I note the references to the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, the work of which I commend. It could, however, be enhanced and made a relevant part of informing decision making in this Chamber. People, ranging from ordinary citizens and lobby groups, have access to the Seanad that they will never have to the Dáil and we should seek to ensure that this role is maximised to its fullest potential.

I wish to make two final points. Before the recess we had a debate on the inexplicable refusal to allow this issue to be referred to the constitutional convention. Sinn Féin has consistently called for this inclusion. In our discussions with the Taoiseach, my party leader and those members of my party who comprise our membership of the convention expressed clearly their view that the future of the Seanad had to be part of the convention. It is an ideal opportunity and forum that can have the capability of considering the many different opinions and options which could be explored.

My final point is why such an option was not taken. Pages 14 and 15 highlight the numerous reports which have been ignored. They all highlighted the threat of abolition if the House was not reformed. There is a body of work there which could be at least considered, including the work of the Constitutional Review Group and the Seanad Éireann committee, in which my colleague, Senator Cullinane, participated as a councillor. There is no reason this could not be considered and acted upon at this time but the reality is that the Taoiseach has set his face against it. I suspect many of his colleagues do not see the merit in such a foolhardy and pointless initiative as this one. It is incredible that we may yet see the cutting off of a whole arm of the Oireachtas, the Parliament of the State, on the basis of throw-away remarks of the Taoiseach, which he has now become fixated on acting upon. This is not the new politics we were all promised - it is scarcely politics at all. The Government, particularly the Taoiseach, needs to step back and examine this issue with clarity, calmness and the proper regard for care in the reform of the Constitution and of the political institutions of the State. It is clear that the constitutional convention is the appropriate forum for doing so and it should be referred to that body at the very least.