Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for his clarification.

I am conscious that the debate on abolition has concentrated minds on the issue of reform and that we have had more lively and thoughtful reflections on it than ever before. The article by Mr. Eoin O'Malley of DCU in today's edition of The Irish Times in which he proposes radical reform of the Seanad has a great deal of merit to it. It reminds me of a debate in which Mr. Michael McDowell and I spoke some months ago when we were both on the same side in favour of reform. Mr. McDowell summed it up by saying we should cut it down, pay them less but keep the Seanad in a very different format. That is the debate we will have more of, which I welcome coming up to the referendum.

Senator Katherine Zappone identified various flaws in Senator John Crown's Bill. I do not want to dwell on them, but section 4 provides that no person should be a candidate in a Dáil election and also a Seanad election. I wonder about the constitutionality of restricting candidacy in that way and would be concerned about that particular element of the Bill.

There are issues that can be raised, but in general it is welcome that we have the opportunity to debate this question of reform through legislation because it is one that will come back into focus if the referendum is not passed. There must be a reflection on that issue too on the Government side.

On the 90th anniversary of the Seanad in December I referred Members of the House to a wonderful paper which presented extensive research on the Seanad. It was produced by the senior counsel and Fianna Fáil councillor, Mr. Jim O'Callaghan, who wrote about the history of the Seanad. The key message is that throughout the 90 years of the Seanad there have been endless calls for abolition and debates on retention. As we are aware, Fianna Fáil abolished the Seanad in 1936 after the Seanad had voted down a Government Bill to restrict the wearing of uniforms. However, following the abolition of the Seanad, there was an extensive debate on the merits of a bicameral, as opposed to a unicameral, system. As a result of that debate, public opinion appeared to change to the extent that a second House was provided for in the 1937 Constitution, with a somewhat different format. Since the reconstitution of the Seanad, there have been numerous calls for abolition.

The Seanad has a strong history in a number of respects, particularly in terms of Committee Stage debates on Bills. Strong and thoughtful debates have taken place in the House, the great merit being that Senators on both sides can contribute. They do not have to be specialists or spokespersons on a particular area, but they can contribute their expertise on particular provisions of a Bill. We can all recall very good examples of such debates.

The Seanad has a strong history of introducing Private Members' Bills. This Private Members' debate is being held in that context. We have seen Senator Feargal Quinn's Bill on construction contracts being brought before the House, while I have introduced two Bills, one on female genital mutilation and the other on humanist weddings, which were subsequently supported by different Governments.

The Seanad has a strong history of introducing and debating issues not considered to any great extent in the Dáil. If the referendum is defeated, the call for reform will become unarguable. I hope we will see radical reform, both in the method of election and the working structures of the Seanad, reforms that could be introduced through legislation and without further constitutional change.

Dr. Elaine Byrne suggested some years ago that a physical sign of the Seanad, the Seanad casket and signatures, should be put on permanent public display, perhaps in Leinster House. I believe they are still in the Royal Irish Academy. I have raised that issue previously in the House and the Minister might take it on board, if nothing else as a memory of the Seanad.