Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted to speak on the topic although not, perhaps, delighted that there is a proposal to abolish the Seanad. The referendum on the Seanad is coming up and the decision will be left to the voter. I add the caveat, however, that the decision must be left to an informed voter. I congratulate Senators Zappone, Quinn and Crown for bringing forward their legislative proposals which will help to inform the voter about the process. They have suggested one avenue, but what others will be presented to inform the voter on what the Seanad does? When I was elected to the Seanad, the common question I was asked was "what do you do in there?". Many people did not even have a notion that one scrutinises the legislation that is passed by the other House. An information campaign is, therefore, needed.

We have had many reports on Seanad reform from every side of the House. There have been 11 detailed reports, all of which have advocated the reform rather than the abolition of the Seanad. Something is wrong somewhere if all reports recommend reform. It will be up to the people but it must be an educated decision. The practical framework for significant reform can be implemented. The two Bills Senators have presented provide an open platform for informed decision-making on this issue. The fundamental purpose of the Bill before us is to extend the franchise to a wider electorate. Every Member has advocated that for many years. I have only been a Member for two years, but I have heard that suggested when I was outside the House also. If the electorate were broader, it would be good. Without going into the detail of the Bill, I note the unwieldy administrative difficulties many Members have mentioned. When Mary O'Rourke chaired the last sub-committee on Seanad reform, a great deal of improved information was provided to inform how voters should be selected.

Why do we need a bicameral system? We are not looking to save our jobs in the Seanad. It may be that none of us will be re-elected if the Seanad survives. We are seeking to save the system rather than the person. We need a bicameral parliament as international evidence has shown that bicameralism is not on the decline as some like to suggest. The majority of the world's democratic states have bicameral systems. Of 178 members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 78 have a bicameral parliament. Ireland is one of 13 EU member states with a bicameral system. Of the population of the EU, five-sixths live in countries with bicameral parliaments. If it is good for five-sixths of the EU's population, we should question why we are saying it should be otherwise here. Studies have found that bicameralism has a positive effect on parliamentary democracy. Many Members have mentioned democracy in terms of the representation and voice of the Seanad. The process of legislative bargaining, the quality and oversight of legislation and the oversight of the Executive are improved by bicameralism. Is the Executive always right? It is not. The non-advarsarial debates in the Seanad have been commented on as has their quality and the time given to scrutiny of legislation. Many amendments have been tabled in the Seanad to Dáil legislation. Many Bills have been initiated in the Seanad.

Bicameralism affects policy and law making more significantly where one chamber has enough leverage to keep the other from acting unilaterally. We do not have that power here, but the Bill opens the possibility up for discussion. However, our system provides that the rules of one Chamber allow it to decide policy on its own after the other has had its say. Bicameralism has the potential to protect minorities, which is something we must consider, in particular in the context of the methodology of election to ensure all voices are heard in the Seanad. Minorities should be included in a reformed Seanad. If the foundations of democracy continue to be weak, whatever we build on them will be weaker still. That is why we need a stronger, reformed Seanad not its abolition. Abolition will lead to less democracy and accountability. We must restore the democratic value of the Seanad, which is at the heart of Irish society and this debate. Someone mentioned extending the voting age, which the Constitutional Convention has agreed should be reduced to 16. Someone also mentioned that the Constitutional Convention should examine the decision to abolish the Seanad. I have heard that such consideration has been ruled out, but perhaps the convention has the right to include it on its agenda. Issues have also been raised about EU functioning.

I compliment the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins. Since I entered the Seanad, he, more than any other Member, has tried to introduce change and to ensure the voice of the citizen is included in parliamentary democracy. The Bill includes provisions in that regard. It is necessary to extend a voice out there to the ordinary citizen. Hopefully, the Leader will be successful in doing that before we end the session.