Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Katherine Zappone, Feargal Quinn, John Crown and others who have worked to produce the Bill. I acknowledge the huge effort made at a time when other things are happening. They have contributed well to the debate on the future the Seanad. Like other Government party Members, I will be voting for the legislation that will allow the issue to be put in a referendum to the people who will decide. It is good that they will decide because there is so much confusion about what happens in the Seanad. Now, the onus is on us to ensure the people understand what happens here in order that they can make the best judgment without prejudice.

Why does the Seanad feel like being in Siberia? Why do journalists report only on its potential demise rather than on the many good and strong debates and spirited arguments made on a daily basis since before I joined the Seanad? Why have so many politicians talked about reform but failed to bring it about? Perhaps it is because we are not capable of having a two House system. Perhaps we can only deal with the comings and goings of Deputies and the public prefers the soundbite and shorter version of politics we get in the Dáil because of the way it does its business. Perhaps the public prefers the ping-pong nature of Leaders' Questions. Does it think Senators are not up to the task of representing it? Perhaps it has forgotten about people like Mrs. Mary Robinson, President Michael D. Higgins, Mr. Oliver St. John Gogarty, Mr. Henry Guinness, Mr. Douglas Hyde, Mr. Horace Plunkett, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Mrs. Catherine McGuinness, Mr. John Horgan, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien and Mr. William Butler Yeats. I also pay respect to former Senator Mary Henry who is with us today. Have we forgotten the contribution they made or do people believe Senators are different and do not represent the public? Perhaps we like our two-tier system to have a hierarchy, whereby the Upper House is, in fact, the Lower House and to be ignored. The answer is very simple: the people do not vote for Senators; they feel they do not have a say in what we do and do not believe we are their representatives. That is how the Seanad came about and we have not properly reformed the voting system. The people feel it has nothing to do with them. They have switched off, do not pay attention and do not understand. When I have tried to explain the voting system, I cannot do it and others share my difficulty. That tells everyone that we are somehow elitist. We are not, but that is how we look.

Is it a good reason to abolish the Seanad because we have a byzantine voting system in which most people do not participate? I do not believe it is. It is a reform to take something away and it is attractive and easy, but I do not think it is the right thing to do. The easiest route is not always the right route to take. The very good reason to retain it is contained in the Bill – the importance of dealing with European legislation and the need for its scrutiny. That is the main reason the Seanad should be retained and reformed. It is irresponsible that so much legislation comes from the European Union and is not given the scrutiny it deserves, given that we signed up to the Lisbon treaty that gave additional responsibility to national parliaments to scrutinise legislation. We have not properly addressed that responsibility and the Seanad offers us a perfect opportunity to do so. It is not optional for me; it is essential. While the Minister referred to the Bill and mentioned the European Union, he did not address the question of whether the Seanad could have a role to play in that regard. He made an observation that dealing with statutory instruments might not work, but he did not make an observation about European legislation. He may share the view that we do not scrutinise legislation, an observation the Chief Whip made. When we talk about engaging citizens on the future of the Seanad, we could engage with them on the idea of it scrutinising European legislation.

We need to reform the voting system for the Seanad. We are not an elite body, but we look like one. Years ago the Committee on Procedure and Privileges talked about including under-represented and excluded groups in Irish society. That should be the case. Immigrants should also be included. It is important that the Seanad become more representative and the voting system should reflect this. In section 2 of the Bill I applaud the reference to the need for gender equality. The Seanad does well on that front but not well enough. I agree with Senator John Crown that this issue must be part of a vigorous debate in order that the public will know what the Seanad does when it comes to vote on the issue. The people will decide, but, i part, it is up to us to ensure that, if Members forgive the alliteration, we are not Siberia but central to democracy, specifically European democracy. That is why the Bill will play an important role in the debate and, therefore, I support it.