Catherine Noone (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House for this very important debate. As we face into the referendum on the Seanad, it is important to be mindful that it is part of our parliamentary system that has faced an uncertain future on more than one occasion. The first national assembly established in Ireland following the Act of Union was a single-chambered body, Dáil Éireann, which convened in January 1919. It was only in 1922 that our parliamentary system became bicameral or dual-chambered with the establishment of Seanad Éireann. At the time, a jump from being unicameral to bicameral was an unusual move and we were alone in that sense.

However, in many respects, Ireland has always been somewhat different. While many countries enter into war, Ireland embraced neutrality. I do not follow the argument that because a system suits one country, it works for all countries. The world is more complicated instead of there being any single correct answer. Unicameral and bicameral are not one-size-fits-all solutions. Different countries require different systems. In 2013, I am proud of our system while recognising shortfalls and the need for reform. I am proud of the work our system does on a daily basis.

From the outset Dáil Éireann was resistant to efforts by an assertive Seanad to encroach upon what Deputies saw as their territory. Tensions between the two houses intensified after de Valera and Fianna Fail came to power in 1932. The manner in which the Free State Seanad was abolished and the decision to re-establish it, albeit in a different form, in the 1937 Constitution is also interesting in the context of the current debate. When the Free State Senate was abolished in 1936, de Valera clearly indicated that the idea of a second chamber was anathema to him unless it could be shown that it would be of value. He then established a commission to investigate how it believed a second chamber should function.

The commission recommended that the second chamber should have the power to regulate its own business and elect its chairman; that its members should enjoy the same immunities and privileges as Members of Dáil Éireann; that no Bill should be enacted by Dáil Éireann until it had first been sent to the second house for consideration; that the second house should not have a power of veto; and that the refusal of the second house to pass a Bill would only have the effect of delaying the passage of that Bill by three months. Many of these recommendations would have the effect of declawing the Seanad, effectively sewing the seeds of many of the greatest criticisms that it faces today.

As a Senator here for the first time, two things have become abundantly clear. First, Senators are remarkably committed, dedicated and able and bring a great amount of expertise to the House. Second, the Seanad and its ways are in dire need of reform. Senator Maurice Cummins has been complimented by the Opposition as being an excellent Leader and Senator MacSharry referred to him as the best Leader in all of the time that he has been a member and many other Senators have made similar comments. Senator Mary White would agree.

Yesterday, when the Taoiseach was present, the Leader outlined the many innovative reforms here given the constraints of being constitutionally bound to conduct business in a particular way. There was much comment that the Government would not enjoy a majority because of the Independents and Taoiseach's nominees. However, I shall reiterate an important comment that was made yesterday. The current crop of Independent Senators have been very independent. For the most part, they have voted against the Government on numerous occasions. The Taoiseach made that point but used it in favour of abolition. He has been innovative about it too. The Independent Senators must be recognised for their independence.

The Seanad has played host to many remarkable parliamentarians down through the years and I have alluded to that fact before in the House. The list included Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Mary Robinson, Douglas Hyde and William Butler Yeats. It has given rise to a host of interesting initiatives and amendments in my two years here. The Seanad has shown, even when it has been declawed and has very limited abilities to legislate, that it has had an impact on a daily basis on Irish society. It still can have an impact.

Reform is a big spectrum with many variants. Meaningful reform may not be possible because we may not all be on the same page or find total agreement before the referendum takes place. The Bill shows us the proposed referendum and how the Oireachtas will work in a future without the Seanad. Committees will be appointed using the d'Hondt method and will work to provide the balance that the Seanad is supposed to provide.

There are some other aspects to be considered. For example, I suggest amending Article 27 of the Constitution. As Members will know, the Article gives the Oireachtas the power to seek the views of the people on legislation and states, in Article 27.1, "a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained." There were many occasions where the provision could have been used to great effect, for example, the bank guarantee which has been very topical in the past couple of days. The Article could have been used on the bank guarantee legislation to slow things down and would have enabled us to adopt a more considered approach. An amended Article 27 could require that it takes one third of the Dáil and over 50% of the relevant committee to refer a referendum request to the President.

Fire alarms are not abolished because they go unused. Therefore, I cannot see the logic behind completely scrapping Article 27. Circumstances change, the unforeseen can happen and having an emergency mechanism in the Constitution is a sensible provision.

I am putting it mildly when I say that the Bill and its proposed amendments to the Constitution are very significant. They are among the most important and far-reaching that we will see in our lifetime as legislators. Self-preservation can never be a reason to fear the future and I welcome the fact that the referendum will be put to the people. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock". In this instance, the Taoiseach has stood firm on his belief that the people should decide the fate of the Chamber. He has not wavered since he made the proposal in 2009 but many others have flip-flopped on the issue, including many of his parliamentary colleagues. I welcome the referendum and the fact that the people will decide the future of this House.