Colm Burke (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. A number of years ago, I promised him a No. 2 vote in a Seanad election, which at the time was as good as a No. 1 vote. I made it clear who I was giving my No. 1 vote and why giving the Minister of State a No. 2 vote would be as good as giving him a No. 1 vote. Little did I think when I was marking that ballot paper that I would be in here speaking about the abolition of the Seanad and the Minister of State would be dealing with it on behalf of the Taoiseach. He is very welcome here. As he knows it is very difficult for some from Cork to vote for someone from Dublin but we made an exception on that occasion.

We are discussing the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill. I am in favour of the Bill because I contested the general election and signed the party pledge. Part of policy then and now is that there would be a referendum. That does not mean I am in favour of the abolition of the Seanad. I have already been misquoted in one newspaper where a quote I gave was taken out of context. I have clearly said there is an urgent need for reform if we want to retain the Seanad. Even a simple thing like how the Seanad is elected shows a disconnect between the ordinary person in the street, who feels he has no part in Seanad elections. As a result he believes he has no influence over the make-up of the second House of the Oireachtas.

There is a need for major reform of how we do business. As someone who served for a brief period in the European Parliament, I was on the committee that drafted a directive that entitles people to travel to another member state if there is an undue delay in getting health care in his own country or if that health care is not available. Each member of the committee had a substantial say on the contents of that directive. On Committee Stage, 400 amendments were tabled. Everyone played their part and it was not a case that because one party said one thing, the other party would say the opposite. We all sat down to decide what was best for Europe and the health care of European citizens. That directive was subsequently passed and came into effect in 2011. It is unfortunate that we have 30 months to implement it, which brings us to October of this year, yet I have not yet seen any discussion or legislation on it.

That emphasises how an institution with Members from 27 member states has a huge influence regarding the contents of the final document. It is very different here. If an idea does not come from a Department, it is put on the shelf. I have been involved in the drafting of two Bills, one of which, the Health (Amendment) Bill 2012, follows on from a Bill published by the current Minister for Health when he was in opposition in 2009. At present, the Minister of State cannot drive a car without insurance and I cannot practice as a solicitor without insurance but there is no law requiring a local GP to have insurance. In 2009, the then Minister promised that by January 2010 the Department would deal with the issue and there would be legislation in place. Three and a half years later there is no sign of that legislation. I published by Bill in December 2012. It was debated here and there was a lot consultation but if it does not come directly from the Department it must be parked. The ordinary members of the public are the losers in that process.

The second Bill followed on from a report of the Law Reform Commission and relates to missing persons. If someone drowns and the body is not found, no death certificate can be issued, even if everyone knows that person is dead. I published a draft Bill to address that and I believe that there should be movement on the issue. That is how Senators can play a constructive role in the legislative process. For too long we have had a policy of parking issues raised by Private Members' Bills, which is totally different from my experience at European level. There is even a reluctance to take amendments on board. There has been some improvement in the last two years but much more could be done. No matter what area of life people are from, everyone has some expertise to contribute to a debate and to legislation. We are too resistant to taking people's concerns on board. We must review how we do that. We urgently need to take on board the concerns of all Members in the Seanad.

I will give another example I have focused on over the last two years. We are offering six month contracts to more than 50% of junior doctors employed in the health service and we wonder then why so many junior doctors leave the country.

We still have made little or no progress in that area. Every contribution I have made has been constructive in trying to find the solution to an existing problem. It costs €75 million each year for the 600 medical students who graduate from our universities. Within 12 months of qualifying 50% of that investment in medical graduates has left the country. Let me put it this way: if the IDA built a factory in the morning costing €75 million which was demolished within 12 months there would be uproar. We are not taking the issues I have raised on board, because if a directive does not come from the Department, the problem must be parked.

The issue of the cost of the Seanad has been raised. The cost of the Seanad is €2 per annum per person living in the country. It is less than the cost of two cans of coke or a half glass of beer. That is a very cheap price for democracy in real terms - €2 per annum per person. I have been to countries which have a government, but no democracy. We have a democracy and we should support and improve it. The Seanad can play a far more constructive part in dealing with this.

I attended the Committee on Health and Children this morning in which an EU Directive on health care was coming through. Even if we had a concern about the issue, the date by which to make our concerns knowns had passed.

On my first day in the Seanad I said the Seanad could play a role in regard to European Union legislation and directives. I suggested that two days per month would be set aside for dealing with these issues. The European Commission publishes its agenda for the following year in November of every year. Last year some 129 new proposals were included in the European Commission programme for 2013. Have they been discussed in this House or in the Lower House? The answer is "No". We do not know about it because something that starts this year will take two to three years to come through the system. The Treaty of Lisbon provides an eight week gap in which to make observations, but we are not using that eight week period because there is no procedure for doing it.

Another issue I raised in respect of the health committee, was the directive on medical devices. We were being asked to give a stamp of approval to this directive. I asked a simple question, namely, if anyone had consulted with the medical devises companies in this country before we signed off on it. It turned out there was no consultation. I refused to allow it to go through the committee. As a result, in fairness the committee administrative staff wrote to the representatives from the industry and found they did have concerns with the directive. The Seanad could play an important role in ensuring the checks and balances are considered in EU legislation. We need to set aside specific time every month to look at those issues. That is the background to my position on the referendum

It is part of Government policy to put the question on the abolition of the Seanad to a referendum of the people but we must look to see if there is a third option, to put a question on the reform of the Seanad. That should be taken on board.