Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

While I have not spoken during the Report Stage debate on this Bill before now, it feels like I have spoken in this House in the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, on many occasions recently. He is practically living here at this stage.

It is quite shameful that the amendment we are debating - No. 28 - is the only one of the 78 amendments that has been accepted for debate. I am worried that democracy is being endangered in this House. I have a real concern that democracy is very much in danger in the Oireachtas as a whole - in the Dáil and the Seanad - given that just one of the 78 amendments that have been proposed has been deemed appropriate for debate. If this Bill is accepted, we will not necessarily have a Seanad to debate these matters unless the citizens vote the right way on referendum day.

This amendment proposes that an additional 90 days be provided for consideration of this matter. I do not believe the 110 nominating bodies that have a vested interest in this Seanad have been consulted on this proposal, so we need to make sure they get an opportunity to express their thoughts on it. It would be appropriate to extend the relevant time period by 90 days so that these bodies can have a say and we can hear their views.

Senator Barrett has pointed out that quite a few graduates from Northern Ireland have a voice because they can vote in the elections for the NUI seats and the Trinity College seats. Although they might feel they have some ownership of this House, it does not seem that they will be asked for their opinions before this referendum takes place. They will not have an opportunity to debate the matter. They will not even have a chance to vote on it. It seems wrong.

What will happen if this Bill is passed and the abolition of the Seanad is debated but the proposal is ultimately defeated by the people? I hope it will be defeated. I do not believe we have given it enough attention. What will happen if the majority of those who vote - only citizens will have the opportunity to do so - vote "No"? The Taoiseach has already said he does not plan to reform the Seanad in such circumstances. He is planning to leave it as it is. I believe that is the topic that should be debated in the next 90 days.

I know the Taoiseach has said he does not intend to organise a preferendum. That is okay because it may not be allowed under the Constitution. The Taoiseach should at least accept that if the people decide to vote "No", there will be a need for a discussion on Seanad reform. He has not said that, however. He has said there will be no reform in the event of a "No" vote. I think that is undemocratic.

My real concern about this legislation relates to the whole area of democracy. I have had an opportunity this week to read an interesting book I have had for the last five or six years, Judging Dev by Diarmaid Ferriter. It takes us right back to the period when the Constitution was written. The book focuses on a number of different aspects of that process, including the Seanad, of course. Senator Keane said that speakers should not repeat themselves.

During the debate on the compilation of the 1937 Constitution, there was a debate on the position of women. I have always assumed that a subservient place was given to women in that Constitution against the wishes of a large number of women. It turns out that a high proportion of people in Ireland wanted that constraint and control to be imposed on women in the Constitution. I did not understand that. I assumed it was pushed through and forced through. In fact, it would appear that there was strong and substantial support for that measure. I mention this as a reminder of how a Constitution can last 75 years in spite of the need for it to be reformed.

We have been able to reform the position of women and other things in more recent years, but we have not reformed the Seanad even though we have had an opportunity to do so. The 1979 referendum proposal was brought forward after it was accepted that there was a difficulty with not recognising the new colleges by allowing their graduates to vote in the same way as university graduates. Although that proposal was accepted, none of the Governments we have had since then did anything about it.

It is frustrating that Government spokespersons are suggesting that neither individual Senators nor the Seanad as a whole did anything about the need to reform this House. We were not able to do anything about it. I have been here for 20 years. Senator Norris has been here for almost 30 years. We have called for the reform of the Seanad, but the power to provide for such reform has not been in our hands. It has been in the hands of various Governments. We have not had a chance to reform the House.

When we look back on the events of 1937, we should reflect on how various aspects of the Constitution have influenced this country over the years.

The word "neutrality" did not feature in the 1937 Constitution, yet it was pursued as a policy.

The decision not to establish a replica or duplicate of the Lower House was considered. Having the various panels elected by elected representatives is not undemocratic, although it could be argued that the five panels are no longer representative. If one were establishing panels now, one would probably have the disability sector and other groups represented. The Seanad is not in a position to change the panels, however.

I was pleased to support the Seanad reform Bill introduced by Senators Zappone and Crown. Senators recognise the need for reform. For the Government to turn its back on reform and choose abolition is wrong. If we choose not to delay the Bill for 90 days, we will not have an opportunity to consider the option of reform.

Reference is made to the Seanad 75 times in the Constitution. The number of changes required were the Seanad to be abolished would devastate and tear apart the Constitution. This issue had not been given sufficient thought. When the Government was elected I was not enthusiastic about its idea of holding a constitutional convention because I did not understand its purpose. The Constitutional Convention has earned its keep, however, as its chairman and members have shown great commitment and demonstrated that the convention is capable of doing a valuable job. Despite earning the respect of citizens, we were not given an opportunity to put before the convention the greatest proposed change to the Constitution, namely, the abolition of the Seanad. The Taoiseach and a small coterie of four Ministers have decided they will not allow the issue of Seanad abolition to be discussed at the Constitutional Convention, whereas issues such as voting age and the length of the President's term may be discussed. I do not understand the reason the proposed abolition of this House may not be discussed, especially given the 75 references to the Seanad in the Constitution.

The number of times the Seanad has amended Bills that have been passed in the other House demonstrates that the abolition of the Upper House would damage democracy. According to the information we have received, approximately 450 amendments have been made in this House since the Government was formed two and a half years ago. While some of them were introduced by the Government, a large number were introduced because Senators identified improvements to the Bills in question. This would no longer be the case if we did not have a second Chamber.

This Bill has not received sufficient attention. Delaying it for 90 days would give citizens an opportunity to debate the legislation and ensure that, if they decide to vote in favour of abolishing they House, they will have at least done so having given the matter some thought. Citizens are not being given this opportunity. For this reason, I urge the Government to accept the amendment to ensure the proposal receives the attention it deserves.