Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Two matters arise on foot of yesterday's Order of Business. The first relates to the appearance of a 20-page property supplement in one of the daily newspapers. As I informed the Leader yesterday, there is a need to ensure banking reform. We have tabled two items on the Order Paper, Nos. 26 and 29, which deal with that matter. The same accountants, bankers and auctioneers who created the property bubble in the past are going to construct another one. There is a need to consider the position of Ireland after the bailout and to introduce measures to prevent a recurrence of the crash.

The second matter which arises relates to the request from the House that the Referendum Commission investigate the position with regard to the figure of €20 million which has been advertised as the cost of running the Seanad. I would challenge that figure in any public debate and perhaps - as the current edition of Phoenix magazine suggests - the Taoiseach might come out of hiding to discuss the matter. In the document it is currently circulating to every household throughout the country, the Referendum Commission fails to mention voters in the Six Counties or those from overseas. Does the commission not believe the latter to be important? Is it of the view that those in every household throughout the country should not know about them? I understand that the chairperson of the Referendum Commission will be appearing on "Morning Ireland" on Monday next and I am of the view that she should provide answers to the questions I have posed and respond to the Oireachtas immediately, particularly as there is very little time remaining in respect of this matter.

In his book, Reforming Political Institutions: Ireland In Comparative Perspective, which was published yesterday, Professor John Coakley states that the bold commitment of the Fine Gael-Labour coalition to getting rid of the Seanad as one of three urgent parliamentary reform issues implicitly ignored the painstaking deliberations - extending over the past 16 years - of earlier parliamentary evaluations of the composition and role of the second Chamber and sidelined the Convention on the Constitution. Professor Coakley also notes that in light of the long discussion of the merits of second chambers inside and outside Ireland, the fate of Seanad Éireann surely deserved more sustained and balanced consideration before the Dáil began to discuss practical arrangements for consigning it to history. By our estimates there are 87 countries throughout the world which have bicameral systems of parliament. All of the G10 have such systems and 17 of the G20 have them. Some 27 countries with greater GDPs than Ireland have such systems and 58 with lower GDPs have them. Why is it that everyone sees this matter differently to the Taoiseach and why will he not debate it? In the United States, on which we rely for foreign direct investment to an overwhelming degree, 49 of the 50 states have bicameral systems. The exception in this regard is Nebraska, which only contains 0.6% of the population of the country. It can be stated, therefore, that 99.4% of the population of the US disagree with the Taoiseach. I hope they inform him of that fact when he visits the country on St. Patrick's Day next year.

On the leaving certificate, we have discussed subjects such as mathematics and history. Dr. Kevin Denny indicated yesterday that 14 of the 17 questions on this year's leaving certificate economics paper were faulty. According to an article in the Irish Independent he said "the most serious problems were with a question on trade/competitiveness/slowdown in the euro-growth areas, which dealt with a cornerstone of economics, the law of comparative advantage". If this is what is happening in schools, it is no wonder we have difficulties with economic policy in society in general. I informed the Minister for Education and Skills last evening that he must consult people such as Dr. Denny who are directly involved in the classroom. That to which I refer is happening all too frequently. There is no point in Ministers uttering clichés about Europe's youngest young people and the world's most advanced education system when they will not address the serious problems relating to subjects such as economics, mathematics and history.