Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

We were not really scrutinised. It became a debate about something else. I am glad the referendum is over because it gives us a firm and proper opportunity to discuss reform, which is where we all wanted to be. Not to be provocative, but most people, whether they voted "Yes" or "No", were looking for change of some description. Some wanted to change it by throwing us out, but that was a vote for change. Some wanted to keep us in the hope that we would be changed. That was also a vote for change. Arguably, everybody who took part on Friday wanted change. It is up to us to some extent to keep the pressure on and say that political reform, which will involve Seanad reform, is something we value.

One cannot have Seanad reform alone. It is a three-legged stool. It is local government, the Seanad and the Dáil. Unless one reforms them in an holistic way one cannot reform them properly at all. When Denmark and Finland removed their second houses they replaced them with either a regional structure or lots more local government with thousands of local politicians. They gave local government genuine powers to make all kinds of decisions about how they govern and how they spend their money. They said there were two ways of doing business: national government for big issues and local government for local issues. That was very clear, and they gave sufficient power to local government. If we say we want three parts to our Government, we must reform them all together.

This is not the day to discuss it because it is far too complicated, but Senator Bacik and others mentioned the Constitutional Convention, and that is an appropriate place to discuss some of the ideas that exist. Senator Crown generously suggested there should be a Seanad electoral reform Bill which would include the best of all the ideas that came from his Bill, that of Senators Zappone and Quinn, former Senator Mary O'Rourke's cross-party committee and other places. On our own internal business, we have made some very valuable changes. I would like the Seanad Public Consultation Committee to be continued and extended. I am a member of that committee, so I might say that, might I not? However it is a very good blueprint for what we can do in the Seanad. We must be more strategic about the subjects we choose. Somebody suggested that committee should be bigger, but however we do it, it should become a fundamental part of our activity here.

I would like us to run the Young Senators initiative again. That was very useful in opening a space in the Houses of the Oireachtas for younger people to take part. It is much easier to do it here than in the other House. We have had many very interesting speakers here and we might make that a monthly Speakers' Corner, so to speak, where they are not necessarily the great and the beautiful but representatives of older people, those with mental health issues, children and creative people, so that we would be a Chamber of vision and creativity of older and younger people. We need a real change internally in the clash between the committees, the Dáil and the Seanad. That is fundamental. I sit on two committees and I am chasing around, as many people are. The committees have real and powerful business to do, and the only way to do it is to separate that business from the Dáil and the Seanad.