Martin Conway (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will take up the latter point made in Senator Mark Daly's contribution on inviting the JFK School of Government at Harvard University to examine our system of government. I studied there briefly in the mid-1990s. Were we to consider taking that line, the JFK School of Government would have a very interesting role to play, as would other academic institutions. When I was in UCD, I studied American politics and comparative European politics as part of my course. In most cases, citizens want their parliaments to have more power and be reformed, as they are not happy with the way they do business. We are not unique in that sense.

The result of the referendum is very interesting and I look forward to the academic analysis of the "No" vote, in particular. It would be very interesting to make a comparison between the votes cast in the referendum on the court of appeal and those case in the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. Some 65.2% voted in favour of establishing a court of appeal, whereas some 48.3% voted in favour of abolition of the Seanad. Almost 25% of the population voted "Yes" in one instance and "No" in the other. If one was to analyse this as an anti-Government vote, that would be incorrect. One of every four who voted against abolition of the Seanad voted for its reform. If they had wanted to give the Government a bloody nose, the percentage vote would have been more or less similar in both instances.

The debate has moved on. Senator Maurice Cummins as Leader of the House has initiated the most radical reform of the Seanad in its history, which has gone unrecognised, to a large extent, in the media. Initiatives such as bringing a representative of the Orange Order, former President Mary Robinson, Dr. Maurice Manning and others to the House have contributed significantly to debate and that process will continue. That is a significant reform. I understand that prior to that, initiatives of this type were not engaged in. We have used the expert knowledge of Members such as Senator John Crown to identify the prevention steps that I have no doubt will feed into the Government's cancer strategy.

I would like to see the franchise extended. I do not believe this House would serve a useful function as a replica of Dáil Éireann. We, in this House, have the ability to scrutinise legislation, propose amendments and take a cold dispassionate view, as Members have more time to discuss and examine legislation. That is an area that could be improved on without the need for another referendum. We could extend the franchise easily without holding a referendum. We have already passed a referendum on extending the university panels. I am sure the Leader could enter discussions with the Government to implement that change in due course.

We need opportunities to open the discussion on this issue in order that people can outline their understanding and beliefs in reforming this Chamber. We have a critical role to play in the scrutiny of European legislation. People consider that Ireland is very compliant in implementing European directives quickly, in particular the European environmental and food directives. Let me give some examples. A pub in west Clare or County Kerry will not be allowed to serve food, unless it complies with the very strict HACCP requirements, whereas in a country such as Italy or France, most sheebeens are serving food. Both countries are member states, but we have a problem. This House has a significant role to play not only in scrutinising EU legislation, but also in creating and reflecting informed opinion in Irish society in a mature and calm way.