Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Taoiseach for this important and significant debate. I supported the holding of the referendum on Seanad abolition and I welcomed the debate which ensued in the public domain on the future of the Seanad and the wider political system. This debate would not have occurred had we not put a Bill before the people on Seanad abolition. I am very clear the Irish people voted to reform Seanad Éireann and not to have business as usual.

Our job is not just to make Seanad Éireann more effective but to make the Irish political system more effective. There have been numerous reports on reform of the Seanad and Bills proposed, as has been stated. These reports and Bills present a number of options, some of which involve constitutional reform and some of which do not. Most recently, as has been stated, we have had Senator Crown's Seanad Electoral Reform Bill and the Seanad Bill 2013 sponsored by Senators Quinn and Zappone. Most of the proposals, with the exception of Senator Crown's Bill, involve the Seanad having additional powers, and I welcome the Taoiseach's comments at the beginning of the debate in this regard. There are many different views in the proposals, some of which require constitutional change and some of which do not. Most support the direct election of Senators. There are many different views on the type of electoral systems we should have, whether constituencies should be geographical or vocational, the application of gender and other quotas and the timing of elections to ensure there is no overlap with Dáil elections. Many of these proposals emanate for very good reasons.

Any reform can be incremental and I understand reform which does not require a constitutional referendum is attractive. In my opinion if we are to be true to the people's mandate, the way to approach the issue of reform is to decide what type of Seanad we need and want as a nation and then decide on the structure to achieve it. In this context I was struck by the debate on electoral reform which has already taken place at the Constitutional Convention. The holding of the Constitutional Convention was one of the commitments in the programme for Government, as was holding a referendum on Seanad abolition. It is my understanding the Government did not rule out, certainly on reading the programme for Government, the possibility the convention would discuss the abolition of the Seanad. The Constitutional Convention was weakened by not being able to discuss how we elect those who govern us with the broadest possible remit. I do not believe at this point in time we should rule out the immediate transfer of the issue of the Seanad and its future in the Irish political system to the Constitutional Convention.

I was very impressed by the standard of debate at the Constitutional Convention where every strand of society is represented. The debate on political reform which took place, albeit without discussion on the Seanad, has been very critical of the political system. There was a generally expressed view the current political system is dominated to too great an extent by the largest political parties. The convention voted for larger constituencies to ensure a more representative Dáil by a majority of 83% of its members. Clientelism was seen as a distinct feature of Irish politics and members voted that Dáil Éireann should be permitted to appoint non-members of the Oireachtas as Ministers by a majority of 55% to broaden the field of expertise available to Cabinet. Members of the convention also expressed a majority view that Ministers on their appointments should resign their Dáil seats on the grounds, as expressed in the debate, it would allow them get on with the job and not spend their time fixing potholes and looking after their constituencies. The convention clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the electoral process.