Seanad debates

Wednesday, 12 November 2014

Seanad Bill 2013: Committee Stage

 

5:10 pm

Photo of Aideen HaydenAideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I agree wholeheartedly with the motivation behind Senator Zappone's Bill. On a number of occasions, I have said on the record that the Seanad referendum provided us with an opportunity to closely examine our political system and ask searching questions about what we believe our system of Government should be. As a member of the Constitutional Convention, as many other Members of this Chamber were, I think the question of reform goes way beyond this particular House. It also concerns the Dáil and wider aspects of our governance structure, including how we will reform the presidential election system.

The Joint Committee on European Union Affairs is currently looking at how, in a broader context, we can enable our diaspora to vote. There are many reform issues that we must face as a country, of which Seanad reform is one. I believe that the people voted for reform of the Seanad. To be frank, there is no real, credible proposition on the table at the moment, other than reforming the election process for the university panels. I am personally disappointed that the Government has not taken this issue more seriously.

Having said all that, I must now consider the Bill before us. In the first instance, it was accepted by this House because the Members of the Seanad wanted to express their views on reform. They wanted to give a clear indication that we wanted to see reform of the Seanad. One of the strengths of any Upper House must be that it is seen as being independent from the mainstream political process.

I do not believe we can go forward with a Bill that has, unfortunately, been designed to result in the Seanad becoming a Dáil 2.0 or a Dáil-lite, for want of a better phrase.

I have said on a number of occasions that any reform of the Seanad must focus on the issue of representation, particularly of minorities in our society. It must also focus on providing expertise within the political system. One of the issues raised consistently at the Constitutional Convention was the concept that the Dáil was far too clientelist and did not spend enough time in contemplation and bringing expertise to the table. A system based on the existing panel structure will not bring us to the position we wish to achieve. A number of people have commented on this issue. Professor Diarmaid Ferriter, for example, has suggested we need a properly representative and independent Seanad "moving towards a state conducted for the public interest, not one that is a separate, unaccountable and arrogant entity, divorced from the people it is supposed to serve." That is the reason I raise the issue of minorities. Many communities are not represented by the current political structure. One need look no further than the Dáil Chamber to see the extent to which impoverished communities are not represented in the current political structure. Yesterday, I raised the incidence of cancer in impoverished communities where people do not have access to health care. I do not believe modelling this Chamber on Dáil-lite is the way to proceed. Opening the Seanad to a popular vote with the current panel structure would not do anything to improve the current situation and would bring us to what should be a novel and representative system.

The current measures have been criticised by a number of people, including law lecturers in University College Dublin, UCD, Dublin City University, DCU, and the University of Limerick, UL, for retaining panels provided for in the Constitution. Panel seats have never been meaningful. In the years I have been a Member, Senators have stood up and said they represent such and such an interest group and the like, but there is no real, meaningful panel system within the Seanad and there is no good reason to believe more can be done with that panel system by simply extending the franchise. It will yield a miniature and pointless replica of the Dáil, risking parliamentary gridlock. If we are to reform the Seanad in a meaningful way, we should not do it by rushing a Bill through the House. I understand Senator Katherine Zappone's frustration. We are rapidly approaching the end of the Government's term in office and, of course, there is frustration that we have not brought forward meaningful reform, as the people of Ireland have asked us to do. However, I do not believe the Bill achieves that purpose. We might get a better version of an old system, but we are losing an opportunity to do something meaningful about representation in this country.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.