Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy English, and thank him for his presence today and for his contribution to the debate. I compliment Senator McDowell on putting the Bill before us and thank the former Senators, Mr. Manning and Mr. O'Toole, for their immense work in preparing the report of the working group on Seanad reform.

While it is important to recognise that there was a referendum and that the people voted 52% to 48% to retain the Seanad, the fundamental question we should ask is a little like the one a person would hear when watching "Grand Designs" or Mr. Dermot Bannon on "Room to Improve". Would we start from here? The fundamental question I would pose, while not opposing reform, which is needed, is why we are starting with this Bill at this stage when the Taoiseach, after his visit to this House in September, has asked for an implementation group to be put together and on which he has written to the party leaders. I am not sure whether the Taoiseach has written to Senator McDowell. At one level, we are ahead of ourselves.

The reason we need reform has been well articulated previously and in the debate today. It also emanates from the fact that many believe the Seanad is not representative of them because of its elitist electorate, which is a fair observation to make for those in the communities we all live in and who recognise that. At the same time, however, they fail to make a distinction between our role as Seanadóirí and that of Teachtaí Dála. Therein lies part of our difficulty in how we see ourselves and how we are defined under the Constitution.

At the risk of causing a note of discord, perhaps the framers of the Constitution did not necessarily get the role of the Seanad correct at its inception and in how we see ourselves now and how we operate today. Undoubtedly, the powers and functions of Members of this House can and should be reformed, and they have been in some way over the years, but the fundamental difficulty for many Members in the House rests in the franchise, in terms of the changing of the franchise, who can vote and how they vote. That will pose a difficulty. As Senator Conway said, that will pose a challenge on Committee Stage. To be fair to Senator Lawless, who represents the diaspora as well as being here himself as an authentic, able parliamentarian in his own right, how does one extend that franchise and who does one allow to vote? As Senator Paddy Burke asked, how does one put that structure in place?

What is important is that we will not be opposing Second Stage, and we all want reform, or at least I want reform. I will be honest about that. The Taoiseach, in this House and since the referendum, has been clear on his support for and belief in reform. He has endorsed the Manning report and its implementation. That is Government policy and it is in the programme for Government.

It would be remiss of us all, either as part of the implementation group, whoever its members may be, or as Members of this House, not to recognise that there are grave concerns about the Bill before us. Senator Ó Domhnaill, in his contribution, posed a good question. When we talk about the political system, we have not seen significant reform of the Dáil. As a Member of the previous Dáil, I was privileged to be Chair of a committee which parsed, investigated and analysed much legislation, conducted pre-legislative scrutiny and held committee hearings on the protection of life during pregnancy legislation. We have seen copious volumes of reports on reform of local government, some of which have worked, but what we have seen in local government has been an erosion of the powers given to local authority members, which is not good. Like Senator Ó Domhnaill, I share the view that local government is the closest form of government to the people, and we need to give more powers back to councillors.

What will reform of this House look like in its final state? That question is why I would like to move to Committee Stage where we can have a constructive debate on the parts of this Bill, which is fundamentally a good idea but is perhaps flawed at one level, and I do not mean to be critical when I say that. To be fair to Senator McDowell, we needed someone to take the ball and run with it. If we had not had that, we would be back to talking about implementation, going back to the 12 other reports on Seanad reform, and we would certainly not have the roadmap from the Manning report and this Bill today. Mr. John Downing, in a fine piece in the Irish Independent, wrote correctly that the shelves are groaning with voluminous reports. That is why it is important the Bill goes forward to Committee Stage and that we have the implementation group put together by the Taoiseach. If we are to discuss widening the franchise, what will that mean in real terms? Who will be here and how will people vote to get representation in the Upper House?

The one part we have not focused on and which I look forward to discussing on Committee Stage or in whatever guise we come back to this issue is the logistics of what reform means in terms of costs, staffing and how we can beef up the House. Fundamentally, we all demand that we scrutinise legislation and that, as I stated when the Taoiseach was here, we bring this House beyond the gates of this complex to the people. That means we should be open to doing different things. I note we have a Seanad consultative committee, chaired by the Leas-Chathaoirleach, which I hope will take up different projects or different aspects of civic life and make positive contributions to them. Senator James Reilly stated his belief that we will have a serious issue around how we can have representation without residency or taxation, something referred to as well by the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

We are in favour of reform. Senator Ó Domhnaill spoke about sitting for four days. I wish him luck with that because I do not think he will get Members to come in for four days when they are already involved in constituency work and are doing other work around legislation. Senator Humphreys's point about climate change is one we should pursue.

The value of our local authority members is one we should continue to cherish. They have been treated badly, and I do not say this as a representative of councillors. We have seen electoral areas increased, their pay reduced and their workload increased. The abolition of the dual mandate has not done what it was meant to do. It has not worked for the betterment of people.

This Bill is one we should support moving to the next Stage. It is important from there on that we put together that roadmap and go back to the plan, the grand design, and see how we can build up the House. I thank Senator McDowell for his work and commitment. Only for him, we would not be having this debate today.