Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the permission of the Leas-Chathaoirleach I will share some time with Senator Norris.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The motion before the House is to be commended. The first section refers to having well-informed citizens and residents from all walks of life attend the House, which is to be welcomed, particularly in a House which may face a referendum on its future next year. It would be good for the House to have links with our citizenry and people from a wide range of experiences in life, and a great exercise in parliamentary democracy.

The second section of the motion refers to inviting to the floor of Seanad Éireann on an ongoing basis appropriate leaders and representatives of civic life who have a significant contribution to make to the deliberations of this House. That is something which I also commend to the House as being in the spirit of a participating parliamentary democracy.

The final section refers to the success of a respectful North-South dialogue that has consolidated the peace process in Northern Ireland, with a peace dividend for all the communities affected by the conflict, deepening cross-Border relationships and taking a shared approach to the significant events that will arise in the next decade. The development of parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland is one of the great optimistic developments in this country in recent times. I said in here last week that I had attended an education debate in Stormont the previous Tuesday, and it was remarkable that nobody questioned the rights of anybody to be there, or whether they were Unionists or Nationalists. Bringing this development into the Seanad is something to be commended.

In strengthening and deepening our democracy, we must bear in mind the infringements that have taken place in recent times. The bypassing of the Parliament by lobbyists such as the bankers on 29 and 30 September 2008 will probably cost us about €70 billion. The guarantee on behalf of the banking community was given by people who had right of access to the Government and senior civil servants. The success of tax lawyers and accountants in gaining access to the Government - very little discussion has taken place on these tax breaks and write-offs - has cost us €11.5 billion per year, according to Micheál Collins of the economics department in TCD.

In addition to inviting people whom we believe would strengthen the House and its democratic procedures, we should invite some of the other groups who seem to have access to the Government and who, in my view, are an affront to parliamentary democracy, given how they seem to get their way and that they have imposed such costs on all aspects of Irish society for decades ahead. This is a parliamentary democracy. Even if those people do not want to attend, they should be invited. It will tell us a lot about them if they do not attend, even if the Government has yet to put forward its proposals on the compellability of witnesses. Inviting them to explain what they thought they were doing at the time would be valuable.

The motion by the other Independent Senators is commendable, as is the Leader's amendment. It could be a very important development in parliamentary democracy in Ireland, and a very important measure in ensuring the future of this House to contribute to our parliamentary democracy. I am very pleased to commend the motion to the House.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful to my colleague, friend and former academic colleague in Trinity College for giving me some of his time. I was happy for him to speak first because I have spoken many times on this very important subject in the House. On a number of occasions, I have used it for my Private Members' time. The Acting Chairman will recall that after the Seanad elections in 2007, I tabled the recommendations of the all-party committee chaired by former Leader of the House, then Senator Mary O'Rourke. I called a vote on it, but it was voted down. That showed the absurdity of this Chamber and I regret that. We must take it seriously this time, because now it is either sink or swim. We need to take these matters with real seriousness and not make them into any kind of political football. There is blame on all sides. Nobody is excused. No Government has previously taken this Seanad seriously.

On the opening day of the Seanad I commended the Taoiseach for his extraordinarily imaginative choice of 11 Senators. They have shown that such an accommodation was justified by forming a specific group which is independent. That indicates that they will be vigorous, and I welcome that.

Senator Barrett made a reference to the North of Ireland. It is possibly not the most diplomatic thing to single out anybody when the North of Ireland is mentioned, but it is an interesting development to have Dr. Martin McAleese present in the House. I do not speak of him very often. Women often object to being described as being the wife of somebody, and I am not going to insult Senator McAleese in that way, because I know well of the extraordinary work that he has done on behalf of this country, at some risk to himself of obloquy in the press and perhaps even personal physical danger. It is welcome that we have a voice for the North in this House. We have had them before. I remember Gordon Wilson, who was a remarkable contributor to this House, and John Robb, and long may that continue. We have leaders from various groups, including the arts, human rights groups and so on, so we have the opportunity, capacity, intelligence and membership to do the job in here. This time we need to do it.

I am very glad that a suggestion I have made in this area has been agreed, which is that we will not vote on this in any divisive way. Perhaps the Leader will indicate if it is correct that my proposal has been accepted that we add the Government's amendment to the motion. It does not seem to conflict in any way with the motion.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You have half a minute left.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you. This means that we go back to the Government with a united House, a united voice and with united recommendations.

There is a voice missing here today, which is that of my colleague and friend, the former Senator Joe O'Toole. I was always the radical and always wanted the clean sweep. Joe O'Toole always had a wise voice and I think we should revisit his proposals, because they not only strengthened the nominating bodies and enfranchised them, they also included some element of experience and some element of the parties, which is perhaps something that should be examined.

Tributes have often been paid to the Independent groups. We have a luxury of being independent and being able to speak our mind, and not being subject to the Whip. That gives us a special advantage and sometimes we get praise that might have gone to Members in the political parties had they that freedom. My suggestion is that we should look again at the nominating bodies, make sure they are the most relevant so that they cover the entire population of the country and that we then do what is necessary and enfranchise the ordinary members in some form. Let us have the nurses, the doctors, the architects, the prison officers and representatives of all other large groups in society and let them talk from their experience of legislation. This is what makes us different.

We do not need a reduplication of the Dáil. If it is only the Dáil "light", then we should get rid of it. We should either scrap it or reform it. If we do these things, then we have a good chance of persuading the Taoiseach to change his mind, as he surely would not have nominated such an extraordinary group of passengers to the Titanic.

We should invite distinguished people from Ireland into the House, so that we can learn from them and they can learn from us. I would like to see the representatives of the ECB and the IMF in here and I would like to hear what they have to say and how they will explain themselves to the people. We are not being governed from either House, but from financial institutions that are undemocratic and which were never voted in. I would like to take the opportunity, with the greatest courtesy, to try to transmit to the German people the message that we are rescuing their banks. Money is coming in from these institutions and going straight back out to save German and other banks who took a punt on our property bubble, which is why our public services, our special needs assistants, our hospitals and our schools are suffering. We all need to communicate in a polite and diplomatic way. A revitalised Senate can do that.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You have exceeded your quota, Senator.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I beg your pardon.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will try not to exceed my time. However, I am heartened by Senator Norris's enthusiasm and for the perseverance shown by various Members of the House, before some of the new Members arrived, in the pursuit of change and reform. Perhaps it is easier to do this now that the notion of reform has extended well beyond the House and that the public is now pressing for it. We appear, in a moment of harmony, to accept this motion, as I do. However, I urge a note of caution. I am sure we will seek to invite people to the House to talk and to offer advice, their opinions and experiences. We should not do so to ensure they are in our likeness or that they are safe.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We should not invite them as some kind of favour, telling them that they can come to the Seanad to make their point. We should not dress up the idea of change or reform that we know the public wants. That is the first word of caution and I suggest we take advice from Vincent Browne, a man some of us in this room know well. Recently, on his television programme, he made a public appeal to have new people on his programme. He recognised that the same voices are saying the same things in a roundabout and slightly different way. He was looking to be challenged and have challenging voices, thought provoking and energising voices, including people who would disagree as opposed to being disagreeable. I ask that we ensure that when we look for people to come to the House, we make sure we are going to include those who disagree with us and those who genuinely have something new to say.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a journalist for many years, I have talked about rounding up the usual suspects and I do not want to see the usual suspects in here. Some will be welcome but we should not fall back on those.

The battle for light versus heat is at the heart of every debate and it should not favour heat. It is easy to look for heat because it is always a moment of car crash television. In return, I will offer Vincent Browne the advice that on occasion he prefers heat to light. I like to believe this House, in the pursuit of light, should not become just a wider talking shop. In inviting people, we should not produce an alternative outlet for egos. I do not want to see that here and no one else does either. In inviting people, we should not close down real debate by sucking time and energy away from important matters. We should not just appear to be busy and appear to be reforming by inviting in other people. I am sure this was far from the minds of the Taoiseach's nominees when they drafted the motion but I urge caution on this point.

Debate should always be based on principles, theory, evidence and analysis. It should always aim to reach a verdict. To disagree just for the sake of it cannot be the only reason to do so and if people wish to rebut they should do so with theory and evidence. Decision-making in the political process should always be based on evidence. That should be the holy grail. Decisions are often made for political reasons or for the protection of the status quo or both. The holy grail will remain that it must be based on evidence. Many appointments are made in the political system based on who one knows not what one knows. The idea of a meritocracy is something we are pursuing in this society and in this country. In a way, we could have debates with people we know rather than based on what we know. In the new spirit of reform and unity, I urge that we keep that central at all times.

We have set ourselves a major challenge. "Love" is a four-letter word and "change" is a six-letter word and it is an awful lot easier to say than to do. From my time at the doorsteps during the general election campaign, I never heard a word used so often has the word "change". In truth, people find it extremely hard to do and to accept. While we will beat ourselves up over time about the things we have failed to do, there will be a greater queue outside willing to beat us up for the things we have failed to do. We must remember that change is slow. Senator Norris has provided evidence of this, telling us how long it has taken reform to come to the Seanad. The Seanad should be in a constant state of reform but it will be slow and difficult. The public believes us to be out of touch and unaccountable. In part, this is because it is hard to see change. In this small moment of change, we should celebrate it and say that in this unity there is cause for hope.

There is much we can do as Senators in encouraging new people to engage in politics, engaging with people who do not care about politics and making a genuine effort to bring politics into schools. I see the curriculum in schools and it is a disgrace to say it touches on the political system. One of the questions in the junior certificate exam last week asked students to identify a number of houses, one of which was the White House. A young gentleman in the Public Gallery is nodding in agreement. I hope he got the answers correct. Surely that is not enough in terms of educating our young people, who will someday sit somewhere in this House, in this building, I hope, and govern. It is not sufficient to ask them to identify the White House from Áras an Uachtaráin or Leinster House. We must work harder as legislators to ensure there is some improvement in the curriculum in future. We have much to do outside the walls of this room but within its walls, if we believe truly that we are interested in reform, when people come here who are not in our likeness but who challenge us and those who are not safe people come to talk about true change, then we will listen to what they say. We will not suggest their words end up, as countless reports have done, on dusty shelves. We must heed them and make sure the Government heeds them also. Otherwise, we are engaging in a fancy piece of window dressing and I do not wish to be part of it. I welcome the motion with those caveats and I welcome the amendment. I am delighted to speak on this motion.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The names that appear after this motion, which I welcome, are those of people who are non-politically active in parliamentary politics. This is no reflection whatsoever on them. I join with those who returned to this House in saying that the collective wisdom of those who have been elected and nominated has considerably enhanced this House. They will be of particular value in promoting the view that the second Chamber should continue to play an effective role in our parliamentary democracy.

I do not take any umbrage with the wording of the motion and I do not oppose it. This Upper House of our parliamentary democracy is primarily a political Chamber, one that is charged with providing the checks and balances required of our parliamentary system to ensure the Government is brought to account through legislation. That is its primary aim although it is not the only function. In order for it to continue to be relevant in our society, it must further enhance its political and parliamentary role in the context of legislation. All of the other issues have, at one time or another, been introduced in this House. I do not suggest the motion is reinventing the wheel but, for those of us who have been here for some time, some of its elements suggest that. We had distinguished visitors to this House on a regular basis.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not last year.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a reflection on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges rather than anyone else because that is the method whereby one suggests it. Convention dictates that one does not raise a proposal on the floor of this House to invite an individual to this House. It is done through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, as laid down in Standing Orders. Many of these initiatives have already been undertaken but that is not to suggest that the wording of the motion and support for it by all sides in this House should not continue to embrace that notion. We should not be concentrating on the method of election to the Seanad but on the function and effectiveness of the Chamber. The constitutional committee which ironically in the context of recent events, was chaired by the late Deputy Brian Lenihan came up with a number of proposals on how Members should be elected or access this House. It was suggested that the Dáil would elect a number of Senators and other Senators would be elected by universal suffrage. I suggest there is an inherent weakness in a directly elected Seanad, it was highlighted by Eamon de Valera, who abolished the first Seanad because its independence, according to him at that time, frustrated the Government's programme. The Members were seen as being too independent and the programme that the Government had been mandated by the people to implement, in the eyes of the then Government and his own, was being frustrated. However, interestingly, he reintroduced a Seanad under the 1937 Constitution. To this day we continuously have arguments as to its relevance, its retention, method of election and whether it has a representative mandate. Yet, the Seanad is here so many years later and it will be the sovereign right of the people to decide whether the Seanad should continue.

To repeat, I do not believe we should get too hung up on the method of election. We could expand the electoral college. We could have some Members elected directly and it is not beyond the capacity of the collective brains of society or of this House to devise an election that would be practical, workable and acceptable.

The abolition of the Seanad makes wonderful headlines and in the present economic climate any measure that in any way indicates the Government can save the money of the hard pressed taxpayer is seen as a populist move. By abolishing the Seanad, we will save about €25 million, the figure the media is using, but I have not gone into the detail as to whether it is true. This is not money to be thrown away life snuff at a wake. It is a significant sum, especially if one is trying to live on €180 per week. In the context of a Government budget of almost €50 billion, for a Government to suggest that the saving it will make by this will impact positively on the lives of those living on €180 per week is ludicrous. There are many other areas of Government waste - and I use the word waste advisedly, that could be investigated, where savings considerably in excess of the €25 million it costs to run this House, could be considered.

Any debate on the future of this House should focus on the consequences of its abolition. The reduction in the number of elected members to the Dáil, as proposed by this Government, in addition to a reduction in the number of committees and the number of members on each committee will I suggest place enormous pressure on the Opposition to call the Government to account. Anybody who visits the Dáil on a sitting day remarks on the number of Members present. The way that parliamentary democracy works is that the Opposition appoint party spokesperson to shadow the various Departments and they make the case on behalf of the Opposition. All Deputies stand for election in multi-seat constituencies, causing the vast majority of Deputies to be more concerned with ensuring that they respond to their constituent's needs. Call it parish pump politics, if you wish, but woe betide the Deputy who does not look after his or her constituents. In the greatest democracy in the world, Tip O'Neill, the former speaker in the US House of Representatives said that "All politics is local" and anybody involved in active politics in this country knew exactly what he was talking about. The Government has a massive majority and this has resulted in an Opposition that I suggest is so irrelevant that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte referred recently to dissent in the Labour Party as the real Opposition, while the Labour collective in Cabinet now regularly refer in the media to the "National Government". This is conveying the impression that there is a general consensus in Leinster House on the Government's programme - in other words, there is no Opposition. It is a national Government after all. We are focused on our objectives and we will not dissent. That is not what parliamentary democracy is about, nor, I suggest, should be about. It should be about effective Opposition. How much more important will a second Chamber be in this new dispensation?. Who will watch the Executive, a pliant media, a media that has been giving this Government a honeymoon? I suggest, and it is a partisan point, the media has an obsession with ensuring that not only did Fianna Fáil go out of Government, but its entire destruction as a political party. The media is hardly going to turn around in the immediate future on into the far future and say that there are questions about the accepted wisdom of what the previous Government did or did not do or what it was responsible for.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator's time is up.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suggest to the Members of this House and the worthy Member who have put forward this motion, for whom I have the most enormous respect, for the contribution that they have made and continue to make to civic society and to those who will continue to make that very important contribution and represent the various areas of Irish life in this House, that in the future, when we return to this subject that we look of the consequences of possible abolition and the impact it will have on our parliamentary democracy and how we as a people will call the Executive to account.