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

I wish to make a number of brief points, one of which was raised in the report. Since the 1937 Constitution, there have been ten reports on reform of the Seanad - I emphasise the word "reform" - but none has proposed abolition. In the last significant report, the committee under the former Leader, Mrs. Mary O'Rourke, was pleasantly surprised that, of the 49 oral submissions and 161 written submissions, "very few" proposed abolition. All proposed reform. I hope that civic society will take on this challenge.

When the arguments for and against the issue are being put before the people, as the referendum commission would be obliged to do if nobody else does it, the electorate on which this decision will rest should take account of the unprecedented majority enjoyed by Governments since the foundation of the State and the lack of any urgency in reforming the Dáil, which must come with any reform of this House, irrespective of whether the discussion concerns abolition. Reform is urgent, and reform of our political democracy and the manner in which we conduct our affairs in both Houses has come under increasing scrutiny, to the point where I believe the public is becoming apathetic to the political ethos. That is very dangerous in a democracy, which is a fragile flower that must be worked on.

Listening to the Pat Kenny radio show this morning dealing with another book about Hitler, it emerged that in 1933, the German people decided to cast the majority of their vote for two parties which wanted to abolish democracy, the communists and national socialists, or Nazis. This was partly because people had become disenchanted and disillusioned with the political establishment. The German people listened to mob orators, like Hitler, who promised he would sweep away the political system and its parties. The civilised German people, from the country of Goethe and other philosophers, voted for that megalomaniac. I am not trying to raise the temperature of the debate but it is important to keep in mind that if there is an abolition of this House, it will be gone and not return. Will there be a reform of the Dáil?

I am appealing to the wider civic society rather than Senators, former Senators and the very distinguished group of people which has come together for this report, to take interest in the issue. I hope those who are not Senators and who are not involved in the political system will take on this challenge when and if it arises and when the question is put before the people. I would particularly focus my request to all the professional bodies which go to the trouble of registering on all five vocational panels each year, such is the importance they attach to the representational nature of this House. If those people did not believe in the efficacy of this House or think it was worth it, they would not bother to register each year to ensure their professional organisation has the right to nominate a candidate for the Seanad elections.

I ask the dozens of professional bodies that when this battle is engaged - it will be a war to the death - they will be on the front line and in the trenches, ensuring that the experience they have had of dealing with the Seanad through the decades, and the manner in which their perspective has been articulated by a variety of Senators across all sides, will continue to be the case.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the people who drafted the document, who came forward with some very positive proposals. I have already made my views known on the issue and the need for us in the Seanad to be proactive in monitoring what is coming through from Europe. I previously proposed that two days a month should be set aside to deal with European regulations and directives. It is great that we have an eight-week period to discuss documents after they are drafted but it would be far better for us to be involved at an earlier stage in order that we could give our views then rather than when the process has been completed. We must be able to monitor what is going on in Europe.

On the biggest complaint about Europe is that there is a disconnect between what is happening there compared to what happens at home, particularly regarding how decisions are made. The two best examples I remember relate to fishing and mussel seed harvesting in Cromane in Kerry. In that case the process had to stop because of an EU regulation which had been in place for some time. The work that should have been done in order to allow the harvesting to continue was not done because people were not aware of the regulation. The Government of the time got over ¤5 million in grant aid to carry out the various studies but it was never used and was returned to Europe. Another significant issue in the west is turf cutting. A regulation was in place for a long period before somebody decided that it needed to be followed through, and decisions were taken at that stage. The directive had been in place for a while at this stage. We should be able to use the Seanad to monitor European regulations at an early stage of gestation.

It is important that we consider how we do our business. We must reflect on working together rather than separately, although I may not have the support of everybody on this issue. I learned from my time in Brussels that all parties can sit around a table to try to work out a compromise taking on board the views of a maximum number of people. We must do more of that. Considering the draft legislation since the change of Government, some 149 Bills have been published, with 79 of those from the Government and 64 passed into law. There have been 70 Bills from people in Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and Independents. The question arises of how many legislators we have in the 226 Oireachtas Members. Is the number restricted to the Ministers or may all 226 Members become legislators? We are so reliant on Departments to decide on legislation that input from people other than Ministers in both Houses is being reduced. That is something we must take on board in considering the reform issue.

The decision has been made by the Fine Gael leader and the Taoiseach that there will be a referendum and we will stick by that decision. We must have a detailed and honest debate about a third option. If the proposal to abolish the Seanad is rejected by the electorate, which has the final say, we should have serious consideration of reform. We must ensure that a full debate can take place, setting out the nature of possible reform. It should not just be about the number of Members or how we do business but how Members are elected. We should focus on that element, as the current structure of election is outdated and should be reviewed.

I welcome this debate and the discussion document. I hope it will be just one of many discussion documents that will be made available before the referendum is held.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím roimh an deis mo thuairimí agus tuairimí Sinn Féin a thabhairt ar an tuairisc iontach spéisiúil agus iontach maith seo. I dtosach báire, ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis na húdair, go háirithe leis an Seanadóir Zappone agus an Seanadóir Quinn a tharraing an tuarascáil seo le chéile agus a fuair tuairimí ó chuid mhaith daoine éagsúla maidir leis an ábhar seo. I ndáiríre, tá sé deacair dúinn labhairt orainn féin agus ní bheinn ag glaoch le haghaidh díospóireachta den chineál seo. Ach os rud é go bhfuil sé ann, tá sé tábhachtach páirt a ghlacadh ann mar níor mhaith linn go mbeadh daoine ag rá go bhfuil muid ag tochas ar ár gciorcailín fhéin. Sin ráite, tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuil muid ag fáil deise an t-ábhar a phlé.

Tá sé dochreidte go bhfuil an Taoiseach fós ag rá go bhfuil sé ag brú chun cinn le reifreann ar an Seanad, gan aon phlé a bheith á dhéanamh agus gan é a bheith curtha os comhair an chonartha atá ag plé leis an mBunreacht sa tionól bunreachtúil.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of the future of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas and wish, in particular, to commend the very good consultation paper on radical Seanad reform and all those involved in it, including Senators Quinn and Zappone and others outside this House. There are many points worthy of consideration in this document. I will not go through all of them and I will try not to repeat the points other Senators have already highlighted, although I will note a few key points from my perspective.

We are having this debate because, as the report notes on page 26 and as has been highlighted by previous reports on Seanad reform, the Chamber lacks a clear and distinctive role and is, in many respects, seen to be merely mimicking the Dáil. This is very much the case, However, as this and numerous other reports have highlighted, and as my party has highlighted, there is an infinite number of purposes a second chamber could usefully fulfil and which would add to the political life of the State if only we were willing to consider them. A number of these suggestions mirror those I have previously highlighted in this Chamber. Point 8.4 on page 26 gives a considerable and persuasive exposition of the role the Seanad could undertake in scrutinising European legislation. As a state, we have failed to really engage with this whole process and I note Senator Colm Burke also alluded to this.

The fiasco surrounding the septic tanks issue and the turf cutting debacle shows what the costs can be when we do not have an eye to what legislation is passing through the EU and through these institutions as statutory instruments. I welcome the new weekly update we get of legislation that is laid before the Houses. There is a substantial amount of documentation every week, much of it from the EU, which we do not have time to debate in these Houses or for which time is not set aside and some of that needs to be debated and cross-checked.

There is a value in the Seanad examining ordinary legislation. This report highlights that the Seanad has played a considerable part in improving legislation over the years, with point 5.4 highlighting examples where Seanad suggestions have later reappeared as Bills such as in the case of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2011.

The report also highlights the very obvious need to make the Seanad more democratic. We have consistently made clear that we believe the Seanad in its current form is not acceptable. This is due to its limited function and clearly because its manner of election is totally anti-democratic and elitist. It is for that reason the public considers that its function is limited. The report usefully highlights that even without constitutional reform we can make the elections to the Seanad more democratic by expanding the franchise and even to the point of providing for a substantial bulk of the Seanad to be directly elected. There are many ways in which people could be elected, whether through the European constituencies, through a list-type system format or through the panels and assigning voters to panels. However, clearly it is not appropriate to have a House of the Oireachtas where ordinary citizens do not have a vote. Clearly, the Seanad is also a very appropriate place to provide representation to Irish citizens in the North and to the Diaspora. It is very welcome that this point is being considered in the report and highlights that numerous bodies have made such suggestions. These are categories of citizens who currently have no say in the political life of the State and that must be corrected.

I note the references to the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, the work of which I commend. It could, however, be enhanced and made a relevant part of informing decision making in this Chamber. People, ranging from ordinary citizens and lobby groups, have access to the Seanad that they will never have to the Dáil and we should seek to ensure that this role is maximised to its fullest potential.

I wish to make two final points. Before the recess we had a debate on the inexplicable refusal to allow this issue to be referred to the constitutional convention. Sinn Féin has consistently called for this inclusion. In our discussions with the Taoiseach, my party leader and those members of my party who comprise our membership of the convention expressed clearly their view that the future of the Seanad had to be part of the convention. It is an ideal opportunity and forum that can have the capability of considering the many different opinions and options which could be explored.

My final point is why such an option was not taken. Pages 14 and 15 highlight the numerous reports which have been ignored. They all highlighted the threat of abolition if the House was not reformed. There is a body of work there which could be at least considered, including the work of the Constitutional Review Group and the Seanad Éireann committee, in which my colleague, Senator Cullinane, participated as a councillor. There is no reason this could not be considered and acted upon at this time but the reality is that the Taoiseach has set his face against it. I suspect many of his colleagues do not see the merit in such a foolhardy and pointless initiative as this one. It is incredible that we may yet see the cutting off of a whole arm of the Oireachtas, the Parliament of the State, on the basis of throw-away remarks of the Taoiseach, which he has now become fixated on acting upon. This is not the new politics we were all promised - it is scarcely politics at all. The Government, particularly the Taoiseach, needs to step back and examine this issue with clarity, calmness and the proper regard for care in the reform of the Constitution and of the political institutions of the State. It is clear that the constitutional convention is the appropriate forum for doing so and it should be referred to that body at the very least.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leader of the House for allowing this debate to continue again today. I compliment Senators Quinn and Zappone and all others involved in drawing up this Radical Seanad Reform through Legislative Change consultation paper. I congratulate both Senators on that and no doubt it was not done in one hour, one day or one night.

I acknowledge and compliment the expertise and professionalism of Members from all walks of life in the Seanad and that has an important part to play in the reforming of it. A total of 11 previous reviews of the Seanad have taken place and a common denominator among them is that none of them called for the abolition of the Seanad. Unfortunately, none was acted upon. Reform was the common denominator among them. Legislation must always be critically examined and, as stated by Senator Colm Burke, monitored at an early stage. There must be a second House to do that.

I am one of the 42 new Members of the Seanad and for the first four or five months I asked myself what I was doing here and if I was here to listen to the Cathaoirleach, the Leas-Chathaoirleach or whoever was in the Chair being totally ignored by my fellow Senators. Having been involved in a local authority for nearly 30 years and having chaired councils and regional bodies, I state categorically that I have never been involved in a forum where the words and rulings of the Cathaoirleach, or those of the Acting Chairman, on many occasions have not been listened to or adhered to. We could begin by reforming ourselves by acting responsibly. I have never interfered with the ruling of the Cathaoirleach - he may have intervened when I have spoken but I do not believe he has. We should start reforming by becoming more mannerly in this House.

I once again congratulate Senators Zappone and Quinn and those involved in drawing up this paper.

It is a great starting point for all Members, which they must contemplate and consider. On foot of the contributions made in this House by Senators Zappone and Quinn, I must state that as a new Senator, they are two of those to whom I listen each time they speak. I congratulate them for this consultation paper and look forward to implementing and discussing many of the changes contained therein. A great point has been made in respect of the question of costs for the Seanad and for the spiritual advisers to Ministers. I note we are running neck and neck and ask whether there is better value for money from the Seanad than from some spiritual advisers to Ministers, who as far as I am concerned are in receipt of extraordinary and unbelievable salaries.