Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Colm Burke and the Acting Chairman. I again thank the Leader for making available this time to respond to our document, "Open it, Don't Close It: Radical Seanad Reform Through Legislative Change", as well as to the wider issues of political reform to which it points. I thank the Leader for his request that I respond to all Members' contributions and will begin by thanking them for the highly thoughtful contributions by each Member, as well as their attentiveness to the document. It is a great support to Senator Quinn and me in respect of what we are attempting to do. Senator Quinn and I both agree with the Leader and with most of our colleagues that it is absolutely appropriate to discuss radical reform here in the Seanad and that our focus has been on the reform of the political system, as quite distinct from Senators with vested interests arguing for the retention of their, or our, jobs. As Senator Keane observed in the first part of this debate, "We are discussing the State and the country, the Seanad and the system of checks and balances." Would anyone challenge Dáil Deputies were they to debate political and Dáil reform? Would anyone argue their arguments were solely and only about keeping as many seats as possible for themselves and their colleagues? Do the people not deserve that their public representatives take seriously the issues related to the institutions of governance and review critically how well the systems are working to ensure there does exist a genuine balance of powers in order that democracy is served? Consequently, Senator Quinn and I consider it to be appropriate - I believe most Members have agreed - that this issue should be discussed in this Chamber. This is much of what our document is about. Moreover, I note, as did Senator Barrett in his earlier contribution, that in its origins, "this House was shaped by a need to counter the stronghold of the Executive over the Legislature". Down through its history, as we argue in the document and as I have heard other Members observe, the Seanad has provided a system of checks and balances to the existence of political power. Many Members referred to this issue in their contributions. Senator Paul Coghlan, the Government Whip, spoke eloquently about it when he referred to the 75 references in the Constitution to the Seanad's role, particularly the safeguards the Seanad provides for the people and he asked whether the public would like to see such safeguards swept away.

I listened carefully to my colleagues in this House during both parts of this debate and I do not believe I heard a single Member argue for abolition. I heard all of them argue for radical reform of Seanad Éireann. I heard several of them, for example, Senators O'Donovan, Bradford and Crown, note that political reform is critical and urgent. All the Senators, including Senator Colm Burke who spoke earlier today, stated this was urgent and that Members should be engaged in a debate on the Dáil and the Executive, as well as the Seanad. Senator Mooney also mentioned that point. Senator O'Donovan called them the three anchors that hold together our system of democracy. Senator Crown argued the entire process of government must be reformed.

I also listened carefully to the Leader, who outlined his agenda of reform of the Seanad, and to other Senators who suggested that such reform must continue, including the manner in which they behave in the Chamber, which I accept. The Leader has instigated a number of innovations for reform. He has sought further reform, such as the taking on by the Seanad of a more significant role with regard to the scrutiny of European legislation and Senator Colm Burke also has been central in this regard. However, Members are aware that thus far, this particular reform has not been supported and one must ask why this is the case.

I heard no calls for abolition. I heard several Members, including members of the Government parties, accept our evidence that the costs of the Seanad have been exaggerated and should not be used as an argument for its abolition. I also heard the strenuous arguments of Senator Bradford that this House is worthy of retention, that Members must reflect on the need for radical change in tandem with the radical change in politics that is urgently required. He then stated, "Let us not be the whipping boys of those who are unwilling to reform their own House." Nevertheless, I still have heard members of the Government parties state we should put this issue to the people to allow them to decide. I am quite astounded by such arguments. Those Members are in favour of radical reform, yet they state the people must be asked whether they want the Seanad to remain as it is or to be abolished. Is it not the usual case that if a referendum is put to the people, the Government does a number of things? First, it engages in an extended analysis of the intricacies of change as to why it is needed, what kind of specific change is sought and how it can fit with the various policies and laws that already are in place. Is this not the example that currently is before-----

Imelda Henry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's time has elapsed.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek one or two more minutes. Senator Cummins mentioned six to eight minutes.

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

I have no objection.

Imelda Henry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise but that was what I understood from him. I have approximately one minute left. Is it not the case the Government does this in respect of referendums put to the people? Is this not the case in respect of the forthcoming children's referendum? Much analysis, committee meetings, reports, etc., went into the preparation of this referendum. However, no such analysis and preparation have been undertaken by the Government in respect of the referendum promised on the Seanad. Does this not go contrary to the careful, intelligent and responsible approach the Government has taken with regard to the children's referendum? Does this not indeed go contrary to responsible governance and, furthermore, is it not usually the case that the Government puts something to the people in which it believes and for which it has made a case?

Instead, what I believe I am hearing from the Taoiseach, as well as from many Members of this House, is to let the people decide. On the one hand, many Members have argued for reform but on the other, they are not putting reform to the people. Does taking the route thus chosen by them constitute responsible government? If such Members are in favour of reform, why do they not consider radical Seanad reform through legislation? Our document makes proposals for such reform and with regard to a more democratic Seanad, we have outlined our preferences for a universal franchise for the panel seats. The Leader has stated he is convinced the public will not support a Chamber for as long as they have no say in who is elected to it. While I agree with him, the Leader then went on to state the matter, that is, how people are elected to the Seanad, "will have to be agreed well in advance of any referendum". This is precisely what our proposals have set out to do. This is precisely the reason Senator Quinn and I have called for the Government to put aside its proposals for a referendum until this House and the Lower House have had a chance to debate a Bill that can bring about radical reform of the Seanad through legislation. This would be the responsible and rational approach, after which Members could begin to have a proper debate, which the people deserve from their public representatives, on how to ensure the best possible way to use and to balance the public power that has been given to Members. The urgency for reform is now and it will not be there after a referendum.

Imelda Henry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

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

Ar 10.30 maidin amarách.