Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 2013

Vol. 223 No. 5

Seanad Bill 2013: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Ceapann an Seanadóir Quinn agus mé féin gur lá tábhachtach é seo i stair na hÉireann agus an Bille um an Seanad 2013 á thabhairt isteach againn. Táimid ag druidim go tapaidh ar chomóradh 100 bliain na n-eachtraí a bhunaigh ár Stát. Is é seo an bealach is fearr inar féidir linn ómós a thabhairt dóibh siúd a d'oibrigh ar son na saoirse - chun an daonlathas a chothú seachas é a chúngú. Mar sin, ag teacht leis an stair agus ag breathnú ar an mBunreacht mar cháipéis bheo, táimid ag moladh sa reachtaíocht seo Seanad Éireann a athnuachan agus a chlaochlú. With the introduction of the Seanad Bill 2013, Senator Quinn and I see this to be an important day in Irish history. As we fast approach the many centenary anniversaries associated with the foundation of this State, the best way we can pay tribute to those who sacrificed so much for our freedom is to open up our democracy, rather than to close it. In line with history and in viewing the Constitution as a living document, we are proposing in this Bill to renew and transform Seanad Éireann.

The Seanad is an integral arm of the governance of this country as laid down in our Constitution. Bunreacht na hÉireann has served the Irish people well. The abolition of the Seanad will disturb the essential democratic system of checks and balances on which our Constitution is founded and which, so far, has resolutely stood the test of time and change. Everybody should be clear that getting rid of the Seanad will remove a number of significant safeguards. This could have a negative impact on the Presidency, the independence of the Judiciary, the sovereignty of our Constitution in the context of EU law and the right of the people to be consulted on major decisions by means of a referendum or a general election. It is sensible that the Seanad provides some checks and balances on the power of a Dáil majority. In particular, a second chamber is a critical safeguard against rushed legislation. It is vital that Seanad Éireann should continue to play a valuable democratic and constitutional role as a revising chamber. The Seanad, with its inbuilt constitutional safeguards for the citizens and the State and its vital checks and balances, should not be abolished. It should be transformed to meet the needs of a modern Ireland and a working democracy.

This legislation is not about retaining the existing Seanad - it is about a reformed Seanad, a Seanad nua, a Seanad an phobail. The effectiveness of the Seanad has diminished because it is under-representative of the people and thereby does not serve the best interests of the people. It does not serve the interests of the majority or the minorities. The old Seanad is part of a system that did not stand in the way of an economic crisis that took away our sovereignty, our confidence and the jobs and prosperity of countless thousands. We need to recover and strengthen the Seanad's function as a check and balance to the Dáil and the work of the Executive. This is not the time to cut the number of outside voices and expert views, to reduce the amount of scrutiny on the laws that affects the lives of our people or to give the Civil Service an even freer hand to rule without query. That is what Seanad abolition would mean. Instead, we need a transformed Seanad.

This Bill is born out of the "Open it, Don't Close it" consultation document that was published in September 2012. This document was the product of extensive consultation on the future of the Seanad. The reform process in this Bill is significantly advanced by means of simple legislation to alter radically the way the Seanad is elected and who is elected, the powers it holds and the way it does its business. I believe this will have the immense and positive effect of enhancing Irish democratic politics by further empowering citizens. It will ensure politics is not a closed shop. It will give a voice to ordinary people at the highest levels of policy and legislation implementation. This Bill breaks new ground. It sets out key principles that would underpin a new Seanad. We are proposing a House where all of us get a vote, not just an elite; a House made up of half women and half men; a House where people in the North and those forced into emigration have a say; a House where new voices and new expertise can constructively and positively hold the policies and ideas of the Cabinet, the Dáil, the parties and the regulators to greater account; and a House where EU and domestic legislation gets the scrutiny it deserves. All of this can be done right now through legislation without need for a referendum. Why should we delay?

In a departure from the current elitist approach, our Bill enunciates the principle that every person shall have a vote in a Seanad election. Our Bill broadens the pool of graduates who may vote in the university constituency in a fair and equal manner. By opening up the right to vote, we will necessarily democratise Seanad Éireann. The Irish Women's Franchise League was founded by Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington and Margaret Cousins in 1908, some 105 years ago. These two remarkable women deserve an honoured place in our history. One of the biggest gaps in Irish political life today is the under-representation of women in the Oireachtas. It is up to our generation to finally set this right. It has taken over a century. The measures in section 7 of this Bill, which would provide for a chamber of our national Parliament made up of half women and half men, is long overdue and heralds a new era of progressive politics.

Fifty years ago this summer, President John F. Kennedy addressed a special joint sitting of Dáil and Seanad Éireann. On that historic occasion, he spoke about the vast scale of Irish emigration to the United States. He quoted James Joyce who, for this reason, described the Atlantic Ocean as a "bitter bowl of tears". In every generation, emigration has left a scar on our national life. We are seeing its worst effects again today, as families are sundered by the forced emigration caused by our economic difficulties. My family background is rooted in emigration from these shores. I was born in Washington State to a mother whose people came from Virginia, County Cavan, and Oldcastle, County Meath. It is for this reason, among others, that I am especially proud of the measures in section 31 of this Bill which will give Irish emigrants a vote for the first time in our national Parliament. In recent years, much has been made of the need to harness the talents and expertise of the Irish diaspora around the world. We can begin by giving the Irish abroad a vote in at least one major election.

I would like to speak about the proposal to extend voting rights to people in Northern Ireland who are entitled to Irish citizenship. Many people in Northern Ireland have a strong affinity with the Republic of Ireland. It is incumbent upon us to facilitate people in Northern Ireland who wish to avail of the opportunity to participate in Seanad elections and feel they have some voice and some level of representation in the democratic structures of the Republic. Wisely, this Bill does not specify that people in Northern Ireland who qualify for Irish citizenship have to take out such citizenship to vote in a Seanad election. The Bill recognises a fundamental core principle of the Good Friday Agreement whereby it is the birth right of every individual in Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose. In a post-conflict Ireland, we need to open up a new space to deepen co-operation, respect and understanding on this island.

This Bill seeks to confer for the first time a clear and defined role on the Seanad as envisaged by the Constitution. Seanad Éireann was never intended to be a mirror image of the Dáil. We do not need two Houses trying to fulfil the same role. We have included in this Bill a set of new powers for the Seanad across a range of areas. My colleague, Senator Quinn, will outline them in fuller detail. We believe these new powers will supplement and revitalise the place and the role of the Seanad in the history of this State. At the last election, the Irish people made clear their desire for political reform which would ensure our democratic structures are more representative, transparent, accountable and effective. We believe the reform of the Seanad to be a central part of achieving that goal. Indeed, we believe our model of reform provides the Irish people for the first time in our history with a Seanad an phobail.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I really appreciate him coming here. This is a very important Bill for this House and for the people of Ireland. Last Sunday was the 97th anniversary of the execution of James Connolly and Seán Mac Diarmada. They were the last of the leaders to be executed. They were identified because they had signed the Proclamation, from which I would like to quote. The Proclamation "guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens" and envisages a system of government "representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women". It is something we have all aspired to over the years. We have looked back on those wonderful words. We have had a Government here since 1922. We have been successful in making our way.

I have 16 grandchildren and I would like to think that, in the years to come, they will be living in an Ireland built on similar foundations. I would worry if I thought that, in the years ahead, they will be in an Ireland where part of the foundations we have built for them, that have been there since 1937, have been damaged in some form or other. We should tamper with the existing three Houses - the Presidency, the Dáil and the Seanad - with great care.

We should be very careful. The abolition of the Seanad would remove one of the pillars of our system of government. I believe this Seanad Bill will enshrine in our democracy a guarantee for the future of this nation. This is not a time for political posturing. It is a time for all of us who care deeply about Irish democracy to seriously reflect on what the closure of the Seanad would actually mean in our public life. If this shocking eventuality comes to pass, it is highly unlikely that the people will ever again be given the opportunity to reverse that decision. Some people beyond this Chamber might well ask, "Why should we care?", but the lesson of the crisis in our public finances is that ill-considered measures and bad political choices can impinge on our national finances, affecting the prosperity and security of every family in our country, as we have seen.

Nobody is disputing the fact that our political system needs reform, but it has to be the right reform. The Seanad is not perfect and I believe it needs to change, but it is not a credible argument to suggest that meaningful political reform amounts to consigning the Seanad to the dustbin of history while leaving all power in the hands of an unreformed Dáil. I mean this very seriously and I am worried about the loss of democracy we would have. What is needed is real change in the way both Houses of the Oireachtas do their business, not the rash closure of either democratic forum. This generation needs to be careful that we are not hoodwinked into getting rid of vital constitutional safeguards for which future generations may yet have a real democratic need. I strongly believe that the universal demand for political reform in Ireland can be best delivered as part of a series of measures that include a comprehensively reformed Seanad. This work could commence almost immediately by passing this Bill.

The Bill is about giving all Irish people a stake in the Seanad's future. Its provisions arise from a long and detailed consultation process as well as the “Open Seanad Éireann, Don’t Close it” consultation paper that was published six months ago. The Bill is informed by that process and the input and submissions of many people. It recognises that a reformed Seanad can enhance our democracy and make a real contribution to the challenges facing our country. Among the core democratic values which make up this Bill, and which will be reflected in the new Seanad, is that of "one citizen, one vote", not "two votes", as some have at the moment - some could even have more than two votes - as well as greater gender balance, a voice for Northern Ireland the diaspora, a space for new voices and a democratic safeguard protecting our EU interests.

This country needs enhanced democracy, not less democracy, and the recent economic collapse underlines this. The abolition of the Seanad is not the solution. This Bill fundamentally opens up our national Parliament and will make it more efficient, accountable, and, I believe, much more constructive. This is a new foundation for the better type of politics that is now required, more than ever, to get our security back.

I would have liked to make many other points. As Senator Zappone said, I was to give some description of the detail of the Bill but I am afraid I have wasted my time not giving the details. However, the details of what we can do are in the Bill. It is not just a question of voting but of giving the vote to others who do not have votes at present. My parents came from Northern Ireland. On the basis of our Bill, people in Northern Ireland will get a vote, no matter what their political allegiance is. Those who left Ireland recently because of emigration and who have an Irish passport, anywhere around the world, will have a vote in the new Seanad. I believe it will be much more effective and democratic. It will be a Seanad we will be proud to look back on in later years. In the Bill, we have also shown the extra work we can do in this House. This House is capable of doing a huge amount more, whether it is to do with Europe, inquiries or otherwise. I believe this Bill is worthy of support.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Seanad on the Seanad Bill 2013. I recognise and acknowledge the work that has gone into the preparation and development of the Bill. It is a comprehensive Bill and many of its proposals are innovative and deserving of detailed consideration in their own right. I note that the Bill was preceded in September 2012 by the consultation paper, "Radical Seanad Reform Through Legislative Change", and that the Bill reflects proposals in that paper and submissions received during the subsequent consultation phase, as Senator Quinn said.

It has to be acknowledged also that the Government has set out its own stall on the Seanad in the programme for Government. We promised in the programme for Government that the question of abolition of the Seanad would be put to the people by referendum and it is our intention to do so in the autumn of this year. The Taoiseach confirmed this again in the Dail only days ago, when he indicated that the constitutional amendment Bill to decide the future of the Seanad would be brought forward in the current Dáil session. I can confirm that the Bill will be discussed by Government next Tuesday.

All sectors of Irish society will be heading into a period of more intense debate over the coming months on the future of the Seanad. I am sure we can all agree that the debate should be well informed and respectful of all points of view. Without prejudice to the outcome of the referendum, this Bill is to be welcomed as making an important contribution to the debate. I would like to take the opportunity today to draw attention to some of the features of the Bill that have caught my eye and to make some initial comments on them.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out measures designed to achieve greater gender equality in any newly constituted Seanad. It is fair to say that there is a growing consensus in recent years that strong measures need to be taken to encourage the greater participation of women in politics at all levels. As the House will know, the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 set down ambitious targets in this respect. At the next general election, political parties will have to select at least 30% women and 30% men candidates or face losing half their State funding. Seven years from the general election where this provision first applies, this will rise to 40%. Therefore, I welcome the objective in the Seanad Bill 2013 to promote gender equality.

However, I would have some concerns about the approach proposed. The way I understand that it would operate will mean that some candidates who have a higher number of votes than others may find themselves not elected because of the need to meet the male-female quorum within a particular constituency. I believe the decision should be left to the voter.

Part 3 of the Bill sets out in very clear terms the role envisaged for any future Seanad. This role embraces existing functions and some new ones. The need to repeat in primary legislation the roles that are already assigned to the Seanad in the Constitution seems to me to be unnecessary and would need to be considered further. The additional functions proposed are wide-reaching and varied. They include a role in the scrutiny of draft legislation from the institutions of the European Union and the scrutiny of statutory instruments. A role is also envisaged in the area of public interest inquiries and the holding of debates on issues of national importance on foot of petitions signed by 1,000 people. These are all significant proposals that will generate interest and debate.

That said, I feel that some aspects may need to be teased out further. For example, I would have some concerns about the proposed role in regard to the scrutiny of statutory instruments. Generally, most statutory instruments take immediate effect, subject to being rejected later by the Houses of the Oireachtas, so there is already a role for both Houses. This facilitates meeting deadlines, often in regard to EU requirements. I would be concerned, therefore, about putting in place procedures, however well intended, that might lead to delays or an excessive workload on the Seanad in meeting those deadlines. In section 25 of the Bill, a role is proposed for the Seanad to inquire into the necessity for legislation, although I would have thought they already had this power. In section 26, the Seanad will be enabled to react to a petition of 1,000 signatures, but who will be eligible to sign a petition and how will those signatures be verified?

On electoral reform measures, which make up Parts 4 to 8 of the Bill, there are also a number of interesting proposals, including the widening of the nomination process. A scheme of popular nomination, in which the verified support of 500 persons will secure a nomination for a specified constituency, is proposed. There is also the proposal to widen the electorate to include not alone all local government electors living in Ireland, but also people resident in Northern Ireland who qualify for Irish citizenship and Irish passport holders living abroad. Of course, these proposals reflect the wider debate of extending the franchise to Irish people living abroad for the whole range of elections and referendums. As the House knows, this has been the subject of much consideration and deliberation over the years, here in the Seanad, in the Dáil and in other fora.

As politicians, we have a natural affinity for considering these issues and, for some, perhaps change has not come about quickly enough.

We all know people whose family members have moved abroad and would like to maintain real contact with events in Ireland by having a say in elections. This, however, has to be balanced against the need to ensure that any decisions for change are fully teased out. In general, the extension of voting rights would require careful consideration of a range of complex matters. There are issues of principle such as the extent of influence that voters who are not resident in Ireland should be allowed to exert. Not everyone shares an opinion on this and possibilities would need to be explored in detail. There would also be practical issues such as ensuring the integrity and security of the ballot and the cost of implementing any new arrangements for widening the electorate.

In my contribution in the Seanad last March on the Seanad Electoral Bill, proposed by Senator Crown, I outlined some of the general reforms that this Government has already introduced. I will not go over these in detail again today but simply point to the ongoing work of the members of the Convention on the Constitution which in the coming months will consider the Dáil electoral system and giving citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in presidential elections at Irish embassies or otherwise. It would be appropriate that their views too be taken into consideration as part of the debate on the issue of extending the right to vote to a wider population.

While the detail of the Bill is for another day, several aspects struck me that may need further clarification and consideration. Section 31 of the Bill provides that all persons living in Northern Ireland who qualify for Irish citizenship may be part of the Seanad electorate, yet section 35(d) seems to add a further requirement that such a voter would also need to be registered to vote in Northern Irish elections before he or she could vote in the Seanad election. Section 31 also provides that all persons holding a valid and current Irish passport and who reside outside the State may be part of the electorate. Is it intended that these voters surrender their passport, as implied in section 36(c) of the Bill, in order to be included in the proposed register of electors? Section 52 deals with Seanad election expenses but does not seem to address the expenses of those standing in the university constituencies. Section 63 deals with casual vacancies but does not seem to address the situation where the person who would fill the vacancy is no longer available for whatever reason.

More generally, I would question the practicality of the provisions for the postal ballot. Measures are proposed which are largely based on the existing model but if the electorate is widened would that model continue to work? Section 50 provides for the issue of ballot papers on a particular day or on different days but the electorate involved will have increased enormously. Some 156,000 people are registered to vote in Seanad elections. The proposals in the Bill would see this initially increasing to over 3 million. I say these things not to find fault with the Bill but to underline the fact that proposals, wherever they come from and whatever one's point of view, need to be fully teased out before making their way on to the Statute Book from the legal point of view and that of practical implementation and operability.

I take this opportunity to note the proposals on Seanad reform from Senators Zappone and Quinn. I agree with what Senator Quinn said in his contribution regarding the need for political reform and in particular Dáil reform, which will happen. I hope that the Bill and the ideas in it continue to play a role in stimulating people to consider and debate the issues over the coming months. Senator Crown's contribution with his recent legislation will play an equal role in generating debate. This is an important opportunity for the Irish people to reflect on these matters in advance of deciding the future of this House in a referendum that will be held later this year. The people ultimately will decide. That is the spirit of tolerance behind the Government's decision to approve Second Stage of this Bill today.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I compliment our colleagues, Senators Quinn and Zappone, on bringing forward this Bill. I am somewhat taken aback at the benign attitude of the Minister which I presume reflects the Government's thinking. It seems that on the one hand it welcomes all sorts of debate but on the other it will get rid of us if it can. It was rather interesting that in his opening remarks the Minister referred to the fact that this Bill would help to stimulate debate. He talks about a period of intense debate over the coming months. It would have been more helpful if the Government had decided to have something other than a straight "Yes" or "No". It wants either to abolish the Seanad or keep it. That does not give people much room for intense debate whereas if the wording was more flexible and open it might. The Government is giving people a very stark choice and that is one of the flaws in this proposal.

Already the storm clouds are gathering around the Taoiseach's proposals. I mention the Taoiseach because he initiated this process. Everything that has followed is of little relevance because he is driving it. If a straw poll was taken of the Ministers in both parties the result would be rather interesting. The result of a straw poll of the Government supporters in the House would be even more interesting. That is the reality it faces. I am glad that the media is not being codded by this somewhat clumsy attempt to suggest that there is real reform behind this initiative on the basis that getting rid of the Seanad will make for a more accountable democracy. It is also throwing in the canard that this will save money. It is time that claim was nailed. I hope that those contributing to this debate who support retention and reform of the Seanad will continue to hammer home their views so that the general public will know that the Seanad costs approximately €7 million out of a total Government budget of some €56 billion. Is the Government trying to suggest to the people that this will help heal the country’s economic malaise or that it will put more food on their tables? That €7 million will not be saved because it has already been made clear that if the voters want to abolish the Seanad the money would be redistributed. There would be no reduction in staff or services.

Now the little carrot of Dáil reform is dangled before us. This has crept into the debate only in the past few days. There will never be Dáil reform as long as there is centralised government with an Executive that uses the Dáil as a rubber stamp. With a majority of over 50 in the other House this Government can put through, and is putting through whatever it likes, whenever it likes, at whatever pace it likes. Throwing the carrot of reform of the Dáil to the people to persuade them to vote for the abolition of this House is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.

I want to touch on a couple of aspects of this Bill. I do not agree with the idea of expanding the nomination process. For local authorities and 500 people to be part of the nomination process is unwieldy. The existing nomination process is a good one particularly as it retains the professional bodies. I am grateful to the Seanad office for confirming that there are 106 registered bodies on the electoral register all of whom have very substantial membership lists. I cannot work out what the figures will be but I am sure somebody will. Those bodies represent Irish society as a whole. That is what the Seanad is supposed to be and has been, flawed as its election process may be. When executing its business it has stuck rigidly to the original concept which was to represent vocational interests and Irish society. It also stays true to its original concept of operating as a check and balance to what happens in the other House. This is a more reflective and less adversarial House. It gives more time to debate and legislation, all of which is reflected in the sentiments behind if not in the detail of this Bill.

I agree in principle with extending the franchise overseas and to Northern Ireland but I agree with the Minister that the proposals in the Bill are somewhat unwieldy. I also share his inference that there are other issues involved in extending the franchise outside Ireland. There are some 70 million people worldwide who claim to be Irish. I recall Dick Spring saying that he would hate to be waiting for the results of the ballot box from Boston to decide the fifth seat in Kerry. That is a real concern particularly as we operate under a PR system but we are capable of including the Irish diaspora at some level. I agree, for example, with the concept of the passport holders having a vote but one could limit it to those who have been out of the country less than three years. I would ensure that if we extend the franchise that one would have voluntarily to register one's interest at the local embassy or office of the chargé d'affaires. If one wants to exercise the franchise in Irish elections one has to be proactive.

I agree with the Minister about the postal ballot. This would not work in practice. The electorate is huge. Why not have the Seanad elections on the same day as the Dáil elections? That would cut the cost considerably and, depending on how the Seanad reform project was outlined, the people of Ireland who have shown themselves to be very mature when voting would be able to distinguish between what the two Houses do.

Overall, I welcome what Senators Zappone and Quinn have done in this regard. I would like to think it is the beginning of that intense debate about which the Minister spoke. I hope the media will espouse this. I wish well all of those who are on the side of retention and reform of this House - reform is the word, not abolition.

I welcome the publication of the Seanad Bill 2013 and compliment its proposers, as I complimented Senator Crown on the introduction of his Seanad Electoral Reform Bill last March. I welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposals but, as the Minister stated, the Seanad referendum Bill will be before us in a matter of weeks and it will be the people who will decide whether this House continues or not.

The vast majority of the content of previous reports on Seanad reform dealt with how the Seanad should be elected. There is no doubt in my mind that the entire electorate should have a say in the election of Seanad Éireann. This Bill has some suggestions on how that can be accomplished - Senator Crown's Bill had different proposals - but should the people decide to retain the Seanad, then the people must certainly also have a say in the election of the next Seanad.

In the referendum people will be asked to vote for abolition, or against it. The Bill before us provides a suite of proposals which can be considered by the electorate before they cast their vote in a referendum. It confers a range of additional powers, including the examination of public appointments as well as the holding of inquiries. It suggests that Seanad Éireann should have a greater role in the scrutiny of draft legislation emanating from the institutions of the European Union. I would certainly support such a move and the House will be aware that I advocated such a role but secretarial resources were denied to us at that time. I have asked a sub-committee of the House to come together to draw up proposals for us to deal with the relevant items from the European Parliament's annual work programme, which can be staffed from within our own individual resources. I certainly fully agree that Seanad Éireann should have an enhanced role in considering draft legislation directly from EU institutions.

When speaking of resources, I note this Bill suggests setting up a number of Seanad committees. We should be very careful about creating anything that would involve greater cost to the taxpayer. I have my doubts too about the process of registering to vote at Seanad elections, opting for panels etc. I believe this will involve greater costs also. It seems a little cumbersome but the principle of the public electing the majority of Senators is one that I fully support.

I view this Bill and Senator Crown's Bill as discussion documents that will engage and inform the public, and show them that proposals are in place that can be tweaked, deleted or otherwise, but at the end of the day the Seanad will be reformed, especially in the manner it is elected and nature of the business with which we deal.

Checks and balances and the opportunity to have a second opinion have always been valued by the Irish electorate. I believe that Seanad Éireann, when scrutinising legislation, provides exactly what people are looking for in the careful and considered way we deal with legislation. Many Ministers, current and past, are on record stating that they believe that legislation is greatly improved following the Seanad Stages and that is due to the quality of debate that takes place in this House.

Often, because of the less confrontational and more deliberative nature of debate here, Ministers are prepared to accept amendments on the floor of the Seanad or agree to table Government amendments reflecting Opposition concerns at a later stage in the legislative process. This is where the true value of the Seanad lies and I am very proud to be a part of a process that plays such a critical role in the proper governance of the State.

The Seanad has always been a champion of the lesser heard voice. The protection of democracy, democratic institutions and the promotion of the well-being of citizens both here and abroad is a concern raised almost daily. We are also fortunate that in our discussions with Ministers, there is great latitude to focus attention on matters that would otherwise not get a hearing. Personally, I believe in the promotion and the protection of the institutions of the State which were under threat from subversives and withstood many challenges over the years. Our Constitution belongs to the people. The institutions of the State, including Seanad Éireann, are part and parcel of that Constitution.

It is for the people of Ireland, in the first instance, to decide whether Seanad Éireann continues or not. Should the people reject abolition, it would be unwise of any Government to proceed with another Seanad election without reforming how this House is elected and the nature of the business with which we deal. This Bill and Senator Crown's Bill have provided a basis for reform and I have no doubt that the proposals contained in both can be used as the basis for that reform should it be needed.

I welcome the Minister to the House. All political power will be concentrated in the hands of the Government, which Senator Quinn has told us will be the one and only party in the Oireachtas, and in a non-reformed Dáil that will be a gloomy prospect for the future of our country. As we heard other Senators discuss, if the Dáil is reformed, it will be at the beck and call of the Government of the day, if it is the only House that sits in the Oireachtas.

It gave me great pleasure to sign the Bill before the House this evening last week as I feel it goes a long way to addressing many of the problems we have with the current Seanad. First, I would like to acknowledge the work of Senators Zappone and Quinn and their colleagues from outside the Oireachtas in the preparation of this extensive Bill. As I said in this Chamber a few months ago when discussing another Seanad reform Bill brought forward by Senator Crown, there was much talk and many opinions about the work and future of this Chamber, much of which was based on populist soundbites and little factual information. Regrettably the biggest peddler of this false message is the Government symbolised by its firm position of only offering the people an option of abolition or retention and not a third option of reform. I would respectfully say to the Leader that if the people decide to keep the Seanad and then we reform it afterwards, it is a little bit unfair to the citizens of the country because reform needs to be on the table now for discussion, not just the two options of abolition or retention.

In my opinion the biggest insult of all is the Government's claim that this is all about political reform. I suspect that if a first year political science student offered up the Government's rationale for the abolition of the Seanad in an essay, he or she would fail the exercise and perhaps the tutor's comments would include a note to the effect of "must try harder".

This Bill along with Senator Crown's Bill show what is possible with a little effort and imagination. I do not think there is one Senator in this Chamber who feels that this House works well and is reflective of Irish society in its composition, electoral system and how its business is currently structured. Nor do I believe that the majority of the Government Senators agree with the idea of abolishing the Seanad, something to which I hope they remain true in the coming months. When preparing for this debate over the weekend I thought that what we might see is people voting against what they believe in because the powers that be told them to. Thankfully, the Government's decision not to oppose the Bill means that will not happen on this occasion but it has occurred on endless other issues in this House in recent times. This demonstrates clearly to me one of the biggest problems we face in this Chamber, namely the rigid Whip system which does not allow for independent thought.

While the Bill before us would not solve that problem entirely it would lessen the power and control of the political parties which currently exist in the Seanad. This control can be traced back to the electoral system which sees the majority of Senators being elected by an electorate of approximately 2,000 county councillors who happen to be members of political parties and tend to vote in accordance with party headquarters' instructions. This results in it being virtually impossible for an Independent to be elected on to one of the vocational panels.

No disrespect to any of my wonderful colleagues but this narrow and restrictive system does not always allow for the election of the best candidates. Under the Bill before the House, the electoral process would be taken out of the hands of the political parties and placed firmly in the hands of our citizens and the public, where it should be, through a vote for each citizen. The fact that people could be nominated to contest the Seanad election in three ways also serves to open the House to the people and this must be welcomed. For too long, words such as elitist and so on have been directed towards this House and, in my opinion, rightly so. The Bill is designed to work within the confines of the Constitution and as a result the Taoiseach of the day will continue to have the right to appoint 11 Senators. This is questionable if we truly want to have a strong independent Upper House but I can appreciate the reason for this remaining to be the case in this reform Bill. I welcome the envisaged extension of the franchise to all third level graduates, something which is long overdue. Another plus of this Bill is the proposed pay structure and pension entitlements of Senators as it is more suitable for the work being undertaken and, perhaps, more importantly it is more reflective of the world outside these four walls. I am sure this is a gesture which the public will appreciate because, for too long, the political class has not shown serious leadership. We have not been examples to the public and the pain they feel.

I have some reservations around the proposed half and half gender balance in the Bill. I am not in favour of a fixed 30-30 breakdown of males and females as proposed. I can appreciate the logic and intention behind this provision but it goes too far and it is almost as if we are trying to artificially engineer democracy. To my knowledge I am not aware of any parliament in the world where such a system operates. I just want to put on the record my concerns around this provision which I feel needs more scrutiny on Committee Stage.

Where the Bill really excites me are the proposed changes around how we do our work in this Chamber. As someone who comes from a business background, I have lost count of the number of times I have been dismayed at the way we do things in here. There are a few areas that have merit, the scrutiny of EU legislation and the examination of public appointments as well as the holding of inquiries. These three powers would greatly enhance the relevance and performance of the Seanad. Finally, I note how this Bill envisages the establishment of a committee to structure and plan the business of the House chaired by a non-government Senator.

In conclusion, I repeat my call on the Government to at least allow the people have a choice around a reformed Seanad when it comes to the referendum day later this year. I hope they will act in this manner if they are to be taken seriously around the area of political reform.

I welcome the Minister to the House and in the Visitors Gallery former Senator Mary Henry. I am delighted to see her here. As others have done, I commend Senators Katherine Zappone and Senator Feargal Quinn, in particular, and their colleagues on the immense amount of work they have put into drafting this detailed Bill on Seanad reform. I welcome the fact that we are debating it this evening. I am conscious that we have debated recently Senator John Crown's Bill also on Seanad reform. The Leader has proposed that debate be concluded at the conclusion of this debate. This is a difficult area in which to draft a Bill to achieve meaningful reform and yet stay within the terms of the Constitution. They have done a particularly good job and both have spoken powerfully and eloquently in favour of the Bill. It is no secret that my personal view is that it would be preferable to reform the Seanad rather than abolish it. I have spoken on the issue many times in the House and in other fora.

The Bill is being introduced, as the Leader has said, at a time when the Government is committed to putting the continued existence of the Seanad to the people in a referendum to be held later in the year. The Minister has informed the House that the legislation will come before the Government next week. That commitment is contained in the programme for Government. Those of us on the Government side knew that when we signed up to that programme and are committed to supporting the referendum Bill and allowing this question to go to the people.

The projected debate with the projected date of the referendum has focused minds on Seanad reform and has cultivated a more meaningful debate than at any time in the recent history of the Seanad. In the general election of 2011, almost all the political parties identified abolition of the Seanad as part of their political reform agendas. The Sinn Féin manifesto proposed abolition of the Seanad.

That is not true. The Senator needs to go back and read the manifesto.

The Fianna Fáil manifesto said that if proposals for reform of the electoral system and of Government were enacted, it would support the abolition of the Seanad. It was a somewhat contingent proposal.

There is no reform.

Certainly it has concentrated the minds, although this is not a new development. I have spoken previously on the history of the Seanad and the fact that throughout its 90 plus years there have been endless calls for abolition and debates on retention and abolition. In the 1930s there was extensive debate on the merits of bicameral as opposed to unicameral systems and yet the Seanad has survived all of those debates and has a strong history in a number of respects and particularly in terms of Committee Stage debates on legislation. We have had strong and thoughtful debates on legislation. A Bill which springs to mind is one the Minister introduced in this House, the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Bill where we had a strong debate and Senators on both sides can contribute without the need to be spokespersons on the entirety of the Bill as in the Dáil committee system.

The Seanad has also a strong history of introducing Private Members' Bills. I mentioned that the former Senator Mary Henry is in the Visitors Gallery. She introduced important Private Members' legislation on assisted human reproduction and Senator Feargal Quinn introduced the Construction Contracts Bill. We in the Labour Party group have introduced Private Members' Bills which have been supported. Some Bills that I introduced as an Independent were subsequently supported by different governments and have become law. Therefore, the Seanad has a strong history in that regard which is only now being mirrored in some of the Dáil processes.

If the referendum is defeated in the autumn, the call for reform will become unarguable. That is why it is important to have this Bill and Senator John Crown's Bill on the Order Paper of the Seanad so that people will see in the debate on the referendum that there is a third alternative whereby if the referendum is defeated there are workable proposals for reform present.

I turn to the Bill and some of the specific points therein. I am glad the Minister has welcomed it and that the Government is not opposing it. Some important principles are incorporated in it. Those on gender balance are commendable and I strongly support them. The principle of opening up the Seanad to a wider electorate to enable every citizen to vote would be a major improvement. As Senator Cummins has said, I wonder about the method that has been used in the Bill. There are somewhat cumbersome divisions of the register. Former Senator Mary O'Rourke's paper on Seanad reform, which had unanimous cross-party support prior to the 2007 general election, proposed a simpler structure whereby there were two registers, one for the university seats and one for the non-university seats. It appears to me that is a simpler model to use and can be done without amending the Constitution. It is welcome that all the university seats would be opened up to all the third level institutions. That is permissible within the terms of the Constitution in accordance with the 1979 amendment. A number of other positive changes are proposed in the Bill. For example, some of the functions of a reformed Seanad would be to scrutinise EU legislation, scrutinise ministerial appointments to public bodies and to conduct public interest inquiries. I strongly support the idea of votes for immigrants who vote currently for the university seats. All of us six university Senators are elected, at least partially, by the votes of emigrants of Irish citizens living abroad. The practical difficulties others have identified can easily be overcome. In the Constitutional Convention in October we will look specifically at extending voting rights to emigrants in the presidential election where the difficulty Dick Spring would not arise.

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate and commend the Independent Senators for putting the Bill to the House. It should inform an important part of the debate leading up to the referendum in the autumn.

I too wish to welcome former Senator Mary Henry to the House.

I admire the Minister because I admire affrontery. I have never seen anything quite as dazzling as the Minister's affrontery here tonight. In fact, it calls to mind the popular association between political neck and the undercarriage of a jockey as he approaches Becher's Brook. I shall prove this from what the Minister said. He, for example, said with regard to the Seanad and this Bill that any decision for change should be fully teased out.

What a pity that the Minister and the Taoiseach did not tease out the consequences and their own squalid motivation in attempting to sacrifice the Seanad in exchange for the complete bags everyone in the other House made of the economy in defiance of the voices, including my own, raised in this House to warn them against what they were doing. I am glad that I voted against the bank guarantee and that, despite interference from the Chair, I mentioned the squalid names of those to whom we were paying the money - the bondholders.

The Minister dares to invoke the convention. I ask him to reconsider. He has suggested we be allowed to consider including voters from abroad but not, of course, reform of the Seanad or its abolition. That makes a farce of the convention which we are treating with contempt. That is why the Minister has a gall to come here and refer to it. I will be there on Saturday and certainly hope his call which I will present to the convention for it to be considered will be taken up by it. He then referred to the 156,000 people currently registered to vote whom he seems to promote in some way. I remind him that they vote for the university Senators who were the original target of all parties in this House because we had spoken out. Thank God, independence has been declared. This is a very important moment for Seanad Éireann.

The Minister's final point was unscripted. He said he welcomed this opportunity, that he was very conciliatory and all the rest of it. He also said he was accommodating because he liked debate - like hell he does. The reason he is here is he is facing a rebellion on the Government benches. As this Bill would have gone through anyway, he was faced with realpolitik. That is the only reason he is here; there is no other. Thank God, Seanad Éireann has at last found its teeth. I would that it had done so on the business of the budget and the issues of carers, but, thank God, it has happened now, which is about bloody time.

I will be taking over as spokesman - not quite leader - of this group and some initiatives are in train. We have 30 Bills on the Order Paper which are being stymied by the Government. The Dáil can look forward to a few messages from this House. This is a very significant moment for Seanad Éireann because of what is happening this evening and we must carry all Members with us without division. We must ensure we present a united front to those who seek to divide and diminish us. I will be supporting the Bill if it is ever put to a vote.

I refer to an aspect of significance that has not been referred to as yet. Despite the machinations of the Government and its attempts to cheat the people of a decent choice, from tonight the people will know - I hope it will go out as the message from this debate - that it is no longer a question of abolition or retention. It is now vitally and significantly a question of reform or abolish. We have the capacity to reform and will reform. I do not entirely agree with some aspects of the Bill and look forward to having the opportunity on Committee Stage to indicating what they are. We are presenting the people with an opportunity to make a real choice, not a choice between desecrating the Constitution and creating a very serious problem. The Government has everything. It won the Presidency and the general election. It controls the Seanad, the Dáil, councils, the Army, the Naval Service, the Air Corps, the police and the banks that it bought with our money.

The Senator has one minute left.

It will scarcely be enough to recite the crimes of this lot. We are being handed out as a sacrifice, as a little lump of meat in order that the ravening voters can savage what is handed out as a deceit by the Government for its own crimes, for what it did. I remind the Minister that we are precluded from tinkering with the economy, but, of course, the people have an appetite to kick politicians, thanks very largely to the other House.

That is what they want.

It is very important that we save the Seanad because we are a check, although an imperfect one. I have campaigned for the past 30 years for reform of the Seanad and every time we have returned I have tabled the decisions of all-party committees for debate and every time Governments of different complexion have voted against them. It was my proud privilege, as father of this House, to give the opening address and I spoke from the heart about preserving the Seanad. I was proud to second Senator John Crown's Bill. We will be depriving the people of a necessary check on hasty, unwise legislation, introduced by a Government that otherwise would be unchallenged. There are many other constitutional aspects. For example, I wonder if the people realise that if they manage to abolish the Seanad, the Lower House on its own will be able to dismiss judges.

I will conclude by making two quick points. We must stay united, as we have an opportunity of winning, but the playing field must be level and fair. Finally, as an academic, I cannot resist making the point that if President Kennedy did, in fact, make that reference to the Atlantic Ocean as the bowl of bitter waters he was, as they say in America, misspeaking. When Stephen Dedalus in Ulysses makes this reference, he is talking about the Irish Sea and the reference is actually to the tragic fate of his unfortunate mother. The reference to political life is more likely to be made when Stephen Dedalus describes Ireland as the old sow that eats her own farrow. We have a sow attempting to devour us to the disadvantage of the people.

I welcome the Bill and commend Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn and their colleagues for their great work in producing a very credible Bill which should surely stand up to scrutiny. It provides that every Irish citizen at home and abroad will have a stake in our democracy by having a vote in Seanad elections. It will establish gender equality in representation, maintain the integrity of the vocational system, reduce costs by paying Senators a reduced salary, give the Seanad additional powers of scrutiny of ministerial appointments and EU legislation. It represents an attempt at real political reform which will provide a real alternative for the people.

I ask the Minister why it is not possible to hold a preferendum, so to speak, although it may involve a constitutional issue. I would like to hear a definitive answer to this question. Today marks the beginning of the end of the Seanad as constituted.

The Seanad has had a fascinating history. It has played host to many remarkable parliamentarians during the years, not least, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Mrs. Mary Robinson, Mr. Douglas Hyde, Mr. William Butler Yeats, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Dr. Noel Browne and Dr. James Ryan.

In my two years here the Seanad has provided for a host of interesting initiatives and amendments and I am confident that this Bill will give it the opportunity to do more, including engaging in real scrutiny and oversight of EU legislation, for which Members on all sides have called. The Bill also confers a range of additional powers on the Seanad in the scrutiny of legislation and the examination of public appointments, as well as in the holding of inquiries, and this House is more than capable of meeting such responsibilities.

I refer to the proposed composition contained in Part 2 of the Bill. Section 6 sets out clearly that the cultural and educational constituency would have eight Members, the agricultural constituency, nine Members, the labour constituency, ten Members, the industrial and commercial constituency, in which I ran, eight Members and the administrative constituency, eight Members. I have some minor reservations with these details and have concerns about how they were reached. It would seem the industrial and commercial constituency should now have more Members and that the five vocational panels should have equality here, although I admit this is a minor detail and one which could be raised on Committee Stage.

The Bill also includes a six-seat constituency for the universities and other institutions of higher education in the State and includes the Taoiseach's right to nominate 11 Members, which is provided for in the Constitution in any case. I am happy to see both of these provisions as I believe the current crop of Taoiseach's nominees has shown that nominees can contribute greatly to this Chamber and do not necessarily have to be party political appointments. The Taoiseach does not get enough credit for his appointments in this regard. The fact that one of the co-authors of the Bill is a Taoiseach's nominee is testament to this. It is vitally important for the future of the Seanad that the franchise for voting for third level candidates is extended to all institutions and it is shameful this was not done in 1979.

All political parties have played their part in reducing the effectiveness of the Seanad and it being treated as some place where one waits to go to the Dáil or where one hangs out after one has been in the Dáil. All parties and the body politic general is responsible for that.

The key part in section 21 seeks to confer on the Seanad a new role in the scrutiny of draft legislation which emanates from the institutions of the European Union. Our Chief Whip in the Dáil, Deputy Kehoe, is on record as conceding that the scrutiny of EU legislation is not adequate. Only one committee is charged with examining what is a large volume of proposals and that, in itself, is a failing. It is clear this is an area that can be improved on. As a solicitor and somebody with a great interest in European affairs, I believe this would be a great improvement in a reformed Seanad.

This Bill is a very clear and precise piece of work and it goes a long way to rectify the inadequacies and it will legislate for a more impactful and more relevant Seanad. I will finish with a quote from a former leader of Fine Gael, James Dillon, who said, let both Houses realise that both are necessary for the liberties of the country and let us join together to improve the efficiency of both Houses rather than joining in a trial of strength between the two Houses aimed at the destruction of one.

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo ag tarlú. Is trua nach raibh sí ann sula raibh an fógra i rith an olltoghcháin. Ar shlí, tá seans againn fós aitheantas a thabhairt do thábhacht Sheanad Éireann agus tá súil agam go gcabhróidh an Bille os ár gcomhair díospóireacht cheart a thosú i measc an phobail.

It was a sad commentary on us as democrats that Seanad Éireann was dropped into the middle of a general election as a sacrificial offering but it is becoming quite clear that people are stopping to think about precisely what happened and the intention behind it. The mere fact this Bill is getting a Second Reading is an indication of a reality which is setting in. The difficulty will be getting the message to the public because until now, the debate has had a very low profile and that was deliberate.

There are times when I think the Seanad is being wound down in a particular way, which is not very nice, and in some way to strengthen the argument against having the Seanad. The importance of the Bill is the debate around it as we will not have the opportunity this evening to tease out its detail in any great detail. However, what is important about the Bill is that if the Government intends to go ahead with a referendum in October, it will provide a counter debate and a counter measure, but there is a difficulty here for the Government. If it goes for the abolition of the Seanad and not for reform and assuming the referendum does not succeed, carrying out certain reform in the future will require another referendum but it will have lost the opportunity to do that here.

They say a week is a long time in politics but the period of time between now and October is long. We are also entering into the summer of discontent and that is a time when we can succeed in engaging with the public. I hope the media enters into partnership with us in this debate, not for the good of Senators and Seanad Éireann but for the good of democracy. After all, the media enjoy a particular role in that regard.

I compliment those who brought forward the Bill. I have no doubt it will not go the whole hog but it will be out there as a counter measure and for that reason, we are doing a good day's work this evening.

As spokesperson for the Irish overseas and the diaspora, I am delighted to see section 31 of the Bill which would extend the right to vote to Irish citizens in the North and those living overseas. Ireland is a peculiar country when one considers that 184 years ago, Daniel O'Connell struggled to get votes for Catholics, 95 years ago, women were given the vote for the first time and 45 years ago, people in Derry marched for the right to vote. However, we deny 2.6 million people, who are entitled to be citizens of Ireland, the right to vote - 1.8 million in the North and 800,000 Irish passport holders living overseas. By virtue of our Constitution, we count them as citizens but the most fundamental right of any citizen is the right to vote. Some 800,000 passport holders living overseas, which is the population of Dublin city, Cork, Waterford, Galway and Limerick combined, are denied the right to vote in a Republic.

Four countries in the Council of Europe deny their citizens overseas the right to vote, and Ireland is one of them. Some 115 countries give the franchise to citizens living overseas. Of 196 countries, Ireland is in a club which includes North Korea and dictatorships. When one thinks of our long struggle for the right to vote, the fact we are here-----

We do not live in a dictatorship.

North Korea is a dictatorship. That was my analogy.

There was an inferred comparison.

We are in bad company.

The comparison was inferred.

We are talking about the opportunity to give our citizens overseas the right to vote. The Dáil will never give 800,000 passport holders living outside the State or citizens in the North the right to vote in a general election. We have an opportunity to reform this House. Senator Quinn pointed out that the Proclamation talks about giving equal rights and equal opportunities to all our citizens and this is the place to do so. I congratulate Senator Zappone, Senator Quinn, Mr. Joe O'Toole, Mr. Michael McDowell and Mr. Noel Whelan on bringing forward this Bill and Senator Crown on his Bill and all those who have worked on them. This is a real opportunity to extend the franchise to our citizens living overseas and if the House is not reformed, that opportunity will be missed.

The Bill is emotive for Senators on all sides of the House. Members of the public hold differing views, depending on which day of the week one speaks to them. People keep changing their minds. The Bill will, therefore, be discussed for a long time.

On my first day in the House I quoted Cicero and recommended a book by Robert Harris entitled Lustrum in which he referred to Cicero introducing a Bill in Rome to keep Senators and politicians happy. The Bill recommended that Senators curb their expenses while travelling around the Roman Empire. Politics has not evolved much when it comes to the issue of Seanad reform. The book was based on events purported to have taken place in 63 BC.

On allowing people who live outside the country to vote, I would be concerned about the potential consequences. Many millions of Irish passport holders move from America to Asia, South Africa and Europe. If we were to allow every holder of an Irish passport to vote, those living in the Republic of Ireland would not have a say in anything, as potentially 20 or 30 million people could be eligible to vote. Would the United States be a dedicated constituency? Would its residents be able to vote in the constituencies of Donegal, Dublin or whatever else? Let us presume there were 5 million voters. Would they be able to demand equal representation and take all of the seats in a constituency? They might claim that it was unfair that Donegal, with an electoral population of only 130,000, had five seats, when with 5 million voters, they only had one. One way to have a Senator to represent the Diaspora would be for the Taoiseach to appoint one from either the USA, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe, or simply someone from each continent. Giving votes to every person who holds an Irish passport would be a charter for total confusion and would dilute the vote of a person living and paying taxes in this country. The people who choose to stay are the ones faced with the challenges. I, therefore, disagree with giving everyone a vote, just because they wave the Irish flag on St. Patrick's Day. Most have not contributed to the country.

The Seanad Bill has many flaws, but it also has many good points. The public is faced with a big debate and I hope it will engage in it but not like in the way it did on other issues and in other referendums. It seems to oppose everything introduced by the Government. I hope we can have a proper debate, but sometimes people get carried away. I understand three referendums may be held on the same day, which would be unhelpful when the issues involved are so important.

The Seanad forms one part of the Oireachtas with the Dáil and the President, yet it is treated like it has a smaller role to play, but, under the Constitution, it holds the same status as the President and the Dáil. A debate will give a certain element of the public an opportunity to criticise politics and recommend getting rid of the Seanad. If I were to go on Highland Radio in County Donegal tomorrow morning and suggest we get rid of county councils, 80% of its listeners would ring in to agree with my suggestion. When dictators took over, they brought down democracy by gradually stripping it away. Seanad reform is not such an exercise, but we must be careful. A lot of money could be saved by getting rid of county councils, libraries and many of the groups throughout the country that do a lot of good work. I, therefore, urge caution when it comes to getting rid of a part of our democracy that has served the country well, despite what many people say.

I lend my support to the Bill and commend Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn and their background staff for contributing to the debate. I also thank Senators for their kind words on the other Bill on the Order Paper. The legislation advances the call for a mature debate on the future of the Seanad before the referendum is held in October. At least we will have theoretical constructs on the Order Paper. As Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said, the Bills are unlikely to get through the entire legislative process. However, they will stimulate the discussion on the real options available to reform the Oireachtas.

Let us be blunt - my primary motive in advancing my Bill - I am sure the same applies to my colleagues - is not to save the Seanad for its own sake but to reform the Oireachtas. I joined the House comparatively recently as an outsider. It appears, with no disrespect to those who run the country and work extremely hard at public representation, that the two Chambers are dysfunctional and have failed, although they have given us a constitutional democracy in the face of threats from various sources over a long period. On reflection, few countries have enjoyed such a continuous period of parliamentary democracy for as long as ours. The number is relatively few and in Europe there have been very few. In terms of where we are economically in the national crisis, it is plausible to blame it in part on the political structure in place. I have long argued that two forces are represented in the Parliament - parochialism and localism, owing to the way we elect Members to the Dáil, coupled with inexpertise. There was a cadre of professional politicians who did not, in many cases, bring a substantial life skills set to the Houses of Parliament. The original idea was to have a balanced Upper House that would introduce a different skills set. I was going to say it was created by the founding fathers, but I think we all know who the founding father was. Owing to the natural political evolutionary process and the way local councils are elected, the Seanad has become a mirror image of the other House. I am respectful, however, of the opinion advanced that the Seanad is a bulwark of democracy that needs to be defended. However, I am hard-pressed to think of a case, in the past two years, in which I have seen it act as a bulwark and a defender of democracy. As I said, the main reason to reform the Seanad is not that it is doing something so critically important that we need to protect it but that it will show up the other House. If we were to enact reforms, or a synthesised version of them outlined in the two Bills, there would be a Chamber in which the majority of the Members would be elected in national constituencies. That would be hugely important and would remove the element of parochialism, although I do not mean to run down the importance of local politics. The primary political motive of the good people in the other House and many in this House is to work out how to negotiate a local constituency organisation and a local constituency general electorate at the time of the next election.

I have a few technical difficulties with the Bill being discussed. In the event that it reaches Committee Stage - perhaps that is just fantasy - I shall table a number of amendments. I am most troubled by the nominating process for Seanad Éireann and its nominating bodies. The notion behind them is that they act as a filter between the wishes of the people and the those who appear on the ballot paper. In an absolute democracy, which is what I believe in, that filter should end. There is a contradiction between the Bill and the other Bill we will move at the end of the debate. I have been told that we have received the blessing of the Leader and the Government parties to do so, for which I am grateful. We propose that any citizen should be able to run for the Seanad as long as he or she has the signatures of 1,000 of his or her fellow citizens on a nominating paper. I shall not get into comparing and contrasting the two Bills. However, I am troubled by the idea of having nominating bodies, including two lots of people who sell alcohol, written into the framework for deciding who can be nominated. Why not let the tobacco industry also act as a nominating body? What about the muddying of the Medellín or Cali cartel? It makes no sense to me whatsoever that we should allow for this. We also have the banking federation. We have two groups representing advertisers who have done rather well historically from the Oireachtas. We also have the Road Haulage Association which I am sure will have an opinion when we debate legislation to decrease emissions.

I am unambiguously voting for and supporting the Bill and I am delighted that it will be passed. Let me be slightly light-hearted for one moment. I noted the mention of North Korea. I am delighted that, like North Korea, we, in Seanad Éireann, have a dear Leader.

I am delighted that the good offices of the Government parties have been used to foster democracy by allowing these two Bills to get to a nominal next Stage. That will enable us to create a template for a vigorous constitutional debate before the people vote in a referendum in October. That referendum is justified because it is what the Government indicated it would provide for before it ran for office. We need to have that referendum.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am delighted to speak on the topic although not, perhaps, delighted that there is a proposal to abolish the Seanad. The referendum on the Seanad is coming up and the decision will be left to the voter. I add the caveat, however, that the decision must be left to an informed voter. I congratulate Senators Zappone, Quinn and Crown for bringing forward their legislative proposals which will help to inform the voter about the process. They have suggested one avenue, but what others will be presented to inform the voter on what the Seanad does? When I was elected to the Seanad, the common question I was asked was "what do you do in there?". Many people did not even have a notion that one scrutinises the legislation that is passed by the other House. An information campaign is, therefore, needed.

We have had many reports on Seanad reform from every side of the House. There have been 11 detailed reports, all of which have advocated the reform rather than the abolition of the Seanad. Something is wrong somewhere if all reports recommend reform. It will be up to the people but it must be an educated decision. The practical framework for significant reform can be implemented. The two Bills Senators have presented provide an open platform for informed decision-making on this issue. The fundamental purpose of the Bill before us is to extend the franchise to a wider electorate. Every Member has advocated that for many years. I have only been a Member for two years, but I have heard that suggested when I was outside the House also. If the electorate were broader, it would be good. Without going into the detail of the Bill, I note the unwieldy administrative difficulties many Members have mentioned. When Mary O'Rourke chaired the last sub-committee on Seanad reform, a great deal of improved information was provided to inform how voters should be selected.

Why do we need a bicameral system? We are not looking to save our jobs in the Seanad. It may be that none of us will be re-elected if the Seanad survives. We are seeking to save the system rather than the person. We need a bicameral parliament as international evidence has shown that bicameralism is not on the decline as some like to suggest. The majority of the world's democratic states have bicameral systems. Of 178 members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 78 have a bicameral parliament. Ireland is one of 13 EU member states with a bicameral system. Of the population of the EU, five-sixths live in countries with bicameral parliaments. If it is good for five-sixths of the EU's population, we should question why we are saying it should be otherwise here. Studies have found that bicameralism has a positive effect on parliamentary democracy. Many Members have mentioned democracy in terms of the representation and voice of the Seanad. The process of legislative bargaining, the quality and oversight of legislation and the oversight of the Executive are improved by bicameralism. Is the Executive always right? It is not. The non-advarsarial debates in the Seanad have been commented on as has their quality and the time given to scrutiny of legislation. Many amendments have been tabled in the Seanad to Dáil legislation. Many Bills have been initiated in the Seanad.

Bicameralism affects policy and law making more significantly where one chamber has enough leverage to keep the other from acting unilaterally. We do not have that power here, but the Bill opens the possibility up for discussion. However, our system provides that the rules of one Chamber allow it to decide policy on its own after the other has had its say. Bicameralism has the potential to protect minorities, which is something we must consider, in particular in the context of the methodology of election to ensure all voices are heard in the Seanad. Minorities should be included in a reformed Seanad. If the foundations of democracy continue to be weak, whatever we build on them will be weaker still. That is why we need a stronger, reformed Seanad not its abolition. Abolition will lead to less democracy and accountability. We must restore the democratic value of the Seanad, which is at the heart of Irish society and this debate. Someone mentioned extending the voting age, which the Constitutional Convention has agreed should be reduced to 16. Someone also mentioned that the Constitutional Convention should examine the decision to abolish the Seanad. I have heard that such consideration has been ruled out, but perhaps the convention has the right to include it on its agenda. Issues have also been raised about EU functioning.

I compliment the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins. Since I entered the Seanad, he, more than any other Member, has tried to introduce change and to ensure the voice of the citizen is included in parliamentary democracy. The Bill includes provisions in that regard. It is necessary to extend a voice out there to the ordinary citizen. Hopefully, the Leader will be successful in doing that before we end the session.

I commend the Independent Senators and the team supporting them on bringing forward an excellent Bill. Within the confines of the Constitution, they have come up with extensive provisions which are worthy of support. My party will fully support the Bill. There are areas in which we would like the Bill to have gone much further, but we recognise that an attempt was made to introduce a Bill which would not require constitutional change. While that imposed limits on what could be achieved, I welcome very much the proposals which have been put before the House in the Bill.

We have a very centralised system of governance in Ireland and we are having the wrong debate. The reason we are having the wrong debate is that the Government has offered up the Seanad as a sacrificial lamb. The Executive has far too much power. The role of a backbench Deputy in government or opposition is not robust or what it is in most countries internationally. It is a sad reflection on the institutions of democracy we have in the State. We have very few checks and balances. The Seanad was intended to be a check and a balance, but we must, if we are fair, agree that it has not performed that duty very well. That has not been because those who have served here have been incapable of doing the job, it has been because the Seanad was not given the powers it needed to be the real check and balance it could and should be. Checks and balances should be the starting point of any discussion on political reform. If there is to be a second Chamber, it must have a clear purpose and cannot be a shadow or carbon copy of the other one. It must offer something different and it must have real powers and functions. The democratic principles of inclusiveness, sovereignty, the all-Ireland approach, the diaspora and equality should underpin any discussion about the future of the Seanad.

We must be clear and frank as to why we are in this situation and why the Seanad faces abolition. The Seanad faces abolition because, when he was in opposition, the Taoiseach got a rush of blood to the head and decided on the back of an opinion poll to announce his preference for the abolition of the Seanad without consulting his own party. Amazingly, very few people in his party said "stop" or indicated the need to examine properly the consequences of abolishing the Seanad. They did not point out the need to allow for proper debate and scrutiny. Instead of crying "stop", members of the Taoiseach's party have supported him ever since. We have now arrived at a point where a Bill and a referendum are imminent. It is a bad way to do politics and to treat one arm of the Oireachtas.

The same Taoiseach and Government established the Constitutional Convention to look at important constitutional change.

The Constitutional Convention was established to examine the issue of constitutional change and it is in the process of having a number of important debates. I have attended all sittings, bar one. In the coming months it will discuss the issue of electoral reform. It is made up of citizens and Members of the Oireachtas who are discussing important constitutional changes, the most important of which, the abolition of the Seanad, is not being discussed by it. This is madness. I, therefore, call on the Government to hold off on holding the referendum. It should allow the convention to scrutinise properly the proposals the Minister has described as constructive, as good ideas that offer something to the debate. If he is really interested in having a debate on the Seanad, why not allow the forum established to examine constitutional change to have a debate and a discussion on the issue? The convention could then examine whether we need a second Chamber, what it should look like, what powers and functions it should have and how people should be elected to it. I can be prescriptive, as I have my views and my party will launch its proposals. The Independent Senators have launched their proposals through this Bill. Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators opposed to abolition of the Seanad and people outside the Houses also have views. People outside this Chamber have a view on whether a second Chamber is needed and the Constitutional Convention is the place in which to discuss the matter. It will be a sad day for democracy if the Government ploughs ahead with the referendum without giving the people a real choice. We are not giving them a real choice if we say it is a question of abolition or retention without bothering to examine the issue of reform. If the option of reform is not put to the people, it will be a sign of failure on the part of the entire political establishment which has failed to properly reform the Seanad during the decades. It had the opportunity to do so and all the reports it needed, but it failed to reform it. Instead, the Government will opt for taking the populist route of abolition and sacrificing one of the arms of the Oireachtas because it does not want to have a real debate on genuine political reform. It will be a sad day when the political reforms delivered by the Government for the people, after the crisis we have come through, are having fewer Deputies and councils, what was done to the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta and the abolition of the Seanad. We will retain the Dáil which is clearly not working, functional or fit for purpose, while the Executive will retain its powers and have further powers, if the Seanad is abolished. That would be a shameful legacy for the Government to leave to future generations.

I thank Senators Katherine Zappone, Feargal Quinn, John Crown and others who have worked to produce the Bill. I acknowledge the huge effort made at a time when other things are happening. They have contributed well to the debate on the future the Seanad. Like other Government party Members, I will be voting for the legislation that will allow the issue to be put in a referendum to the people who will decide. It is good that they will decide because there is so much confusion about what happens in the Seanad. Now, the onus is on us to ensure the people understand what happens here in order that they can make the best judgment without prejudice.

Why does the Seanad feel like being in Siberia? Why do journalists report only on its potential demise rather than on the many good and strong debates and spirited arguments made on a daily basis since before I joined the Seanad? Why have so many politicians talked about reform but failed to bring it about? Perhaps it is because we are not capable of having a two House system. Perhaps we can only deal with the comings and goings of Deputies and the public prefers the soundbite and shorter version of politics we get in the Dáil because of the way it does its business. Perhaps the public prefers the ping-pong nature of Leaders' Questions. Does it think Senators are not up to the task of representing it? Perhaps it has forgotten about people like Mrs. Mary Robinson, President Michael D. Higgins, Mr. Oliver St. John Gogarty, Mr. Henry Guinness, Mr. Douglas Hyde, Mr. Horace Plunkett, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Mrs. Catherine McGuinness, Mr. John Horgan, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien and Mr. William Butler Yeats. I also pay respect to former Senator Mary Henry who is with us today. Have we forgotten the contribution they made or do people believe Senators are different and do not represent the public? Perhaps we like our two-tier system to have a hierarchy, whereby the Upper House is, in fact, the Lower House and to be ignored. The answer is very simple: the people do not vote for Senators; they feel they do not have a say in what we do and do not believe we are their representatives. That is how the Seanad came about and we have not properly reformed the voting system. The people feel it has nothing to do with them. They have switched off, do not pay attention and do not understand. When I have tried to explain the voting system, I cannot do it and others share my difficulty. That tells everyone that we are somehow elitist. We are not, but that is how we look.

Is it a good reason to abolish the Seanad because we have a byzantine voting system in which most people do not participate? I do not believe it is. It is a reform to take something away and it is attractive and easy, but I do not think it is the right thing to do. The easiest route is not always the right route to take. The very good reason to retain it is contained in the Bill – the importance of dealing with European legislation and the need for its scrutiny. That is the main reason the Seanad should be retained and reformed. It is irresponsible that so much legislation comes from the European Union and is not given the scrutiny it deserves, given that we signed up to the Lisbon treaty that gave additional responsibility to national parliaments to scrutinise legislation. We have not properly addressed that responsibility and the Seanad offers us a perfect opportunity to do so. It is not optional for me; it is essential. While the Minister referred to the Bill and mentioned the European Union, he did not address the question of whether the Seanad could have a role to play in that regard. He made an observation that dealing with statutory instruments might not work, but he did not make an observation about European legislation. He may share the view that we do not scrutinise legislation, an observation the Chief Whip made. When we talk about engaging citizens on the future of the Seanad, we could engage with them on the idea of it scrutinising European legislation.

We need to reform the voting system for the Seanad. We are not an elite body, but we look like one. Years ago the Committee on Procedure and Privileges talked about including under-represented and excluded groups in Irish society. That should be the case. Immigrants should also be included. It is important that the Seanad become more representative and the voting system should reflect this. In section 2 of the Bill I applaud the reference to the need for gender equality. The Seanad does well on that front but not well enough. I agree with Senator John Crown that this issue must be part of a vigorous debate in order that the public will know what the Seanad does when it comes to vote on the issue. The people will decide, but, in part, it is up to us to ensure that, if Members forgive the alliteration, we are not Siberia but central to democracy, specifically European democracy. That is why the Bill will play an important role in the debate and, therefore, I support it.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. As there is a changing of the guard, I also welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan.

I compliment Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn on the Seanad Bill 2013 which arises from the consultation paper, Open it, Don't Close It: Radical Seanad Reform Through Legislative Change. I will not refer much to the Bill because it is, to some extent, academic.

The Government has decided to have a referendum, which I believe will be on 24 October. Has the Minister set a date yet?

The Senator does not know everything.

The Minister does not either, obviously. If he did, he would not have created the debacle over the property tax. Let us not go down that road. From what I read in the newspaper, I understand the referendum will be in October.

One would not want to believe everything one reads in the paper.

As a former Senator, the Minister is welcome back.

I thank the Senator.

He might have the opportunity again. In my Father's house there are many rooms, but certainly in this House there will not be one left.

I served in both the Dáil and Seanad and have a different perspective from most people present. I served for a number of years in different Departments and brought legislation to this House. I do not know whether the Minister will agree but it is much easier bringing legislation to the Dáil than the Seanad. At one point, the anteroom was used as the Seanad Chamber while the Chamber was being redeveloped owing to structural problems. At that point, I brought forward legislation to remove the word "illegitimacy" from law. Ms Mary Robinson was the lead Senator at the time and she was very active and effective. My officials at the time were more concerned about the Seanad than anywhere else, and we were gearing up for the Seanad debate. That is why I have tremendous respect for this House and why I am in favour of its retention. The people have a respect for and love of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Constitution. The Minister might as well rip it up. Approximately 70 sections of this Bill will become redundant if the Government gets its way with the people. Fianna Fáil opposes the abolition of the Seanad because the Government has not gone ahead with reforms. The Government proposed the removal of 20 TDs in its manifesto, yet it did not put this to the people. It reduced the number by eight, which is within the Constitution. The Government had not the courage of its convictions in that regard. It has courage and conviction in regard to the removal of the Seanad.

It is absolutely clear in the Constitution that "[t]he Oireachtas shall consist of the President and two Houses, viz.: a House of Representatives to be called Dáil Éireann and a Senate to be called Seanad Éireann". If the President is out of the country, the Cathaoirleach, the Ceann Comhairle and a Supreme Court judge are responsible for the signature of legislation. That provision will be gone. There are numerous sections in the Constitution that embed the Seanad in our system. It would be more honest to opt for full redesign of the Constitution rather than the section in question.

The Leader has endeavoured to bring in the role of the Seanad under the Lisbon Treaty and the European Union Bill 2009. I hope we will succeed in that regard. The Leader has established a small committee to examine this matter. It is important that legislation not being considered at present be considered. There were many proposals for the reform of this House over the years. It is unfortunate that the nettle was not grasped in that regard. Former Senator Mary O'Rourke formed a committee that was very effective and which made proposals but governmental circumstances developed that did not allow for further progress in that regard. The matter is quite academic at present.

The Bill before us is sound and has much merit. Senator Crown has advocated other proposals. If the people decide in October 2013, or in 2014, not to abolish the Seanad, this Bill, Senator Crown's Bill and other proposals will be considered by the Government. I appeal to the Minister to put to the people three options, namely, one on abolition, one on retention and one on reform. The people should be given a choice. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent the asking of multiple questions. That is a matter for the Minister.

There will be a concerted campaign against the Government on this matter. It should bear in mind that it may lose. It may be the beginning of the end for the Government. I hope to God it loses and that every Fianna Fáil supporter will vote against the abolition of the Seanad because it serves the people. It serves democracy and prevents a dictatorial Government, with a majority never seen in the Houses before-----

The Fianna Fáil manifesto stated otherwise.

The manifesto did not say the opposite. We wanted reform.

The gloves will be off. The Minister has no idea of the strength of the opposition to his proposal. I hope that he, as a former Senator, will go from door to door. He was damned glad to have a seat in the Seanad when he was a Member. I tried to become a Member on three occasions and got in on the third occasion. I won in six general elections, and was elected on the first occasion on my first attempt.

Fair play to the Senator.

Fair play to Senator Cummins also. He was glad to come in here. He played a role in the last election-----

There are three more speakers who wish to contribute.

Will the Taoiseach appoint someone to replace former Senator McAleese in the House?

I welcome the Minister. I thank Senators Zappone, Quinn and Crown for their initiative. I represent 55,000 people. I do not feel the slightest bit undemocratic. I represent them under the 1937 Constitution, and do so proudly. The proposal to abolish the Seanad removes checks, balances and scrutiny. What kind of Government does not like checks, balances and scrutiny? I would like to know the charge sheet, rather than hear a statement that the proposal to abolish the Seanad is in the Government's manifesto. What precisely does the Minister believe this House has done wrong? If he listens to his ministerial colleagues, he will find out that they praise us for the amendments we have proposed. Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly has amended the taxi legislation more than 80 times because of contributions made in this House. The Sinn Féin contribution on personal insolvency resulted in a similar number of amendments by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter.

I am a Member because this country was wrecked in 2008 by banks. There were no Senators in Government buildings on the night in question. Why is the Minister not trying to get rid of the bankers? Why does he not look at the senior civil servants who did not know what they were doing? Why does he not tackle the bankers who are still walking around? We are a bulwark against the destruction of this country and the Minister should cancel the referendum. He has no right to say that people who stand up against what happened to this country should have their House of Parliament abolished. There will not be an equal contest as the Minister will have the Government's money while we will be trying to raise a few shillings up and down the country. The Government will have its advertising campaigns and so on. The Government Senators who have played a noble role in this Seanad, which has 42 new Members, have, along with the other Senators, worked night and day to make this country better. The Minister should ask the Leader, who has played a noble role. We have brought in the MEPs and the Orange Order. Interestingly, the Orange Order opposed the abolition of Grattan's Parliament. When I visit Northern Ireland, I find that people hold this Seanad in esteem, particularly on the Unionist side. The Minister is making enemies unnecessarily by tilting at a windmill that the Taoiseach made when his party was in opposition.

We need checks and balances. The Executive has too much power. The Whip system exerts too much pressure. The lobby groups who walked off with €64 billion - the figure will probably end up at €90 billion - were unchecked. Why is the Minister not moving against them? There is a lack of expertise in the permanent Government service, as was pointed out in the Wright report. We provide it here.

I became a Member in a bankrupt country. We introduced three Bills, to the credit of this House and the Leader. One was on fiscal responsibility, the second was on the reform of mortgages along the Danish line, and the third was on banking regulation to separate utility banking from casino banking. We did that here; the Minister did not do so in the Dáil. I would not have been able to introduce the legislation had I been a member of the Dáil. This is a very well-run House and the Minister should examine the evidence to determine what we do here.

Why are we here? I am delighted that a former Provost of Trinity College, Mr. John Henry Bernard, went to Arthur Griffith before the treaty negotiations in London and said people who would not be elected to the Dáil will wish to make a valuable contribution to the new State. Mr. Griffith wrote to Mr. Éamon de Valera, who agreed in writing - the civil war had not started - that we should have a senate. We have never let people down. What about Dr. Sheehy Skeffington coming here when beating children was the rule up and down the country? He was not a member of any political party or the Dáil. Consider the reforms of Ms Mary Robinson. Women were not allowed to sit on juries when she introduced her reform. The work of Senators Norris and Zappone on behalf of the gay community should also be considered. We have made an incredible contribution to this country. For the Government to spend public money to abolish the Seanad without even telling us the reason is shameful.

I hope that when the referendum Bill is before the House, the Government Senators will not support it. We are being accused behind the scenes of playing too much golf and of too much horse racing. That might have happened in the past but it has not happened under the current Cathaoirleach and Leader. Why, then, can the Minister not tell us why he wants to abolish this House, dismember the Constitution and ignore the good work that happens here every day? There should be no referendum. This is very obvious to anybody who examines the matter dispassionately. This House is essential to the good governance of the country. The people who got us into the trouble are not being dealt with by the senior ranks of the Government. I refer to the banks and the power of lobby groups. I hear that legislation on lobby groups has not materialised. The banks owe us €64 billion. No Senators were in Government Buildings on the night that the finances of this country collapsed. We have done our best every day to remedy the problem. That should be recognised by Members of the Dáil. It is recognised by the other Ministers who come here and the Minister present, Deputy Hogan, should recognise it also. He should not waste public money on a referendum when there are so many reform proposals that would be much more creative. The Minister will lose the referendum and discredit his Government. What he proposes is seen as petty. What is he afraid of? Senators provide checks, balances and scrutiny; that is our job and we discharge that duty with pride.

I have two very short points. If I were to ask Irish people what occurs in the Seanad – I include myself in so far as I am a newly appointed Senator – I would hazard a guess that 95% would say they do not know. Therefore, the first thing the Seanad needs to do before it starts reforming is informing the Irish people as to what occurs here. We have very little time to do so between now and October.

I do not agree with three quarters of the Bill but I still welcome it and the effort that went into it. My grandmother used to say that if we had a problem, it usually began in our own kitchen, not up town. If we want to change, clean up or reform the Seanad, we need to do so on our own island through our own Irish electorate. We do not need to look to the diaspora, Northern Ireland, Argentina or North America. We need to inform the electorate on our own island and give it a vote in our Seanad. I welcome the Bill as a discussion document but we need to start informing, not reforming, the Irish people as to what we do here because they do not know.

I thank my colleague, Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell, for allowing me to share her time.

The most important element of any debate on reform must be political honesty. I have heard calls on the other side of the House for Government Senators to defy the party Whip and go against the wishes of the Government. This places Government Senators in a particularly invidious and absolutely contradictory position because the Whip system insists that Government Senators support the Government. If a Government Senator were to vote against the Government, he or she would lose the party Whip and, with that, his or her influence. One could be accused of political cowardice for doing so.

I am a rapporteur on suicide prevention for the Joint Committee and Health and Children and I will be bringing my report to the committee. If I were to vote against the Government, I would lose that influence on the committee. It is not just a matter of mindlessly supporting the Government. Some people very often fail to realise the complexity of the position of Government Senators.

The Whip system is definitely the main impediment to the proper working of this House. To be honest, there are several times when I felt there were positions I could not support but, since I did not want to lose my influence regarding the very important work I felt I was doing on suicide prevention and in order to achieve other aims in other areas, I had to compromise and support a position I was not entirely happy with. That is the complexity of this matter. It goes both ways. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin have changed their positions with regard to this matter. Senator Leyden denies this but I have in front of me information stating Fianna Fáil will support the abolition of the Seanad. This is clearly written in page 34 of its election manifesto. Honesty must go both ways. I have been honest with regard to my position, that of the Labour Party and of Government Senators. I request all Senators to recognise the complexity of the position of some Senators. Others may not be in so complex a set of circumstances but all should be honest about their positions and the changing of positions.

I commend the Senators who brought forward this thoughtful legislation. I commend all the work involved, not only that of Seanadóirí but also that of others, including former Tánaiste Michael McDowell. Many have put much thought into the legislation. What they have done is demonstrate that, without changing the Constitution, one could achieve two things: democratise elections to the Seanad and identify a very real and clear role for the Seanad. That is the important service they have done us. Of course, we could look to further reforms.

We must acknowledge the authoritarianism and shallowness that lay behind the proposal to put this matter to a referendum. As Cathal Mac Coille pointed out on Raidió na Gaeltachta within the past hour during a programme in which I took part, the Taoiseach announced at a summer school some months before the abolition decision all the ways in which the Seanad could be given a real role. Within a few months, however, there was a silly electioneering proposal to abolish the Seanad by referendum. If the Government was sincere about a thinking approach, it would publish legislation on how the House could possibly be reformed. It is questionable how reliable the Government is on pre-election promises and pre-referendum promises but it would at least give people the opportunity to consider an alternative or, indeed, have a preferendum, not necessarily with a view to changing the Constitution but to gauging opinion.

The Seanad has debated issues such as civil partnership. This did not happen in the Dáil. It was a cross-party debate. We will have another such debate on the abortion legislation, despite claims and reports that the Government is trying to have a complete-consensus approach in the Dáil. I can promise the Minister that it will not happen in this House.

I welcome former Senator Mary Henry. I thank the esteemed members of the public who are and have been in the Visitors Gallery, many of whom have supported our work. I thank the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, for attending. I thank them for their reflective consideration of our Bill. It contains detailed proposals on reform and the transformation of Seanad Éireann. Senator Quinn and I are particularly grateful for the openness of the Government to our Bill and the willingness not to oppose it, thereby, we believe, supporting the fact that the alternative of a reformed Seanad should be in the minds of the people.

I thank the Leader of the Seanad, Senator Maurice Cummins, for his commitment to ensuring the possibility of a reformed Seanad. As he stated this evening, this Bill provides a suite of proposals that could be considered by the people before they cast their votes. He acknowledged the proposals of reform tabled by Senator Crown in this Bill. Together, both Bills can be used as a basis for reform. That is important for people to have heard as part of our debate this evening.

I wish to respond to one or two of the issues raised by the Minister in his speech. As we all said, this is not the time to tease out the detail of the Bill. The Minister referred to gender equality. Our principle in this Bill is exactly the same as that which underlies the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act. It is the principle that shapes our proposals. Gender quota mechanisms are offered as a way to correct the historic inequality between women and men in parliamentary democracies throughout the world. We are offering them as a possibility for the Houses of the Oireachtas. We believe this is constitutionally compliant. A similar mechanism is currently being used in our law in regard to inside and outside panels.

We need to consider whether we should use the mechanism of gender quotas to correct the inequality of history, and our proposal is that we should. It is worthy of debate. We hope that Irish lawmakers, in the context of that debate, will choose an effective way to ensure gender equality.

The Minister and other Senators referred to the practicalities of opening up the vote to so many. Yes, we must consider these issues and hopefully we will have the opportunity to do that when discussing amendments to the Bill. The question for our lawmakers is the principle of whether we are in favour of opening the franchise to the diaspora. Then we can examine the practical considerations.

The Minister also said that the Constitutional Convention is considering the Dáil electoral system. Other Senators mentioned the fact that, unfortunately, the Government has not allowed the issue of Seanad reform, retention or abolition to be part of the convention's work. Senator Quinn and I and others have put forward a submission to the convention that it ought to consider the Seanad as part of its agenda. The chair of the convention has said that he will put that proposal to the members the next time they meet.

I thank Senators for their reflective words, criticisms and suggestions. We hope these can be teased out on Committee Stage. Senator Quinn and I also wish to thank those who worked so diligently with us to produce the Bill. Others have already mentioned some of their names, but I also thank Brian Hunt, Darren Lehane, Michael McDowell, Noel Whelan, Joe O'Toole, Brian Murphy and Suzanne Egan. In conclusion, we hope that the image of the reformed Seanad, Seanad an Phobail, remains a key informant of the reform agenda in the forthcoming debate and remains in the minds of our people as they consider the limited choice of reform or abolition in the referendum.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21 May 2013.
Top
Share