Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Oct 2013

Vol. 226 No. 9

Political Reform: Statements

We are having this debate after a referendum in which the people spoke and decided to retain a bicameral system. They voted to retain the Chamber on the basis of keeping the system but also a wish to reform not only this Chamber but the body politic. It was good to see quite a few members of the press here today, as it is not always the case, and the people still do not realise the amount of work done by Senators in amending and enhancing legislation. That is our job. The blocking of legislation, which was mentioned on several occasions throughout the campaign, is not the game we are in, and we have improved legislation over 500 times this year alone.

I understand the impetus of colleagues in the House to reform the Seanad, but before we speak about what we intend doing, we should contemplate the changes made in the Seanad in the past two years. We have had a public consultation committee, which brought people in from outside to give ideas on policy areas. We have addressed those public consultation reports with Ministers in the House, and they have taken on board quite a number of the proposals made by this House. That is a significant contribution of the House that has gone largely unnoticed. We have also dealt with a number of EU directives, providing a forum for MEPs to come to the House and explain to us and the Irish people their work in the European Union. They were grateful for the opportunity to come to us and let us know what they are doing on various committees; that work is necessary and should be welcomed.

We have done quite an amount of reforming in the way we do business in that respect. Last year we approved a motion relating to committee meetings taking place when the Order of Business was taking place, and it was decided that Members would not attend those committees in order to facilitate quorums. I remind Members that Senators decided to facilitate commencement of committees in the past; therefore, we had ourselves to blame in that regard. My preference is to have a specific week for the holding of committees and meetings should not be held when the plenary sessions are taking place. We have heard excuses that there may not be enough rooms, etc., but they do not wash. It could be done and it should be tried, as it would amount to true reform, concentrating the minds of people on the work of committees. Many committees do excellent work, which certainly goes unnoticed also. The Government should take these steps on board as they would be a meaningful reform.

In speaking of reform, right now everything is focused on how the Seanad is to be reformed. The focus should be switched to the other House, which can make decisions on finance and other very important matters. That House needs as much if not more reform than this body, and I hope the Government will act on that. I am confident it will do so.

We have a number of reports, especially the most recent report by Mary O'Rourke, in which there are a number of laudable recommendations that should be acted on. Likewise, Senators John Crown, Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn have introduced reform Bills in recent months. While I do not agree with some of the provisions, I agree with the main thrust of both Bills. That is the reason both passed Second Stage in the House. Between the O'Rourke report and the two Bills that have been presented we, as a body, should come up with proposals that are acceptable to Members and then pass it to the other House. It will be then up to the Members there to decide whether they wish to implement the reforms this House favours.

We cannot rush into reform at this point in time and cannot say we will implement the Bills straightaway. Everyone will rightly focus on the budget and on jobs for the next few weeks. However, this gives us time for calm reflection. The vote of the people should not be taken only as a matter of retaining the Seanad as it is. It was a vote for reform and we have to go about our business in a proper, professional and calm manner, which requires reflection. By mentioning the word "reflection", people will say we are again kicking this issue to touch. I hope that will not be the case and that the Government will give serious consideration to the reports and Bills that have been published in order that we can have meaningful reform. It will be difficult because the main thrust of the reports and the Bill relate to how the Seanad will be elected. That is the sticking point and it will be difficult to implement some of the proposals before us but where there is a will, there is a way. There has to be a way to implement the ideas in the Bills and the O'Rourke report. I have opened the debate and I am sure we will have many contributions on the political reform. The reason the debate is entitled political reform rather than Seanad reform is that one cannot happen without the other and without us working together on this matter.

I welcome the debate. This will not be the only one we have and it was appropriate to have a discussion on this issue today. Other Members thought we should have waited until Thursday, but I did not agree because one must strike while the iron is hot. I agree with most, if not all, of the Leader's contribution on the basis that we must think carefully about what needs to happen next. I do not suggest that we take our foot off the pedal but we must consider what we can change now. The Leader outlined a number of changes that have taken place independent of the referendum such as the establishment of public consultation committees, invitations to guest speakers and invitations to MEPs to enhance our connection to Europe. MEPs in my party are frustrated that no one knows what goes on in the European Parliament. They receive coverage approximately once a month late at night on television and there is little reporting of anything that is done.

We need to examine how we can add to our work now. I have a number of suggestions we can work on into the future. Is it possible to allow more time for legislation from Members from all parties or none to be produced? I am frustrated that we have to wait for six weeks while other Members must wait longer.

Is the Senator referring to Private Members' legislation?

Yes. I ask the Leader to jump in at any stage. It could be good not to have a Minister present in order that we can have a proper interactive discussion. The Leader should feel free to jump in. We should consider providing more time whereby Members can bring forward their own legislation. While I acknowledge the intention behind these debates, the Topical Issues debate format in the Dáil does not work as it should. Perhaps we can improve on that in order that a Member can bring forward his or her own legislation. My party could have ten or 12 Bills in preparation but we have to wait for our private members' slot to introduce them and have them debated. I am not sure whether there is an impediment to us in Standing Orders to increasing the number of opportunities Members have. For example, we could pick a Thursday or a Friday or a few days a month where Members could introduce their legislation or the time for its introduction could be shortened. Will the Leader consider this?

I wholeheartedly agree with him about committees and the primacy of the Order of Business and the business of the House generally.

We are having difficulties.

I backed the Leader 100% on that last year, but we have taken our foot off the pedal. Senators have an equal say on joint Oireachtas committees. If we have to facilitate the commencement of committee meetings while the Order of Business is taking place in the House, we should not do so and we should seek a change to the time committees meet. I would also look into the Leader's suggestion of setting aside a few days or a week in the month solely for committee business, which would not impinge on plenary business.

The Order of Business has come in for criticism from time to time. I understand that when some Members entered the House first, they thought it might have been an opportunity to raise local issues. However, in the main that does not happen. Most Members raise issues related to their own briefs and areas of expertise and matters of national importance on any given day while many Members raise issues about legislation. I refute the criticism of even some of my own party colleagues about the Order of Business. They think it is a farce, but I refute that and I encourage more Members to engage in the Order of Business. Perhaps we have to look from time to time to take the party political element out of it. I try to do that most of the time but sometimes it is difficult to do so on specific issues. If we take this as a fresh start to see what we can do under the law as it stands, we should do that. There is no question that overall political reform needs to happen and I do not want this to be kicked to touch to produce more reports. People voted for reform. I canvassed on this, as did the Leader who was prominent during the campaign, and voters talked about reform in all areas of politics, including the way politics is conducted, the way members are elected and the business that takes place in both Houses of the Oireachtas. This needs to be examined. There are good reports and Bills from Senator John Crown and others. We should consider the Bills and reports that have been published, including my party's document, A Seanad for the People. There are good points in it but I do not agree with all of it.

The Seanad should get together and set out in boxes what can be done now and what requires legislative change. We must examine whether we need the Government's permission to do certain things. I urge the Leader to examine one issue in the coming weeks, namely, to see whether we can get more time to produce individual Bills.

I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence. I am in favour of the proposal for the Seanad on European legislation and statutory instruments, in particular those that are signed. People want us to debate the issues at the very least. Senator Daly mentioned that, as did many Government party Senators. We should set aside time to do that work, irrespective of whether we get staff. I made the suggestion previously about commitments from each grouping. I can give a commitment that the Fianna Fáil group will give resources from within our own staff. If we were to share the work among our parliamentary assistants and political staff, they could act as rapporteurs. I do not want anyone to say we cannot do such work because more staff would be required. We will return to the issue. It is important that we have spoken about these matters today. I do not disagree with anything the Leader said.

My final point is how we let people know what we do and what we can do. We must examine ways in which we can be inventive in that regard. Senator Thomas Byrne referred to the role of the Seanad. As the Leader said, there was much misinformed comment about the Seanad not having blocked certain issues. Let us set out the issues and see whether there is a way of outlining the work of the Seanad each month. If the print media will not cover it we could examine other avenues to do it.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. I do not know whether we need to do exhaustive research, as it has all been done. There are up to eleven reports and many people with much knowledge, skill sets and abilities who can extract what is good and bring forward a conclusive report on which we all agree.

Having been in the other House also, the much bigger question of political reform relates to it. While the Seanad has been under the microscope for the past six months, there has not been such microscopic analysis of the other Chamber. Political scientists from all educational institutions say the same thing about the other Chamber, namely, that the electoral process and multi-seat constituencies must be changed. That leads exclusively to clientelism and as long as that is the case members of political parties will look over their shoulders at their party colleagues as they are all chasing the same vote. Fine Gael members chase the Fine Gael voters in a constituency, as do members of Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party and others. That is the biggest mistake within the political process in this country.

The analysis of legislation in this Chamber is far ahead of the analysis in the other Chamber. I say that from my experience of both Chambers. What we should do is facilitate the creation of better legislation, which is not happening. It will not happen unless we are inventive, original and daring. It is not easy for politicians to be daring because we are all satisfied with the status quo. We leave things as they are rather than take a chance of making an original change. That is the reason every Government for the past 50 years has not changed this Chamber. A Government Bill has not been rejected by the Seanad since the 1960s. I was not born in the 1960s. The body politic does not change the system because it is grand. No one wants to make the structure uncomfortable or upsetting.

Following the referendum I am hopeful that we will get the co-operation of the other Chamber. Such co-operation is crucial to pass legislation that will facilitate the expansion of a better role for Seanad Members without a referendum. We should try to introduce change before the next general election. We do not know when that will be, but at the latest it will be spring 2016. There is time enough to be original and inventive, but we must want it.

There is a funny phenomenon that occurs in medicine that is probably better known in the lay press than in the medical literature which is called the near-death experience. That is something which occurs when people have had cardiac arrest or serious stroke and they are felt to be clinically dead. Their pulse is gone and their hearts are no longer beating but due to the sophistication of modern intensive care their brains are kept alive while their circulation is restored. The literature describing what happens during that time is controversial. For many, it is just unconsciousness. People have said they got a chest pain when they were walking down the street and they woke up in the intensive care unit wondering where they were. Others record a number of different events which occurred to them during the experience, ranging from mystical experiences, which are interpreted by some as being true religious experiences when they are on the interface between life and death and their soul has not yet been wrenched free of their body. Others take a more physical and neurological interpretation of the events and say it is a dying brain syndrome; that if one’s brain is being deprived of blood and oxygen, funny things happen and various hallucinations occur which might involve dead relatives, walking towards the light and religious figures but it is all just one’s brain misfiring and if one recovers one will remember it. Regardless of the interpretation people put on these events, what is common is that it changes them. They often say that their lives change afterwards; their perspectives change; their priorities change. I think Members can all guess where this is going. I am sorry for being predictable.

We are waiting for it.

We do now, but we did not at the beginning.

What seemed important before seems less important afterwards and things which seemed unimportant and that were neglected before become more important afterwards. Collectively, this House did have the fabled near-death experience. For one, I can freely admit that about a week before the referendum I would have thought we were truly on death row; that this was an unsalvageable enterprise. It should change us. Perhaps I am being terribly naïve, but I do see little seeds of the fruits of that experience in the interactions of my colleagues who are coming forth today, because it should change us.

Not only should we mop our brow with relief at what we just missed but we should also listen to the bad stuff that was said about us because a lot of it is true. That is the reality. Many of the charges which were laid at the door of the Seanad were sincerely laid by people who knew what they were saying and who had some validity to what they were saying. Rather than just moving on from here and saying we have survived - nah, nah, nah, nah, nah - we should take on board the message and see how we can learn not only from our little triumph last week but also from the valid criticisms which were made. We should all change our perspective, not just the members of the big parties. I am sorry if I have been disproportionately critical of the big parties in the couple of years I have been a Member, but it is important that there should not be so many opportunities for people in this House to see a motion or proposition as a Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour Party one. The reality is that we have been given a certain level of personal liberation. It is pretty obvious that many of the people who are the bosses of some of the Members in this and the other House were not as supportive of this House as they might have been and people should regard that as a liberating experience. I do not ask anyone to preach sedition or insurrection against their organisations but with a clean conscience they can look at various propositions that come before this House and various ideas which come to us from an entirely different perspective without checking in their long-held loyalties at the door.

The question of priority should also change in respect of those who have had the near-death experience. We should really work out what is important to us as Senators. I will not delve into any of the stereotypes but people should understand the work that takes place in this House is important because it is important in this House, not just because it may be a means to achieving other ambitions we may have. I am not saying the other ambitions are illegitimate, as Members are entirely justified in pursuing them, but Members should try to minimise the effect they have on the way they do business in this House.

With the waffly aphoristic bit over, let me propose a few reforms. Reform No. 1 is to reform ourselves. We need to work out a new modus operandi within this House for doing business together. We do our business in a good way in this House, but we can do so even better. We can be a beacon to the other House and to those who will inevitably be scrutinising this House to a significant extent in the aftermath of the referendum.

I am sorry if I sound boring. There are a number of very practical reform suggestions we can help to implement, with the aid of colleagues in the other House, relating to the reform of this House. I was very delighted to hear our Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, and commend him fpr the way he conducted himself during the referendum campaign. He did an unbelievably good job.

We should try to work out a mechanism for implementing the 1979 amendment, the seventh constitutional amendment, which had 92% support. Even if it appears a little anachronistic now to be talking about extending the vote to graduates, the reality is that the people did vote to allow for it. We ignored the people and should do as they suggested while waiting to take other steps.

It was the lowest referendum turnout.

I will do my best to determine whether I can forge a meeting of minds of my colleagues behind the other Seanad reform Bill. This is all happening too quickly and I do not know how practical it is to achieve this. I will try to work out whether there is a way to have a more unified Seanad electoral reform Bill that many of us can put our names to and advance, rather than just the Crown and Quinn–Zappone Bills. There are many Members in this House with good ideas. There are those who have ideas that they can advance here in a way that they could not be advanced in the other House. I refer to direct and specific legislation. As several speakers mentioned, we are frustrated by the limited opportunity we have to introduce Bills. I will work longer hours to have more opportunities to introduce legislation. If one is a backbencher, one can introduce a Bill only once every eight months.

In the remaining term of the Seanad, I would love to implement three or four other ideas. Sometimes we can work in unity with our colleagues in the parties and sometimes we cannot, but we should accord considerable priority to the proposed reforms. Perhaps we should have fewer statements or, if we are to have them, more limited time should be allowed for them. Perhaps there should be more opportunities for legislation.

We should all examine collectively – I have not been good at it – our serious input into making amendments. Perhaps we should try to set up some cross-party sub-committees within this Chamber to consider potential legislation. The members may identify the need for a Bill on a technical issue, a science issue, an agricultural issue, a commercial issue or a tax issue, for example. There are individuals who could give us advice as a collective on how we might improve in this regard.

Let me make a more ambitious proposal. We all agree absolutely that there is a need for fundamental reform, not just of the Upper House but also of the system of governance. Some of us will approach this in different ways. I have a bee in my bonnet and believe there should be greater separation between executive and legislative functions, with greater legislative oversight of the executive functions and enhanced ability to appoint people to executive functions.

This Chamber could act as a very important sounding board for bigger ideas. We should make use of our public engagement process. Let this be not a convention but a sounding board for individuals to afford us opportunities for reform.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue of political reform in the wake of the very welcome result in the Seanad referendum, announced on Saturday. Other Members and I have already welcomed it on the Order Of Business. With respect to the Leader, I believe that while it is good to have the opportunity in the immediate aftermath of the referendum to discuss this matter, it is rather early. For many of us, because the result was rather unexpected – there appeared to be a real change in the last week of the campaign as people engaged thoughtfully with the issues put to them – there is a need to process the results. I would like us to be able to return to this in a couple of weeks and have the debate when we have all had a chance to process the result and think a little more clearly and in more detail about how best to proceed with the task of reform.

It was very clear that while the majority did not want the crude abolition proposal put to them, they and all those campaigning on the "No" side, including me, were calling for reform. There is now a very clear mandate for reform. Senator John Crown referred to the near-death experience. We all need a little recovery time after it to process the result and think in a meaningful way about reform. It would benefit us to return to this after a little more time.

I take issue with one statement of Senator John Crown in his otherwise very eloquent and thoughtful speech. Those of us in political parties do not have bosses in the other House.

There are some very bossy people.

There are some very bossy people in both Houses; we can all agree on that.

There are three stages of reform in which we need to be engaging. They are parallel and do not follow from each other. Each should be started immediately. The first concerns internal procedures, about which others have spoken. Senator Darragh O'Brien spoke in detail about the Order of Business. I agree with him and believe the Order of Business is an important part of the day, but we need to be much tighter with time. It looks self-indulgent when we go way over time on the Order of Business, as we did today. We need to ensure that we keep to time and that we are professional in our conduct of debates generally.

There are internal procedures that we have already changed. The Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, has very much taken a leading role in bringing about the internal changes. The public consultation committee has been a real strength of the Seanad. We can strengthen it further by trying to engage more Senators in the committee's hearings. The only flaw so far is that there has not been enough participation by a larger number of Senators.

I agree with the Senators who talked about the need for fewer statements. However, our question and answer sessions involving Ministers are very valuable. We have had some really good exchanges. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, for example, gave a very important answer on credit unions during the course of a session. The contributions by distinguished speakers, including by Mr. David Begg recently, have been very positive.

There are internal procedures that we can work on, tighten and make more professional. We should lead the way on being a family-friendly Chamber and examine how we conduct our business in a way that encourages those with young families to get involved. This would be part of an international movement on parliamentary reform and we should be part of it.

The second set of changes is through legislation. I agree entirely that the first legislative measure, the easiest, should be to reform the composition of the six university seats and extend the franchise to all third level graduates. This should be done without delay.

I was glad to hear Senator John Crown saying the Bills currently on the Order Paper, in his name and those of Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone, should be examined to determine how best to merge them or take the best parts from each. We should consider taking the best elements of Ms Mary O'Rourke's excellent cross-party report from some years ago and unite on a cross-party basis to agree on achievable legislative change, particularly on the election of Senators. The latter was a key issue in the debate before the referendum. It can be tackled and does not require constitutional change to broaden the electorate for the Seanad.

The third type of change is the constitutional change that would be required for any more significant structural changes to the Seanad, for example, to change the Taoiseach's nominees system. In that regard, the obvious body to deal with this is the Convention on the Constitution. I said this earlier today. Through talking to the Leader, we could work in a collegiate fashion. We could pass a cross-party motion, with agreement on all sides, to refer the issue of constitutional change pertaining to the Seanad to the convention. The convention is seeking an extension into 2014 and it could easily examine Seanad reform as part of its extension, having already examined Dáil reform.

The Seanad has been really strong on Committee Stage debates, Private Members' business and accepting Private Members' Bills. Ministers have been more amenable to accepting amendments and Private Members' Bills in this House and the other. Let us have a communications strategy whereby the Seanad communicates to the press whenever a Minister accepts the Bill or an amendment.

That is something that was lacking in the debate. People really need to put the message out about the work we are doing and the way in which Ministers can be more effective. Some are particularly receptive to amendments and Private Members' Bills. If we were to devise a communications strategy - the entire House as opposed to individual Members - that would be very useful.

The scrutiny of EU legislation and public appointments is referred to in the O'Rourke report. There is plenty more to be said on this matter and I look forward to further stages of the debate.

I ask the Leader to propose an amendment to the House. I understand an amendment is required because the Order of Business only refers to statements -----

We had agreed that every contributor would be given five minutes. I propose that I respond to the debate ten minutes before the end of the allotted time.

I thank the Leader for agreeing to this exercise so promptly after the referendum. For many of us, it is an appetiser and we are looking forward to the main course at some stage. We all take different messages from the result of the referendum, debates, opinion polls and so forth. It may be a wake up call for some, a slap on the wrist for others, while for others still, it might even be a vote of confidence. One can imagine the range of interpretations coming from the debate. The fact that it happened is good and I must say I welcomed a comment made by the Leader this morning to the effect that we should avoid retaliation and recrimination. That must be the starting point. As the old Chinese proverb goes, a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. That is precisely where we are.

We can come up with all kinds of ideas to deal with the frustration we are experiencing with the committees. The Oireachtas committee of which I am a member sits on a Tuesday at 2.15 p.m., but Senators are required to be in the Chamber at 2.30 p.m. I attended the meeting today for only 12 minutes and took the advice of the Leader to be here for the start of today's Seanad sitting. That, however, is not the way to do business. Unquestionably, the size of the committees is wrong. Committees with 20 to 25 members dealing with up to four portfolios are unworkable and we all know we are not making progress in that regard. I only make these points to underline the fact that the issue of reform is not confined to the Seanad but is much bigger than that.

I wish to focus more on modus operandi rather than putting forward ideas because there are hundreds of ideas floating around. The Leader might consider modus operandi in the context of how the reform agenda would be advanced. I suggest we have four to six sessions similar to this one but expanded. Each session should have a focus. We must decide what issues we want to deal with because there are too many involved and the debate is too complex. A decision should be made to have four to six sessions covering particular items and we must be really independently-minded in this regard. We must deal with this issue ourselves, as Senators and as a House. We must make a decision that an all-party grouping will absorb what comes out of those sessions. We must do this and not wait for anyone else to do it for us. Our aim should be to help the Government in its deliberations.

We are aware that there will be, according to the Taoiseach, a period of reflection. Reflection generally suggests marking time, but that would be a pity. We must be exceptionally urgent in our approach, if for no other reason than to say "Thank you" to those who voted for the Seanad to remain. Furthermore, those who voted "Yes" and had doubts about this House are also entitled to answers to the points raised during the debate. If we have an unfocused approach and do not harness what is coming from the debate, we will find ourselves wondering at Christmas why we lost so much time. I ask the Leader to consider organising a number of highly focused sessions and to set up an independent all-party grouping within the Seanad to monitor the debate, take on board the points made and come back to the House with views, if not an actual policy.

Many of the specific issues raised are relevant. There is nothing worse than having to speak during the Order of Business, with one eye on the Cathaoirleach, wondering whether one can get in under the wire with something that does not relate to the Order of Business. That is a problem and makes us all feel uneasy, but we do not blame the Cathaoirleach for this. Some mechanism must be found to change this in the very near future. It would be totally wrong to lose out on the opportunity to raise topical issues. If we are not raising topical issues, we are not really relevant. For that reason, we should examine the possibilities. Perhaps the Committee on Procedures and Privileges might be asked to examine this issue. It would be better for us not to be hypocritical in the way we handle the Order of Business. Incidentally, there are some excellent contributions each day on the Order of Business, many of which are relevant. However, that raises the question as to what exactly makes us relevant, a question that was also raised during the referendum debate.

In the first part of the campaign it was said the Seanad had never blocked any Bill. However, people answered that point, explaining that it was not our job to block Bills but to scrutinise and enhance legislation. In the second half of the campaign that point was taken on board. I read one statistic which showed that in 2009, 1,201 amendments had been accepted. That is a huge number and amounts to enhancement. If those amendments had not been accepted, the relevant legislation would have been passed and enacted in a flawed state. We must put our current position into perspective.

My final suggestion is that we approach the editors of newspapers and broadcasters to put it to them that if they were actually present for the real debates, there might be a totally different perception of this House. I was glad to see members of the media here today, but we all know why they were here. It is important that we do not just grouse about this. We must show independence as a House of Parliament and get to the editors, in whatever manner is effective, whether it is face-to-face or through some other form of communication. We must relay to the media that we would welcome their presence and also scrutiny of what happens in this House. I ask the Leader to take this suggestion on board.

I am pleased to be here and also that we did not get our P45s. We all knew when we signed in initially that we would be subject to a referendum and the Taoiseach must be complimented on sticking to his word. He said he was going to hold a referendum and he did. Many had spoken about reform and about doing this, that and the other, but nobody had done anything. At least, the Taoiseach did something, about which we cannot complain. We facilitated the holding of the referendum, engaged in the debate and ensured that the issues were put before the people. Now they have spoken and, as good politicians, we are bound to listen. They have spoken in many ways. We cannot compliment ourselves and declare that we are the greatest thing since brown bread, given that the people wanted to save us. There are many reasons they voted in the way they did. I listened to phone-in radio programmes on the issue and there were many reasons for the way people had voted. Having said that, reform was very high on the agenda and we must take note of this. Some were in favour of abolition, but for others, their vote was a kick in the backside for the Government. However, we cannot be complacent about the result. People want to have a good Seanad and we must ensure we give them a better Seanad than the one they now have. All through the campaign it was agreed that what existed was not ideal. Nobody disagreed on that point.

The Leader has done much to try to reform the House within the current limitations. I compliment him on framing this debate in the context of political reform rather than simply Seanad reform. As he and others have said, political reform is a wide umbrella.

Political reform of the other House and the committees is also necessary. I sit on the environment committee which was discussing the important climate change Bill today. However, owing to a debate in this House, I had to absent myself from the committee for a while. That is not right. There was all-party agreement several years ago that there should be a dedicated week for committee hearings. If we brought this in, we would be doing the whole legislative process a favour.

It is important to extend the franchise to all university and institute of technology graduates. We tried to extend participative democracy by bringing citizens before the Seanad, an effort on which the Leader must be complimented. When the House was originally established, it was envisaged that it would offer real opportunities to build bridges to citizens representing different sectors of society. Without having another referendum, we can make changes to provide this opportunity again.

When we tried to scrutinise European legislation before, we could not go ahead with it. It was through no fault of our own as one needed back-up and secretarial support. In theory, committees are supposed to be scrutinising EU legislation. However, from sitting on committees, I know many of them just rubber-stamp the legislation presented to them. Staff from the committees can be diverted to the Seanad for the scrutiny of European legislation.

We cannot speak about political reform without speaking about local government reform. I have often asked for a debate on this issue. Many of the examples of unicameral systems used in the referendum have good local government systems. Ireland does not. We need a strong local government system with real powers. Powers from central government need to be devolved to local government, too. While most Members have a background in local government, the Taoiseach’s 11 nominees came from outside this area. There are many changes to the Seanad we could introduce without having a referendum and we should proceed with them.

I join my other colleagues who have commended Senator Maurice Cummins for the integrity he displayed during the referendum. It is extremely refreshing to find this from somebody who has been placed in such a difficult position. Not everyone has been like this. There have been people parachuting in and out, indicating that their real desire - even during the referendum - is to get into the other House and showing this House contempt. I find it astonishing. I also find it astonishing that Members on the other side voted so enthusiastically for the extinction of this House. The Bill that was passed was entitled the abolition of the Seanad Bill. It did not mention the word “referendum” once. I wonder how people can take their pay when they feel the Seanad is rubbish or that it is a jumping-off point for trampolining into the other House. I wonder about the integrity of Members accepting their salary if that is what they actually feel.

I have been campaigning for over 30 years for reform of the Seanad. It amazes me that after 30 years suddenly the Government is parroting all of my arguments about the lack of democracy. There were people lying brazenly on radio during the referendum claiming the university Senators had always opposed the extension of the franchise granted by the referendum over 30 years ago. We have all begged for it to happen. It is quite complicated because it would mean constituencies about the size of an EU constituency. It should not be left to people with a high national profile like me. It must be about bringing in younger people if it is to be truly democratic.

Then there is this rubbish that we should do it for nothing. Do the people who write this do their jobs for nothing? I do not think so. I am not going to just pass over an insult that our work is worth nothing.

With regard to the reforming legislation already introduced, it has been useful. I compliment my colleague Senator John Crown on his brilliant performance during the referendum. He has said honourably that much of the work done on his Seanad reform Bill has been done by his assistant, Mr. Shane Conneely. On the other side, the abolition Bill was prepared by a team of anonymous lawyers in the background. It is time we took possession of reform. It cannot be done outside the House.

We should examine the panel system. The Seanad should remain a vocational institution and reflect expertise. What the hell else do these people who so easily trot out this anti-intellectual line about elitism and such rubbish want? Do they want a collection of cabógs like they have in the other House? I am very glad that we have expertise in this House. In fact, I want more of it. For example, I want more of it from people who are unemployed. I was hoping Mr. Tom Hyland, the hero of East Timor, would be brought into this House. These are the sort of people who should be brought into it.

The panel system should be like the university system, which makes it work, in that it enfranchises ordinary Members. We could make sure everyone was on a panel and if there were some left over, they could be introduced to an extra panel.

I must warn about scrutinising EU legislation. There is an absolutely unbelievable volume of this stuff, most of it highly technical. It is not the vocation of this House to go through it. Throughout my political life, I never went for anything I could not accomplish. For example, all of the polls claimed I would be the first elected mayor of Dublin. It is nonsense, as I would have been hopeless. I recognise my talents, but I also recognise my limitations. If we take on EU legislative scrutiny, we will be absolutely banjoed.

We should demand more responsibility from the newspapers. Last week in The Irish Times, the paper of record, two columnists, Breda Power and Fintan O’Toole, said those on the “No” side should spoil their votes by writing “reform” on the ballot paper. I had to get on Twitter - with the help of my neighbour across the road, Muireann Noonan, because I am useless at computers, twiddles and what not - about this. At one stage, we were in contact with 1.2 million people and told them not to spoil their votes. Local radio stations such as those in Waterford, Donegal and Clare were just as important in the referendum as the national broadcasters.

Yes, this is a time not for recrimination but moving forward. We have had a degree of support from the people and need to justify it. Yes, we can be grateful to the Taoiseach. For the past 30 years I have been campaigning for Seanad reform, but it has never been on the political agenda. At least, the Taoiseach has managed - perhaps through the law of unintended consequences - to put Seanad reform on it.

The people are hungry for it. I have hundreds of e-mails from people saying they are delighted, but now let us get on with the job and reform.

That is a very fine note on which Senator David Norris ended his contribution and we all share his view that at last, Seanad reform and political reform are firmly on the agenda. We cannot walk away from it, and nobody who has been through this referendum wants to walk away from it. My colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, said perhaps it was too soon and maybe we would come back to it and I feel sure we will revisit the subject. We need to discuss it now but we will need to discuss it into the future. Senator Michael D'Arcy referred to the fact that the Seanad had been scrutinised for the past six months. I beg to differ. There was not much scrutiny of what the Seanad is and does. There was much argument about what people thought the Seanad was and what it did, but much of that was incorrect or wrong. Senator David Norris referred to brazen lies on the radio. I am sure he is well used to brazen lies on the radio. We all are.

I certainly am.

We were not really scrutinised. It became a debate about something else. I am glad the referendum is over because it gives us a firm and proper opportunity to discuss reform, which is where we all wanted to be. Not to be provocative, but most people, whether they voted "Yes" or "No", were looking for change of some description. Some wanted to change it by throwing us out, but that was a vote for change. Some wanted to keep us in the hope that we would be changed. That was also a vote for change. Arguably, everybody who took part on Friday wanted change. It is up to us to some extent to keep the pressure on and say that political reform, which will involve Seanad reform, is something we value.

One cannot have Seanad reform alone. It is a three-legged stool. It is local government, the Seanad and the Dáil. Unless one reforms them in an holistic way one cannot reform them properly at all. When Denmark and Finland removed their second houses they replaced them with either a regional structure or lots more local government with thousands of local politicians. They gave local government genuine powers to make all kinds of decisions about how they govern and how they spend their money. They said there were two ways of doing business: national government for big issues and local government for local issues. That was very clear, and they gave sufficient power to local government. If we say we want three parts to our Government, we must reform them all together.

This is not the day to discuss it because it is far too complicated, but Senator Ivana Bacik and others mentioned the Constitutional Convention, which is an appropriate place to discuss some of the ideas expressed. Senator John Crown generously suggested there should be a Seanad electoral reform Bill which would include the best of all the ideas that came from his Bill, that of Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn, former Senator Mary O'Rourke's cross-party committee and other places. On our own internal business, we have made some very valuable changes. I would like the Seanad Public Consultation Committee to be continued and extended. As I am a member of that committee, I might say that, might I not? However it is a very good blueprint for what we can do in the Seanad. We must be more strategic about the subjects we choose. Somebody suggested that committee should be bigger, but however we do it, it should become a fundamental part of our activity here.

I would like us to run the Young Senators initiative again. That was very useful in opening a space in the Houses of the Oireachtas for younger people to take part. It is much easier to do it here than in the other House. We have had many very interesting speakers here and we might make that a monthly Speakers' Corner, so to speak, where they are not necessarily the great and the beautiful but representatives of older people, those with mental health issues, children and creative people, in order that this would be a Chamber of vision and creativity of older and younger people. We need a real change internally in the clash between the committees, the Dáil and the Seanad. That is fundamental. I sit on two committees and I am chasing around, as many people are. The committees have real and powerful business to do, and the only way to do it is to separate that business from the Dáil and the Seanad.

I commend the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, for his ordering of this debate. It is important, in the wake of the referendum, that Members of this House reflect on the outcome of the referendum and the messages both sides sent to all of us and the political system itself. Referendum day is the people's day. The people spoke and the people are sovereign. We all regret that the majority of people entitled to vote did not vote, not just on the Seanad referendum but also on the referendum on the establishment of the Court of Appeal. We saw something similar with the children's referendum, where the turnout was approximately 30%. We must recognise that we have a job to do as a political system to reach out to a section of the population who are disengaged with the political system, who are indifferent, apathetic or angry.

For those who voted, it was a clear, resounding vote for reform. It would be wrong for anybody in this House to see it as a vote of confidence in us, as individuals or Senators, or in this House as an institution. People want reform, not just of the Seanad but of the entire political system. It was regrettable that the option of reform was not put to the people. While it was not on the ballot paper, people took the option of voting "No" as their way of saying they want reform. The Government should accept that. It might be easy for the Government to say the people voted to retain the Seanad, but the vast majority, if not all, of the people who campaigned for a "No" vote were campaigning on the basis of a radically reformed Seanad. I hope we do not go into the next general election with the Seanad exactly as it is, with a few cosmetic changes but with Senators being elected exactly the same way as they were elected in the past. The people will not forgive us for that, nor will they forgive the political system, because it was genuine vote for reform.

First, we must reform how people are elected to the Seanad. We all accept that this must change. While Senator Norris took exception to the term "elitist", I make no apologies for saying the way we elect Senators is elitist. We elect a number of Senators through university panels on which only a certain portion of people who went to universities have a vote. We do not give the franchise to the vast majority of citizens. Where only 3% of the population can vote for people in one arm of the Parliament, it is clearly elitist and undemocratic and that must change.

Senators should be elected through universal suffrage. There should be one vote for everybody. If we really want people to have an affinity with the Seanad, the first thing we do is give them the vote. When people can vote for Senators, the whole perception of the Seanad will change. The Press Gallery is empty. The press came in today because it was the first day after the referendum. Will we see them again tomorrow, next week and next month? If every person had a Seanad vote, it would change that attitude and that perception. We should do it because it is the right thing to do. Legislators should be elected by the people.

Another question is what the second Chamber does. In defence of its abolition strategy the Government argued that there are any number of proposals. Senator John Crown made proposals.

Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone have made proposals, as have Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil. I am sure the Labour Party and Fine Gael made proposals prior to the referendum. We have any amount of reports on Seanad reform. There is no end of reports or ideas. We must work out in a very careful and thoughtful way how we will reform the Seanad with regard to its powers. There is scope for examining EU legislation and directives. How many times have we seen directives that have not been properly transposed into Irish law? A recent example, as the Leader would agree, is the insolvency directive, which resulted in Waterford Crystal workers not getting their pensions. Senator David Norris is correct in saying that generally EU legislation is very technical and weighty and it would not be possible to go through every piece of it, but there are directives and areas of European policy that the Chamber could quite usefully examine.

It would also be a mistake to reform only the Seanad. We cannot allow the issue of Dáil reform to slip off the agenda, because it needs to be radically reformed. I agree with previous speakers with regard to local government. I hope we will have constructive, thoughtful debate. I appeal to Senators on the Government side to appeal to the Taoiseach to put the issues of political reform and the future of the Seanad and the Dáil to the Constitutional Convention, to extend its remit and to let all of these ideas be properly ventilated, after which it can come back with a proposal which, it is hoped, would add value to our democracy and the workings of the Parliament.

I very much welcome this debate and thank the Leader for his contribution during the debate on the referendum. The number of people who voted to retain the Seanad works out at more than 10,000 votes per Senator, which is equivalent to a quota for a Deputy. It was a substantial vote in favour of keeping the Seanad and we should not forget this. With regard to politics, democracy and the cost issue, when one considers countries that do not have democracy, one appreciates everything we have here. People had an opportunity to state whether they no longer wanted the Seanad. They decided comprehensively that they wanted it retained.

I came to the House from the European Parliament and have serious issues with the time the voting procedure here takes. The European Parliament has a set time for voting, which is between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m., and during this time up to 200 votes can be dealt with at 30 seconds per vote. When Bills are going through the Seanad, votes can be called on individual sections. I would like this procedure to be examined to see whether each section could be debated as it arises but the votes taken together at certain times. This may require major reform, but it is about effective use of time. We should consider it.

Many people have raised the issue of European directives. The need to scrutinise EU legislation was one of the first issues I raised when I came to the House. We should also examine the Commission's programme for each year. In November of each year the Commission publishes its work programme for the following 12 months, and I do not believe it has ever been debated in either House of the Oireachtas. Its programme will affect us, perhaps not now or in 12 months time, but at some time in the future. It would be appropriate to discuss the Commission's programme when it is published to see the issues coming down the road of which we need to be aware. Today the European Parliament dealt with cigarettes and the tobacco industry. In fairness, the Minister for Health and the Taoiseach wrote to MEPs in support of the change required. We should debate at a very early stage not only directives but also the entire programme, whether it is a 12 month or a five year programme.

Many people are very critical of Oireachtas committees. I am lucky to be on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, which I consider to be a very good committee. One reason it is so good is that no one plays politics. All of the contributions from everyone involved are extremely constructive. It has been extremely successful and long may this continue.

Senator Darragh O'Brien raised the issue of working together. In Brussels we all sat down around the table and worked through issues. I have given the example previously of the cross-border health care directive. I did deals with the communists, the Union for Europe of the Nations, UEN, the liberals and every group to bring through the amendments I wanted. On committee stage more than 400 amendments were dealt with. Everyone had a part to play and people did not vote against an amendment because it came from a particular party; they voted in favour of it because of the benefits it would bring and because it would make the directive a better document. We should consider these issues when examining reform of the House.

I join everybody in stating collectively that all sides of the House made a major contribution to the result at the weekend. I must confess I am a little curious about Sinn Féin's analysis of the election. It seems so certain about the reasons people voted as they did. One will never be able to understand what motivates a voter. All I have to go on is anecdotal evidence. Those I spoke to who voted "No" stated that they wanted to retain the institution, but they did not go any further than this. They felt it had been put there for a purpose. They were not all that certain the Government would continue with its reform proposals and they were not quite clear about them. The bottom line I came away with from those who voted "No" was that they wanted to retain the institution. One can interpret any other reasons they may have had for voting "No". It may be that they wanted meaningful reform of the House. Perhaps they want meaningful reform of the other House. Perhaps they are cursing all our Houses because we need to get our act together. It has presented a challenge and it is incumbent on this House to rise to it.

One cannot have reform of one House without examining the other, because this House complements the Dáil. That is why the House exists. One House cannot operate without the other under the current system. We must examine how to make both Houses more efficient and relevant to the general public and to improving the lot of the citizenry, which is the main reason we entered politics. The Taoiseach's nominations should be examined. We should move to a situation somewhat similar to that in the House of Lords, where people continue to be appointed but there are also others. A great body of expertise exists, which sometimes falls between the cracks. A person may not be electable or may not want to put himself or herself before the public for election, but could still have a contribution to make.

They make that contribution in other ways through civic society, and we see them all the time. One often wonders how they never got involved in politics, but maybe that is just not the route they want to take. I believe there should be a system of nomination that would fill in the cracks. This could include, for example, former Ministers and former leaders of civic society, be they trade unionists, those from the public sector or those from the voluntary sector who have come towards retirement age and who have a vast range of expertise. Why should we lose that? The British do not lose it; they make use of it and it works for them.

The other aspect is the vocational panels, which should also be retained. After all, the original intention of the de Valera initiative was that there would be a vocational aspect to this House, although how it works out in practice is something we need to look at. It seems to me that the step of giving the franchise to the general public within the vocational panels, as suggested by the Zappone-Quinn Bill, is the way to go in that we would retain the panels and would have people with particular expertise in each area. In fact, we should get the nominating bodies themselves to nominate people, as they do currently, but stop short of exclusively giving them the vote and instead extend the franchise.

I now have a somewhat jaundiced view of some of the nominating bodies, which I did not have prior to this referendum. I actually met people who had the right to nominate people for this House who told me they could not discuss the issue because it was too political. They said that, under their Standing Orders, they could not discuss the abolition or retention of this House by their executive committees, although one of them was a teaching union. I wrote to every nominating body asking them to convene a meeting of their executive committees in order that they would then direct their membership to at least retain the right of nomination to the House, even if they were somewhat sceptical about the manner in which the House operated. I got just two replies, one an acknowledgement and the other telling me that, under its standing orders, the body could not discuss the issue because it was political.

I also had the experience of meeting an individual from one of the agricultural nominating bodies who stated: "We are not a political body." I told him that the body had the right of nomination and asked him how nominations were processed. I asked whether there was discussion and whether the body understood it was nominating somebody to a political Chamber. He said he had not thought about it in those terms. There is a need to perhaps examine the functions, mandate, responsibilities and obligations of the nominating bodies, although I do not believe they should be wiped away.

I would like to put forward a few ideas on political reform. One that has been touched on by a number of Senators, including my colleague Senator Colm Burke, concerns EU legislation. I see a significant role for this House in discussing and scrutinising EU legislation. The majority of legislation now coming through the Dáil comes from the European Union. I agree with Senator colm Burke in regard to the work programme. The workload in this regard is quite significant and we should perhaps look to set aside, for example, two Fridays a month to deal solely with EU legislation. I believe this House should take the lead on that issue.

My other suggestion is in regard to the Constitution. The status of the current Constitution is very topical. Although I do not have any scientific figures on it, there is a body of opinion that suggests the Constitution is not fit for purpose. It is over 70 years since it came into existence and our society and the needs of citizens have changed significantly in that time. We need a holistic view of where we are now and where we see our country in 50 years' time. There has been a huge amount of debate on this - for example, on the amount of time our courts spend dealing with challenges to the Constitution. What I propose is a cross-party group that would look at drafting a new Constitution. This group would have technical backup and it would come before this House and the Dáil within ten or 11 months. The document would be a discussion point, a focal point for people to think about where we see our country and what we need within the Constitution for a modern society. That work would be very important and I believe this House should take the lead. It would also be important to engage with the public on this issue, through focus groups throughout the country. This would be a very significant move in terms of political reform and is something the Seanad could champion.

As the budget is coming up, it is important to recognise that the scale of our financial deficit has been well and truly debated in all Chambers but the scale of our national democratic deficit has really only come under scrutiny because of the debate on the Seanad. There are many issues we now have to consider. The 1 million people who voted on Friday looked for reform, not just of this House but, obviously, of all our institutions. There are a number of areas where reform must be considered, particularly given that only 2% of the laws that come into effect in Ireland every year are debated by the Dáil and the Seanad. We have an ongoing situation in which we exclude all those people who, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, are entitled to be Irish citizens - those in the North and those Irish living overseas in the Diaspora.

My colleagues have previously discussed the issue of EU scrutiny, which is an area I have examined. As the Leader knows, we recalled the Seanad this summer to look at one piece of legislation that was brought into Irish law by a Minister without debate, meaning no Deputy or Senator saw the legislation before he signed it into Irish law. It happens with about 75% of the laws made in Ireland that Ministers use their powers under the 1972 Act, which is obviously unacceptable.

We talk about the scrutiny of EU directives, regulations and statutory instruments. I pointed out on the Order of Business the scale of the laws that are coming into effect while bypassing these Houses. One hundred and sixty four EU directives, 194 statutory instruments and 1,291 EU regulations were brought into effect in Ireland in one calendar year without proper scrutiny or debate, as opposed to 47 Acts of the Oireachtas. That is the scale of the national democratic deficit. However, there is no point in talking about our scrutinising of EU regulations unless we have the technical support to do so. We cannot be expected to start scrutinising EU legislation without having staff available to us who will assist us in understanding its nature.

We have talked about our role under the Lisbon treaty. In the first two years after Lisbon, 139 pieces of draft legislation came from the European Union, yet, of the 439 submissions made by EU Parliaments, Ireland made only one submission and even that one was ruled out of order. This should tell us about our inability to engage correctly with EU legislation.

Another role is in regard to scrutinising Government appointments. I am not for one moment defending the previous Government and the way it appointed people to Government agencies and roles. However, this has to change. I would go back to the issue I raised about the Irish overseas and in the North. It is 184 years since O'Connell fought for Catholic emancipation, 95 years since women got the vote for the first time and 45 years since people marched in Derry just to have the right to a vote, yet we still deny the vote to more than 3 million people who are entitled to be Irish citizens, including 1.8 million in the North and 1.2 million who are living overseas and who have Irish passports. That is nearly 40% of those who are entitled to be Irish citizens under Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Only four countries in Europe deny a vote to their citizens overseas - ourselves, Cyprus, Malta and Greece. When one considers that an emigrant leaves Ireland every six minutes-----

The Senator's time is almost up.

It could be argued that emigrants are not engaged in or concerned about what happens in their home country. Of course, Irish emigrants are engaged and want to know what is happening at home and want people for whom they can vote to ensure the economic and social conditions improve in order that they can return. The Constitutional Convention, of which I am a member, approved voting rights for Irish citizens in presidential elections. There are nine countries that extend voting rights to citizens only in presidential elections. All of these Presidents have serious executive powers. We are talking about giving our citizens abroad a vote in Presidential elections only, a role that is largely ceremonial, with some constitutional responsibilities.

There are three things we need to do: first, we need to examine the proposed legislation tabled by Senator John Crown on how we can reform this House without the need for another referendum. Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn also have a Bill and if these two Bills were merged, they could form a platform to move forward without the need for a second referendum on the Seanad. The Leader has set up a Seanad consultation committee which could be the vehicle to bring all of the groups together without having to wait for another to take the leadership role in the process of inviting groups to debate how this Chamber can be changed for the better. Could we consider inviting the JFK School of Government at Harvard University to look at our entire political system, the Dáil, the Seanad and the permanent government which have not been sufficiently scrutinised? I ask the Seanad committee to consider this suggestion.

I will take up the latter point made in Senator Mark Daly's contribution on inviting the JFK School of Government at Harvard University to examine our system of government. I studied there briefly in the mid-1990s. Were we to consider taking that line, the JFK School of Government would have a very interesting role to play, as would other academic institutions. When I was in UCD, I studied American politics and comparative European politics as part of my course. In most cases, citizens want their parliaments to have more power and be reformed, as they are not happy with the way they do business. We are not unique in that sense.

The result of the referendum is very interesting and I look forward to the academic analysis of the "No" vote, in particular. It would be very interesting to make a comparison between the votes cast in the referendum on the court of appeal and those cast in the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. Some 65.2% voted in favour of establishing a court of appeal, whereas some 48.3% voted in favour of abolition of the Seanad. Almost 25% of the population voted "Yes" in one instance and "No" in the other. If one was to analyse this as an anti-Government vote, that would be incorrect. One of every four who voted against abolition of the Seanad voted for its reform. If they had wanted to give the Government a bloody nose, the percentage vote would have been more or less similar in both instances.

The debate has moved on. Senator Maurice Cummins as Leader of the House has initiated the most radical reform of the Seanad in its history, which has gone unrecognised, to a large extent, in the media. Initiatives such as bringing a representative of the Orange Order, former President Mary Robinson, Dr. Maurice Manning and others to the House have contributed significantly to debate and that process will continue. That is a significant reform. I understand that prior to that, initiatives of this type were not engaged in. We have used the expert knowledge of Members such as Senator John Crown to identify the prevention steps that I have no doubt will feed into the Government's cancer strategy.

I would like to see the franchise extended. I do not believe this House would serve a useful function as a replica of Dáil Éireann. We, in this House, have the ability to scrutinise legislation, propose amendments and take a cold dispassionate view, as Members have more time to discuss and examine legislation. That is an area that could be improved on without the need for another referendum. We could extend the franchise easily without holding a referendum. We have already passed a referendum on extending the university panels. I am sure the Leader could enter discussions with the Government to implement that change in due course.

We need opportunities to open the discussion on this issue in order that people can outline their understanding and beliefs in reforming this Chamber. We have a critical role to play in the scrutiny of European legislation. People consider that Ireland is very compliant in implementing European directives quickly, in particular the European environmental and food directives. Let me give some examples. A pub in west Clare or County Kerry will not be allowed to serve food, unless it complies with the very strict HACCP requirements, whereas in a country such as Italy or France, most sheebeens are serving food. Both countries are member states, but we have a problem. This House has a significant role to play not only in scrutinising EU legislation, but also in creating and reflecting informed opinion in Irish society in a mature and calm way.

I thank those Senators who played a pivotal and influential role during the campaign. They have done the State a service in that we have maintained one of the democratic institutions of State.

I am somewhat surprised by the result. I had conceded to my colleagues that the temptation to dispense with 60 politicians would be irresistible, but I am happy that did not happen. The debate showed a paucity of argument on the "Yes" side for the abolition of the Seanad. That was sad and begs the question as to why a referendum was held. It was a pet project of the Taoiseach. I would not remove from the line of fire those senior civil servants who planted the seed in the first place in an bord snip nua. Some in the Department of Finance were extremely anxious to do it.

The denigration of politicians during the campaign by people involved in the profession only fed into elements in the media who were constantly looking for avenues to denigrate the political classes. As I said to some of them, unfortunately, as a consequence they are undermining our democracy. I know of many good young people who have an interest in politics but would not touch it with a barge pole because of what is going on. They do not want to put themselves in a position where they would be involved in a profession that could not stand up for itself. That is regrettable. It cost €15 million to hold a referendum, of which the Taoiseach needs to be reminded.

I am amazed in the current climate that the person in charge of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation was given six or seven weeks to travel the country to campaign for the abolition of the Seanad.

It showed a lack of focus on what needed to be done and what the priorities in government should be. We have a 49% youth unemployment rate in County Wexford. The Minister came to Wexford during the campaign, but I did not get an opportunity at a public meeting to make the point to him that his responsibility was to those who were unemployed and perhaps this task might have been more appropriate to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

The public has decided that dismantling our democracy is not a recipe for real reform. I hope this message will be learned by the Government. Many of us in this House objected to its decision to abolish town councils. The urbanisation of society and the challenges within urban areas all mean that there should be political leadership and political institutions to address these issues. At this late stage I appeal to the Leader who was some influence with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to ask him to go each town and let the people decide whether they wish to retain their town council, as there is provision in local government legislation for the holding of a plebiscite. I think the overwhelming answer would be to retain the town councils. We need to respect democracy in this country and not try to engineer it in order that it suits our own political agenda.

We need real meaningful political reform, not just in the Seanad but across the two Houses of the Oireachtas. The Dáil is the main organ of the Oireachtas and has shown enormous groupthink. It is extremely partisan in debates. There is an urgent need to separate the Executive from the workings of the Oireachtas and the ordering of business. Providing more hours is not reform. The only effective reform I can think of in the past ten years in the Dáil was the introduction, under a Fianna Fáil Government, of Leaders' Questions.

The Presidency should also be examined. It should be retained. The President is the person with the strongest political mandate, in that he or she is elected by the people. We should look at empowering the President with some executive functions, one of which could be a right to appoint two members of the Cabinet. Why should the Taoiseach have the sole prerogative to make appointments to the Cabinet? Two good independent people with expertise in different areas could be appointed.

The Seanad certainly needs reform, but I appeal to Members not to focus solely on the Seanad because we will only have a tinkering around the edges of it, rather than the overall context of political reform, which we need. The Taoiseach said during the campaign that the Seanad was in some way responsible for the economic collapse. Any impartial observer would say the dysfunctional nature of the Dáil was a much larger contributor to it. I would like to think we would not shy away from holding another referendum on the Seanad. For example, I do not believe the Taoiseach's nominees should be taken out of the equation. The Seanad would then speak with a more objective and independent voice on the business before it. We would still not have a veto on legislation and the Dáil could still overrule us, but that would be a better system. We do not want the American system where we would have two Houses with equal status, which would lead to a logjam. That is not the way to go either.

I compliment the Leader, as others have done. One reform he should examine is allowing more time for some of these debates. Some of them are too concentrated and in many instances we are only given sound bites. I appeal to the Leader to allow for more adequate time to be allocated to these debates.

I thank the Leader for giving us time to discuss this very important issue. We must start by asking what is political reform. It is about changing the way we do politics, the way we manage to represent and integrate the people and solve the problems they are bringing to us which are real issues in society. We received a mandate at the weekend to do this. We can be sure of one thing: if the Seanad had been abolished on Friday, political reform would not be on the agenda. In fact, it probably would not be considered in the Dáil anymore. We did not achieve this; the people achieved it for us. We are now looking at reform across both Houses and, as others have pointed out, the other leg of the stool is local government. It is a feeding process from top to bottom.

Some people even went so far as to write the word "reform" on their ballot paper. I thought it was quite discerning of one or two returning officers to allow this without calling it a spoiled vote, risky though that was. I heard Senator Martin Conway's analysis of the vote on the court of appeal and the Seanad. I thought the people showed huge discernment in that regard. They said they wanted a court of appeal, but that they did not want to throw out the Seanad. They were able to say the Constitution mattered and that there were safeguards in it. Let us not, therefore, throw out the baby with the bath water; let us improve democracy and how we do politics.

The Leader will be taking a lot of feedback from everybody here. I would like to put into the pot what others have said, such as references to the Bills introduced by Senator John Crown and by Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone. The Leader should take written submissions from the various parties and individual groups such as the Reform Alliance which Senator Paul Bradford and I are representing. While we will all say our piece, it will be good to see who will put their piece in writing.

I would like to see a vote for all citizens. I would also like to see a non-partisan approach in the House; in other words, we should get rid of political parties. Somebody referenced Michael O'Regan's point today that this should be a House in which there is more policy and less politics. I agree. The other House can be more partisan, but this should be the thinking House and the pulse of the nation. We should vote on policy by a simple vote and then pass it to the Dáil to legislate. We can initiate legislation here also. I agree with the idea of having panels of experts put to the people to vote on. There might be some merit in having regional quotas, as we do not want all of the experts to come from Dublin. There could be a very considerable role in scrutinising EU legislation and Government appointments. There is a major body of work to be done. A Seanad election should take place mid-term in order that any Seanad would span two Government terms. I would like to see considered the proposal we placed on the Order Paper, No. 8, that all of this be gathered by 20 February 2014. We must have a deadline or it will not happen. Unless we have a deadline, we will be levied with the insult of it being a talking shop.

We have done some good work duing this term, be it in the public consultation session and the young Senators session. However, I am really disappointed with the people who have insulted this House from within this and the other House. This is a House of Parliament and the people have decided to keep it. I ask those who decided, following a rush of blood to the head, to insult it beyond all reasonable measure to reconsider withdrawing their remarks. It was just a means to push people into a "Yes" vote, but the people were not fooled by it.

Acting Chairman Senator Susan O'Keeffe

I call Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.

According to the Order of Business, we are supposed to be finishing at this stage, but I have no problem with Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill continuing.

As we started at 6.05 p.m., it was two hours. Is it okay to overrun?

The debate has been very worthwhile. It was calm and dealt with the issue of reviving and reforming the Seanad, bringing about change and listening to what was discussed in the course of the campaign. Often in election and referendum campaigns, emotion can take over and reflection can turn into argument. A period of reflection on the future of democracy generally in this country is required.

Whether we like it, there is a disconnect between politics and the citizens of this country. That disconnect is due in no small way to the economic woes of the country. There is a need to re-align politics closer to the people. I do not believe this is the right time for the country to have the knee-jerk reaction proposed by the Taoiseach of reducing democracy or the number of political fora. It was never more important in this country, or in any part of the world, to have political dialogue and political fora in order that the views of the people can be expressed in a chamber that is representative of the people's views. That is exactly what is done in this Chamber.

There is a need to review Seanad Éireann. Excellent proposals have been brought forward by various political parties and none, such as the proposals from Senators John Crown, Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone. They all deserve recognition and discussion. Obviously, there is a requirement for a period of engagement on all of those documents. I agree with Fidelma Senator Healy Eames that there might be an opportunity for the office of the Leader of Seanad Éireann to invite submissions from the general public and public interest groups outlining their views. Instead of sending those submissions into an Oireachtas committee which is predominantly controlled by Members of the Dáil, they should be brought before the Seanad through the office of the Leader. That engagement with schools, universities and civic society might be an opportunity worth considering.

We cannot control our destiny and should not try to control it. We must listen, reflect and decide on the best way. Certainly, any future Seanad Éireann must have an input from the general public with regard to who sits in these seats, and that can only be done by extending the vote to the general public. That must happen. It would bridge the disconnect.

Following the result of the vote last Friday I believe this Chamber has been reinvigorated. Countries such as France and Germany use their second parliamentary chamber to have debates on regional issues which affect their countries. In the model of Irish democracy people tend to think the Irish parliamentary system is based on the British system. It is not. The provisions in the Constitution establishing both Houses of the Oireachtas were founded on the principle of the American Congress and Senate system. The aim was to replicate that system. If we are to do that, we must extend the universal franchise. In the United States, every state sends two senators to represent it in the US Senate. A state such as Wyoming, for example, with a population roughly the same size as that of greater Belfast, sends two senators to Washington, the same number as states such as California and Texas, which are the most populous states in the United States.

We must take all of this into consideration and look at how other parliaments operate. We should not simply rush into it just for the sake of political reform. It should not be quick political reform, but the best possible political reform. We should try to work together on this issue on both a cross-party and non-party basis. We should show the general public that we are putting this issue above party politics, that we will try to achieve something that will outlast all of us in the years ahead and that it will provide the people with a voice in this Chamber.

At least one set of sixth year students has been asked to write an essay tonight on the outcome of the referendum on the Seanad. That is an example of how it has impacted across the country.

I do not propose to reply to this debate as I would on the Order of Business by referring to all of the speakers. It has been a very constructive debate and I thank the large number of Members who contributed to it. We will take on board all of the suggestions made.

A number of Members suggested we have a period of reflection. It is important that we have that and that we do not jump into making quick decisions. We must make the right decisions. Certainly, written submissions on the matter from Members, groups and parties would be more than welcome. It would make my job easier in collating all the information put before the House.

Naturally, EU legislation, directives and work programmes have been mentioned. To do that properly we would require some technical assistance. Whether the area of EU scrutiny could be designated to the Seanad and Members given the technical backup to do the job properly is a matter which should be considered by the Government and I will certainly put that forward.

Many Members referred to the issue of political reform, including local government, the other House and committees. Many supported what I have said with regard to committees, namely, that there should be a committee week in the Oireachtas rather than have committee meetings taking place at the same time as plenary sessions. The system is not working at present. It would be of assistance to all Members of the House if there was a committee week to do our business, but I do not know whether the Government would agree with that. I will certainly put it forward as a reform which this House would suggest for the other House, since the other House is making a lot of suggestions about this House. However, I do not wish to be facetious and agree that if we come up with reforms that we wish to implement, we will need the support of the other House in passing them through that House also. There is, and will be, a need for co-operation in that regard.

The 1979 referendum extending the franchise to all graduates was mentioned on the Order of Business and raised by a few Members in this debate. It should be acted upon. The legislation that would be required should not prevent us from doing it. A motion from this House asking the Government to implement the provisions of that referendum should be forthcoming in the next number of weeks.

As I said in my opening remarks regarding the basis for reform of the House, we have a number of reports, particularly the last all-party report and the Bills from Senators John Crown, Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone. That should be the basis of the reform. Despite what we say about Taoiseach's nominations and so forth, changes of that nature would require another referendum and I do not believe anybody has an appetite for another referendum on this issue. I might be wrong, but that is my opinion.

We must work within the system of legislation rather than go to the people again to change the whole shebang. In that regard, Senator John Crown's Bill and the other Bill, plus the report chaired by former Senator Mary O'Rourke, are very important and we should take them on board.

I refer to other items raised. Some speakers stated the vocational panel should be retained, others the reverse. It must be retained, however, if we are not to have another referendum. It will be difficult to reach agreement between all parties present as to what is the best way to elect the Seanad. Many people will have their own seat in mind when they are thinking of this-----

Perish the thought.

-----of that there is no question, human nature being what it is, but we must move on. We have to amend the whole structure and give all people a vote. One of the main arguments made concerned the elitism of the House. People believed they should have had a say in the election of the House and this will have to be rectified in some way with whatever reforms we make to the electoral system.

I agree there have been many ill-informed comments about the House and its functions. I was surprised by the number of people who were so ill-informed, who I would have expected to know these functions. Many commentators I believed would have known better made outrageous statements about what the House could and should do, but they were ill-informed about the functions of the House.

We have made progress on public consultation and have reformed in this area. Consultation is working but can do better. We were criticised for having the young "Senators" attend, but as one who was present that day I believed the occasion worked very well.

On that topic, although many young voters did not vote in the referendum, I was surprised by the number of young people who had an interest in the Seanad and cast their votes accordingly.

Senator David Cullinane mentioned that only 40% voted, but there have been lower turnouts in other referendums. The people certainly knew what they were voting for - that is evident when one considers the vote in the other referendum, on the Court of Appeal. They are ahead of us in many regards. Commentators suggested people did not know what they were voting for and this may have been the case in a few minor instances, but, in general, people are well informed.

Speakers mentioned the time available for debate in this House. I will allow as much time as is necessary, but we all know that for all the times I order statements and legislation, only a handful of Members will contribute. We have done an excellent job on many items of legislation but others go through in half an hour because only two or three speakers are present. We have to look at ourselves in that regard. That is the type of behaviour people comment upon; therefore, we must look at the way we do our business. If time is necessary for debate and legislation, however, it will be allowed. The last thing I want to do with any legislation that comes to this House is to guillotine it and I have no intention of doing so unless it is emergency or financial legislation. Times come, however, when we give an airing to Committee Stage of a single Bill over days and weeks and it is imperative for me to be able to say we have debated it at length. That will happen only in exceptional cases and will happen less rather than more often.

I believe I have covered the majority of points raised. I reiterate I would welcome written submissions from parties and groups. The submissions we have had from the likes of Senators John Crown, Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone are now available in Bill form and have been passed on Second Stage. Their jump from Second Stage to Committee Stage is where we stand now and we must have reflection from all parties as to how we can knit this in and we can only do so much. I am the Government representative in this House, but as I speak, I cannot give the exact position of the Government in regard to reform of this House. It, too, needs time for reflection. I will certainly bring the points raised tonight to the Government and would welcome the co-operation of the House in having written submissions from parties and groups. I hope we can all work together.

There will, of course, be votes. In an ideal world there would be no Whip system, but that is Utopia and we all know it will not happen. Any co-operation there can be in respect of legislation and prior debates, etc., would be appreciated. The leaders of groups meet regularly. I am not here to cause problems between groups, parties or individual Members. I want the House to work well and co-operation between all Members. I will do my utmost to initiate reforms the House wants.

We look forward to a timeline and framework for the proposals. When is it proposed to sit again?

Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.

Top
Share