Progress of animal welfare Bill showed benefits of Seanad and bicameral system

On RTÉ's Six One News on Wednesday evening the Government fielded Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney to argue the case for abolishing Seanad Éireann. In the course of a spirited attack on the upper house, he dismissed it as having "no added value".

The comment was surprising because only last year the Minister decided to initiate the Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012 in the Seanad rather than the Dáil. This was a significant piece of legislation, which involved a consolidation and modernisation of the law on issues such as the prevention and control of animal disease, animal welfare, tracing systems and the registration of marts.

At the opening of the second-stage debate, Coveney said: “I am pleased to introduce the Bill into the Seanad. We have had a number of discussions on agriculture, animal health issues and veterinary practice.

“As the engagement from Senators has been hugely positive, I considered it appropriate to introduce the Bill in the Seanad before taking it to the other House as there are many members here who want to get engaged in the detail of the legislation. That is important because this is important legislation.”

Open to suggestions
Over several weeks the Seanad debated every detail of the Bill's 70-plus sections. Coveney attended each stage, was open to positive suggestions, and when not accepting amendments explained in detail his reasons for not doing so.

At the end of the final stage, he said: “I thank Senators for their interaction and co-operation. This is a major Bill, with some complex elements. The debate in the Seanad has exposed some weaknesses which I think we will improve on in the Dáil. It was very worthwhile to introduce it in the Seanad and we have had good interaction on a series of issues.”

The journey of this legislation illustrates the value of a two-house legislative process in the Irish context and of additional detailed consideration of legislation in a calmer second house. It was not controversial legislation but it was important law. The provisions of this act will be tested daily on farms and in the courts. The obligations on farmers and the powers of enforcement for department officers are all grounded in the precise wording. Errors or defects in legislation of this nature can prove costly.

After the summer recess the Bill began a second journey through the Dáil. More usually the system works the other way around. Many pieces of legislation have been passed by the Dáil with significant defects, which had to be corrected by the Seanad.

In the first two years of its term, the current Seanad has made more than 500 amendments to 14 Bills that had been passed by the Dáil in an inadequate, incomplete or incorrect manner. More than 70 of those were made to the Personal Insolvency Bill and even fundamental legislation dealing with the constitutional amendment on judges’ pay had to be corrected in the Seanad.

Superficial and speculative
As expected, the proposals by the Government on Dáil reform this week were superficial and speculative. They promised four-day weeks for the Dáil (which most of us had assumed were already in place), committee hearings on the heads of Bills, which already happen, and a rewording of the titles of Dáil committees. None of this window dressing is an adequate substitute for a constitutional requirement that all Bills, other than money Bills, be debated over four stages and be voted on in a separate house.

There are some unicameral systems that work well but most of them also have strong regional and municipal assemblies that have more authority and responsibility than even our Dáil does.

It is also worth remembering that Coveney was chair of Fine Gael's policy development committee. Fine Gael published a detailed document arguing for a retained and reformed Seanad. Presumably Coveney had a role in its authorship and in it becoming Fine Gael policy after debate at the parliamentary party.

Coveney was on the Fine Gael front bench when his leader unilaterally decided to upturn party policy in October 2009. The whispered advice of party press handlers designed to give Enda Kenny an assertive political persona at a moment he was being overshadowed as leader of the opposition by Eamon Gilmore has now worked its way into a full-blown constitutional referendum.

It would be interesting to hear Coveney’s thoughts on how this volte-face in Fine Gael policy came about. In the absence of an explanation we must assume that he is now doing no more than his leader’s bidding when he gratuitously maligns Seanad Éireann instead of holding to his own views, as reflected on the Seanad record.