Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I think I am right. I am not very wise but I am not a bad judge of other people's wisdom, and I believe there is more wisdom, consideration, reflection and higher order qualities in the Seanad. That is the purpose of the Seanad. It makes a significant contribution.

I am particularly impressed by the standard of debate and the scrutiny of legislation. I was very impressed with Senator Ivana Bacik bringing forward her Bill on equality in the workplace. I do not believe that would ever have happened in the Dáil. It might happen in the future but not at present. I am not alone in believing that. Ministers, including I believe the Minister of State, have repeatedly referred to the quality of legislative scrutiny in the Seanad and compared it very favourably with the Dáil. In addition, some Members of the Seanad are particularly significant in respect of the constituencies they represent and bring an interesting and somewhat unique voice to politics.

I pay tribute to the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, for the way he handles the business of the House and the way in which he has widened its scope. The visit of Mr. Drew Nelson of the Orange Order, which was highly significant and will have a lasting significance for peace, reconciliation and progress towards a new Ireland was a highlight for me as a Border politician. Mr. Drew Nelson told me of the impact his visit had on him. Nevertheless, in the opinion of many the Seanad does not have a unique selling point at the moment as the argument is made that there is nothing done in the Seanad that could not be done by other means, such as an enhanced Dáil committee system. In addition, the Seanad is seen by many, as my colleague stated, as a waiting room for the Dáil or a retirement home for former members and others. That this is a perversion and not its original function is sad and regrettable and it is not true, as the original vocational function of the Seanad has been replaced by a rigid party political system with the accompanying Whip system. It was not the present or the previous Government that did that. That happened within three years of 1937 so we are dealing with an historic legacy. Therefore, those who would favour reform rather than abolition have their work cut out in persuading the people that this is the correct road to take. As an aside, it is not today or tomorrow but the two or three weeks before the referendum that will be crucial. Notwithstanding that, this is a very important debate.

Many say we need the Seanad to keep a check on the Dáil and its loss would be an attack on the democratic system. That is the major argument I hear in Haggardstown about the abolition of the Seanad.