Tom Shehan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The first Seanad met on 11 December 1922 in the National Museum on Kildare Street. Sir Thomas Henry Grattan Esmonde, the great-grandson of Henry Grattan, was the first to take his seat in the new Seanad in what was a very different Ireland. Of the 489 Bills received from 1922 to 1936 the Seanad substantially amended 182 of them before they became law. The weight of the Seanad's authority was such that of the 1,831 amendments made to primary legislation, the Dáil agreed to 1,719. In 14 years the Dáil accepted 95% of all amendments and only rejected outright 86 Seanad amendments. That was a time when the Seanad had real power, a time when it was a democratic and effective second Chamber in which real contributions were made to legislation.

Regrettably, this role has changed over the years. It has changed to the point where we now have an Upper House that is treated with contempt. It is a shadow of what it once was. It disappoints me when I hear the Seanad, once a great institution, referred to as a cross between a political convalescent home and a crèche or training ground for the Dáil, where the real action takes place. The Seanad was never designed to be a training ground or a resting place. It was designed to give a voice to vocational interests to check and balance legislation to ensure that it was effective and, more important, to ensure that we operate as an effective parliamentary democracy.

Seanad Éireann was established in our Constitution in 1937 and is mentioned 75 times in the Constitution. It appears that it would be a great deal easier to draft a new Constitution than to go through the process of changing 75 times. The references to the Seanad highlight just how integral it is to the functioning of our nation. I stand today to argue that abolition will not solve but rather cause problems. Let us be very clear. Abolishing the Seanad is the easy option or easy way out. While I agree it must be put to the people to decide on the future of the Seanad, we should be considering concrete reform proposals to give voters an alternative option and to show people what the Seanad could be if we radically reform how it operates.

Abolishing the Seanad for the sake of political grandstanding will be a retrograde step, one which I am sure we will regret in years to come. What we need is a dynamic, cost effective, gender equal, functional second House that will act as a check and balance on the powers of the Dáil. A reformed Seanad would be a tool used by the people to hold the Government of the day to account. Who knows what Governments we will have in the future? Who knows what majorities they will have or what type of power they will wield? Perish the thought that some Member of the other House would become Taoiseach with a massive majority. It beggars belief. In my opinion, in the case of some Members, and I will not name them, we could have a dictatorship in a very easy way.

We now need new ways to choose Senators, ways that involve the wider population and gives the public a role and say in the make-up of the Seanad. We do not need constitutional change to allow direct election to the Seanad by functional or vocational groups in substitution for the existing system of panel elected Senators. A reformed Seanad could represent diverse interest groups from all over Ireland and give them a real input into how we craft and pass laws. We need to create a Seanad that reflects the modern Irish nation which is confident, proud and emerging from years of mismanagement and political cronyism. We need a second House with teeth that can hold the institutions of Government to account. We need a second House that acts in the interest of people and on their behalf.

People are looking for an institution that they can turn to because the Government, the church and even the media have not covered themselves in glory for the past 20 years. People are looking for an institution of the State that they can trust. A reformed Seanad could be that institution but only with real and substantial reform. Let us allow the Seanad to do the job that it was established to do, namely, to represent civic society, interest groups and all elements of a diverse island. Let us not mutilate the Constitution and allow the Dáil unlimited powers for the sake of saving a few euro. I support giving the public a voice in the referendum but I cannot support the notion that democracy in Ireland will be enhanced if we abolish the Seanad. I am disappointed that we are not giving the people concrete reform proposals for the Seanad in advance of the referendum, in other words "a preferendum."

It is with regret that I sometimes look around me at the layers of useless State agencies and quangos that depend on taxpayers' money. Instead of examining their role and function we are looking to abolish a pillar of the State, one of the foundations upon which Irish democracy was built. The Seanad is an institution that we could be proud of and it carries on the democratic principles of the men and women who fought so hard to bring peace and prosperity to Ireland. Accordingly, I call on the people to direct their anger in the forthcoming referendum, and not make the Seanad the sacrificial lamb for the sins of a few.

A proposal to get rid of the Seanad really means that democracy is being centralised. I do not think that it will be abolished. I think that the people, in their wisdom, will maintain the Seanad. The intention of the proposal is to centralise democracy and not to the Dáil but just to the 15 Members of Cabinet. That is what we will be left with. That is why we could in time have a dictatorship in this country.

It is ironic how many Deputies favour the abolition of the Seanad. There are two reasons. First, Deputies do not want an annoying Senator biting at their heels seeking to gazump him or her at the next election. They want to rid themselves of Senators and get them out of their way.