Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill. The Labour Party's assessment of the case for the abolition of the Seanad was first detailed in the policy statement I issued on behalf of the party, New Government, Better Government, in January 2011 as part of a comprehensive programme of Government, political and public service reforms. That recommendation reflected a long, hard look at Seanad Éireann by Members, former Members and colleagues of former Members of Seanad Éireann.

As the policy statement stressed, the decision about the future of the Seanad is one that will have to be made by the people as a whole. Following the adoption in the programme for Government of the abolition of the Seanad as a key element of the programme of constitutional reform, this Bill now paves the way for a broader public debate to commence on the merits of the conclusion that the case for the retention of Seanad Éireann has failed. I look forward to bringing the analysis and assessment underpinning that recommendation to the people as, ultimately, the decision on the abolition of the Seanad will be for the people by way of referendum on the basis of this Bill.

As I highlighted early in 2011, the Seanad's shortcomings can be summarised as arising from the fact that it is dominated by the Government, it lives in the shadow of the Dáil, and the rules for choosing its members are bizarre and anachronistic. The reality is that there is popular indifference about its future. The reasons for that are, quite simply, that no one is sure what purpose the Seanad is meant to serve.

If, as broadly recognised, maintaining the status quois unacceptable, and I have heard no voices from the beginning of this debate that argue for the status quo, there are only two options: abolition or reform.

The fundamental determinant of conclusion in "New Government, Better Government" that the Seanad should be abolished is that it is simply not possible to identify any bodies or sections in our society that deserve - because, for example, they happen to be university graduates or county councillors - to be singled out as constituting a special and separate electorate entitled to vote for their own special House of the Oireachtas. As expressed in the neutral and dispassionate language of the political scientists, Professors Michael Laver and John Coakley, the composition of Seanad Éireann is described as "unique" with a type of vocational representation not found at national level in any other country. They characterise university representation as "unusual" and the system of Taoiseach's nominations as "without parallel".

Seanad Éireann is a vestige of a bygone era. It is a product of history that sits more comfortably among the political landscape of the 19th century than in a modern-day parliamentary democracy. The reality is that the Seanad serves little or no purpose in a contemporary context. It is neither representative of the people nor effective as a check and balance on the Dáil, and everybody knows that. Currently, the Seanad mirrors the Dáil, both institutionally and in terms of its political make-up. This leads to an unnecessary and expensive duplication of functions between two separate Houses.

The mechanism by which Senators are appointed is antiquated and erratic. Not all sectoral groups in society are represented; only ones that were important in the 1930s. Even with regard to the six Members who are selected by graduates of certain universities, there is no representation for two of the State's universities or any of its institutions of technology. Even if the system of appointment were to be reformed, it would be virtually impossible to define fair and objective criteria to determine the membership and relative weight of different groupings in society. Deputy McLellan spoke of women, Travellers or persons of colour. Who balances who should and should not be a member? There is no point in having two Houses if both of them are directly elected by the people because then one would have two Houses in conflict.

Since its inception, the Seanad has not operated as a check on the powers of the Dáil. As the Dáil is the only House directly elected and accountable to the people, it is indisputable that it should have the final say when it comes to making decisions about the force of law rather than to permit such power to be the preserve of a Seanad, with its clear democratic deficit. We need checks and balances in our system, but these should come in the form of a strengthened and enhanced Dáil. I have argued that for 30 years. It is the Dáil that currently provides the check on the main promoter of legislation which is the Government.

Many other countries have shown that rigorous checks and balances can and should be created in a single-chamber parliament. A reformed and strengthened Dáil can act as an effective unicameral parliament and hold the Executive to account. It will bring Ireland in line with other modern parliamentary democracies that have moved to a unicameral system, such as Sweden, Denmark or New Zealand, or, of course, Israel, which had a unicameral from the start. In Europe, Ireland is the only small unitary state with a second House.

Reform of the Dáil is currently under way and we are working towards a renewed and enhanced political system with better accountability, better oversight and better scrutiny of legislation. At the centre of this reform is an enhanced and strengthened committee system which will enable the House to adapt and meet the needs of our modern democracy. Fourteen Dáil committees will be established, each comprised of 12 members. As other parliamentary committees around the world preparing for legislation do, these committees will have the power to invite external experts to provide specialist input into their work. The d'Hondt system will be introduced to distribute chairs of key committees on a proportional and equitable basis. The Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Bill 2013 that I initiated in the Dáil last month represents a substantial step in securing accountability through investigations by Oireachtas committees into matters of significant public importance. Such inquiries could represent a very substantial strengthening in the effectiveness and contribution of the Legislature to our democratic system by not only helping us learn vital lessons from past events but through their recommendations identifying the legislative reforms and policy changes essential to ensuring that egregious policy errors are not repeated.

The way in which legislation is dealt with in the Dáil is also being reformed. In general, legislation will initially be submitted to the relevant Dáil committee in Heads of Bill form, allowing for committee input prior to the publication of the finished Bill. A proposed new Dáil schedule will increase time spent on deliberating on legislation. A new pre-enactment Stage will be introduced by Standing Orders whereby each Bill will be referred back to the committee which considered it at pre-legislative and Committee Stages for a final examination after Report and before the Bill is finally passed by the House.

It is proposed that a Minister will revert to the relevant select committee within 12 months of the enactment of a Bill to discuss and review the functioning of the law and to allow for a debate from members and stakeholders as to whether the legislation is fulfilling its stated purpose. Additionally, a new ten-minute Bills procedure will be introduced to give TDs a greater opportunity to initiate legislation onto the floor of this House.

The abolition of the Seanad should be seen in the context of these broader reforms. It is a stepping stone on the path to a dynamic parliamentary system that enjoys the confidence of the people it represents. The Dáil derives its legitimacy from the people who elect it. Whatever Members may say about the composition, male or female, colour, gender or religious viewpoint, we are the elected representatives of the people chosen in constituencies throughout the breadth of Ireland. The existence of the Seanad undermines public confidence in the political system because of the way it is chosen. It is hostage to political insiders, and operates without popular mandate, clear purpose or efficacy. It is not possible, nor should we try, to identify certain bodies or sections in our society that deserve to be singled out as constituting such a special and separate electorate that they are entitled to vote for their own separate House of the Oireachtas.

I believe, after careful consideration and approaching this issue with a completely open mind, that the existence of the Seanad can no longer be justified. I ask a simple question. We should not turn logic on its head. The question should be, "Is there is a role that is so unique that we must have a Seanad to fulfil?", rather than, as now seems to be asked, "Can we create a role for the Seanad?" When I hear Members say that we could give it European legislation to deal with, I say European legislation is Irish legislation that has the force of law here and ask why should any Chamber, other than the directly elected Chamber of the people, determine European legislation. We need to give European legislation better scrutiny here rather than hive it off to some other area because we are too busy to deal with it.

We need to be responsive to the needs of a modern democracy and adapt accordingly. An enhanced, more effective Dáil that is efficient in law-making and accountable to the people is the way forward.

See this speech in context