Anne Ferris (Wicklow, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I have my doubts about the need for this Bill. Although I support the passing of the enabling legislation, I have doubts about its intent. The decision to abolish a House of Parliament should not be taken lightly or rushed through, but that is exactly what is happening this week. The Seanad serves a purpose but abolishing it serves none. The need for reform, as advocated by others, is something I agree with and I believe this approach is the more favourable road to take. Having spoken to a number of colleagues in both Government parties, I am certain that when it comes to campaigning on this measure every assistance will be given - short of actual help.

I reiterate, the Seanad serves a purpose. It acts as a check and balance against the powers of the Executive. To remove one check without adequately addressing the consequences is something all of us must take care to prevent. If the circumstances are right, an over-mighty Executive can trample the inalienable rights of a person in a short space of time. As it stands, the Seanad strengthens the parliamentary process by ensuring prospective legislation receives closer examination. In addition, it has the capacity, not fully realised, to meet a broader representation of a changing Irish society.

It is clear there have been paper attempts at reform but with few tangible results. In fact there have been ten attempts at reform. For some, that in itself is enough to condemn the House. However, it is my experience that if there is enough political will behind an issue things can be accomplished that had not seemed likely. Just because something has not been done does not mean it cannot be done. The latest admirable attempt at reform is being led by Senator Katherine Zappone and the proposals offered should be given serious consideration. Past reforms have advocated a more equitable electorate than the elitist one prevalent today. These proposals include having a much broader direct base from which Senators can be elected, as well as having a gender quota that could reflect our population more accurately by giving the 50-50 percentage of men and women that is so noticeably absent in both Houses.

There should be legislation to address the seventh amendment. What is the point in putting an amendment before the people, getting it passed and then doing nothing with it? At very least, in legislating for this amendment, a more inclusive constituency of all third level graduates could be enabled to vote, as opposed to the situation now where only a handful of university graduates can elect six Senators. Proposed expansion of the Seanad's remit has included further scrutinising of both European and secondary legislation. Proposals have also been put forward for close examination of Acts to assess whether they are meeting the policy objectives envisaged for them. These are reasonable proposals.

It is also important to deal with the argument that there are cost savings to be made by abolishing the Upper House. That may well be true but there would be a cost to democracy. It is better to pay a reasonable sum than have the cause of democracy checked or wrecked.

I want a reformed second Chamber that can better meet the needs of our diverse society. The rise and fall of that House will be up to the people. I wish that direct reform had been included in the options presented to the people at the voting stations but by rejecting the proposal a message can be sent to the Government that reform is wanted and needed. The other option means the end of a check and balance. Should reform not achieve what it sets out to do, abolition could then be considered. When it comes to my ballot paper, I will choose the message of reform and I hope it will be heeded.

See this speech in context