Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Constitution of 1937 served our country well in many ways and it has stood the test of time. It is useful to consider the context in which it was forged and the challenges our young country faced at the time. Europe was about to enter a war which brought terrible loss of life across the entire Continent. Ireland was emerging from a divisive and bitter Civil War. The Constitution allowed our nation to steer its way further to statehood and respond to many of the challenges that arose in the ensuing decades while remaining stable and intact. We were able to take the first steps to becoming the country of which we remain proud.

However, while some of the principles of that Constitution have served us well, in the context of this referendum we must ask whether all of its values are still relevant to the Ireland of 2013. I believe we should debate and remove two basic tenets of the Constitution. The first is the concept of vocationalism or the requirement for particular sectors to be represented at all times in our democratic institutions. We have institutions that are fully democratic and it is up to the people to decide who they want to elect. The concept of vocationalism, which was beginning to emerge in other states in Europe when the Constitution was being drafted, is not relevant to a modern country or a democracy in which people have the right to elect who they want to represent them.

Arising from this is the role of the institution of the Seanad. An institution whose members are largely elected by other politicians and people who attended certain universities does not have a place in modern Ireland. Like Deputy Twomey, I count it as a privilege to have served in the Seanad but that privilege does not blind me to the fact that its role and means of election is no longer fit for purpose in an Ireland that has undergone such radical and difficult change. Those who say we should reform the Seanad need to explain why reform has never been implemented, despite the number of people who have rallied to that cause over the past 70 or 80 years. The reasons reform has never been implemented are because, first, there was rarely consensus on the shape of reform and, second, whenever consensus briefly settled, it inevitably ran into obstacles. Once a vision of reform is articulated, it poses a threat to the people who will lose out and they will inevitably resist the reform agenda.

I will be campaigning and voting for the abolition of the Seanad because I do not see what functions a second House can perform that a single House directly elected by the people cannot. We must ask whether the additional powers proposed to be invested in the Dáil will be adequate to the functions required of it in the absence of the Seanad. The measures proposed on lengthier legislative processes, greater roles for committees, optional reviews of legislation 12 months after enactment and allocation of committee positions based on the composition of the Dáil as opposed to that of the Government should allow this Chamber to perform the roles required of it. There is, of course, a difference between "should allow" and "will allow". As Deputy Twomey noted, the importance of closer scrutiny of European Union legislation by the Oireachtas has long been acknowledged but such scrutiny has been rare. One of the reasons for this is the limit faced by Oireachtas Members in the time they can invest in proper scrutiny. The challenge for Deputies is to commit the energy and time required to perform their legislative functions well. I believe more people will be willing to make that investment in a single Chamber because greater powers will be available to the Dáil.

I respectfully ask those who propose to retain our bicameral system what functions a second House can perform that the Dáil cannot. In respect of those who seek diversity in our political system, surely the people best placed to decide how much diversity they want are those who will cast their votes on whether to move to a single Chamber.

See this speech in context