Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party is currently meeting and that my colleagues from the Upper House are watching Deputy Donohoe and I on their monitors as we discuss the future of the Seanad. It is a sensitive topic given that we are speaking about Members' jobs and the contributions they make. I acknowledge the contributions made by Members of the current Seanad and its predecessors.

It is 11 years this month since I was elected to the Seanad with 53,000 first preference votes. It was, of course, a weighted system whereby one vote cast equated to 1,000 votes on the screen. I was in fact elected by 53 votes from my peers in county councils throughout the country, primarily Fine Gael councillors with a few stray Independents and second preferences by Fianna Fáil councillors. Did I give a representative voice to the administrative panel for those five years? I did not. I became a voice for County Donegal and my constituency of Donegal North-East, hence the argument that the Seanad is either a grooming ground for future Deputies or a retirement home for politicians.

During the first sitting of the Seanad after my election, the then Senator Shane Ross spoke from the Chair. He stated that the biggest priority of the Seanad was reform. Everyone, including me, agreed with him because the issue had been discussed for years. Now, 11 years later and 75 years after the Seanad was established, it is too late for reform. It is up to the people to decide in a democratic vote whether they want to retain the Seanad.

The first President of the Executive Council, W.T. Cosgrave, agreed to use his appointments to grant extra representation to the State's Protestant minority. The 60 Members of the first Senate included 20 Protestants, three Quakers, one Jew, seven peers, five baronets and several knights. Some of these appointees had previously been Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland, which was a 1920 creation of British law consisting of a mixture of Irish peers and Government appointees. Senate Members from Ulster included George Sigerson from Strabane, Sir William Hutcheson Poë from County Down, Sir Horace Plunkett, Sir Joseph Henry Greer from County Tyrone as well as Unionists from the co-operative movement in County Meath. The Senate, therefore, reflected vocational and other groups which would not otherwise have been represented. This was in line with the thinking behind the establishment of the Seanad.

Since then, many people from Ulster have sat in the Seanad. They include Seamus Mallon in 1982, Gordon Wilson and Maurice Hayes who was a colleague of mine in the Seanad in 2002. These individuals made good contributions to debate, especially on Northern issues when Northern Ireland was very much on the radar. Since then, much progress has been made on the North. We now have the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association, a cross-party group which, ironically, held its inaugural meeting in the Upper House and its second meeting in the former Senate Chamber in Stormont. The Good Friday Agreement has delivered progress on the Northern question and representation on Northern issues.

On the issue of keeping the conversation going, sometimes politicians get carried away and believe they lead reform and effect change when in fact it is the people who do this. We need to make maximum use of opportunities for civic forums. We must progress the proposal for a North-South civic forum to consider the type of society we want and the constitutional challenges we will face in the coming years.

In discussing reform, we must also discuss the issue of the permanent government. Members of the public are irked that despite the major change in political representation arising from the previous general election, the same permanent government remains in control. This issue should be included in the debate.

Shortly after I became a Senator, a fellow from my parish related to me the following saying: "When all is said and done, much more is said than done." For 75 years, much more was said than done with regard to the Seanad.

For the record, in 2005, I stated in the Seanad that the construction sector was unsustainable and would create problems that would affect thousands of people. Clearly, no one was listening.

See this speech in context