Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Everyone is agreed across party lines and across society that the Seanad is broken. It is not democratic, it is elitist and it has problems. It has required work, decisions and reform throughout the decades. It required an overhaul almost every decade but it got none. Calls for reform got no response despite trying, speaking and publishing reports on reform ad nauseam. It has become an institution that has outgrown its usefulness. I say as much as a person who ran for the Seanad poorly in 2007. I did not get there but I almost got there despite the fact that I received 22 first preference votes. That is the problem. The electorate to the Seanad is made up of county councillors, new Deputies and outgoing Senators in one group, third level graduates who have registered, although only a fraction of those registered ultimately vote, and the nominations of the Taoiseach of the day. It is reasonably clear that in a republic that demands democracy, accountability and transparency, this is simply outdated. It served its purpose after the 1937 Constitution and whatever the make-up of the previous Seanad was, but the days of the vocational element that was required almost 80 years ago are simply over.

There is a modern European dynamic with newer countries coming in from the former eastern bloc, which countries are similar in size to Ireland in terms of population. They do quite well, competitively and democratically, with one House. The same applies to other countries, including New Zealand, Finland and Denmark, the latter two being Scandinavian countries which we aspire to emulate in many ways, although sometimes unreasonably, because we look to them all the time. They have succeeded with one House.

Arguments have been put forward. I listened to previous speakers. If ever there was an argument about what we should do with the Seanad, I have not heard it. We have heard about reform, changing the Seanad and the Quinn Zappone Bill before the Houses, none of which could be realised. Reform has been tried 20 times in Canada since 1979. Each of those 20 times, those involved had the will, the foresight and the decisions to take, but they could not get consensus. I have heard many speakers in recent weeks offering their version of reform, but all have come up with different versions of what the Seanad should be and most of them would require a constitutional referendum. The Quinn Zappone Bill does not require a constitutional referendum but it is so similar to the current Seanad and as undemocratic and as elitist that it is difficult to see how it could truly become a changed or more democratic House.

It has been suggested that this is a power grab by the Government. We are suggesting putting this proposal to the people in a referendum. We are putting it to every voting citizen for their consideration and so that they can view it and vote on it. If that is a power grab, then I do not know what that is. If a decision is taken, whatever the decision, it will not take effect until the next Government. It is typical thinking from people in parties who automatically assume they will be in the next Government or those who believe the current Government will evolve into the next Government. It is a shame that we must hear that again, but that is it.

I have heard people making the case of the brilliant people who have graced the floor of the Seanad. No doubt there have been excellent people from all walks of life, but the examples I have heard of have done their best work outside the Seanad. I have heard people refer to Mary Robinson and others, but I cannot recall in any part of my mind Mary Robinson in the Seanad, although I remember her as a President, as a constitutional lawyer and as a brilliant person.

The fact is that the Seanad stifles such personalities. We need to engage such citizens, minds and intellects in a different way. If that is the kind of reform we are talking about then we need to hear that. The institution has become comfortable. It is human nature to become attached but the Seanad is not fit for purpose and the only option is to put the question of its abolition before the people. I cannot think of anything more democratic.

See this speech in context