Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is a very important Bill and part of the programme for Government between our two parties. The difference between the election to Seanad Éireann and the referendum on abolishing it as the 32nd amendment to the Constitution is striking. Unlike the election to the Seanad, a referendum allows every Irish citizen over the age of 18 to have a vote and a say.

The Seanad, as is, is obsolete. It was originally designed as a body to allow non-Catholics and non-republicans to have a role, which was appropriate at that time. Nowadays the Dáil is much more pluralist. Indeed, the composition of the Dáil since 2011 reflects much more equally society in terms of gender, sexual orientation and religion, much more so than would have been the case in the past.

The Bill deals with two topics: the democratic deficit of the Seanad and whether we need a second Chamber. Regarding the democratic deficit, to have an Upper House in the 21st century where the majority of people do not have a say in the election of the Members cannot be defended. Even the people who want to retain the Seanad have not actually defended the status quo. A House of Parliament that is neither directly nor democratically elected has no place in a modern parliamentary democracy. While I support the Bill, I do not intend to belittle any existing Senator who wants to see the Seanad retained. Nor should my views be seen as a reflection on present or past Members of the Seanad. I do not want to be dismissive of or be seen to undermine in any way the many fine parliamentarians who have spent a period of time in the Seanad. However, Deputies are democratically elected and have a democratic mandate, whereas Senators in most cases do not. It is indefensible that small sections of the population have a vote or votes to one House of Parliament. Why would local authority members, Deputies and graduates of certain universities have preferential treatment in terms of having an electoral mandate over other sections of the population?

If it is accepted that there is a democratic deficit, the question then arises as to whether the franchise should be extended. Should we have two democratically elected Houses of Parliament, in many ways competing with each other? In other countries, this has led to political stalemate and legislative paralysis. Many campaigners to save the Seanad also bemoan the slow pace of legislative enactment. Having two directly elected Chambers as well as being a waste of money could lead to legislative gridlock, particularly if different parties have control of each House. As Deputy Regina Doherty said, I note the conversion of many commentators who in a previous incarnation stood on a pro-abolition platform and now are anti-abolition.

There have been the contention - inaccurate in my mind - that this is a power grab and that future governments will use this to push through draconian legislation, representing a threat to democracy or a step towards dictatorship. Of course, this is preposterous and ludicrous. It is nothing short of hysterics and has a certain hollowness to it. As a small country, if we were starting out with no Parliament and deciding how to run our affairs, would we really consider establishing a second Chamber? Other similarly sized countries manage perfectly fine without it and we have seen a successful transition from bicameral to unicameral parliaments in other countries without descent into anarchy or dictatorship.

Having said that, as many other Deputies have said, we need real Dáil reform to change how Dáil Éireann works and to strengthen the Oireachtas committees. The formal pre-legislative scrutiny of the heads of Bills, a pre-enactment stage by an Oireachtas committee and 12-monthly reviews are all part of the plans. If the people decide to abolish the Seanad, we need real and immediate Dáil reform. If the people decide not to abolish it, we still need reform of the Seanad and this should be done by public consultation as soon as possible. One strengthened and reformed House would be more effective than the current arrangement, and the Bill paves the way for that.

See this speech in context