Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Up to ten years ago I would have been one of the people calling for the abolition of the Seanad, for many of the reasons that the speakers in the debate have already addressed. However, since then, during this past ten years and particularly since I came to the House two years ago - it is certainly not that I have gone native - I have seen how governance works and I have come to the view that the Seanad in its current form should be abolished, but that any abolition or reform must be done only as an integral and agreed aspect of reform of governance generally in the State.

It is beyond question that we need substantial reform of governance in this State. If we take that as being true, then the key question as we debate the Bill is whether the abolition rather than reform of the Seanad would bring about the much-needed reform of governance. It would not. If we are serious about reform of government we must start with Dáil Éireann.

We have had a number of upper chambers in Irish parliamentary history. The current Seanad Éireann has been the longest-serving institution. It arose from the 1937 Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, which was written by the then Taoiseach, Éamon de Valera. The system of elections via vocational panels was a sop by the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, to those who wished to see corporatism introduced to Ireland as a means of government organisation. Historians reckon that de Valera had very little interest in granting corporatism any real power, but the formation of the Seanad under such a system satisfied those who wished to see it introduced in this country. Corporatism was a political system that had found much favour in Mussolini's fascist Italy, and was promoted by the Catholic Church as an alternative to the class interpretation of society. The idea behind corporatism was that various panels that represented different sectoral interests in society would come together to arrive at a political consensus. That was in contrast to the parliamentary system with which we are most familiar, which in the early 20th century was seen as being divided too much along left and right lines. The problem then and now with the corporatist system was that it always came out in favour of the side of the establishment and the voice of the working class in particular was silenced.

Is it any wonder that we have a Seanad that is not up to scratch? The Seanad is not fit for purpose. It is undemocratic, elitist and has no clear and distinct function. It is a small mirror image of the Dáil. There is no universal franchise and there is elitism in terms of how people are elected. Some citizens have several votes, while many others have none. The Seanad as it exists today is an unrepresentative body. While the aim of corporatism was to reflect different of views in society, the Seanad is an example of how theory does not necessarily work in practice. Instead of representing minority views, it represents the elite and the powerful. As an undemocratic, elitist body it has revealed itself as being largely irrelevant to Irish society. People have not viewed the Seanad as a repository of the views of ordinary people, instead it reflects a debating society in a third level institution.

Sinn Féin believes that we should be able to have a parliament that is fair, equal and representative of the people. One could ask whether today's Parliament reflects Irish society as a whole. If one were to stand on O'Connell Street today and pick 226 people to form an assembly, one could ask whether it would look like the current Dáil or the Seanad. I very much doubt it would. The truth of the matter is that most of the Members elected to both Houses - I include myself - are white, middle class, middle-aged men. We are the representatives of the people, yet we only reflect a small proportion of modern Irish society. One could ask how we could expect to produce legislation or debate issues of national importance if most of the Members come from the same social strata. Have we really progressed all that far from the time when parliaments were composed of large land owners?

A reformed Seanad could have the opportunity to right some of the wrongs. We must hear the views of ethnic minorities, gay, lesbian and transgender people, Travellers, people with disabilities, the young, the old and families. It is debatable whether we would have cut funding to youth services or the mobility allowance if we had greater diversity in these Houses. Likewise, one could ask whether we would be as slow to legalise same-sex marriage or recognise the rights of ethnic groups if those who really understood the impact of such measures had a voice in Parliament.

Were it reformed, the Seanad could also scrutinise legislation and instigate Bills to give it actual rather than fictional power. We must not forget the importance of checks and balances when legislation comes before these Chambers. The more people scrutinise legislation, the greater the chance that errors will be picked up, unintended consequences identified and improvements proposed for consideration. The Government's entire approach to political reform has at best been haphazard. It appears that the real motive behind many of the so-called reforms are in fact power grabs, grabbing democratic control into the Cabinet or within the cabinet into the Economic Management Council. A reduction in the number of Deputies and the further removal of power from local government is only a pretence of political reform. What is masqueraded as political reform at local government level is simply a different way for local government to collect ever-greater revenues for central government. It is not political reform. Something far more fundamental is required.

Sinn Féin aims to create a new republic. We are in favour of real political reform, opening up the whole political system, and making it answerable to the people, not the kind of cosmetic and illusionary political reform we have seen from the Government. That includes constitutional reform, for which we have argued at the Constitutional Convention. We have argued for more than that. We want reform of the Oireachtas as a whole. Let nobody pretend that the Dáil does not need reform.

The Government is using the Seanad debate as a smokescreen to cover up for a lack of real political reform. If the Seanad were to be abolished, we would still be left with a deeply dysfunctional Dáil, a weak system of local government and a Legislature dominated by the Executive. That is not democracy. I look forward to real political reform in Ireland but I do not believe it will come from the Government. What is desperately needed is a Parliament that is representative of all the people of the island, not just the elite. Reform of the Dáil and of the Seanad is needed and the current modus operandi of the Government will not lead to any real or substantial change in people's lives. We all agree reform of governance in this country is badly needed. It must start with Dáil Éireann. Even at this stage I urge the Government to refer the issue to the Constitutional Convention.

See this speech in context