Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Those who are in favour of retaining the Seanad would have to agree that the present Seanad is quite simply not up to the job of acting as the Upper House. I have never been a Member of the Seanad but I believe it is out of date in terms of how it does its legislative business.

As well as that, the electoral system that elects its Members is highly undemocratic and elitist. It has been used as a preparation ground for aspiring political party candidates as well as a retirement ground for those who have served their parties, and as compensation for those party members who have lost their Dáil seats. That is not a positive sign that the present Seanad is working as it should. Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the Seanad, as it currently functions, needs to be changed.

All of that said, it must be acknowledged that there are Senators who have made excellent contributions and have done great work. Public figures who have made significant contributions to politics in Ireland began their political careers in the Seanad. I am thinking, particularly, of the current President, Uachtarán Michael D. Higgins, former President Mary Robinson and former Taoiseach, the late Dr. Garret FitzGerald. Irish society would have been a much poorer place without their contribution and owes much to them and to the Seanad for that.

It is important to point out that the decision regarding the abolition of the Seanad will be a decision for the people, not the Members of the Oireachtas or the Government. If the people decide that they want to retain it, as I do, it is their right to make that decision.

If the people make the decision to retain the Seanad, the Government must respect the decision and develop alternative proposals to deal with it. If the referendum fails, I feel strongly that it should not be seen as the people wanting nothing to be done about the Seanad, and there is much unhappiness about the way it functions. There is also much concern among the public about how this House functions and we as legislators, as well as the Government, must bear that in mind and respond in a serious, meaningful and constructive fashion.

The proposal to abolish the Seanad comes in conjunction with changes to local government in order to give councils more autonomy. It is also fair to say that a unicameral system, where a country has one house instead of two in parliament, is common in countries of a similar size to Ireland. Legislators and the general public must ask themselves if the State genuinely needs Seanad Éireann and if there is an overwhelming argument that requires the second House to oversee the work done in the Dáil. The consequences of the referendum vote must be considered fully by the people.

Whatever views people have of the Seanad or whatever views they may form during the referendum campaign, they should study the option before them very carefully, as this vote is about amending our Constitution. As with all referenda, the ability to make such a change should never be taken lightly.

See this speech in context