Brendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am on record as stating that I am in favour of reforming the Upper House and my position has not changed. I am also on record as stating that the Seanad in its current form should not be retained and my position has not changed. I am, therefore, in favour of reform and not abolition of the Seanad. If the Seanad cannot be adequately reformed then it ought to be abolished but I believe it can be so reformed.

Unfortunately, reform has never been attempted. I recognise my party's views are mixed on this matter. A cursory look at public statements from Labour Party representatives during the past month will show the divergence of views. I respect and welcome that divergence. It represents a divergence of opinion among the public and this is why I would prefer a real discussion on reform before any question is put to the people on Seanad abolition.

The Constitutional Convention would have been the perfect forum for that discussion. This was my party's position and policy before the last general election. Unfortunately, our position did not make it to the programme for Government. I am not one of my party's representatives at the Constitutional Convention but I know from the reports of my colleagues that the convention is a dynamic forum for debate, discussion and ideas. I believe we need stronger Houses of the Oireachtas to hold Government to account. That requires major reform, especially of the Seanad, but also for the operation of the Dáil.

There is an appetite in the country to punish politics and politicians after the abject failure of the State by the previous Government. The Seanad is an easy target for that punishment but this is not simply a numbers game. I have heard the arguments about the number of politicians we need to best represent our citizens. No argument holds a candle to that made by my colleague, Deputy Joanna Tuffy, in the House yesterday who argued strongly against its abolition.

I agree with my colleague Deputy Tuffy that the proposed cut in the number of Deputies, councillors and Senators will move us in the wrong direction and only lead to a further centralisation of power in the Executive and in unelected advisers. I equally respect the strongly held views of other party colleagues, such as Deputy Eamonn Maloney and others, including the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, who hold different and strongly argued views on abolition.

Less representation does not equal better representation and it is the latter for which we should strive. We must build a strong Oireachtas to propose, scrutinise and deliver legislation which will improve the lives of all in this country. A reformed Seanad, reflective of what the public demands, has the capacity to improve the body politic in Ireland. We need more scrutiny of legislation, particularly emergency financial legislation. Proposals to do that by way of additional committee scrutiny do not convince me, as that would not be a constitutional requirement and could be diluted or removed by way of Government decision.

Other Members of the House criticised the inaction of the Seanad for failing to delay emergency financial legislation in 2008. However, I believe that is an argument for reform rather than abolition. The mistakes of 2008 were made in this House, predominantly by the Fianna Fáil Party. The mistakes were not made in the Seanad. The composition of the Seanad, including the Taoiseach's nominees, meant it was impossible to delay legislation such as the bank bailout Bill in 2008.

Over the years there have been reports calling for reform. That the reports were not acted upon was due to Government inertia rather than anything that went on in the Seanad. An example of that was the failure to implement the seventh amendment of the Constitution from 1979, which would broaden the franchise of the university panel of the Seanad to include all third level institutions. That would have been simple to implement but there was no appetite and no action by successive Governments. However, we are beyond tinkering with the elitism of the university panels, or the exclusive and indirect franchise for the vocational panels. The Seanad requires major reform and reconstitution and that should be done through discussion with the Irish people and should not just be abolished.

The choice presented to the people should be by way of preferendum, rather than a simple referendum. The people of Ireland should have a choice on whether a reformed Upper House is preferable to the current House or no House. The simplicity of choice in this Bill will ensure the debate surrounding the Seanad referendum will be about everything but the Seanad. It will be a Punch and Judy debate, as referendum campaigns always seem to be. That has already started in the discussion of the Bill which is disheartening. We should not abolish one of the Houses of the Oireachtas lightly. Many of my constituents take a different view and cannot wait for an opportunity to vote to abolish the Seanad. We must present the people with an opportunity to make a decision on the Seanad, as per the programme for Government commitments. It is now up to the people to decide. That is the beauty of our constitutional democracy. Go raibh maith agat.

See this speech in context