Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The discussion here today should centre, instead, on the reform of the Seanad. The 1922 Free State Constitution established a more powerful Upper House than we currently have. Its composition was designed to ensure representation for the Unionist minority in the South. The Taoiseach of the day, Mr. Eamon de Valera, frustrated by the Seanad's efforts to block the repeal of the oath of allegiance and other aspects of the Treaty, abolished it in 1936. However, a reformed Seanad, with less power, was included in the 1937 Constitution, with its composition based on the idea of corporatism, whereby separate sections of society would be represented in it. This led to the establishment of five panels - agriculture, labour, industry and commerce, national language and culture, and public administration - to reflect differing sectors of Irish life. The remaining seats, including Taoiseach's nominees, reflected Government control and additionally, the tradition of university representation.

As Members have said, since 1922, over a dozen separate reports have been commissioned on the reform of the Seanad. However, its composition and role has remained fundamentally unchanged by successive Governments since 1937, including many led by my own party.

We need to address the two main issues found in Mary O'Rourke's report, namely, that the Seanad has no distinct role in the Irish political system and that its arcane and outdated system of nomination and election diminishes Senators' public legitimacy. With these issues properly addressed it should be possible to showcase a new improved Seanad which is reflective of Irish life as we know it. Some of the changes advocated by Fianna Fáil involve legislation, such as that a formal system of public consultation should be put in place in the Seanad to allow for consultation with interested groups and individuals early in the legislative process. The Seanad should be given a new role in EU affairs. It should assume the role of principal policy reviewer in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It should be assigned responsibility for the scrutiny of senior public appointments. The question of the Leader of the Seanad attending at Cabinet and given a role of Minister or Minister of State should be investigated.

It is important to stress the work done by groups such as Democracy Matters and documents such as Open It, Don't Close It. The work done by Senators Zappone and Quinn constitutes the best proposal for reform in the confines of the Constitution and should not be readily dismissed by the Government or anyone else.

It is clear there is an important place for the Seanad in Irish political and public life. We should not rush this decision or discussion or hastily arrive at the point the Government proposes. Now is the time for real political leadership and not political point scoring. Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned we are at a point in our history when the public has never been more cynical about politics and politicians. It is my contention the type of adversarial politics we have practised in this country through the generations has been extremely bad for politics, politicians and the public. Rather than abolishing the Seanad in what is simply a grab for additional power by the Government and the Taoiseach acting on a whim which occurred to him in 2010, we should be more pragmatic and carry out actual reform of the Seanad and, in tandem, have meaningful reform of the Dáil so through Seanad and Dáil reform we can give the people the type of representation they richly deserve.

See this speech in context