Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak not about the contents of the Bill but about its purpose - Seanad reform. I do not agree with the Bill, but I am not here to rubbish it. It is positive that Members produce legislation and bring it to the Chamber during Friday sittings. I have had the opportunity to do this myself.

Deputy Sean Fleming asked why we were here. In the first instance, we must recognise that we are here because of Government reforms; we have Friday sittings in which we can bring legislation forward, although we are now debating committee reports, which is very important. We have had some very good debates on some reports and later today we will debate the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in promoting Ireland and enhancing and renewing economic links. These are important.

If we want to talk about this Parliament and its role, we must talk about having a responsible Parliament which must recognise the reforms that have taken place. Deputy Micheál Martin said that in reforming and improving Parliament, the Seanad should be the first step, but I disagree. I think it should be the last step, if it should even be a step at all. Despite the rejection of the referendum proposal last year by the people, I still believe a modern Ireland requires an efficient and modern parliament - in my view, a unicameral Oireachtas which is independent from the Government and has a strong committee system to hold the Government of the day to account. However, I accept that when the Government put the proposition to abolish the Seanad to the people, they rejected it. They said "No," but others have asked today whether we can take this as a positive declaration or a demand for a reformed Seanad. Strictly, we cannot because that was not the question put to the people - it was a simple question which required a "Yes" or "No" answer. If we step back and look at the totality of the debate, we can infer that people would prefer to have a better or reformed Seanad, but I do not see where the imperative is. When I step back and reflect on the debate we had on abolishing the Seanad, the louder message I received, as I think most people did, was on the real imperative of further and continuing reform of the Dáil.

To talk about reform in a meaningful way, we must first acknowledge what has happened to date under the Government. As I have said before in this Chamber, reform is a process which takes time. We have to constantly bring forward improvements, see how they work, evaluate them, see if we can change them further and what new things we could do. That process has taken place since the Government came to power. It has not happened as quickly as many would have liked, me included. There was a period during which reform of the Parliament seemed to stall, but it came back onto the agenda, rightly so. We are testing the second suite of reforms that were introduced in the last quarter of last year, which is positive. During Friday sittings committee reports, as well as legislation, are debated, which is a further improvement. However, we could go further.

In reflecting on the outcome of the referendum it would be a shame if we were to spend time and resources, including money, on focusing on reform of the Seanad to the detriment of further reform of the Dáil. There are reforms we could make which would then flow to the Seanad. For example, why not give the Dáil the independence it needs to order its business by removing the Whip on the Order of Business?

Is it such a dangerous idea that parliamentarians should be able to decide the ordering of business in the Chamber, when legislation is taken and for how long it is debated? This is not about votes of conscience when I refer to the Whip-----

See this speech in context