Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

In 2011 the people demanded real reform of their political system. They were promised real reform by every party now represented in Dáil Éireann. Once the election was over, the new Government announced it was determined to push ahead with what it termed a "democratic revolution". Last year’s referendum on the abolition of the Seanad was intended by the Government as its major political change. It deployed empty populist rhetoric to claim that the Seanad was an elitist, undemocratic, idle and wasteful irrelevance. At the time the referendum proposal was published it enjoyed the support of 80% of the public. Fine Gael conducted the most cynical poster campaign ever held for a referendum. It debased politics.

When Fianna Fáil took its stand against the Government and the opinion polls, our argument was that the Government was proposing to make our system worse, to hand even more power to a dominant Executive and to use the referendum as a way of claiming, rather than delivering, reform. This argument which was also advanced by the main non-party "No" campaign won the referendum. No party or individual who expressed an opinion during the referendum called for the status quo to be maintained. The choice was abolition or reform and reform won.

It has become standard practice during Dáil debates on political reform for Government members to talk at length about all of the wonderful reforms they have delivered. This has included the Chief Whip announcing in 2011 that the Government had begun handing back power to the Oireachtas. I implore the Minister not to waste our time today with this nonsense. The Oireachtas meets for longer and has renamed some of its activities, but it decides less and less. Ministers routinely treat the House with disdain. They accept fewer Opposition amendments and proposals than ever. The guillotining of debates on Bills has reached historic highs. Basic courtesies to the Opposition such as proper consultations before European referenda have been abandoned. On the odd occasion such as on this Tuesday when we receive a briefing on a matter of public importance, we learn more from the media than from the Government. When we come here on days like today, we are allowed to propose Bills, but they are not allowed to become law. As we saw with my party’s recent legislation to protect Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, mortgage holders, the Government sometimes pretends to support the legislation, but then lets it die quietly on the Order Paper. Nobody believes Government members when they say they have reformed the Dáil and the more they claim it, the more absurd they look.

On the evening when his personal initiative was defeated the Taoiseach said he was a democrat and acknowledged the people’s decision. He and his Government have since done exactly nothing to acknowledge the people’s decision. They propose to leave the Seanad intact, with the slight exception of changing the franchise for the university seats, a measure clearly intended as some form of petty revenge against the successful advocacy of the existing university Senators. The Government’s position is that it believes the Seanad is undemocratic, but it proposes to do nothing to reform it. If no action is taken in the next year, the earliest a more democratic Seanad could be elected is at the end of the next Dáil, possibly seven years from now. That is not acceptable. The right thing to do, which would show a commitment to genuine democratic reform, would be to hold consultations with the Opposition and agree a new referendum proposal to reform the election and powers of the Seanad and reform Dáil Éireann. There is no reason such discussions should take more than a month or two. The Government has rejected this and said Seanad reform is not a priority and that it will not allow a new referendum to be held. Given this, our only option is to try to find other ways of promoting the reform for which the people voted. While the text of Bunreacht na hÉireann places significant limits on what can be done, we still have great flexibility to enact reform legislation. Most fundamentally, we have the ability to introduce a universal democratic franchise in the election of most Senators. A proposal to do this is at the core of the Bill before the House.

The existing Seanad panels could be opened up to universal suffrage through primary legislation. The idea of a primarily directly elected second Chamber is common in the democratic world. It leads to extra opportunities for conflict and tension within parliament, which would be very good. What many see as the dysfunction of the United States Congress is more a reflection of its federal system and the complete separation of powers between parliament and the executive rather than an argument against second Chambers.

We do not need a second Chamber which duplicates all of the powers of Dáil Éireann. It is reasonable to have one Chamber possess the final word in most disputes. This is provided for in Bunreacht na hÉireann and will not change. We need a more diverse parliament which has a greater opportunity to challenge the Government, review legislation and oversee the wider public service. While debates in the past three years in this House have been full of people stating with absolute certainty that all errors in the past were the responsibility of the Government, the first time the national Parliament discussed the financial system was when it was in the process of imploding.

A more democratic, diverse and responsive Seanad could play a vital role in improving the obvious failures of the Oireachtas.

A significant point in this Bill is that it is proposed that the franchise would extend to all citizens, including those not resident in the State. My party will be supporting the proposal to extend the franchise for the election of the President when it comes before the House. Extending it for Seanad elections is possible without a referendum due to the broader wording of Bunreacht na hÉireann concerning the Seanad franchise. We believe this extension of the franchise outside the Twenty-Six Counties is reasonable given that the Dáil will retain the final word on all matters, as well as the only word on taxation and expenditure. There would be a serious issue requiring much deeper debate if it were proposed to give some people the power to dictate policies to which they would not be subject. This does not arise in the context of the Seanad and its existing powers.

The Bill proposes to extend the franchise on the higher education panel to graduates of all recognised universities and colleges. There was once a significant argument for these seats in ensuring diversity in a young State, but this argument no longer applies, and in the context of a constitutional reform of the Seanad, there would be no justification for retaining dedicated seats for higher education graduates. A further section of the Bill provides general principles concerning the manner in which the Taoiseach’s nominees would be identified. These obviously could not be binding, but they do make the point that in a reformed Seanad the objective of filling representational gaps should be a concern of the Taoiseach.

A regular occurrence during these Friday sessions is Ministers reading a list of technical issues which officials believe are to be found in the Bill. Often they are entirely right that there are technical flaws. I accept that there are items in this Bill which require detailed scrutiny and amendment before they could be enacted, and that is why we have Committee and Report Stages built into the legislative process. Second Stage is supposed to be about the core principle of the Bill, which in this case is that we should open up the franchise for electing the Seanad. There are many specific points within the Bill and I would very much welcome a detailed discussion of them during Committee Stage. There are different ways of approaching practical issues of constructing the electorate for the panels, administering a postal vote and requiring diversity of representation. This principle was supported by the Government at great length and expense last year, and both Fine Gael and Labour indicated that they view the current method of electing Senators to be completely unacceptable. The Bill we are introducing today addresses the most important element of reform that is possible immediately, which is to open up the Seanad to all citizens. By adopting this Bill we could immediately end the elitism which the Government and Sinn Féin were so concerned with during the referendum. We could make our entire Parliament representative of the direct will of the people.

We do not have available to us the level of support staff that the Government can use for legislation, but we have shown quite clearly that it is possible to significantly open the Seanad even if the Government continues to refuse to hold a referendum on real reform. Through a full debate at different stages there are obviously many issues to be addressed and refined in this Bill, but the core point stands; the people demanded reform last year, and we have both the duty and the ability to deliver it. To fail to act - to do the minimum possible and move to other issues - would be an act of political arrogance which would reinforce the growing public disillusionment with the failure to reform Irish politics.

We have seen this Parliament become ever more marginal to vital debates. There have been many small changes, but taken together they have reinforced the idea of a dominant Executive controlling everything of significance. The only way to address this and begin to rebuild a Parliament worthy of public support is to listen to the demand for substantive reform. Listening to the people's decision last year and reforming the Seanad is an essential first step. We need a new referendum on full reform but we cannot wait seven years before there is a reformed Seanad. We should pass this Bill and ensure that the next time we elect a Seanad it reflects the will of the Irish people.

See this speech in context