Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This has been described as technical legislation to assist in changes to functions to enable a by-election to be held but it will be a by-election without a popular democratic mandate and I have a problem with that. The people had an opportunity to speak on the abolition of the Seanad, a proposal I supported because these institutions need to be reformed and not because useful work is not done in that House.

I do not think there is any prospect of radical reform of the Seanad with the defeat of the referendum. The most we can expect is the expansion of the university panels to other institutions, in respect of which legislation is in hand.

The Constitution envisaged something very different for the Seanad and how it should relate to the Dáil. This goes to the heart of the Bill's facilitation of by-elections. The intention was to foster the healthy tension evident in other bicameral systems. However, the Seanad is instead the plaything of the larger political parties. It does not provide the expertise envisaged for the system of vocational panels through which 43 of the 60 Senators are elected on the basis of a limited franchise. Even though the results in the 2009 election indicated that 16% were not aligned with the larger parties, this was not reflected in the composition of that Seanad. It has grown substantially since.

The Bill facilitates changes to staffing and the authority of certain roles, but it also facilitates a greater degree of certainty because people have lost the Whip and there is a finer balance in votes. It is not such a bad thing to lose votes on occasion because it can make the Government revisit its decisions. It is normal in other parts of the world to have dissent on proposals that do not work. The Taoiseach's nominees cannot always be relied upon. I applaud the Taoiseach for his imaginative choices in the case of certain nominees, but that has not always been the case. Some of them took principled positions on legislation, which is how it should be. The over-reliance on the Whip system is offensive to those who want to have the prospect of independent thought and action among Members. This has been dumbed down in favour of a culture in which compliance is rewarded with promotion, which is not a healthy way to run a democracy.

Deputy Brian Stanley spoke about geography and counties. I am not fixated on the British shiring of parts of the country which led to the county system. It is amusing that an instrument of the Crown should be adopted by a party that is -----

See this speech in context