Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. Obviously, we campaigned for abolition of the Seanad, but we did not win that referendum; the people voted to retain it. When they look at the Seanad today, full of former Deputies who failed to be re-elected to this House, many of whom said they would never enter the Seanad if they failed to be re-elected, most of them, including those who voted to retain the House, would say, "That is not what we voted for." They voted for a Seanad that does not exist; they voted for a reformed, much more democratic House.

Our position remains the same. We think Upper Houses are inherently undemocratic and designed to act as a conservatising block on progressive change. However, we would favour a significantly reformed Seanad. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a problem with the Manning report, which is, as Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned, that it remains within the framework of the Constitution? The Constitution is a fundamental problem. If its framework is accepted, the elitism of six university seats is accepted. They can be divided up in a way that is slightly less elitist than is the case, but that still means that 16% of the population have the right to an additional vote in the Seanad election by virtue of the fact that they attended university. That is inherently elitist and undemocratic. Does the Taoiseach not recognise the problem with this?

Second, if we stick within the framework of the Constitution, the Taoiseach's nominees remain. Whatever about 16% of the population having an additional vote, in this case, one person who happens to be the Taoiseach, appoints 11 people, many of whom could be from the same category of failed election candidates or election candidates who did not put their names forward. Does the Taoiseach agree that he needs to move beyond the bounds of the Manning report and the Constitution to ensure reform and democratisation?

See this speech in context