Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The decision as to whether the Seanad is to be abolished or retained is not ours to make within this House. We may argue within this Chamber for the Seanad's retention and against its abolition, but no matter which way we argue the decision about the fate of the Seanad is not ours to make. The people will decide that fate in early October. It is only our duty as Senators to allow the people to do just that, without any impasse whatsoever. No one in the Seanad has the right to vote against the validity of holding the referendum in October. None of us has been elected by the general electorate. In fact, I have some cheek standing up here today since I was appointed by the Taoiseach. I will let the people decide what they want to do about that.

One might ask whether we are not therefore to stand up for the Seanad. However, that is not the question. The question is whether the Seanad is able to stand up for itself and if it warrants its own reward. Is the Seanad an example of its own stance or is it an example of its own standard? Is it an example of its own reward and is it an example for its own retention? In other words, are we good enough? If the answer to all of those questions were a resounding “Yes”, perhaps we would not be having this conversation and we would not be having the referendum.

What I am arguing and what I am grappling with is not personal and it never could or should be. What I am trying to do is to separate the dancer from the dance within the context of the pending abolition Bill. I wish to argue for an institution as an institution not the individuals as individuals within it because I have profound respect for every Senator, in particular for my fellow Independent Senators with whom I walked through the gate two years ago. My argument is not directed at any particular Member.

In the 35 years I worked in third level education, I knew nothing of what went on in the Seanad. I did not have a vote. I did not know how people got into the Seanad or what they did when they got in here, and therefore I had very little interest in what happened on the inside. Would the Seanad not have been better served in the past two years, given that we all knew the referendum was coming and it was in the programme for Government of certain political parties, informing the people about itself before making good and great speeches about reform?

What of reform? The Government has given no commitment to reform of the Seanad. The people are being asked to retain or abolish the Seanad. They are not being asked about reform. If they were, do I countenance that it would actually be brought about? We have heard and been introduced to new Bills about reform of the Seanad. Reform is not what the people are being asked to vote on. More arguments have arisen about retaining the Seanad and reform will follow. Who says so? The Government certainly does not and there has been no reform for 60 or 70 years.

We have heard other fantasy arguments about votes for the diaspora and everyone in Northern Ireland who carries the relevant passport. These arguments are weak. It is as though someone off the island will make the Seanad alright and connect it, find its centrality and bed down its relevance. This will not happen.

Anyway, this is not the kernel of my point, which brings me right back to my initial question about whether the Seanad warrants its own reward, is an example of its own stance, standard, centrality, function, connection and retention. Have we really been able to do any of that with any great local, regional or national conviction? We must answer that question quickly.

Power grab is the new up-the-ladder phrase. It has been used by many Seanad reformists, and they have a right to use it. It is a Lower House power grab that the Seanad is to be abolished. The question is, what power is the Lower House grabbing? The Seanad does not have power to grab except that of a 90 day delay. The Seanad has power of communication, new Bills, intellect, alteration, addition or subtraction of existing Bills. Certainly the Seanad may look afresh at legislative procedures and unearth difficulties not noticed by the Lower House, and a second opinion is always a good thing; reconsideration is always a good thing. It is a good thing, however, if and only if the second House is not controlled by a Government majority. In the past and in my two years, the Seanad has always been controlled by a Government majority, strangled by the political parties. In my two years, the Seanad has changed some Bills but has it changed ultimate Bills? The new Seanad of 42 never previously elected Senators never sent back one Bill. Some of the Independents tried, some of the Opposition tried and some Labour Party Senator tried. Social welfare legislation, the sale of the lottery, banking, disability cuts and housing legislation - not a single Bill was sent back. We all know why.