Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

After two years I ask myself if I have a single example to show the Irish people outside of Senator Norris of how we make a defined and defining difference. We better as new Senators answer that question very quickly. Where are the great checks and balances on the great Lower House power grabbing political Executive?

It is argued that if we all had a vote to come into the Seanad, all would be well. Not so. We all have a vote in the Lower House and all is not well. It is argued that unicameralism and bicameralism are not evenly spread around the world. There is no clear trend; some countries abolish and some retain. New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland have abolished. Poland, Romania, Morocco and the Czech Republic have adopted a second house. Norway has one election and members split into two chambers for the duration of the legislature. Bills shuttle back and forth so perhaps we might try that.

If the Government cannot be brought down by a second chamber, are the outcomes of our votes really critical? Are they not impotent? If the votes can be overridden by the Lower House, is legislation in this House reduced? Most Members of this House are driven by and dictated to by the party Whip. As a result, is there is less of a tendency to scrutinise legislation? Is there less of a tendency to become more expert in specialised topics?

What distinguishes the Seanad in the eyes of the Irish people? It is our composition, not our work, and I am part of that. Our composition is our most visible feature and is always the first target. All of the arguments in favour of retention have concentrated on that, not on our functions. In our case it is difficult separate our composition from our function.

Do I think it is too late? That is for the Irish people to decide. Is there a general clamour for reform? If there is, where is it? I only hear it from certain quarters. Where was the reform two years ago, five years ago, seven years ago, ten years ago, 14, 17, 20 or 22 years ago? There were reports but reports have nothing to do with reform. Reform is about action and it never lives on shelves. Are we beyond reform? We shall let the Irish people decide.

The Seanad is an ill-understood institution. Neither its best nor its worst features are understood by or communicated to the Irish public. The public is aware of vested interests, of Government parties. They understand the constitutional rigidity and watch our low prestige. They know why the media does not concentrate on us and when it does, it is with negative feelings. In other countries there is desire for reform but it rarely happens. We have a low profile and we are not understood. We demand less media attention and get less attention. We are not directly elected and have little power to challenge Government. The party leaders live in the Lower House, our reports gather dust, there are continual calls for reform, it is full of vested interests, constitutional rigidity, low prestige, negative feelings and unnecessary duplication.

Do the Irish people really engage with the Seanad? I must let the Irish people decide if they do or not. Where is our real urgency as Senators? Where is our real political cut and thrust? Where is our real legitimacy? Do we have any? If Senators think we have legitimacy, they must explain it. They must lay it out for the Irish people. I do not want answers about checks and balances because they are not true. The people will decide in October.