Speech on Thirty Second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013

Democracy, democratic principles and democratic ideals are phrases which are often heard, easy to say but difficult to establish and even more difficult to maintain.  

Democratic principles establish a rule of law, respect human rights, and promote active politics.  

It should be an unwritten commitment of every public representative to uphold and foster these principles.

Unfortunately, I fear that the proposed Thirty-second Amendment to the Constitution, if passed, will diminish these principles.

I have listened to the debate on this Amendment over the last few weeks, I have listened to the positive and negatives of both the bicameralism and unicameralism systems, and I will admit that I remain unconvinced by the superiority of a unicameralism system.

A system whereby the quality of legislation, the oversight of the Executive and the representation of each individual in this State would rest solely in one house of representatives.  

It is not a sufficient safeguard for the precious ideals on which this State was founded.

During my time in the Seanad I have been privileged to have played a part in two pieces of reforming legislation which highlight the benefits of bicameralism – the Welfare of Greyhounds Act and the Animal Health and Welfare Act.  

When the Animal Health and Welfare Bill was introduced the Minister cited his prior visits to the Seanad, specifically citing the quality of previous debates as a reason for initiating the legislation in the Seanad.  

The progression of this Bill highlights the value of a two Chamber system the legislation received considered and constructive debate in the Seanad.  

Legislative errors are costly and can be avoided by careful debate across the broadest spectrum possible.  

The presence of Seanad contributed greatly to ensuring that the final Bill was as comprehensive as possible.

Many speakers have spoken of the fact that for 75 years there has been debate regarding Seanad reform, debate is essential but debate needs to be acted upon.  

Many of the reports which were published as part of this debate process contained excellent contributions and submissions on Seanad reform from members of the public – and now all of those submissions are deemed irrelevant.  

This Bill has been promoted as offering a choice for the people, but choice usually involves a judgment decision on the merits of multiple options, in limiting the choices available to the people, by not offering reform,   a disservice is being done to the people of this country and to the democratic principles on which the state was founded.

In speaking before this House yesterday An Taoiseach stated that he believed genuine reform of the Seanad would be almost impossible to achieve.  

Is Dail reform achievable?

Should we examine this matter first before we embark on what An Taoiseach called a “major change in the structure of our Oireachtas”.   Do we not have an obligation to attempt reform, to ensure that proper safeguards are in place, or do we simply abolish because change is perceived as being too difficult.

Is this progressive, reforming politics?

In recent years, Transparency International have criticised the “excessive discretion” which the Executive has in number of democratic functions, specifically citing the legislative agenda, posing a barrier to the ongoing development and reform of Ireland’s legal system and institutional framework.    

In abolishing the Seanad the legislative agenda and the scope of legislation is in danger of becoming even more constrained.

This Chamber allows, far more than Dail Eireann, for the contribution of diverse and independent voices representing interests not usually represented in the Dail.  

The Oireachtas website states that Seanad Éireann can debate issues with greater freedom.  

After abolition will there be a platform for those voices?   People already feel a disconnect between politics and their everyday lives.  

Many have spoken of the 75 years of debate on Seanad reform, what about the 75 year tradition of representing people’s interests?

To conclude, I like my colleagues will not oppose this Bill and object to the decision being put to the people but I am disappointed that the people are being given a false choice – the consequences of which may be irreversible.  

As the saying goes change for change sake is a recipe for failure.