Constitutional Referendum on the Number of Members of Dáil Éireann: Motion Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-25 ============================================================ Rónán Mullen (IND), National University of Ireland Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaithe. I commend Senator McDowell on leading us forward with this very good proposal. I note what my good friend and colleague Senator Murphy said, that any proposal to amend the Constitution should be approached with precision and care. I could not agree with him more. Somebody should have told the previous Government about that because it presented two referendum proposals that were certainly not approached or served up with precision and care, unless they were caring precisely to bamboozle the public and to persuade them to support something they should not - and, as it turned out, did not - support. I take Senator Murphy's point that one has to be careful about the preparation of referendums. Paradoxically, while I am very glad on one level that this motion is going through unopposed this evening, in a way I would have liked if the Government had tabled some kind of amendment to say that it would take this very important proposal forward, study it and come back within a certain timeframe with some kind of proposal. Maybe the Minister of State will deliver accordingly in his speech. This is too important to be left on the shelf. Senator McDowell and we all are really proposing that we cannot afford a méadú as cuimse in the representation in the context of an increasing population. We would have, if there were a population of 6 million, a minimum of 200 TDs under the current constitutional formula and a maximum of 300. I am not so sure that we should be talking, or that we have any reason to talk, about a unity referendum being imminent, as has been suggested, but one would imagine that if one were to follow the Westminster model, given that there are about 2 million people in the North and they have 18 MPs, we would have 54 under such a formula for a population of 6 million. It would feel like we were back in the convention centre. I suppose the fact that there is an Assembly in the North makes the difference. What we are proposing here is reasonable, namely, that there would be an appropriate cap on Dáil and Seanad representation, given the population we have and are likely to have in the near future. Talk of future arrangements in the North is just a distraction. Nothing will happen so quickly there that would give us any justification to do nothing now. This issue needs to be addressed. I also sympathise with what Senator Murphy had to say about his concern for rural Ireland and the need to ensure continued fair representation for counties with lower populations. We probably have that advantage in the Seanad. Historically and currently, there is that strong representation. The Senator is right, however, and others here have said it, that we need a less centralised system with more responsibility and potential for councillors. The fact that they do not have that or that they might be under pressure is not a reason not to recalibrate our system in order that councillors have more powers and responsibilities and that Members of the Oireachtas, while they would continue to have a representative and intermediating role, would focus more on legislation. I hope the Minister will not just say nice things about this proposal but give us some kind of commitment that the Government will reflect carefully on this and take some action because there is no good reason to oppose it. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-03-25/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:46+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-03-25