John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I note the generosity in terms of time allowed for contributions tonight. I am not sure that I will need the extra time, but I might do. I had better watch my words given that we have been joined in the Chamber by two serving Senators.

I wish to commend the legislation to the House. It is based on a commitment that was given three or four years ago during the last general election campaign. Indeed, several different political parties gave a commitment to hold a referendum on the future of Seanad Éireann. I cannot understand the criticism of politicians for actually ensuring the referendum question they committed to is being put to the people. Deputy Ó Cuív, who has just left, spoke about the Taoiseach having a rush of blood to the head. His own party leader, Deputy Martin, must have had a rush of blood to the feet from the head because he fought the last election on the basis that a referendum should be held on the future of Seanad Éireann but he has now reversed engines on the matter.

Deputy Ó Cuív also made an interesting point about the role of expertise and the appointment of experts to Cabinet. He was in Cabinet for many years, albeit not a very successful Cabinet which could have done with a lot of expertise but which did not appoint any experts. I thought Fianna Fáil fought the last election on the basis that it was going to establish a new system of government where people who were not elected but who were experts could be appointed to government. Now the Deputy is saying that this is being reversed or dropped and that the Seanad route should be used for the appointment of experts.

Deputy Ó Cuív did not deal with the questions posed by Deputy Farrell with regard to the current composition of the Seanad. Deputy Ó Cuív's own famous ancestor was the main character behind the composition of Seanad Éireann in terms of the panel structure as it currently exists. Deputy Farrell spoke about Catholic teaching and socialism but I thought it was to do with corporatism, which might be more closely associated with national socialism rather than socialism. Deputy Ó Cuív did not take the opportunity to clarify what the thinking was at the time.

Deputy Mitchell made a number of points with which I fully agree. I have a vested interest to some degree in that I was a Member of the other House for nine years. I can say, with my hand on my heart, that the current status quo that exists in terms of the operation of Seanad Éireann is not satisfactory. Equally, however, the current position with regard to the operation of Dáil Éireann and of local government, as Deputy Mitchell pointed out, is not satisfactory either. Having said that, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has at least made a start on reforming our local government system. He has ensured that when people go to vote in the local elections next year, there will not be some who have two votes in certain parts of the country, to elect two different local authorities, while others only have one vote. That is a change in the right direction. However, the situation that has emerged with the boundary changes, whereby some people could potentially live 50 or 60 miles from their local councillors because the electoral areas are geographically huge, is not satisfactory for local government either. We have this situation on the doorstep of Dublin, whereby half of County Wicklow is in a six-seat electoral area. A person could, in theory at least, live 30 or 40 miles away from his or her local councillor. Half of County Kerry is in one electoral area while more than half of County Carlow is in an eight-seat electoral area. A similar situation also applies in County Sligo as a result of the boundary changes. Therefore, while the reduction in duplication between local authorities is to be welcomed, the size of some local authority areas is not conducive to the effective and proper functioning of local democracy. Having said that, at least the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has taken a positive step in the right direction by removing the duplication.

I agree with previous speakers who raised the issue of the electoral system for the Dáil. I note what, to me, is a glaring mistake by the Constitutional Convention, a body established by the Oireachtas to look at reform. The most recent discussions by the convention centred on electoral reform, the result of which was a statement to the effect that constituencies should be larger. I come from one of the largest constituencies in the country. I do not mean this disrespectfully when I say that it is one thing to be a Deputy from a Dublin constituency or one in the immediate hinterland of the capital because such constituencies are geographically small and easier to get around, but it is an entirely different matter being a Deputy for larger constituencies. A former member of this House, P.J. Sheehan, from west Cork, used to say, as a matter of fact, that by the time he reached Mitchelstown he was more than halfway to Dublin but he was still in County Cork. The notion that Dáil constituencies should be made bigger does not make sense from a personal point of view for those who want to get involved in politics. It also does not make sense from an administrative point of view, when it is plainly obvious that much of the effort made by members of political parties who are Members of this House often has more of an eye to the activities of their potential Dáil running mate or sitting constituency colleague rather than on serving their constituents or the best interests of the country. I have long advocated single-seat constituencies with a transferable vote. In that context, I really regret the fact that the Constitutional Convention made the dramatic mistake of not giving that serious consideration and, indeed, not adopting it to ensure we have a proper legislative body in this House.

I welcome the fact that the people will make the decision on Seanad Éireann. I do not see any problem with the people making a decision in a referendum on the future of the Seanad. However, if the future is to be what exists at present or no Seanad at all, then abolition is the only route that should be taken, in my view. Over the past 60 or 70 years, 15 or 16 reports have been published on reform of the Seanad but there has never been any political appetite, from any side, to reform the structure of the Upper House.

Another very obvious weakness in the arguments of those who oppose the referendum is the divergence of views as to what the role of the Seanad should be, its functions and how its Members should be elected. There is no point in having a Chamber that is just a mirror image of the Dáil. Many proposals that I have read seem to focus on that, but that would not serve any particular purpose.

I echo the comments of Deputy Mitchell with regard to some of the piecemeal approaches that are being taken to the reform of our political system.

It has not been acknowledged by the political system that the Houses of the Oireachtas, with the President excluded, have had a significant role in the economic difficulties the country has faced over the past five or six years. A much more clear-cut reform of local government as well as the Oireachtas needs to be considered. It is remarkable and worth pointing out that we are having a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad but one of the reasons for not reducing more the number of Deputies was that we could not have a referendum. I support the Bill.

See this speech in context