Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this opportunity to speak. I do not agree that the Seanad cannot be reformed; it is realistic and achievable. I got the impression listening to some Ministers that if we abolish the Seanad and could make a good case for a second House, it would be one way to go. Listening to the debate, I do not think there will be any great heart to have a second Chamber if the Seanad is abolished. I sincerely believe there should be two Chambers in the Oireachtas.

I can deal with the difficulties in the Seanad. I agree with the Taoiseach's comments that the Seanad is an elitist body and the major difficulty is the way it is elected. There are 43 Members elected by a small electorate, six more elected by a restricted third level electorate, and 11 nominated by the Taoiseach of the day. I would like everyone to vote for a second Chamber.

I was elected to the Seanad as long ago as 1977 and was nominated by the Taoiseach in 2002. It would be hypocritical for me to call for the abolition of the Seanad when I know the good work that is done there. The Seanad operates in a very practical way, even today, and there are good debates there. The present Seanad is led by the Cathaoirleach, Senator Paddy Burke, and Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Denis O'Donovan, and the Leader of the House, Senator Maurice Cummins, along with the leaders of all parties and groupings. There is good debate there and one of the reasons for that is that there is more flexibility in the Seanad than in the Dáil. The Order of Business in the Seanad is not confined to questions on promised legislation. A Senator can seek a debate and raise current and local issues. These are allowed in the Seanad. It has everything except Question Time. There are Adjournment debates, like Topical Issues debates here, and local and topical issues can be raised then.

Of course, there is a need for reform, no more than the Dáil needs reform. There is, however, a need for a second Chamber when the Government has a large majority in the Dáil. I note the points made by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, where the Government will listen to any case that is made, but I have my doubts about whether that will happen.

Even with 166 Deputies, there have been difficulties with the representation of some counties. On two occasions, County Leitrim was divided in two and many people felt the county would never elect another Deputy when part of the constituency was in Sligo and part in Roscommon. Deputy Colreavy has managed to get elected but if the number of Deputies is reduced further, because we are told we have too many politicians in this country, the situation could arise where people in the counties with low populations would lose out. People in Leitrim were very annoyed at their county being divided in two because it made it difficult to have a representative living in the county. I agree with gender balance and the representation of immigrants and minorities, but if we could agree to a reformed Seanad, the people might reject it. I would suggest considering at least one Senator per county. In the United States, there are two Senators per state, regardless of the size of that state.

As well as making the point that the Seanad has been impressive in the amount of legislation with which it has dealt, I agree with those speakers who raised the issue of Dáil reform and the priority that should be attached to that. We are now abolishing town councils and have cancelled elections to Údarás na Gaeltachta. I do not know if local government is strong enough to say we should introduce a single Chamber Oireachtas. When we are having the vote in October, why are we not putting the question of reducing the number of Deputies to the people, as the Government promised? The promise was to reduce the number of Deputies by 20 but because of the Constitution, the Government simply reduced the number of Deputies by eight.

In some contributions, concern has been expressed about accountability and the fact there will be less democracy. Deputy Olivia Mitchell raised the point yesterday that we want scrutiny of legislation by two Chambers. When we look at the reduction in the number of councillors after the next local elections, there will be a high ratio of electorate per councillor. The countries that have single chamber legislatures have reformed their local government and have a stronger local system.

Fianna Fáil has published proposals that included a Seanad of 65 Members, with some being directly elected, some indirectly elected and some nominated by the Taoiseach.

I am not saying that I totally agree with this but if there were direct elections in 26 constituencies under a proportional representation system, that would be one way there would be accountability. One could also hold elections by all the graduates of the higher education constituency for six Senators. As was suggested, the direct elections could be held the same day as the local and European elections and the indirect elections could take place 90 days after a general election - something similar to what happens now. The question of the members of the Irish diaspora, immigrant communities and any under-represented groups in Irish society, and the question of the two traditions in Northern Ireland, are areas that could be looked at as possibilities for other Senators to be elected.

There is criticism of those campaigning to retain the Seanad. Suggestions were made that some are either persons who are trying to form new political parties or, perhaps, trying to resurrect a party that has gone down in the polls, but that is a little unfair because people genuinely feel that they should make a case for a second chamber. It is not merely a question of anyone in Dublin 4 stating that we need a second chamber. I note the following headline in the Tuam Heraldin Galway, "Government needs to use common sense". This editorial states:

The other issue on which the Government may trip itself up is the abolition of the Seanad. While many cogent arguments have been made in favour of so doing, there is a substantial body of opinion that doubts the wisdom of having a single chamber Oireachtas. Ironically, the huge majority enjoyed by the present Government only adds to those doubts. There would be very little such a majority could not do in the line of legislation, were there not some kind of check and balance.

That is one of the issues that has come up in regard to scrutiny and checks and balances. It further states:

The cynical will point out that as the Seanad is currently set up, with an almost automatic majority for the parties in power, there is no balance.

On the other hand, an idealist might well suggest a reformed Seanad, with a completely different system of representation, divorced from party politics, or at least not as entangle in them.

Why not have a multiple choice referendum, and give us options: to retain, to abolish and to reform.

Or is that too much like a common sense solution?

See this speech in context