Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I acknowledge the fact that Sinn Féin has tabled this motion and Fianna Fáil has tabled an amendment to it. I would have thought at this particular time in our history that we had more important issues to debate in the House. I speak as someone who spent almost five happy years in the Seanad.

My first observation is that when it comes to the Order of Business in the Seanad, all the elected public representatives have an opportunity to raise issues of concern for both themselves and their constituents, or for the country. It is unlike what happens in this House. A person in my position as a Government backbencher receives very little time to raise such issues. Certainly, we do not get any opportunity on the Order of Business to raise them. One receives adequate time in the Seanad and may seek a more positive result when one does raise something there. One has an opportunity to follow it up afterwards.

There is a real role for the Seanad. I have always subscribed to that view. In speaking about reform, however, I would have expected Members across the way to be more anxious and to concentrate their energies on the reform of this House in ways which would provide us with better opportunities to represent our people and raise issues in the way I have just described. I look at the five items on the Sinn Féin motion. The first one calls for immediate engagement with all parties and groups within the Oireachtas. The Taoiseach did that following the referendum in October 2013, when he consulted with all parties and groups in December of that year. If Deputy Stanley is upset about that, he should have a word with his Whip. The package of reforms was to be introduced and discussed by the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges to reflect the Taoiseach's engagement with groups, parties and individuals.

We must be very careful about how we reform the Seanad. We speak about the diaspora. Let us look at similar bodies in the USA and Canada. There is an example of a successful appointments system in Canada, where the Upper House is an entirely appointed body which capably represents a vast range of territories, including the interests of Quebec, where there is a struggle for sovereignty which might be loosely compared to what we have in Irish nationalism. It is a parliamentary monarchy based on the British system, and Deputy Stanley will be delighted to know that Senators there can serve until they are 75 years of age. It could be argued on foot of the appointment system and the term Senators have that the Canadian Senate is elitist. However, it can be contrasted with the US Senate. Due to direct election and the way the House is formulated, the US Senate cannot introduce finance or appropriations Bills. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives must pass such a Bill before it becomes law. Senators are elected for a six-year term in first-past-the-post elections by the general electorate and elections are staggered so that one third of the seats are contested every two years. The question is how well it functions. Every two years, the administration in power commits immense resources to trying to win or maintain control of the Senate. These are very substantial resources which could be allocated to legislation rather than partisan gridlock. If this is what Sinn Féin is recommending here, it would result in stalemate in the Seanad and the Government of the day would not be able to function and put through necessary legislation.

When I entered the House today and listened to Deputy Barry Cowen's contribution, I thought the debate was about Irish Water. While many of his concerns about Irish Water are justified, does the Deputy want to leave the situation as it was after his party had been in power for almost 20 years? We have a water system that is unusable, with boil-water notices all over the country and the problems we see in Roscommon. We have a dysfunctional water system across the country. Should the Government have ignored that and proceeded as though nothing was wrong? No. It had to take action and it did. We acknowledge that there are difficulties, but the problem will be remedied and the people will have the water supply to which they are entitled. Something similar will happen with the reform of the Seanad, but we must give constructive thought and criticism to the matter and come forward with radical solutions that improve the lot of the Members of the Seanad and the people.

See this speech in context