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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few points. I am sorry that my vote seven or eight years ago was not enough to give Deputy Patrick O'Donovan, Councillor O'Donovan at the time, the extra quarter to have him elected to the Seanad. I too have been a member of the Seanad and have seen how it operates. I agree with some of the previous comments, particularly those of Deputy Noel Coonan, who mentioned some of the freedom that is available to Senators to raise topical issues. The operation of the Seanad on a day-to-day basis is much freer than this House. On the Order of Business one can raise relevant national and local issues and get a direct or sometimes an indirect response to the concerns raised. This House would do well to reflect on how it does its business and make itself more like the Seanad in that regard at least.

The most interesting thing in the whole debate is that everybody who has contributed here has a different view as to how the Seanad should be reformed. I too have a different view. There does not appear to be any agreed mechanism by which the Seanad should be reformed. Some of the previous speakers may be right that a wider body, such as the Constitutional Convention, could be usefully engaged in designing the shape of the Seanad into the future. I am not convinced of the desirability of having a completely directly elected second Chamber that is merely a mirror of this House. I do not see the point or the purpose; it would be a duplication of the Dáil. The Seanad has an important function.

I shouted across at Deputy Patrick O'Donovan earlier when he mentioned how the indirect election process works already for those on the vocational panels in the Seanad. That is the mechanism by which the President of the United States is elected. Most people think it is a direct election, but it is not. It is an electoral college system with an indirect election. That is what happens. There is nothing wrong with a Sinn Féin, a Fine Gael or a Fianna Fáil councillor voting for whomever they wish. When I was elected by 0.15 of a vote to the Seanad in 2002, it was the elimination of a Fianna Fáil councillor from Kerry and a No. 11 vote that came, I think, from a Fianna Fáil councillor in Kilkenny that successfully elected me, rather than another Fine Gael candidate. It is not right to assume that everybody votes down the line according to their own parties. It is a secret ballot and they do not always do that. The notion that Deputy Shane Ross has put forward is a bit rich. It is hard to listen to a lecture about cronyism from a man who inhabited for more than 30 years the most twisted form of electoral system that there is in this country, namely, the Trinity College electoral panel in the Seanad, which can hardly be said to be a truly fair, reflective and open system of election. Yet he has the temerity to come in and criticise the Taoiseach, who appointed a number of Independents who have voted more often against the Government than with it in this Seanad.

There are two schools of thought as to how the Seanad should be elected, one of which is to retain the indirect system. That is the option I prefer, but there is merit in the argument for a wider electorate for the vocational panel; for example, the agricultural panel, of which I was a member for nine years, could be elected by people who are directly involved in agriculture.

There is no doubt that, whatever system emerges, we need to ensure the Seanad is more representative of the general public and more representative of different groups that are not represented in the Oireachtas. I agree with the Sinn Féin proposal in relation to the diaspora. It would be a useful mechanism to allow representatives of the diaspora to be members of the Upper House.

We mention frequently in this House and in other places the lack of women in politics. The Seanad is not particularly representative of the general population in terms of the number of women who are Members. It is certainly not representative in terms of the number of younger people who are Members. Whatever system is drawn up needs to reflect that.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly mentioned that the Government reforms focused on what he termed the six independent Senators. He meant, of course, the six Members of the two university panels. On several occasions, including at present, individuals on those panels have been members of parties, not independent Senators. I do not know if it was a Freudian slip on his behalf, but in the history of the Seanad there have been many people, not least Deputy Shane Ross, who was a member of my Party on at least one occasion on which he was elected as a member of the Seanad.

Deputy Barry Cowen made a flippant comment earlier that I think he did not particularly mean. He spoke about the people rejecting the abolition of the Seanad out of hand. To reject something out of hand implies a rejection without any thought or study. I can safely say that when it came to the referendum on Seanad abolition, much talk, thought and study went into it. A total of 51.7% of the electorate voted "No" and 48.3% voted "Yes", so it was quite a narrow result, but it was clear that the people wanted the Seanad to be retained. Now we must have legitimate proposals for its reform.

See this speech in context