Feargal Quinn (Independent)

This has been an interesting debate and I thank Senator O'Toole for tabling the motion. I was delighted to hear Senator O'Malley's words. She spoke openly and clearly about her views on what happens in the House.

The concept behind the House was correct back in 1937 when Eamon de Valera held the view that there was a need for a second Chamber. What he tried to put together was a House that would represent different vocational interests. Unfortunately, the manner in which he put it together meant it did not work in the way envisaged and we have ended up with a Chamber which is not performing as well as it should because, to a very large extent, we now have political parties which do not give their members freedom to vote in the way they would like. The benefit of the House comes, to a large extent, from having Independent Senators, most of whom are elected from the university panels.

I have stated previously that I do not believe the Seanad needs more power. If we do, we should earn it ourselves and we have the ability to do so. There are examples. Senator Norris has stated each of the Independent Senators has brought forward legislation. I am looking forward to the Construction Contract Bill passing through the House in a couple of weeks' time, as it is a Bill that will bring considerable benefits and I only hope we can get it through quickly enough for it to become law. I am not in favour of having a more confrontational Seanad. We have learned during the years how we can benefit from debates, but we must work together in doing so.

The Seanad has what political scientists call "output legitimacy", which means it does work which is relevant and effective and has done so during the years. However, it lacks input legitimacy because the way in which Senators, particularly from the vocational panels, are elected lacks credibility. The vocational panels were originally designed to produce Members with experience and expertise, but they have been rendered much less representative largely because of the manner in which Members are elected. If we are to achieve greater recognition, we must focus on the way Members of the Seanad are elected. As Senator O'Toole has proposed, we need reform that goes beyond merely changing the way university Senators are elected. I agree fully that university graduates not currently represented should be entitled to vote in all Seanad elections by next year. We do not need a constitutional referendum to do this because that constitutional amendment has already been agreed to.

There was an interesting article by Mr. Neil Callanan in The Sunday Tribune recently in which he made the point that two Ministers could be appointed to the Cabinet from the Upper House, but the stipulation is that they cannot be made Taoiseach, Tánaiste or Minister of Finance. That is acceptable. Perhaps we should look at increasing that quota instead of abolishing the Seanad, although we do not need to increase it because the provision is only used on rare occasions. There is an opportunity to bring into the House using that system persons with more experience and I do not refer only to business persons, although I certainly include them. One need only look at the example of Sir Philip Green who was recently brought on board by the new British Government and who suggested he could cut £20 billion from the cost of the public sector. He is a successful businessman, but one could say Mr. Colm McCarthy has done something similar here. Therefore, there are things we could do and we should do them.

The attractions in increasing the Seanad representation at the Cabinet table are obvious. There would be no direct answering to constituents. Successful persons would be like those in the United States who the President brings on board in the Cabinet and who do not rely on the votes of constituents. Therefore, they are able to act in the best interests of the state, in the way somebody running a business acts in the best interests of its customers. In the newspaper article Mr. Callanan made the valid point which I have made on many previous occasions that we simply did not have enough persons with real-world experience at the Cabinet table. Instead, we have career politicians, many of whom have inherited seats, in many cases from their fathers, and who do not have outside experience, which I would like to see.

It is interesting to note that some in New Zealand are pushing for the reinstatement of the Senate. Earlier this year the New Zealand Policy Unit of the Centre for Independent Studies proposed an election to a Senate in 2011. It proposed an Upper House with 31 seats, with members being elected using a proportional list system by region, with the members of the House of Representatives with 79 seats being elected using a first past the post system; in other words, there would be a contrast between the two. The New Zealand Senate was abolished in 1951, but the report on its reinstatement states importantly that one of New Zealand's constitutional problems is that it is too easy to pass laws quickly and without proper authority and that having a Senate would provide a publicly visible role for Senators in revising legislation such that those deciding to block or support certain laws would be politically compelled to explain their decisions to the public. New Zealand is one of the few countries which has a system based on the Westminster form of government. It is one of the few that had a bicameral system - as we do to a certain extent - that decided to abolish its Senate but is now planning to reinstate it. It reminds us that the Seanad serves an important function.

I am very pleased to support Senator OToole's worthwhile proposal. Like so many other institutions, the Seanad can be improved and modernised. I urge the Government to take on board the calls made in this House to take action on the issue. It has not done so tonight. I am disappointed at what I heard from the Minister of State, Deputy Brady. There are steps that have been suggested that are reminders of what could take place, one of which, suggested by Senator Ross, was holding the elections to the Dáil and the Seanad on the same day. That would make sense. It would be logical to do so and one would not need a constitutional change. Neither do we need a constitutional change to bring on board graduates of the University of Limerick and DCU. I like the concept proposed by Senator O'Toole because it suggests, "Let us shake this up. We can turn this into a worthwhile Chamber." We can make it one that would be regarded highly because we will earn that right. I, therefore, urge the Government to respond positively to Senator O'Toole's motion, not in way it has responded tonight but with enthusiasm and support.