Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House and I compliment our colleagues, Senators Quinn and Zappone, on bringing forward this Bill. I am somewhat taken aback at the benign attitude of the Minister which I presume reflects the Government's thinking. It seems that on the one hand it welcomes all sorts of debate but on the other it will get rid of us if it can. It was rather interesting that in his opening remarks the Minister referred to the fact that this Bill would help to stimulate debate. He talks about a period of intense debate over the coming months. It would have been more helpful if the Government had decided to have something other than a straight "Yes" or "No". It wants either to abolish the Seanad or keep it. That does not give people much room for intense debate whereas if the wording was more flexible and open it might. The Government is giving people a very stark choice and that is one of the flaws in this proposal.

Already the storm clouds are gathering around the Taoiseach's proposals. I mention the Taoiseach because he initiated this process. Everything that has followed is of little relevance because he is driving it. If a straw poll was taken of the Ministers in both parties the result would be rather interesting. The result of a straw poll of the Government supporters in the House would be even more interesting. That is the reality it faces. I am glad that the media is not being codded by this somewhat clumsy attempt to suggest that there is real reform behind this initiative on the basis that getting rid of the Seanad will make for a more accountable democracy. It is also throwing in the canard that this will save money. It is time that claim was nailed. I hope that those contributing to this debate who support retention and reform of the Seanad will continue to hammer home their views so that the general public will know that the Seanad costs approximately €7 million out of a total Government budget of some €56 billion. Is the Government trying to suggest to the people that this will help heal the country’s economic malaise or that it will put more food on their tables? That €7 million will not be saved because it has already been made clear that if the voters want to abolish the Seanad the money would be redistributed. There would be no reduction in staff or services.

Now the little carrot of Dáil reform is dangled before us. This has crept into the debate only in the past few days. There will never be Dáil reform as long as there is centralised government with an Executive that uses the Dáil as a rubber stamp. With a majority of over 50 in the other House this Government can put through, and is putting through whatever it likes, whenever it likes, at whatever pace it likes. Throwing the carrot of reform of the Dáil to the people to persuade them to vote for the abolition of this House is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate.

I want to touch on a couple of aspects of this Bill. I do not agree with the idea of expanding the nomination process. For local authorities and 500 people to be part of the nomination process is unwieldy. The existing nomination process is a good one particularly as it retains the professional bodies. I am grateful to the Seanad office for confirming that there are 106 registered bodies on the electoral register all of whom have very substantial membership lists. I cannot work out what the figures will be but I am sure somebody will. Those bodies represent Irish society as a whole. That is what the Seanad is supposed to be and has been, flawed as its election process may be. When executing its business it has stuck rigidly to the original concept which was to represent vocational interests and Irish society. It also stays true to its original concept of operating as a check and balance to what happens in the other House. This is a more reflective and less adversarial House. It gives more time to debate and legislation, all of which is reflected in the sentiments behind if not in the detail of this Bill.

I agree in principle with extending the franchise overseas and to Northern Ireland but I agree with the Minister that the proposals in the Bill are somewhat unwieldy. I also share his inference that there are other issues involved in extending the franchise outside Ireland. There are some 70 million people worldwide who claim to be Irish. I recall Dick Spring saying that he would hate to be waiting for the results of the ballot box from Boston to decide the fifth seat in Kerry. That is a real concern particularly as we operate under a PR system but we are capable of including the Irish diaspora at some level. I agree, for example, with the concept of the passport holders having a vote but one could limit it to those who have been out of the country less than three years. I would ensure that if we extend the franchise that one would have voluntarily to register one's interest at the local embassy or office of the chargé d'affaires. If one wants to exercise the franchise in Irish elections one has to be proactive.

I agree with the Minister about the postal ballot. This would not work in practice. The electorate is huge. Why not have the Seanad elections on the same day as the Dáil elections? That would cut the cost considerably and, depending on how the Seanad reform project was outlined, the people of Ireland who have shown themselves to be very mature when voting would be able to distinguish between what the two Houses do.

Overall, I welcome what Senators Zappone and Quinn have done in this regard. I would like to think it is the beginning of that intense debate about which the Minister spoke. I hope the media will espouse this. I wish well all of those who are on the side of retention and reform of this House - reform is the word, not abolition.