Jimmy Harte (Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Bill is emotive for Senators on all sides of the House. Members of the public hold differing views, depending on which day of the week one speaks to them. People keep changing their minds. The Bill will, therefore, be discussed for a long time.

On my first day in the House I quoted Cicero and recommended a book by Robert Harris entitled Lustrum in which he referred to Cicero introducing a Bill in Rome to keep Senators and politicians happy. The Bill recommended that Senators curb their expenses while travelling around the Roman Empire. Politics has not evolved much when it comes to the issue of Seanad reform. The book was based on events purported to have taken place in 63 BC.

On allowing people who live outside the country to vote, I would be concerned about the potential consequences. Many millions of Irish passport holders move from America to Asia, South Africa and Europe. If we were to allow every holder of an Irish passport to vote, those living in the Republic of Ireland would not have a say in anything, as potentially 20 or 30 million people could be eligible to vote. Would the United States be a dedicated constituency? Would its residents be able to vote in the constituencies of Donegal, Dublin or whatever else? Let us presume there were 5 million voters. Would they be able to demand equal representation and take all of the seats in a constituency? They might claim that it was unfair that Donegal, with an electoral population of only 130,000, had five seats, when with 5 million voters, they only had one. One way to have a Senator to represent the Diaspora would be for the Taoiseach to appoint one from either the USA, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe, or simply someone from each continent. Giving votes to every person who holds an Irish passport would be a charter for total confusion and would dilute the vote of a person living and paying taxes in this country. The people who choose to stay are the ones faced with the challenges. I, therefore, disagree with giving everyone a vote, just because they wave the Irish flag on St. Patrick's Day. Most have not contributed to the country.

The Seanad Bill has many flaws, but it also has many good points. The public is faced with a big debate and I hope it will engage in it but not like in the way it did on other issues and in other referendums. It seems to oppose everything introduced by the Government. I hope we can have a proper debate, but sometimes people get carried away. I understand three referendums may be held on the same day, which would be unhelpful when the issues involved are so important.

The Seanad forms one part of the Oireachtas with the Dáil and the President, yet it is treated like it has a smaller role to play, but, under the Constitution, it holds the same status as the President and the Dáil. A debate will give a certain element of the public an opportunity to criticise politics and recommend getting rid of the Seanad. If I were to go on Highland Radio in County Donegal tomorrow morning and suggest we get rid of county councils, 80% of its listeners would ring in to agree with my suggestion. When dictators took over, they brought down democracy by gradually stripping it away. Seanad reform is not such an exercise, but we must be careful. A lot of money could be saved by getting rid of county councils, libraries and many of the groups throughout the country that do a lot of good work. I, therefore, urge caution when it comes to getting rid of a part of our democracy that has served the country well, despite what many people say.