Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and commend Senator McDowell and the group which has brought it before us. I am not a cynical person. We have been here before several times and perhaps this might be the legislation that effects real reform of the Seanad.

We are very fortunate to have an opportunity to discuss Seanad reform because had the Taoiseach in the last Administration his way, we would not be here to discuss reform. It is to the credit of Senator McDowell and former Senators like Joe O'Toole and Dr. Maurice Manning, and their interventions in the debate, that we were able to retain the Seanad in its present form. Those of us who were incumbents at the time and argued for the retention of the Seanad, to paraphrase the cliché, were like turkeys trying to get an injunction against Christmas. That was the amount of credibility that we had. Therefore, I am very thankful to Senator McDowell and others for the cogent arguments they put forward.

It is very heartening to note that when the people of Ireland were given the opportunity in no uncertain terms less than one fifth of the population voted to abolish the Seanad. The result gave the Taoiseach food for thought. I hope it will be the last attempt by the Taoiseach and his party to launch an attack on democratic institutions.

I have great friends in Fine Gael but the party has some kind of a primordial atavistic impulse because every now and again it gets a rush of blood to the head and wants to change democracy around. If anything is associated in any shape or form with the name Eamon de Valera, Fine Gael has an awful loathing and hates it so much that it just cannot leave it alone. Of course, the Seanad was invented by Eamon de Valera. There is no doubt that he was an extraordinary genius whatever one thinks of him. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the deliberations took place that gave rise to this system. I suppose no notes were kept in those days. I do know that it took some work to come up with this particular system.

In the main the Seanad has served its purpose fairly well. It gave a platform to minority viewpoints at a time when it was very important, which was after the formation of the State. As has been stated here, the Seanad gave a political platform to some of the most eminent people in public life. I shall not list the pantheon again. We have had some of the most accomplished politicians, orators and business people, and people from all walks of life have had an opportunity to have their voices heard in this Chamber where they may not have had that opportunity in any other way.

The one big issue of reform is the system of election. It is the real nub of this and all other reform attempts. It is about who elects whom. There are faults in the three subsections. Democracy is not served well when there is a Chamber in which 11 Members out of 60 are nominated by one person, no matter how eminent that person is. I have the highest respect for the position of Taoiseach but I do not think the option is right and proper. I do not propose an amendment to this Bill but my party will table amendments on Committee Stage. I commend my party and my party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, for being the only one in the last debate who took the tough decision to support the Seanad. My party will table amendments but I am not sure what form they will take at this point. I have reservations about the idea that the Taoiseach can appoint 11 Senators.

I am conscious of the mote in my eye, which I shall come to, but I shall now look at the university situation. Clearly, it is totally unfair, undemocratic and elitist. It debars a certain number of university graduates. Why should university graduates, above all other sectors of society, have a vote in the Seanad? What makes a university graduate, of which I am one, a better person to elect a Senator than a housewife, a garda, a person working for himself or herself or an employee? The provision is the most elitist and we must examine it closely.

I cannot be objective about having 43 seats because I have been fortunate enough to have been returned here three times by the county councillors of Ireland. If we are not going to have indirect election then we are talking about direct election, that means another Dáil Éireann. I do not think anybody wants Seanad Éireann to be another Dáil. For God's sake, one Dáil Éireann is enough. Instead we want an alternative. If it is not going to be an alternative then let us not have it at all.

If indirect election is going to be part of the system then nobody is better equipped to constitute the electorate, or a sizeable portion of it, than the county councillors of Ireland because they have a mandate from the people. Every county councillor must reach a quota or get elected at any rate. The average first preference vote of an elected councillor is in the order of 1,500. The quota when I stood for election to for Kerry County Council was 2,200. It is not an inconceivable achievement to get that number of votes in one's own county and local people are the best judge of who they want to put forward. It is a tiered structure but we are not talking about just any 1,000 people. We are talking about 1,000 people who have come through the system, earned the trust of their neighbours and people, and also have a need and a requirement to have access to the Oireachtas in the same way county councillors have at the moment through us, the Senators. That aspect should be protected and I note that the Bill acknowledges same.

As Senator O'Reilly has said, the idea of reducing the number of seats elected in this manner from 43 to 13 is swingeing and uncalled for. If one must make changes then increase the number of seats in the Seanad. I do not see why it should be set in stone that there should be 60 seats.

That is basically all I have to say about the legislation at the moment. It is a good Bill and it is well structured. With the new politics that we have at the moment there is every chance the Bill might succeed and the best of luck to it.