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

I will withdraw my comment. I got a bit lost in the heat of the moment. A quote was read out by Senator McDowell. I felt that there was a certain motive being attributed which I did not believe was accurate, hence my comment. I should not have said it.

I thank those who have contributed. As usual in most debates, whether in this House or the other House, there are plenty of contradictions. Several Senators have spoken about the delay in acting on the Manning report. I had only been a Minister of State for a few weeks when I met Senator McDowell and other Senators to discuss the establishment of the group. Previous occupants of the role will have to answer for why action was or was not taken. From the date of my appointment, the Taoiseach made it clear that reform of the Seanad was something he wished to act upon and it was hoped that there would be some clarity brought to that by the group headed by Senator McDowell. As was evidenced in the report we are discussing and in other reports produced over the years, there are all sorts of different views as to the shape of reform.

Like others, I am struck by the similarities between what we are discussing and the referendum held in Britain on membership of the European Union. Everybody has an interpretation of what the result in 2013 meant. I voted against the abolition of the Seanad at that time. I thought it would have been grossly hypocritical for somebody who had been a Senator for years to vote to abolish it. I favour reform and different aspects of what various Senators have said during this debate.

I want to deal with a few issues specifically. Senator Murnane O'Connor championed a lot of slogans such as "We need reform. We need it now." I expected a small protest with placards around St. Stephen's Green. She provided no proposal in any shape or form for what that reform might be and there was no agreement with the group, other than to say that they were great people. She did not state what function or reformed role the Seanad might have. She also launched a bizarre attack on de Valera when she referenced the Free State Seanad, more or less condemning him for its dissolution and the establishment of the reformed Seanad in 1937.

Senator McDowell gave, as usual, a very interesting contribution riven with contradictions. He quite correctly mentioned many Senators who have served in this House. He spoke at length about how Mr. de Valera's intention was to design a Seanad which was independent of Government. In his main contribution, which referred to former Senator Mary Robinson's contraception Bill, he said that that Seanad was so controlled by the Government that the Bill did not even pass First Stage. He spoke about procrastination and delay, which I have addressed.

From what I have heard here and elsewhere, nobody has disagreed with the role of the Seanad in giving a voice to those who would not come through our electoral system for the Dáil. Senator McDowell provided different examples of that. He managed to explain the unique position that the Seanad occupies. It was established, he said, to be completely independent of Government, yet over the years it has not been as independent as it could be. Senator Paddy Burke is correct. This Seanad and that which sat in the period 1995 to 1997 were probably the most independent of Government because the Governments concerned did not have a majority in the Dáil or in Seanad.

I reassure Senator McDowell that I wrote to the Clerks of the Seanad and the Dáil regarding a debate on Seanad reform. The Government does not control the business of the Lower House. The response from the Seanad came fairly quickly. I will continue to seek that a debate be held in the Dáil. The Senator is right to ask that the Dáil give its view quickly. The Government does not disagree with the suggestion that the Dáil needs to be central to whatever reform takes place in the Seanad. Insofar as I can, I will push to ensure that the Dáil engages in a debate on the report as soon as possible and, subsequently, any legislation that may follow on from it.

Senator Warfield spoke about how the matter should be put to the Dáil. I reiterate that all groups in the Dáil have Members who sit on the Business Committee. The Government does not have a majority. As usual, people in here often express views which are very different from what their political party said in the Dáil, which is certainly the case for Senator Warfield. I am not aware that Sinn Féin Deputies on the Business Committee have ever expressed a view in the Dáil that a debate on Seanad reform should be held there.

The Senator stated that he felt he had been mugged when he heard that it cost a lot to produce the report. I am not sure it cost a lot. I do not know what the costs were. He said the names of the panels do not matter. Nobody suggested that they did. If one is electing to anything, whether it is the county council in Kilkenny or one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the most important criterion is the electorate. There have been reform Bills and rotten boroughs. Some of the Seanad panels in 2019 may be referred to by some, but not me, as variation of a rotten borough . How one defines who is entitled to vote is central. It is a significant shortcoming in the report that we are left with no clear path.

I do not want to misquote what is in the report, which I read earlier.Point 6.10, which I think an extraordinary statement, is as follows: “It is anticipated that the number of Irish resident voters which will both apply to be registered and vote at a Seanad general election will be far lower than the number of persons who tend to participate in Dáil elections”. I know evidence was heard and some of the people are named in the report as having given evidence. To my mind, having observed elections for years, when one reads that statement, a lot is being taken at face value without thorough investigation. We cannot, surely, design an electoral system where we are saying, on the one hand, it will reform the way Seanad Éireann is elected but, on the other, behind the backs of our hands, we are saying, "Sure, they will not vote anyway." That is not the way a local authority, a national parliament or the European Parliament would run its electoral system, that is, on the basis that people will not bother to apply.

Senator Higgins raised the 5.3 million figure. Based on the options paper published in the context of extending the franchise in the presidential election, there are 3.2 million people eligible on the Dáil register at present, 1.2 million people who would be eligible in Northern Ireland and just under approximately 900,000 Irish passport holders abroad, which is where the 5.3 million figure comes from. I believe in the idea of giving our diaspora a say in elections in this country. Equally, however, I understand the concerns. Ten of my father's aunts and uncles emigrated to Illinois and I have many second cousins who have never set foot in Ireland but who have Irish passports.

Senator Mullen raised the issue and it is a legitimate concern. That is why Senator Higgins pointed to what is contained in the Bill, namely, the Minister can curtail or sign off on regulations to limit this. However, there is the issue of getting a fail-safe way of clarifying how long a person is living overseas, and perhaps people can self-declare, sign an affidavit or produce some documentation as to place of address.