I welcome the Taoiseach to the House and the large gathering in the Press Gallery.
Seanad Reform: Statements
I come in peace, not war.
Bearing gifts, I hope.
When I addressed the House on the last occasion during the summer, I made the point that the fate of Seanad Éireann rested in the hands of the people. Its fate was decided in the referendum conducted recently. The decision of the people was very clear and brought certainty to the future of the institution. I accepted that verdict and said so publicly. I now want to move on through this process to hear the ideas and propositions of Members on how this House can be made to work as effectively as possible within the process of change in politics we are trying to bring to the country. We will keep it open, transparent and accountable.
I informed the Leader that it was my intention to come to the House to speak with Members and, more important, to listen to them and get their ideas, propositions and plans on how they saw the House operating more effectively in the future, as they were the incumbents. I intend to meet the leaders of the Seanad and the Dáil in the near future to continue this process to make decisions on what is the best thing to do. That is why I felt that before I had that meeting it would be only appropriate that I should come to the Seanad to hear Members' views. I am also aware that in the recent period the House has taken statements on what Members think is appropriate and what might be done. The point was made on that occasion that while it was important and good to have an opportunity to discuss reform in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, it might be more appropriate to come back to it after some time when Senators had had an opportunity to consider the outcome of the referendum and to think a little more clearly and in detail about where the future lay. That is why I am glad to be back.
The two areas to which most references have been made in regard to Seanad reform are the electoral system and the functions that might be assigned to the Upper House. With regard to the electoral system, through a series of reports and, more recently, a number of Bills, various propositions have been put forward on how Senators or candidates for the House might be nominated or selected, who should elect them and how they should be elected. These are now matters of considerable importance in view of the clarity of the decision of the people. As an Oireachtas in the process of political change, both the Dáil and the Seanad need to transform these suggestions and propositions into workable, legally and constitutionally sound proposals. It is not as easy as it might seem, as I am sure Members will discover as they begin to delve deeper into the consequences of some of the proposals made, but I am happy to hear their views on this issue.
I have stated clearly my intention and belief the legislation to give effect to the 1979 decision of the people to extend the Seanad electorate to all graduates should be proceeded with and I would like the input of Members and their advice and views on how this can be achieved. The people have spoken on the matter. They gave their verdict clearly in a referendum and there is no impediment to it being followed through. One can argue the point about whether they spoke in the most recent referendum about the mechanics of how the Seanad in its broader context might work, the electoral system and so on and that is a matter for discussion with the Oireachtas. The decision made by the people guarantees the continuation of Seanad Éireann as an entity under the Constitution. The question for us outside the 1979 decision of the people is how best that might operate.
We also need to examine the functions assigned to the House. In doing so, we have to reflect on the parameters set out in the Constitution within which this House has to operate. How can Seanad Éireann add real value to the work being undertaken by the Dáil and the various committees? The constitutional responsibility to hold the Executive to account is vested in Dáil Éireann under the Constitution, but clearly the people's decision on the Seanad means that we have to devise a situation where this House can contribute more fully and effectively to the work of politics in general. It is timely that the House should look at how we conduct our business and to ask ourselves whether the current processes and procedures are fit for purpose in 2013 and, if not, whether they can be adjusted within the constitutional parameters that apply.
I am aware of the criticism and comment that always follow in respect of the way Dáil Éireann does its business or attempts to do its business. I also intend to continue my discussions with the party leaders in the Dáil on that issue shortly, but that is for a different day. This is an opportunity, therefore, for Members to speak their minds and reflect on what they think is most appropriate for the workings of the House in the future. I do not have any interest in some of the bombastic triumphalism I might have heard in various quarters in the past.
The question was put and the decision made. I have moved on from it. I would like to hear from Seanadóirí in Seanad Éireann about its processes and functions and their ideas, views and proposals. As I said, I come in peace, not war.
I thank the Taoiseach. A number of Senators have indicated that they wish to speak on this very important subject.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Taoiseach ar ais go dtí an Seanad. Tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh sé ar ais go minic tar éis an lá seo. The Taoiseach is never one to engage in bombastic triumphalism and he certainly will not get it from this side of the House. I welcome his open remarks on the potential for the reform of a House that, in his opinion, apparently, three or four weeks ago was unreformable.
I wish to make a couple of brief comments on the campaign. The people rejected the Taoiseach’s proposal. To use his own phrase, Paddy does like to know the story. Paddy knew the story and saw through some of the very cynical and dishonest methods used, in particular by the Fine Gael Party, in the campaign. I will not dwell on it, but I urge the Taoiseach to ensure campaigns in future referendums that he intends to hold will be honest and based on fact.
By way of reform, I ask the Taoiseach to look at the powers of both the Referendum Commission and the Standards in Public Office Commission, particularly the former. Should campaigning and posters be patently incorrect such as the reference to a saving of €20 million, something should be done about it. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, and others kept talking about it, but it was proved to be incorrect. The Referendum Commission had no power to ask any party in the recent referendum to remove incorrect information. I, therefore, ask the Taoiseach to, please, examine the issue. That is all I will say on the campaign because it is done. The Taoiseach will find partners in Fianna Fáil, through me, to assist in the reform of this House.
I was pleased when the Taoiseach mentioned he was talking about the reform of the Oireachtas because the Seanad as an institution has been treated as the sick man of the Oireachtas when patently it is obvious to those of us who have served in both Houses and watch politics that there are major deficiencies in the political processes for successive Governments. I do not lay the blame at the Taoiseach’s door for this. We will engage in a real reform process but one that is more than what has happened in Dáil Éireann. Last Thursday the Government allowed 50 minutes to discuss the issue Dáil reform, which amounted to five minutes per speaker. Government backbenchers were excluded from the debate. I put it to the Taoiseach that if we want reform and to find the best ideas on how to run Parliament, we must be more inclusive than this. Being more inclusive is not coming forward with supposed reforms in the Dáil that are not allowed to be debated. My party had ten minutes to discuss the issue.
Neither is reform about publishing a Social Welfare Bill yesterday evening that will affect hundreds of thousands of people, debating it in the Dáil tomorrow and Friday and then guillotining the debate. People want to see an Oireachtas that works. How could the Oireachtas allow a situation where the primary Chamber for debate, Dáil Éireann, is closed following two days of debate on the Social Welfare Bill? I am pleased to inform the Taoiseach that there will be no use of the guillotine in the Seanad in the debate on the Bill. The Bill will be brought to the House on 5 November. That is the way it should be. We can play a positive role in that regard, as we have done. What irked a number of people was that the perception was that we had, in effect, been sitting around doing nothing for two and a half years, which was not true.
I am pleased the Taoiseach is going to initiate a process whereby we can examine EU directives and statutory instruments. Hundreds of pieces of legislation become law in this country without debate. This Chamber could do such work for the Taoiseach.
I ask the Taoiseach to allow additional time in this House for Private Members’ Bills from individual Senators to be published and debated. We have 12 such Bills ready, but it will take me two years to get them through the House because of the amount of time allocated. That is something we could do. The relaxation of the Whip system could also be examined.
By whom and how the Members of the Seanad are elected is a major issue that requires to be examined. It is not one that can be decided today, but the Taoiseach will find partners among my Fianna Fáil colleagues to move forward with real reforms. I very much welcome his presence in the House today and hope we will see him here more regularly from now on.
The Taoiseach is very welcome to the House. I am delighted that he has taken the time to come to the Seanad to listen to the views of Members on the changes that could be made to enhance the contribution this House could make to the legislative and parliamentary process.
The main business of this House is legislation. That is and must remain our primary function. To date, the Government has initiated more than 40 pieces of legislation in this House, including some of the most important pieces of reforming legislation brought forward by it. It includes the Electoral Amendment (Political Funding) Bill, the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons Bill) 2012 and many other Bills. Extensive, insightful and detailed debates took place on these Bills, not to mention the lengthy debates we had on other Bills such as the ones on taxi regulation, animal welfare and the Gaeltacht, among others. Seanad amendments were accepted by Ministers and many Government amendments were made following the discussions that took place in this House. I have no doubt that the experience and expertise available in the Seanad will continue to be brought to bear on the legislation that will be brought before us in the future.
The purpose of this debate is to move on the process of Seanad reform which must be guided by a roadmap. For me, the question is how that roadmap should be devised, who should devise it and when. A task force on Seanad reform should be led by the Taoiseach's office, with a mix of current Members, academics and experts with an established interest in Seanad reform. The focus of such a task force should be on three areas: first, to examine the reform proposals already before us in various reports, in addition to the recent Bills introduced in the House; second, to receive and consider public submissions; and, third, to examine best practice in other bicameral jurisdictions. The task force should distil these down to a set of recommended reforms and report within three months. Input from members of the public should be facilitated during a four-week window for receipt of submissions. These are some of my suggestions for moving on the process.
The 24th Seanad has initiated its own reforms. The Seanad Public Consultation Committee has facilitated greater engagement by the Seanad with the public, representative groups and professional experts. In addition, we have invited distinguished guests to address the House and inform us on measures that could feed into policy-making and assist in bringing proposals to Ministers and the Government as a whole.
The work of the Oireachtas would be enhanced by having a dedicated committee week, perhaps one week in four. Nothing annoys me more than Members saying they have to attend committee meetings here, there and everywhere, which means that they are not present in the Chamber for the substantive business of the House in plenary session. That would assist the other House, also.
The Order of Business in the Seanad should be more focused and reformed, but that is something we can deal with ourselves.
I suggest also that more reports by the various joint committees be formally referred to this House for examination. The debates on them would preferably be held in the presence of a Minister, but if one was unavailable, the relevant departmental officials could be present to clarify the issues involved and record recommendations made by Members.
This type of focused debate could be of great benefit to the policy-making process. It would not in any way be intended to duplicate the work of committees but to support and enhance that work.
I agree with my colleague at the other side of the House that the scrutiny of EU directives is another area in which the Seanad could play a useful role. Giving the House formal authority to scrutinise all EU directives and other statutory instruments could greatly benefit the Government in identifying the implications for Ireland and any necessary action that should be taken. This would be a significant step in reforming the way business is carried out here.
In reforming the Seanad, we must go about our business in a professional and practical way that best serves the needs of the people who have chosen to put us here. I speak as Leader when I say we are here to work with the Government and use the skills at our disposal. Our fundamental principle of reform must involve ensuring the House is a Seanad of the people. It must represent minorities and other sectors of society that do not secure representation here. It must draw upon experts in various sectors and continue to be the vibrant legislative Chamber that it is.
I welcome the Taoiseach. For some reason, an infamous Irish saying springs to mind: "I would not start from here." However, here is where we are. We have a mandate from the people and I feel the weight of responsibility. What can be done immediately and within existing parameters? I welcome and support the Taoiseach's proposal to introduce legislation to extend the Seanad franchise to graduates of any other institutions of higher education in the State, in line with the 1979 referendum. While the most recent referendum is still fresh in our minds, I ask that we redesign the ballot paper as governed by the Referendum (Amendment) Act 1984. There is definitely scope for us to bring clarity to a question being asked.
I note the Bills on Seanad reform tabled by Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn and Senator John Crown, and I hope we can move soon to consider them in detail. I await the respective Committee Stages to deal with the elements contained therein.
I endorse the calls by the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, for a committee week. These kinds of initiatives could be implemented without delay.
I am concerned that the focus of reform is directed at the Seanad alone as if it operated in a vacuum. We do business in both Houses and need to consider how best we can play to our collective strengths to ensure better outcomes for the people. We should be discussing parliamentary reform. George Bernard Shaw said the best reformers the world had ever seen were those who commenced on themselves. This is a sentiment with which I fully concur.
Often, people are willing to talk about reform in the abstract and in the future. However, we need to talk about it now. This is what I am going to focus on. With regard to Private Members' motions, there has been much public debate on the use of the Whip. However, it is all too often focused on the Government's use of the Whip. My experience and the reality is that the Government and Opposition use the Whip with equal vigour. On many occasions I came into the Chamber for a vote and my colleagues looked puzzled on my asking them what it was about. I call on all parties to start with Private Members' motions. We need to stop automatically following the agenda set by the Lower House. Let us set our own agenda and table motions that are not used to condemn or champion one side or the other. Let us suspend the whip for Private Members' motions. Then each Member would have to reflect and decide on how he feels and what he believes.
The Independent group raised a number of issues in my Private Members' time in order to make progress on them. In October 2011, for example, I secured cross-party support for a Seanad motion on the missing children hotline. The Government kindly gave us time for that debate. This initiative, by the Members of this House who came together, served as the impetus for Ireland's introduction of the missing children hotline.
The Seanad can play a role in dealing with sensitive societal issues using a constructive and robust approach. In October 2011, the Independent group brought forward a motion seeking to criminalise the purchase of sex. The Minister for Justice and Equality initiated consultation. In April 2012, we introduced a follow-up motion in the same issue, as a result of which the Minister called for the justice committee to hold consultations and issue a report. The committee has rightly given considerable consideration to this issue and the recommendations issued in July are in line with the motion we tabled and debated in this House. This is the type of process I would like to see more often. This evening, as the Taoiseach knows, we have a motion on direct provision. We sought to have all-party agreement on it and I thank the Government for not having tabled a counter-motion. It would be great if we could use Private Members' time to allow each Member to bring forward constructive proposals.
The Taoiseach referred to the functions assigned to the Seanad. It should be considered that we could examine top-level appointments, statutory instruments and EU scrutiny. We should utilise the red and yellow cards system that has been given to us through the reforms introduced under the Lisbon treaty. We do not use them adequately.
It takes too long for Bills initiated by Members to be dealt with. We are still waiting to make further progress on the Bill introduced in May 2012 by Senators John Crown, Mark Daly and me in regard to smoking in cars in which there is a child, and we are always told "soon". There is a perception that the only role of the Seanad is the scrutiny of legislation. The assumption derives from outside the House and I challenge it. We have the ability and expertise to initiate constructive legislation. It ought not to be blocked for the sake of blocking. This equally applies to amendments tabled in our scrutinising capacity.
I would like to use my opportunity to voice my concern over the sense of closing down public spaces and opportunities for engagement by civil society organisations. We need to see more heads of Bills being brought to committee. For me, the recent decision by the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges to remove Members' rights to bring in groups and brief colleagues in the AV room highlights my concern. I am thankful that the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges has decided not to be bound by this decision. However, there is increasing public concern. We are willing to engage. I have so much to say. To sum up, let us do what we have been paid to do.
I welcome the Taoiseach. We are very glad to have him here, particularly in a spirit of peace and, I dare say, reconciliation following the very welcome outcome of the referendum. The outcome gives us more than a chance to reform. It was clear from the debate that there is now an imperative for us to reform not only Seanad structures but also, as colleagues have said, Dáil structures. I very much welcome the Taoiseach's comments in that regard.
The reform process is not something we can kick to touch or delay. We must move swiftly on bringing in substantial reforms in light of the referendum result. It would be appropriate to ask the constitutional convention in the longer term to consider constitutional change to the structures of the Seanad but, in the shorter term, we need to move on legislative change without delay. There is fundamental and substantive change that can be made to the Seanad through legislation. We already have a good deal of preparatory work done. There have been a number of reports and two Seanad reform Bills, by Senators John Crown, Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone, are on the Order Paper.
Plenty of work has been done. I endorse entirely Senator Maurice Cummins's calls for a task force on Seanad reform, perhaps led by the Taoiseach's office. It could comprise Seanad representatives on a cross-party basis, along with Deputies and academic experts. I strongly suggest there also be parliamentary draftspersons. Thus, within three months, following some short public consultation, it would report back with an appropriate draft of legislation, perhaps combining the best elements of existing reform proposals.
Having read through existing proposals, there are some obvious reforms we might seek to include in the legislation. I propose four specific changes that I envisage being made through legislation without any undue delay. First, as the Taoiseach announced, we should have legislation on the University Panel in accordance with the 1979 referendum. I suggest there be one panel with six university Senators, the electorate for which would comprise graduates of every third level institution in the State who are Irish citizens. We should retain the current principle that there is not a residency requirement for eligibility to vote on this panel, therefore preserving the principle of representation for citizens resident outside the State.
The second aspect the legislation should address is the composition and electorate for the five vocational panels. There are some very practical suggestions in existing legislation, including the aforementioned Bills. The process for nominating to panels should be altered. This could be done without constitutional change. We could allow, through legislation, for existing nominating bodies to retain power of nomination but we could also allow popular nomination, perhaps by 500 persons, as per the Bill introduced by Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone, and by local authorities.
I do not think we need any sort of judicial assessment to ensure those nominated would be appropriately qualified in accordance with Article 18.7.1. It would be sufficient and far easier to require that those who make the nominations should themselves be satisfied that the persons they nominate are sufficiently qualified. I agree with the proposals in the two existing Bills that the electorate should comprise all of those resident in the jurisdiction, that is, those who are entitled to vote in local elections. This would ensure greater diversity of electorate and, I hope, representation.
I do not think voters should have to opt for one of the five vocational panels. I do not see why we should not have five votes per elector in order that each person would have a vote on each of the five panels. Those qualified to vote on the university panel could opt to vote on that one, instead of one of the other four - most obviously, the education panel.
Is that the Labour Party position?
These are constructive proposals that any task force should consider. It might also be worth considering, in accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution, reservation of one panel for election by councillors to preserve existing links with local government. We should also see provision made for gender balance on the panels.
Third, we might look at the timing of the Seanad election. Clearly, Article 18 sets certain parameters for that, but there is no reason Seanad elections could not be held much closer to Dáil elections to try to break that somewhat inevitable link - I speak as a failed Dáil candidate - between Dáil and Seanad elections.
We need to see legislative change in terms of the functions and work of the Seanad and other colleagues have referred to that already. Some of this can be done through our own internal procedures but we should also be given powers to scrutinise EU legislation, as has been suggested, as well as statutory instruments and high-level appointments. Changes such as these would enhance transparency in our democratic process and provide for greater accountability. In the longer term, we should be prioritising the core constitutional function of the Seanad, as per Article 20 of the Constitution, to initiate and amend legislation. There would be merit in adopting a trimmed down version of the Seanad, with 60 Senators elected in a more democratic way, paid much less and with greatly reduced sitting times, whose key function would be the scrutiny of legislation. In the shorter term, we need to move towards making better use of our existing resources and ensuring that Senators are given the sort of high level tasks that other colleagues and I have set out.
The task force we have recommended should report speedily with proposals for legislation, with some despatch or even some wallop.
When I was running my business, I remember asking a successful businessman what the most important thing was for achieving success. He said, "If the boss thinks it's important." That is why I am delighted the Taoiseach is here today. I know from his being here and words today that he believes it is important to reform the Seanad. His presence today is quite magnanimous and will be of benefit to the reform agenda. Reform is needed to modernise our politics and make the way Ireland is governed much more responsive to the needs of its citizens.
The Taoiseach's decision to come here today is a measure of the man and underlines the dignified manner in which he has accepted the people's verdict. The recent referendum campaign was a worthwhile exercise in so far as it challenged and raised key constitutional issues. Although hard-fought by both sides, the campaign was not personalised. On 4 October, the people voted for a reformed Seanad Éireann. It is now incumbent on all of us in the Oireachtas to ensure we have a national Parliament that is efficient and effective and that will underline better politics. As the Taoiseach acknowledged on the night of the referendum count, the result brought clarity. It brought clarity to the issue of the future of Seanad Éireann and the people, in the Taoiseach's own words, have now undoubtedly "decided and confirmed that the Senate is retained as part of our constitutional institutions". The Taoiseach also pledged, as head of the Government, to reflect on the best way to make the Seanad an effective contributor to the change in politics.
The Taoiseach has my full support in the objective of reforming and improving Seanad Éireann, but this must happen without delay. I was very pleased to see the Taoiseach move so swiftly in the aftermath of the referendum and to give a commitment to introduce legislation to extend the Seanad franchise to all graduates right away. The people voted strongly in favour of this measure in 1979 and it really is an indictment of all Governments since that this sovereign decision was never given effect. It is to the Taoiseach's credit that he is now going to address the issue. However, as he acknowledged himself, this is only a small first step.
Possibly the Seanad's greatest difficulty is that it is perceived as being remote from the public because so few people have a say in its composition. I have been convinced for a long time of the need to open up the Seanad and to give every Irish citizen a vote in Seanad elections. The outcome of the referendum offers the Government a great opportunity to bring about the wholesale reform of the Oireachtas that is so badly needed. We have heard that already today. It would be worthwhile and would make our politics more democratic and more representative if we had a Seanad in which every Irish person had a stake.
The Taoiseach will be aware that Senator Katherine Zappone and I have already brought forward a comprehensive Bill that was passed unanimously to Committee Stage here in Seanad Éireann and is now on the order paper of the Dáil. This legislation offers a credible means to effect a radical transformation of how members of Seanad Éireann are elected and of how the House functions. By means of legislation, which would avoid the need for another costly referendum, this Bill proposes to extend the vote in the elections for Seanad Éireann to everybody on the island, North and South, and to our diaspora abroad. I know that our proposal is not the only reform proposal on the table, but the existence of a number of reform options is not a bad thing. It shows what is possible and demonstrates the commitment and sincerity of those who urge reform.
There are immediate reforms of the business of the Seanad that could be implemented under Standing Orders, particularly the scrutiny of statutory instruments. However, more fundamental reform could be achieved via the changes envisaged in our Bill. Senator JohnCrown has also published a separate Seanad reform Bill which is informed by precisely the same reforming principles as the Bill by Senator Katherine Zappone and me. Both Bills overlap in many respects and both herald major and positive reforms in how the Seanad is elected and operates. The finer technical differences between the two could easily be resolved during a Committee Stage debate. This reinforces the purpose and strength of the Seanad as a forum for reaching consensus.
I was very impressed to hear the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, talk about the task force today. I think everybody must have a stake in a reformed Seanad. Devising reform proposals should not be the sole preserve of the Civil Service or current Members of either House. It should involve a mixture of Members, with academics and other experts, especially those with an established interest in Seanad reform. We must also listen to the voice of the wider public.
Regarding the Bill that Senator Katherine Zappone and I brought forward, it must be stressed that we are in no way proprietorial about the Seanad Bill 2013. If the Taoiseach wished to introduce this legislation in his own name or in the names of Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators in this House, I would be most happy to support it. The most important thing now is that the people get the reformed Seanad for which they voted.
I am convinced that the Taoiseach is in a unique position. He has grabbed hold of this challenge and can now achieve something that many of his predecessors, including Éamon de Valera, were unable to achieve. He can give us a new Seanad and a new Oireachtas that is both effective and robust. I wish him well in that task.
I wish to share time with Senator Hildegarde Naughton.
The 2004 all-party committee which produced a report on Seanad reform found that the exact role of Seanad Éireann was not obvious to the general public and that is probably true. Its primary role is legislative. What goes on in this House is part of the legislative process. Legislation is initiated in the Dáil or the Seanad; it then goes on to the other House and from there to the President. There are three stages in the passage of every Bill, as the Taoiseach well knows. It is very important to bear that in mind. Members of this House are legislators. We have been elected or selected to deal with and enact legislation. It is a primary function which is very important and should not be glossed over. However, there are many other functions that this House can perform. I note from the Taoiseach's contribution that he wants to allow for that, but within the constitutional parameters. I fully support the proposal from the Leader that a task force be developed to examine all aspects of the Seanad electoral process and of how the House performs its duties on a daily basis. That would be a very important step forward because there is a lot of information available and many reports have been published.
The vocational panels and the nomination process are dated and do not suit today’s way thinking or our society. Dáil and Seanad elections could be held on the same day, thereby preventing people from standing for both. Like Senator Ivana Bacik, I stood for the Dáil unsuccessfully and I am now in this House. However, I believe individuals should not run for both.
Enacting the result of the 1979 referendum on the Seanad franchise is very important. Extending the franchise to graduates of all third level institutions would also encompass many of our emigrants, many of whom are in constant touch with Irish society through the Internet and other media. Therefore, they do not see themselves as emigrants in the true sense, rather they see themselves more as being away on a temporary basis.
I thank the Taoiseach for attending the Seanad and look forward to developments on Seanad reform. The 60 Members, both elected and selected, want to contribute and play a role in this process
I welcome the Taoiseach to hear our views on reform of the Upper House. On Friday, 4 October the people voted to retain the Seanad. There is broad agreement in the House that we have a duty to work to reform the House. While not taking from the reform proposals outlined by other Members, I see a role for the Seanad in examining and scrutinising EU legislation before it is passed in the Dáil. There is an ever-increasing amount of EU legislation which has a direct impact on Ireland. The Upper House should allocate two days each month to examine and debate this legislation.
There is also a body of opinion that the Constitution is no longer fit for purpose. Drawn up in 1937, it is no longer representative of our modern society. For example, it contains provisions on the role of women in the home. Today, more women work outside the home for a variety of reasons. The Constitution has a definition of “family”, but it needs to take cognisance of today’s family units which could be made up of a single parent. Property rights, upward-only rent reviews and officeholders' pensions are other issues that need to be reviewed. Rather than changing the Constitution in a piecemeal way by going to the public every few months, the Seanad is in an ideal position to lead the way in drafting a new constitution that would represent a modern republic that would serve the people for the next 70 years. This should be done through extensive public consultation in which the Seanad would sit in various locations across the country to elicit the views of citizens to help shape a new constitution. I see this as building on the good work carried out by the Constitutional Convention, the work of which will expire early next year. The Seanad should have the legal supports necessary to assist Members in the consultation and drafting process. We have a unique opportunity for this House to pave the way in drafting a new constitution.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Taoiseach. Is dóigh liom go dtugann an díospóireacht seo seans dúinn machnamh a dhéanamh ar éifeachtacht agus athchóiriú an tSeanaid. Tugann sé seans dúinn freisin ár dtuairimí a nochtadh i dtreo is go mbeidh tuiscint níos fearr ag an Taoiseach ar na féidearthachtaí atá romhainn anseo.
I compliment the Taoiseach on his gracious contribution. Seanad Éireann should respond with exactly the same spirit. Nothing focuses the mind like knowing one is going to be hanged in the morning. There was an element of this during the referendum campaign. As we waited for a reprieve, it gave us a chance to do some soul-searching. We are not political saints, but neither are we political devils. I would like to think the pendulum is veering towards sainthood. We are having a two-hour debate on Seanad reform. With each speaker having a few minutes, we will not achieve a consensus today on what the reforms should be.
The Taoiseach can be very proud of the Seanad Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, and glad that he is leading this House because he does it so effectively and fairly. He is correct about the roadmap for Seanad reform. I hope we will not have knee-jerk reactions to reform but a methodical approach. There have been various reports during the years on Seanad reform, several of which I contributed to. I am disappointed that having given personal thoughts on reforms these reports are now gathering dust. However, that is not the fault of this House. We brought the ball as far as we could. If we want to develop a partnership with the Taoiseach and his Department to make this House more effective, we need to plan out the steps, even before we get to the shopping list of ideas.
The first step should be to establish an all-party committee, including Independents, to work methodically and in a determined manner on all the Bills and reports on Seanad reform. We must get back to basics. We should not let all of that documentation decide the outcome but, instead, use it as resource material. Even since the last report, society and the world have changed, as well as the economy and the attitude to politicians. The jury is still out to some extent on the public’s attitude to the Seanad. I do not believe we should be triumphalist in any way about the referendum result. The public are still watching to see what we will do next. Senators are hard working. However, the follow-up question is: are we effective? The jury is out on that issue also. If we are not effective, we must ask why. It is not because of a lack of commitment, dedication or time.
One highlight of my time in the Seanad was when the Orange Order addressed the House and engaged with us, breaking an historical mould. That is an example for the Seanad in the future. No Unionists will engage in Dáil Éireann. However, there is no reason they could not engage in this House. The peace process is fragile and worrying. We can see it in the body language of Northern Ireland’s First Minister and Deputy First Minister, with elements of the North’s programme for government being thrown to one side. It would be wonderful if the Seanad could play a role in ensuring we do not go back to the bad old days. I cannot think of any Chamber that is more appropriate for engaging with Unionists.
I believe the Taoiseach is prepared to go on the road of Seanad reform with us. If that is the case, even the referendum and the debate will have been worthwhile.
I welcome the Taoiseach for this important and significant debate. I supported the holding of the referendum on Seanad abolition and welcomed the debate which ensued in the public domain on the future of the Seanad and the wider political system. This debate would not have occurred had we not put a Bill before the people on Seanad abolition. I am very clear the people voted to reform Seanad Éireann and not to have business as usual.
Our job is not just to make Seanad Éireann more effective but to make the political system more effective. There have been numerous reports on reform of the Seanad and Bills proposed, as has been stated. These reports and Bills present a number of options, some of which involve constitutional reform and some of which do not. Most recently, as has been stated, we have had Senator John Crown's Seanad Electoral Reform Bill and the Seanad Bill 2013 sponsored by Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone. Most of the proposals, with the exception of Senator John Crown's Bill, involve the Seanad having additional powers, and I welcome the Taoiseach's comments at the beginning of the debate in this regard. There are many different views in the proposals, some of which require constitutional change and some of which do not. Most support the direct election of Senators. There are many different views on the type of electoral systems we should have, whether constituencies should be geographical or vocational, the application of gender and other quotas and the timing of elections to ensure there is no overlap with Dáil elections. Many of these proposals emanate for very good reasons.
Any reform can be incremental and I understand reform which does not require a constitutional referendum is attractive. If we are to be true to the people's mandate, the way to approach the issue of reform is to decide what type of Seanad we need and want as a nation and then decide on the structure to achieve it. In this context I was struck by the debate on electoral reform which has already taken place at the Constitutional Convention. The holding of the Constitutional Convention was one of the commitments in the programme for Government, as was holding a referendum on Seanad abolition. It is my understanding the Government did not rule out, certainly on reading the programme for Government, the possibility the convention would discuss the abolition of the Seanad. The Constitutional Convention was weakened by not being able to discuss how we elect those who govern us with the broadest possible remit. I do not believe at this point in time we should rule out the immediate transfer of the issue of the Seanad and its future in the political system to the Constitutional Convention.
I was very impressed by the standard of debate at the Constitutional Convention where every strand of society is represented. The debate on political reform which took place, albeit without discussion on the Seanad, has been very critical of the political system. There was a generally expressed view the current political system is dominated to too great an extent by the largest political parties. The convention voted for larger constituencies to ensure a more representative Dáil by a majority of 83% of its members. Clientelism was seen as a distinct feature of Irish politics and members voted that Dáil Éireann should be permitted to appoint non-members of the Oireachtas as Ministers by a majority of 55% to broaden the field of expertise available to the Cabinet. Members of the convention also expressed a majority view that Ministers on their appointments should resign their Dáil seats on the grounds, as expressed in the debate, it would allow them get on with the job and not spend their time fixing potholes and looking after their constituencies. The convention clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the electoral process.
This is terrible. What about the Senator herself?
Reform of the political system should be taken as a whole of which the Seanad is a part as determined by the people in the highest opinion poll possible, a referendum. There is a very meaningful role for the Seanad in considering reform and the critical issues raised by the Constitutional Convention and how they can be addressed. A reformed Seanad should not be clientelist in its nature and the system for electing Senators should take this into account.
One of the main factors which came out of the debate on the abolition of the Seanad related to access to expertise. Any system of electing Senators should reflect the people's desire in this field. We should focus on electing a Seanad which is not parochial in its nature and which brings forward expertise to the greatest possible extent. I do not believe it is good enough to elect people to listen to panels of experts brought in before committees, excepting the role of arbitrator. Senators should be elected as experts. They should be people committed to the electoral system and the people.
The Constitutional Convention has concerns about diversity in Irish politics. Diversity in ensuring representation of minority groups must be a component of any reformed Seanad. In this respect, one group I am particularly concerned about which is not represented in the current Dáil or Seanad are those who suffer from economic disadvantage.
A first step in deciding what type Seanad we want and need should be to decide how the Seanad should look and what it will contribute to the political process. In this regard I ask the Taoiseach to seriously revisit the idea of bringing the Seanad within the overall context of political reform at the Constitutional Convention.
I thank the Taoiseach for taking time out of his schedule to be with us today. His presence demonstrates a willingness to accept the strong voice of the people as expressed at the ballot box in favour of reform. There can be no doubt the people voted for a new and reformed Seanad on October 4. If the previous general election gave the Taoiseach a mandate to hold the Seanad referendum, which has brought clarity on this Chamber's future, the recent referendum gives him a mandate for its comprehensive reform. He now has an opportunity to do, as Senator Feargal Quinn identified, something which no Taoiseach has done since the enactment of Bunreacht na hÉireann more than three quarters of a century ago, namely, to go ahead and deliver substantial Seanad reform. The referendum showed there is a huge appetite for political reform and many people I have met subsequent to the result have told me to get on with reform.
Senator Feargal Quinn and I and our colleagues and volunteers spread throughout the nation are of the firm view our job is only partly done. We did not set out on the referendum campaign journey with the objective of simply winning a referendum. We started out on our journey with the sole objective of achieving Seanad reform. We are still on this path. The first step was to retain the Seanad so it could be reformed, and reformed it must be.
I was delighted to hear in the aftermath of the result the Taoiseach, in accepting the decision of the people, give a strong commitment to reforming the Seanad and making it more fit for purpose. He and many others referred to the many proposals for reform and it is welcome that the Taoiseach is reviewing them. I remind him that Senator Feargal Quinn and I reviewed them following a comprehensive process of public consultation over a lengthy period, and came to the view legislative reform of the Seanad has a chance to incorporate change which will make a significant difference to the Seanad's effectiveness and to democratise the Seanad. Significantly, this can be done all the while avoiding the need for another referendum.
The Bill Senator Feargal Quinn and I sponsored had the input of some eminent well known and respected legal people and should inform our deliberations. It could short-circuit much of the work. I also acknowledge the legislation produced by Senator John Crown which incorporates many of the same key principles for reform and know it will also be a prime resource for the Taoiseach.
It is important none of us is possessive about the reform process. A new Seanad will belong to everyone. I sincerely believe a reformed Seanad must be underpinned by a number of principles and those identified by Senator Maurice Cummins are inspiring and realistically can find a way into legislation. It must be a Seanad of the people which represents minorities of other sections of society. I agree with what Senator Aideen Hayden stated with regard to those who are economically disadvantaged. It must have no element of elitism; let this never be a charge brought again against the Seanad. It must not be an unnecessary blocker or obstacle to legislation and must not merely replicate the role or composition of the Dáil. Some of the reforms before the Taoiseach are able to effect this. These are the principles we need to keep faith with what the people voted for. Equally important, a new Seanad established on these foundations would provide the maximum potential for it being effective. I cannot believe the Taoiseach would not want to settle for anything less because he has already identified this.
The people have spoken and called for reform. Like Senators have said, the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, should lead the reform initiative. I both echo and agree with the Leader and the Deputy Leader's call to establish a task force on Seanad reform that has defined deadlines in order the public can be assured that the reforms that they voted for will happen within a tight timeframe and on schedule. It is in all of our interests that a working group - perhaps made up of senior civil servants and some academic and legal experts - liaises with Senators, with the Office of the Attorney General, to finalise legislation within the coming months, a measure that would significantly advance the process.
The House and the public have a high expectation of reform. The public has voted for fundamental change and I hope and expect that the Taoiseach will respond positively, without delay, to this clarion call. I can assure him of my constructive support in that process.
I welcome the Taoiseach. A number of Senators have referred to EU legislation. I have spent a short number of years in the European Parliament. One of the things that struck me when I returned home was the lack of scrutiny that takes place in Ireland about what happens at European level. It was one of the matters that I raised at a Fine Gael parliamentary meeting about three or four months after entering the Seanad. I want time to be set aside for such scrutiny. I agree with Senator Hildegarde Naughton's suggestion to set aside two days a month and do not believe that it needs to be any longer.
The problem with EU legislative directives is that they are not media friendly and are technical in nature but they are very important. Let me give a simple example. Yesterday the European Parliament in Strasbourg held a major debate on an EU directive on medical devices. One might ask whether we had an input but we did not. Should we have had? Yes, we should because 26,000 people are employed in the industry in this country.
Let me give another example of the medical devices directive that came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children a number of months ago. The committee was asked to rubber-stamp it but during the meeting, I asked whether we had consulted the industry. It turned out that no consultations had taken place, yet we were prepared to rubber-stamp an EU directive. I clearly made my view known to the committee that unless we consulted the industry that we should not approve the directive and, as a result, we did not grant it approval. The industry was consulted and we discovered that it was unhappy with certain aspects of the directive. It is important that we keep track of what happens at European level, especially when 26,000 people are employed in the sector here. That means over 200,000 people are affected, directly and indirectly.
Cross-border health care is another area that I dealt with at European level. A directive on such health care went through in February 2011 and must be transposed into Irish law within the next few months. The directive is very important because it deals with the co-ordination of health care across European countries, especially when a country does not have the necessary expertise. We must make sure that Irish citizens can avail of medical expertise if it is not available here. It is an important directive from Ireland's point of view.
I wish to mention a simple fact. The European Parliament has 20 committees and there is no reason not to set up a structure to monitor their work. A simple way to monitor what happens at European level would be to assign six Senators to monitor two committees each, which would mean ten groups of six people. That would be a simple means of monitoring what is happening at European level.
I also have an issue with the fact that every November the European Commission publishes its programme for the next 12 months. Is the matter discussed in this House? No, it is not. Is it discussed in the other House? No, it is not. I refer to the programme that the Commission has in mind for the following 12 months. We should have a role to play. We could examine the programme, discuss it and focus on particular sections. There were 129 items in the Commission's programme for 2013. Have we discussed any of the items? No, we have not but those issues, before the Commission, are extremely important.
I wish to touch on one other area that we have allowed to lapse in this country. The Law Reform Commission publishes a number of reports but they are left on the shelf. The Seanad could play a very useful role by publicly debating the published reports and ensuring they are followed up. I have published a draft Bill following a Law Reform Commission report on missing persons. Again, the work was parked because the relevant Department did not view the matter as a priority. The Law Reform Commission felt that it was a priority to such an extent that it produced a comprehensive report. The same applies for a number of areas where published reports are left on the shelf. It is time that we moved at a faster pace when dealing with proposals. We have the ability to deal with the available proposals and the Seanad could play a very useful role in the area.
I extend my personal welcome and gratitude to the Taoiseach. He has shown very considerable grace and statesmanship by coming here today and giving Seanad reform top priority so soon after the referendum. I am very grateful to him for doing so. He has also shown great wisdom and judgment in viewing the result of the referendum as a personal mandate to lead, as our leader, the efforts to reform Seanad Éireann and, I hope, institute some wider reforms in the way that the Oireachtas does its business.
Obviously there has been a certain element of repetition during the debate. I am sorry if there has been repetition. We know the core issues. We are concerned about reform in the way that we are elected, how the Seanad does its business, and reform of the business that we actually do.
In terms of the way that we are elected, clearly and in summary, there are three broad approaches. There is an approach that the Taoiseach has outlined, to immediately implement the decision of the people from the seventh amendment of the Constitution referendum of 1979 - one of the most clear cut referendum results that we have ever seen - and to extend the franchise to graduates. It should be noted that if we did that at a stroke we could extend the direct Seanad franchise to one third of the population of the country. As approximately one third of the population will probably qualify as graduates, such a minimal alteration of the current Statute Book would have a hugely democratising effect on the Seanad.
The more ambitious plan - the one on which I personally hope the Taoiseach will keep an open mind - is the plan to extend the vote, through universal suffrage, to every citizen in the country, as per either the Quinn-Zappone Bills or my own legislation. I am sure that there will be other proposals. There may also be a proposal made by the Government parties.
I shall outline the first objection raised to the Bills, namely, that if we do so we will have a mini-Dáil. In truth, that objection must be dissected right now as it is not correct. If the Seanad was elected according to the existing constitutional mandates and through the panels system, it would give us one Chamber that was elected nationally. The people elected to the Seanad would not be the products of local constituency competitions. As such, we would elect people who would bring a different perspective to the body politic, a different set of experiences and a different set of personal and political priorities. As such, dismissing it as a second Dáil or a mini-Dáil is probably not correct.
Second, it is timely that we had the debate at a time when the United States appeared that it might melt down into complete anarchy over a gridlock between the Congress and the Office of the President. The suggestion has been made that if we had a second Dáil-like Chamber elected here, there would also be gridlock. In truth, in the absence of a major constitutional change in the powers of the Seanad, that could not happen because the reality is that the Dáil has the primacy of power. In the relationship between the two Houses this would still be a revising Chamber, but I hope an improving and amending Chamber and very rarely a blocking Chamber whose block could be overcome by the wishes of the more powerful Dáil. That is appropriate. We do not want to set ourselves up for gridlock.
The third argument advanced against the Bills drafted by Senators Feargal Quinn, Katherine Zappone, me and others is on our somewhat more radical proposal to extend the franchise outside of Irish citizens currently resident in the Republic of Ireland to Irish citizens who live abroad, to folks from Northern Ireland and also to legal residents of Ireland who are currently on the rolls for local government elections. The suggestion is sometimes made that perhaps somehow the democratic will of the people who live in the Republic would somehow be overruled or swamped by unrepresentative voices from outside of the jurisdiction. I do not believe that would happen and believe that we would be safer than that.
We also need to make reforms in this House. We need to make reforms ourselves in the way we do our business. We have heard people mention, correctly, the Whip system and the need for more Private Members' time.
As I mentioned previously, we have had that near-death experience. We heard ourselves being asked to walk towards the light. Often that near-death experience makes people change their priorities in life when it happens medically, and I think it should change our political priorities here too. Members who are on panels should realise the constituencies they serve. The expertise they need to acquire is to do with the questions that are of concern to those panels and not those of concern to the mythical Dáil constituencies that they do not have.
I thank the Taoiseach for coming to the House. I hope we will have the opportunity for a chat at some stage about issues relating to Dáil reform. It is probably not the right agenda for today, but I thank him for his concern. I look forward to working with him and hope we will have a chance to have some input into this process.
I welcome the Taoiseach. No more than his county footballers, he has a habit of coming back for more. We welcome the fact that he is in the House to discuss the outcome of the referendum. We appreciate that he has given us two hours of his time for an open and constructive debate. If we had not had a referendum on 4 October, we probably would not be discussing the matter today. The fact is that we did have a referendum and are discussing reform of the House with the Taoiseach of the day in this House. That is good.
As I am probably the fifteenth speaker, I will not go back on many things that have been said already. I will focus on one area, that of committees and their role. When I became a Member two and a half years ago, having spent almost a quarter of a century in local government, I slotted into a system that had been in place for many years. Under the current system a select committee can be set up by the Dáil to deal with particular legislation from which the Members of this House are excluded, despite the fact that it may be discussing a health issue on which Senator John Crown could contribute, a business issue on which Senator Feargal Quinn could contribute or an issue to do with journalism on which my colleague Senator John Whelan could contribute. That system is not using the expertise sent to this House. I ask the Taoiseach to consider abandoning the whole idea of select committees.
Among the proposals for reform of the Dáil under the putative unicameral system, there was a proposal to set up a new system of committees. That system was to have four strategic committees to deal with public accounts, EU scrutiny, finance and social affairs. It was also to have seven other committees. As there is no mention in that system of the role of Senators, we must revisit the issue. The d'Hondt system was mentioned for the selection of chairmen, but again, there was no mention of Senators. If we are to work as a group who, without doubt, have the most recent mandate from the people, we must forget about many of the proposals that were on the table and start afresh. I see great scope for bringing the expertise of this House to the whole committee system. I should say also that in my limited experience of two and a half years, committees produce reports that go nowhere. We spend days and days downstairs in committee rooms and at the end of the process we do not see any outcome.
The primary purpose of this House and the Dáil is to legislate. I suggest putting all the expertise in this and the Lower House to work to increase the volume of legislation going through both Houses to ensure better outcomes for the people. If the referendum process achieves that it will have done much. It will incorporate the Members of this House who are expert in particular areas and increase the volume of legislation. Of course we can deal with EU scrutiny. I spent six years on the committee of the regions examining EU legislation pertaining to local government. However, the wider area mentioned by Senator Colm Burke, which is extremely important, is passing is by. Members are available and willing to do it. We all have expertise in certain areas.
Again, I thank the Taoiseach for coming in. It is appreciated. I hope we can move forward.
Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Taoiseach. Is breá an rud é go bhfuil na ceisteanna seo á bplé againn. Glacann muid ar fad leis go dteastaíonn athchóiriú agus leasú ó thaobh an tSeanaid de. Sílim nach fiú tráithnín an leasú sin muna dtugtar cothrom na féinne do gach saoránach má tá céim acu nó nach bhfuil; má tá said dubh, bán nó dath éigin eile; nó má tá airgead ina bpócaí nó nach bhfuil.
Níor chuala mé éinne eile ag caint faoi úsáid na Gaeilge sna Tithe seo. Tá sé fíorthábhachtach stádas na Gaeilge a choinneáil tríd an teanga a úsáid. Déanann an Taoiseach é sin, chun a cheart a thabhairt dó. Caithfear a rá, áfach, go bhfuil céimeanna tógtha ag an Rialtas le stádas na Gaeilge a laghdú ó thaobh Billí a fhoilsiú go comhuaineach, srl. Ba mhaith liom sa phlé seo go gcuirfear an teanga ar ais sa riocht céanna agus a bhí sí agus ba chóir di a bheith.
Any attempt at reforming the Seanad would be a sham and a scam unless it recognised the idea of universal suffrage to remove the elitism that has been mentioned. Whether one has money in one's pocket, whether one has a degree or whether one is black, white or any other colour, every citizen should be treated equally and talk of reform without taking that on board is not reform at all.
The current economic crisis has brought to the fore the gaps and failures inherent in the political system. That this should be the case is an extremely serious situation and one that any mature democracy would seek to address with the utmost urgency. As we speak, many people have lost faith in politicians. The political establishment is viewed as uncaring, dysfunctional, elitist and untrustworthy. For many, the political system is seen, with disdain, to be removed from the reality of their everyday lives. The dominant perception is that it is incapable of solving our present difficulties or delivering for ordinary people. This is a shocking indictment of all of us who call ourselves politicians. Let us be honest. That this should be the case is no news to us. This has been the position for some time, yet this and previous Governments have failed to act to rectify it.
Ireland has one of the most centralised systems of government in Europe. With exceptionally weak local government, the institutional apparatus of government at every level is a throwback to another era, to a time when we were under the foot of a colonial power. In the decades since Independence we have failed to develop and create a political structure and system that is capable of evolving with the uniqueness of Irish society. We failed to recognise that the work of nation-building is an ongoing process that evolves over time and that modern flexible political institutions are central to this task.
In the Ireland of today, power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive and the two Houses of the Oireachtas, which are not fit for purpose in 21st-century Ireland. To make matters worse, the Oireachtas lacks serious political oversight, scrutiny or democratic accountability. This has created an urgent need for real and genuine reform of our politics, the political system and its institutions.
Sinn Féin's proposals for reform are based on the party's objective of building a new republic on this island based on equality and social justice. Sinn Féin would extend the right to vote in presidential elections to citizens in the North and those living and working abroad. We call on the Government to implement the Good Friday Agreement commitment of an all-Ireland civic and consultative forum as a new model of participatory engagement which informs the development of public policy and law-making. Sinn Féin also calls for a real debate on reform of the Seanad and possibly extending the remit of the Constitutional Convention, as has been suggested, to look at that issue. We call on the Government to give a commitment to introduce a comprehensive programme of political reform of our entire system, but such reform must be genuine. It must guarantee better democratic representation for traditionally excluded groups such as women, the unemployed, ethnic minorities, Travellers, the disabled and people from working-class communities. We must have better oversight and accountability for all organs of Government. We need better local government and better governance. On the latter, we can begin by capping ministerial salaries at €100,000 and Deputies' salaries at €75,000. We should also scrap freedom of information fees and allow the public to scrutinise public records.
We cannot afford to delay root and branch reform any longer.
We have also made a number of other suggestions in our reform document, which I am sure Members have all read. One of these concerns the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. We also propose extending the right to vote in presidential elections to all citizens, reducing the voting age to 16, establishment of an independent electoral commission to oversee elections and the introduction of a partial list system for Dáil elections to ensure diversity of representation. We would like to see the Opposition permitted to introduce money Bills in the Dáil, to see a new select committee of Opposition leaders established to scrutinise the Department of the Taoiseach and the end of the use of the guillotine.
Go pearsanta, ba mhaith liom go dtabharfaí ar ais an toghchán go dtí bord Údarás na Gaeltachta chun an daonlathas a chaomhnú ansin. Táim cinnte go dtógfaidh an Taoiseach na smaointe seo ar bord. Táim an-bhuíoch dó faoi éisteacht a thabhairt dom.
I join others in welcoming the Taoiseach to the Seanad and thank him for giving of his time today. We are particularly happy to have him here after our near-death experience. I believe he should be congratulated for being the first Taoiseach to grasp the nettle of political reform and tackle the issue head on with a referendum which was always going to be divisive. He promised he would put the question to the people and followed through on that promise. By doing so, he has started a meaningful national conversation on political reform.
The suggestion of referring the issue of Seanad reform to the Constitutional Convention, of which I am a member nominated by the Taoiseach, is flawed as the current remit of the convention is to report to the Government to help it to decide whether certain issues should be put to the people by way of referendum. Therefore, that is a redundant suggestion under the current remit of the convention.
Two weeks ago, I was happy to see the Taoiseach act decisively and immediately on the issue of the Seanad, by starting the process of implementing the will of the people as set forth in the 1979 referendum on third level voting rights for the Seanad. Successive Governments passively reinforced the status quo and actively ignored political reform. Like it or not, in two and a half years, the current Government has undertaken more political reform across the board than previous Governments over many years, in terms of wages, gender quotas, local government reform, reducing the number of Ministers of State and more.
When considering Seanad reform, we must talk about political reform generally. Financial political reform is important in this context, but there has not been significant focus on this area in the debate to date. We need to assert certain facts. The Taoiseach is now paid 47% less than former Taoisigh Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen were paid at the peak. During Fianna Fáil's time in government, the Taoiseach's salary increased by 105%, while under the current Taoiseach's leadership it has decreased. During the same period, Ministers' salaries increased by 94%, but these salaries have decreased by 26% in the lifetime of the Fine Gael-Labour Party coalition. This is the kind of reform that is most relevant in today's financially strapped Ireland.
As I said, two weeks ago I was happy to see the Taoiseach had seized the initiative and started the ball rolling on Seanad reform. Now we must discuss the next steps and whether we want to reform the panel system. I am interested in the comments of other Senators on reform, but the panel issue is a huge debate in itself. If we want to reform that system, what scale of reform do we wish to see? At the very least, I think it is time to reconfigure the focus and outlook of some of the panels or to divide them more finely. A cultural panel, an NGO panel and a technical panel could, for example, be panels that would allow the Seanad acquire an expertise it otherwise might not have. I would have no difficulty with voting for these panels being opened up to the voting public, but it seems we are constrained by the Constitution in this regard. We need to think about what kind of panel system would give us an outcome where Senators, like some of the current Taoiseach's nominees, could be elected. Subsequently, if the change in panels took place, we could then consider scaling back the number of Taoiseach's nominees in a renewed Seanad.
Besides electoral reform and access to the Seanad, we need to reform the way we do our daily business. Most Senators have put forward various ideas on this front. We need to review the Order of Business, the scrutiny of EU legislation and the scrutiny of our own legislation as there has been a reduction in the amount of legislation coming before the House. This is regrettable and needs attention. As other Senators have mentioned, dealing with legislation is the primary purpose of the Seanad.
I welcome the Seanad reform set forth so far and welcome the implementation of the decision taken by 91% of the people in the 1979 referendum. I welcome the presence of the Taoiseach as we debate what steps to take next as we seek to reform the Seanad in a meaningful way.
I welcome the Taoiseach. It is good to have the opportunity to make a few brief points. Over the years, it has been the Taoiseach of the day who has prevented this House from performing to its potential. There is no question but that most of the blame in this regard lies with Fianna Fáil, having been in government for most of that time. It is a unique occasion for the Taoiseach to be here and it is unprecedented in my time for a Taoiseach to give two hours to a debate on this issue here. As someone who often subjected the Taoiseach to intemperate criticism throughout the debate on the referendum, I wholeheartedly apologise for any offence that may have been taken, although I am sure none was.
I do not want to repeat the issues mentioned by many people, apart from supporting a broader reform agenda. I support the Leader's suggestion in terms of taking a broader look at what is possible and what should be done. I have a few suggestions with regard to changes that can be made immediately. It would be a pioneering change to relax the Whip in this House. While this would pose a challenge to all parties, it would be a good change to make.
This House should also be involved in greater scrutiny of EU legislation, particularly in view of the opportunity afforded to parliaments now as a result of the Lisbon treaty to take a view on legislation at the embryonic stage. Ireland has only taken that opportunity once out of some 180 pieces of legislation and some 480 submissions made by other EU parliaments. This House could be and ought to be involved in that. There is no reason it cannot. I urge the Taoiseach to be the first Taoiseach to allow this House perform to its potential. He has a great Leader of the House and I have no doubt that in addition to the measures he has already introduced to increase the relevance and operating efficiency of this House, he should be allowed to do this. That would serve the country well. There are 67 pages of proposed legislation on the EU Commission's legislative programme. The set piece is that the civil servants here agree with the civil servants there and then all of a sudden we have a directive to transpose, which we can do little about in terms of what it will do in legislation. Let the Seanad take on this scrutiny.
The scrutiny of all public appointments is something the Seanad could embrace and this should be done. In regard to the broader reform agenda, we in Ireland have a great sense of community, but we have no sense of State. We have no sense of State because the people cannot identify with the national policy platform forum because their representatives in the Dáil or the Seanad are strangled by the Whip system, where Parliament is subservient to the Taoiseach and Executive of the day. This needs to change. Today is not the day for that, but that should be debated.
The Taoiseach has a great opportunity. Everybody in this House would support his endeavours to allow reform happen. No previous Taoiseach has been prepared to make reforms.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Taoiseach as teacht isteach sa Teach inniu. I am grateful the Taoiseach has come to the House.
One issue in regard to the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad rankles with me, namely, the position of the universities in society. Unintentionally perhaps, during the referendum the idea was put about that graduates of our main public universities were somehow part of an elite. I would like to think that higher education should be an aspiration for all. As we go through with the Taoiseach's commitment to extend the vote, as enunciated in the referendum in 1979, as a first step in the reform process, the idea should be put out that we value our universities and institutions of higher education and see third level education as an aspiration for all of our citizens and not just for an elite. It is something that should be an aspiration for everybody.
We need to look at universities and their position, both in Ireland and throughout the world, and to place even greater emphasis on them as central drivers of the future development of the country and the economy.
I, too, welcome the Taoiseach and thank him for giving of his time to debate the issue of Seanad reform.
Prior to and since the referendum I looked at proposals for parliamentary reform, applicable reforms in other jurisdictions and have engaged with various groups and individuals on the issue. We all agree that we have much on our plate and plenty of choices in terms of the avenue on which we want to proceed. I, too, welcome the Taoiseach's words following the referendum, recognising that we need political reform right across the board. His statement that he will extend the franchise to all graduates of third level institutions is important and will go some way towards reducing the perception of elitism.
Many of the Senators present are on the same page and have spoken about how we could reform the Seanad. I will speak a little about reforming the Chamber. As stated previously, this issue should be brought to the Constitutional Convention at the earliest opportunity. Like many other Senators, I have been involved in all of its debates and its reflections and discussions would certainly bring us a long way in discussing the issue.
One of the misconceptions that I come across, both at the Constitutional Convention and in meeting people in my own area in County Louth, concerns the lack of clarity about what Senators do. This was one of the big issues that I came across before the referendum. There is plenty of scope for discussion in this regard. As I said, it is welcome that this is the start of the discussion of what we could do and to show the worth of the work we do in this House.
I propose that an independent commission, committee or forum be set up to bring together all of the relevant proposed reforms, as well as to discuss possible new ways of reforming the House. It is important that this commission, committee, forum remain independent and that there not be any political influence in its decisions.
My honest assessment of parliamentary democracy is that the Lower House would not easily relinquish its control or power to the Upper House if it thought it would adversely affect its authority. That is why I urge the Taoiseach and other Members to push for an independent set of proposals to be put to the Houses for consideration. In order to have a successful democracy as envisioned in the Constitution, we need to give the Seanad powers to delay legislation and for it to be devoid of political influence in order to have true checks and balances to the Dáil and the Government.
Whatever path of reform is chosen, we must recognise that, in order for it to be seen as viable, this House must provide for some form of democratic representation. We must better define the role of Senators and better harness the expertise of Senators who come from various backgrounds and professions. I wholeheartedly agree that it is very important to do this. We must be a voice for those who have no voice and take the calculated step of providing for the representation of minorities in the State, as well as a section of the Irish Diaspora.
The business of the Seanad should be more rigorous to avoid the perception of it being a talking shop, as was bandied about before the referendum when, in fact, many of the debates held were constructive and helpful. We need to bring forward more legislation and push to have scrutiny of EU legislation take place in this House. We also need to have MEPs address the House more regularly. This practice has been introduced in recent months and it is important that we continue it. We need to provide value for money for the taxpayer and with these reforms, in conjunction with others, we could do so. Senators on both sides of the House will agree that we need to be our own advocates on the issue of reform. The push to have things done must come from us. We should see this as an opportunity to set aside political alignments and work together to do what is best for this House and the people. We should allow decisions on reform to be conducted independently and work towards securing an independent opinion and assessment, but we need to do this now.
First, I congratulate the Taoiseach on his political and personal integrity, as witnessed throughout the entire referendum process. I include the Leader of the House in the congratulations. I use the word "integrity" wisely because it is difficult to take a difficult position. It is also difficult to hold on to a difficult position, especially on the abolition of this House.
I knew when the Taoiseach was appointing me that this was his position. Nobody had any doubt about it. Nobody across all parties had any doubt about it and nobody was surprised. Therefore, we all knew what was going to happen.
The people voted to retain the Seanad. The "No" vote was 20.2%, while the "Yes" vote was 18.6%, giving a margin for retention of the Seanad of 3.4%. Did we win well?
A win is a win.
Let me finish.
It was democracy.
Did we win well-----
It was the will of the people.
-----or did we just get across the line? We need to ask ourselves that question. The people decided and they are sacrosanct. It does not take, however, from the integrity of the Taoiseach in the way he handled defeat, nor does it take from the reason he put the question to the people in the first place, which is what he said he would do.
Among all the other reforms proposed, I suggest one. With the Taoiseach's nominees, Senators Fiach MacConghail, Mary Ann O'Brien, Katherine Zappone, Jillian van Turnhout, Eamonn Coghlan and Martin McAleese, whom I congratulate, I went into a room and imagined, articulated and developed the idea of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee which, thanks to the Leader, was brought to the House and delivered on. As one of the Taoiseach's nominees, I want it to be continued. I also want to take up the Taoiseach's idea of a task force on Seanad reform of outside vested interests to fuel our reforms.
I wish to share two minutes of my time with Senator Pat O'Neill.
Ba mhaith liom míle buíochas a ghabháil leis an Taoiseach agus é i láthair sa Teach seo inniu. Nil mórán le rá agam chun cur leis an moladh atá curtha chun cinn ag an Seanadóir MacSharry. Ní fhéadfainn é a rá níos fearr ná mar a dúirt an Seanadóir é. Praise from the Opposition, when it comes, is real.
I thank the Taoiseach. As Senator Marie Louise O'Donnell said, we all knew what we were letting ourselves in for. We all knew that he would put the issue to the people and he was true to his word. I thank him for coming and being the first Taoiseach to instigate a debate on reform of the House which is what people have spoken about. The word that was used most in the debate was - I will say it in Irish for Senator Trevor Ó Clothartaigh - athchóiriú or reform. That is where we are headed.
I had the phrase "citizen involvement" written down. It would be an innovative step. We must include all of society in devising legislation in this House. A system of participative democracy and budgeting could be used in this House.
The committees are not working. I refer to the issue of Dáil and committee reform. On the select committees, I go along with what Senator Denis Landy said.
Do they work? Will we get the best expertise if we hold on to the old system? I do not believe we will. That system must change completely and must use the expertise in both Houses. In this House - not only among the Independent Senators - there are lawyers, teachers, entrepreneurs and business people, on both the Taoiseach's side and on the other side. In reference to the Independent Senators, every Senator should be on a level pegging in respect of research assistants, whether these are part time or full time. Let them choose where they want to go or what they want to do. Research assistants are invaluable and the Independent Senators have them in abundance. We have research assistants within the party and we have secretarial assistants. The relevant new Bill on vouched expenses was published today.
Senator Catherine Noone mentioned all the changes the Government has made since coming to office in respect of the Taoiseach's salary and ministerial salaries and cuts. I refer to corporate responsibility and Executive power. We in the Seanad should look at where the buck stops. Too often people hide behind the Department, asking who is in the Department and who is the Minister? There should be corporate responsibility within the Seanad to look at that and there is expertise here to do so.
I refer to innovative ideas-----
I must call Senator Pat O'Neill.
We should scrap the Order of Business.
The Taoiseach is very welcome. I thank Senator Cáit Keane for sharing time.
Much has been said on this matter. One thing we can say about the Taoiseach is that he is reforming and that his is a reforming Government. The result arrived at on 5 October has given a mandate to this House and to the Oireachtas as a whole to reform because it is in the people's interest for us to ensure this House works in a better manner.
Many Senators have made points; I will not go over old ground. The reforms I raise concern the way this House is elected and the way it does its business. I would welcome a task force on the first issue. The Leader has introduced reforms and we can continue doing so. I welcome what the Independent Senators have done in respect of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee. An example from the present term was shown during the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill when the health committee brought in experts. The Seanad could do this, perhaps once a month, pick a subject and bring in experts over six months, and then bring a Bill, first to this House and pass it on to the Dáil. An example to be considered might be the issue of ethnic minorities or religious minorities. We could discuss with the people involved how they are being treated in this country. If we believe legislation is needed as a consequence we could bring it to the House.
The Taoiseach said he comes in peace; we say, "How".
I welcome the Taoiseach and thank him for his graciousness. We all came to the Seanad after 2008 to try to help this country to get back from the dreadful situation it faced. The Leader has implemented many reforms, inviting Nobel prize winners, the Orange Order, all the Irish MEPs, people from the United Nations and a European Commissioner. There has been reform and I hope the Taoiseach will appreciate and acknowledge this, as he too is a reformer. We have proposed 550 amendments - this is the hard slog that does not feature in newspapers. Some Ministers are willing to take them; some Ministers of State are not. I do not know if it is that they are afraid they will run the wrath of both the senior civil servants and the Minister when they go back to their Department. Where Ministers are willing to engage, however, we have done most useful work.
Parliament in Ireland needs to be strengthened. It has a great tradition. Burke, Grattan, Butt, Parnell, O'Connell and Redmond were never Ministers but they were great parliamentarians. Parliament has been downgraded in the Irish system. The Executive is too powerful and so is the permanent Civil Service vis-à-vis the Executive. We need more Parliament. The ideas in this House are extremely good. There was the statement by JFK, in which the President said he felt that Leinster House did not inspire the brightest ideas. In my two years in this House I have found it does inspire the brightest ideas. As Keynes said, in the end ideas are more powerful than vested interests. We have not taken on the vested interests. I have introduced Bills to deal with banking but there are the bankers, builders, accountants who prepared accounts for firms that proved to be fictitious, and auditors. We need much more accountability in Irish society and that is why the Taoiseach needs this House to assist him in that vital reform.
We must also look at what was termed "elitism" during the campaign. As the Taoiseach knows, 70% of school-leavers go on to third level and among the under 35 age-group about half the population has done so. The 1% posters that were around during the referendum campaign, which were not the Taoiseach's, were completely inaccurate. The two university constituencies we inherited have played a most valuable role. In my case, a Senator who was both a predecessor and a friend, Trevor West, had an ability to relate to people in Northern Ireland which was absolutely crucial. I have tried to follow in those footsteps. Some 96% of Presbyterians on the island do not live in this jurisdiction; nor do approximately 66% of members of the Church of Ireland. It was vital for us to keep open the Northern Ireland links. These were threatened during the referendum campaign, as the Taoiseach knows, and would have been a serious loss had this happened.
I can bring to the House the wisdom - or the lack of it - of 64 academic departments. We need that. I see all sorts of legislation on health insurance, buses----
I understand the Senator is sharing time.
If I may, I would like to share one minute. That expertise is valuable. It should be brought here and we should take account of it. We should take account of minorities and we should increase accountability. We might look to the cultural and educational panel, which I believe accounts for eight Senators, to see whether a new constituency can be fitted in there that would represent the third level sector, as befits a society where 70% of school-leavers participate in same.
I thank the Taoiseach for attending.
The Taoiseach is very welcome. I have two brief points. On 26 September Senators Paul Bradford and David Norris and I tabled a motion on the Order Paper that in the event of a rejection of the proposed abolition of Seanad Éireann, a committee that was representative of all parties and groups would be established to prepare and bring forward proposals for political and electoral reform. It was to include the provision that all citizens of voting age would be eligible to vote in elections to Seanad Éireann and the report of such proposals was to be laid before this House no later than 20 February 2014. That ties in with what many other people have proposed here today.
I have a number of requests. The first is that written submissions be invited from all Members and from members of the public, within one month. These should be based on clear terms of reference and in report form would inform future legislation. My second request is that the Whip should be relaxed and that there should be more policy and less politics in this House. That would allow for more critical thinking, in particular on matters of conscience. We have seen how important that is.
I have a question for the Taoiseach. In his opening statement, he mentioned that we should consider how the Seanad might give real value to work undertaken by the Dáil. In that context, did the Taoiseach, when he appointed his 11 nominees, give consideration to appointing a Seanad Member to the Cabinet, in view of current needs, for example, in the areas of banking or health administration? I would like to have an answer to that question.
It is a bit late now.
Expertise is always valuable.
Senator Terry Leyden has two minutes. Will he give one minute to Senator Marie Moloney?
I thank the Cathaoirleach for his unfailing courtesy at all times. I welcome the Taoiseach back to the Seanad. Since he last spoke on 26 June, the people have spoken. That was on 4 October and now it is our duty to reform this House of the Oireachtas, as the Taoiseach noted. On Thursday, 5 July 1979, the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Election of Members of Seanad Éireann by Institutions of Higher Education) Bill was passed by 550,000 votes to 45,000 and was signed by the President in August 1979. That was 34 years ago but no Government has brought about the reforms required. The Taoiseach and I are the only Members of the Oireachtas who were Deputies on that day. Obviously we did not do much about it but we can make amends.
I wish to announce I have published a Seanad Bill, namely, the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill 2013. The Taoiseach and I should work together to bring about this Bill, given that we are the last-----
(Interruptions).
This is a solo run.
I thank those who have worked on the Bill. The timing is impeccable. The Bill was published today and I will hand the Taoiseach a copy when I finish my few words. I agree with Senator Thomas Byrne. This will give more than 500,000 Irish people a vote in elections to this House, which is an amazing step forward and an amazing reform on its own. It is not enough, however. I hope a group will consider complete reform of the House.
I hope the Taoiseach will return to the Chamber on a regular basis. He should consider the report compiled by Mary O'Rourke, the current Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, John Dardis and Joe O'Toole. The latter would provide a very good start in studying how the Seanad might be reformed.
I welcome the Taoiseach. I will be brief, particularly as everything I wished to say has already been said by other Senators. The Taoiseach asked us not to bask in the glory of the referendum result. How can we bask in that glory when 60% of the electorate are completely disengaged from the process? That has been the position in respect not just of the recent referendum but also of those that preceded it. I am of the view that a quorum should be necessary for referendums because the small numbers who vote in them can change the Constitution. Perhaps the Constitutional Convention might consider the establishment of quorums for referendums.
There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer, namely, the Taoiseach's nominees. We are lucky in that those nominated to serve in this Seanad are very good people. These individuals have voted independently, which is great. In the past, however, the nominees always ensured that the Government of the day would have a majority in the House and would dictate what happened here. There should not be any nominee. All Members should be obliged to gain election to the Seanad. Each constituency should elect one Senator to the House and a further 20 should come from the various panels. It is purely coincidental - we were all elected - but in the constituency in which I live, there are more Senators than Deputies.
We know who gets the work done.
(Interruptions).
The Senator should conclude.
The Whip should be removed in respect of Private Members' motions, in particular. Many Senators, including me, have been obliged to sit here frustrated because we were obliged by our party Whips to vote against good Private Members' motions. I ask the Taoiseach to ensure the Whip relating to such motions be removed in order that we might achieve cross-party agreement on many worthy issues.
When winding up our debate prior to the referendum, I said it was over to the people. The people have spoken. Some 24 Senators spoke during this debate and a further 20 indicated a desire to contribute. Three Bills on this matter have been published, the most recent by Senator Leyden.
I do not need to labour the point now that a reflection has taken place and a number of propositions have been put forward by Senators on all sides. I value those propositions.
What is the mark of a good day in the Seanad? Is it the ritual row in the morning on the Order of Business? Is it getting one's name mentioned in the media? Is it the sense of achievement on the passing of a Bill? Is it the real engagement that occurs on Committee Stage or one's contribution to the analysis? Is it the attendance of some individual to address the House on a matter of national or international significance?
I wish to comment on the views which came across in respect of the three issues on which we reflected earlier, namely, reform of the Seanad electoral system, reform of the functions of the Seanad and reform of procedural and other matters. The Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann allow Senators to carry out elements of this reform themselves by means of agreement. When we consider what the Seanad does - particularly in the context of the issues to which I refer - it is important to consider the broader headlines relating to an analysis of the reports complied in respect of the House over the years. Those headlines show that it is not easy to achieve consensus among the Members of this House or in the wider Oireachtas about what is needed. For example, with regard to the size and composition of the Seanad, the O'Rourke report of 2004 recommended increasing the membership of the House to 65, with 32 directly elected and 20 indirectly elected Senators and 12 Taoiseach's nominees. The policy document produced by the Fianna Fáil Party this year advocates reducing the membership of the House to 51, with 40 Senators to be directly elected, a further eight to be nominated by the Government with the approval of the Dáil and the remaining three to be directly elected from Northern Ireland.
In the context of elections, in 1967 the Committee on the Constitution stated that there should not be direct elections and that Senators should neither be elected on a geographic basis nor on the basis of party representation in the Dáil. The O'Keeffe report of 1997 indicated that there should be a mix of directly and indirectly elected Members, with 21 directly elected - 15 from the European Parliament constituencies and six from single-seat higher education constituencies - and 28 indirectly elected,14 by the incoming Members of the new Dáil and 14 by county councillors. The Lenihan report of 2002 stated that 48 of the 60 seats should be filled by means of the proportional representation-single transferable vote system from a national list, that the university seats should be abolished and that the Taoiseach should nominate eight Senators and four others - in a procedure to be specified in law - to represent citizens in Northern Ireland. The O'Rourke report also advocated a mix of directly and indirectly elected Members, with 32 directly elected - 26 through a national constituency under a PR system and six from a higher education constituency under a PR-STV system - and 20 indirectly elected, through a national constituency, by county councillors, Deputies and Senators under a PR-STV system. The O'Rourke report also stated that the electorate should comprise all those entitled to vote at Dáil general elections, excluding those who had chosen to exercise their franchise in the higher education elections and those entitled to vote in indirect elections. The Gormley report of 2009 stated that there should be direct elections and that these should take place on the basis of a sectoral panel system, with citizens in 32 counties over the age of 16 years and those resident here for more than five years entitled to vote. Senator John Crown's Bill on this matter advocates that the electorate should comprise those eligible to vote in local elections and citizens living abroad. The Zappone-Quinn Bill advocates that it should comprise those eligible to vote in Dáil, European and local elections, Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, Irish passport holders abroad and graduates of all higher education institutions. The Fianna Fáil policy document to which I referred earlier advocates that 40 Senators be elected directly, ten from each of the four European Parliament constituencies, and that the electorate should comprise all registered voters and the diaspora, as defined by the Constitutional Convention. A Green Party document produced earlier this year advocates that the Seanad should be elected by the people and that the franchise should be extended to the general public.
These are just a number of the issues raised in respect of elections. The reports, documents and Bills to which I refer also make observations on the term of life of the House, the timing of elections, the powers of the Chair and matters such as reform, functions and procedures. This is a matter in respect of which it is not really possible to obtain a quick and consensual response.
I do not want to deal with all of the individual contributions made. However, a number of underlying themes marked the debate. I refer, for example, to the scrutiny of EU directives and regulations. There is a river of information moving through the European arena all the time. The directives and regulations in question must be agreed by the participating countries. On one occasion when Ireland held the Presidency of the EU in the 1990s, I recall spending 17 hours at a trade meeting called to resolve a row between two countries in respect of where tractors were being manufactured. The contrived basis for the row related to the coefficient of rubber in the bumpers of the said tractors. One can be obliged to consider issues which emanate from the European Commission and the European Parliament in minute and complicated detail. Of course, we have an all-party Oireachtas committee which deals with European matters. The Seanad can, quite rightly, reflect on such matters now and those Senators who are committee members can carry its views to their committees. I note that the House is due to discuss a motion relating to this matter in the coming days. I must inform Senators that, as far as I can ascertain, very few if any of the propositions put forward in the past in respect of legislative change and reform have actually been followed through in terms of an analysis of what they mean from a legislative and constitutional perspective and how, in the context of how the Seanad is actually set up, they might work.
What I intend to do now is proceed as I have said. I will discuss with the party leaders in the Dáil the concept of Seanad reform as part of the process of political reform.
We need to engage further on this isue. The question of a task force has also been mentioned. There is so much information available that it is necessary to have some structure by which it can be crystallised into coherent sections on which people can make their views known in order that we can follow through.
There were a number of valid suggestions. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames raised the question of me reflecting on Members who were nominated under the rule that applies, whereby the Taoiseach makes nominations to the Seanad. I remind the esteemed Senator that any one of the 60 Members is entitled to be considered for a nomination to serve in the Cabinet, even her. That is a constitutional facility.
Has Paddy Power opened a book on it?
Senator terry Leyden has made that request on more than one occasion. I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to come here. I have taken notes on everyone's comments. We will proceed from here and engage with the party leaders in the House as part of the process of Dáil change. I would like to be able to reflect on a good day in the Senate, which should mean in the future that Senators elected and appointed will work diligently and assiduously in the interests of a reformed and revamped Senate, where they can feel part of the process of political change in the country so that their contributions here do not go off into the ether and gather dust. Let us suspend proceedings and I will take the comments in the knowledge that they were given from the perspective of Senators in the best interest of change in the Seanad. We will see how best we can put this into the mix for the future.
I received Senator Terry Leyden's Bill, but I have not yet had time to read it. It concerns the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill. The Senator signed the Bill for me and, in time to come, it will be a record of authenticity of at least one Senator who put his words where his mouth was.