Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Political reform is on the agenda and there has been extensive discussion on the topic in the context of the programme for Government. It also received considerable attention at the Constitutional Convention and there was an appetite among its citizen members for reform. Political reform has to lead to greater democracy, accountability and transparency. However, these principles have been getting a knocking recently.

I acknowledge the work the Seanad has done to date in scrutinising legislation. The perspectives of Senators have added to the legislative process and debates and Senators have produced worthwhile amendments. I also acknowledge that the Seanad has a higher proportion of women than the Lower House. I pay a particular tribute to the work done by Senator David Norris in initiating the first debates on AIDS, introducing the civil partnership legislation, bringing about a change to the law on homosexuality and calling for a committee of inquiry into the use of Shannon Airport for rendition flights. The Seanad introduced resolutions against cluster munitions and its Members challenged the Celtic tiger and the bank guarantee. It was in the Seanad that the bondholders' names were first mentioned.

Governments involving every party have had opportunities to bring about Seanad reform, but nobody took on the task.

We must acknowledge how the Seanad has been used by political parties. Without being disparaging to any Member, it was used by political parties as a training ground for prospective Deputies and a retirement ground for those finishing political careers or who had failed to be elected. Much of the Seanad to date has been restrictive and undemocratic. This has been an abuse of the Seanad. I have never seen such a complicated, convoluted system of electing people and counting votes as the current Seanad election system. As a university graduate, I have a vote on the university panel but I cannot see why, in a democracy, some citizens should have an extra right to vote because they have happen to have had a third level education. Equally, I cannot see why being a Deputy or a counsellor should bring an additional vote.

I refer to the work of the Oireachtas Library & Research Service on comparing recent Bills, including this and the Government Bill on the Seanad. There are also Bills from Senators Zappone, Quinn and Crown. One point they have in common is widening the electorate of the Seanad, whether to Dáil electors, Irish citizens in Northern Ireland or members of the diaspora, holders of Irish passports. At one of the sessions of the Constitutional Convention, we discussed the diaspora voting in presidential elections. Part of the convention involved a video conference with Irish people from various parts of the world. There was no doubting their Irishness, their commitment to Ireland and their desire to be part of what is going on in Ireland. I support that aspect of everyone having a vote in Seanad elections. Other countries, with greater populations than ours, use this system and it is done through embassies or postal votes. The Minister of State referred to certain complications and costs but, if other countries can do it, we can examine it.

An interesting statistic about the university panel is that there were originally 9,000 eligible voters from NUI and 3,400 from Trinity College, amounting to 12,400 voters. It has increased to 151,000 voters, which is a positive move in terms of people accessing education. By including institutes of education, which I support, the potential is for 800,000 voters. Extending the electorate makes it more comprehensively democratic.

I wonder about the rationale of having nominating bodies. A petition, with 500 signatures, is more progressive and democratic. If anyone of a certain age can stand in a Dáil election, why not for Seanad elections? I do not understand the rationale behind nominating bodies and people choosing a nominating body. Sometimes they have no experience of the area but it makes for an easier way to be elected. Making this change would eliminate some of the elements in the speech of the Minister of State. There is also the aspect of nominating for presidential elections, which militates against those who are Independent Members.

All of the Bills consider various panels, and some have panels have in common, such as labour, workers or the mixed bag of industry, commerce, public administration, professional and civic, as well as university panels. The Bill allows 11 people to be nominated by the Taoiseach. I find the panels strange, especially when people appear on panels without experience in the area. Is there a need for panels? Why can we not have an open Seanad election in the same way that we have an open Dáil election? It does not have to be done through a postal vote.

The categories for Taoiseach's nominees are totally unrepresented in the Dáil and Seanad. If we are looking at panels, these are the ones to examine, with people who have a proven track record in each of those areas. We have plenty of nominees, people who have made real and genuine contributions to life in this country.

I voted against the abolition of the Seanad in the recent referendum but, like so many people, I am in favour of reform. I am not in favour of gender quotas so I do not agree with that aspect of the Bill. There is a vital need to reform the Seanad, with aspects of that in each of the Bills being proposed and the reports to date. Although not with this Bill, there could be a move forward to look at a real and significant reform so that the Seanad is more democratic and open to more people.

See this speech in context