Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, and congratulate him on surviving yesterday, which was an important stage for everyone. I also thank him for his work on the labour portfolio. I am not sure if the Minister of State still has it, but his accessibility and flexibility in dealing with labour issues over the past two years have been very much appreciated in trade union circles.

On the business of Seanad reform, there are as many views as there are Members in the House. However, this is my starting point. The structure of the Seanad today is undemocratic, unrepresentative and anachronistic, and I do not exclude myself in any way from that assessment. It is undemocratic because it does not treat people equally within a democracy. Regarding my own situation, certain third level graduates have votes in the Seanad while others do not. That must be undemocratic. The fact that 43 Members of the House are elected by elected local authority members raises a significant question in terms of democracy. I do not object to the principle as I cannot accept the argument that it is undemocratic for local authority members to elect the tier above them. However, if it is the only way to so elect people, the question of it being undemocratic arises. The structure is anachronistic because it is out of time. It does not fit with the ebb and flow of a modern democracy. It needs to be changed and we have the opportunity to change it.

In trying to make this topical, I want to put in context two of the less discussed aspects of what is proposed. The report presents a compromise position. On the Order of Business this morning I raised the consultation issue. In the New Zealand Parliament, after Second Stage and before Committee Stage of a Bill, the Members factor in a formal consultation process through committee. A consultative committee meets people who wish to have an input, comment on, suggest modifications or make proposals regarding the Bill. The committee listens and arrives at a conclusion.

At the next stage of the debate, the Members of the House have before them a sort of two-sided document, like the Irish Constitution with the Irish version on one side and the English on the other, except that in this case the original Bill is on one side while the other shows the Bill with the changes which the committee asks the House to consider. The changes are not made at that stage but are put before the Members. When the Bill arrives at Committee Stage it contains that additional information for all the people.

That is something we could carefully consider in this House. It would make us better informed, but crucially, it would create connectivity with people on the ground. It would give people a direct and real input into the legislative process which does not diminish in any way the responsibilities, rights and duties of legislators. It would also bring about involvement in democracy which is very much to be welcomed.

This process should be structured into the Seanad. I suggested this morning that we might apply it, for example, to the Disability Bill. The consultation took place before the Bill, the Bill was then presented and it is now published. I disagree with those who say the Bill should have been cleared by the consultation group afterwards. That is not how government works. It is the Government's duty to bring forward a Bill. It brought the Bill forward to Members of the Seanad and it is now our duty to consult further. We should take the time to talk to these groups and ask them how disappointed or happy they are with the Bill, what good aspects they see in it and what they want to see changed. Nobody expects consensus on these issues but we could at least listen and inform ourselves, and then bring forward proposals on that basis for the Government to listen to again. It might not accept the proposals but that is democracy. It is another issue. It is not about taking the power away from us but about ensuring that we channel it in the proper direction.

The report also proposes the scrutiny of public appointments. As politicians we all get very frustrated when, very often, a person appointed by Government to a senior position is seen to be appointed merely because he or she is a friend or supporter of that Government and voted for it. That can often be grossly unfair to the people involved. It generally is unfair because nowadays people cannot risk that inference. I have no doubt, however, that being on the right side of the party line is of great help in these situations.

We need a system which neither includes nor excludes party affiliations or people with certain political views. I do not support the system in the United States which involves lengthy intensive scrutiny of people appointed to senior positions. Such people have to go through a committee structure. It is a tortuous way of questioning. If someone is found to have slept in the wrong bed 20 years previously, that person might be considered inappropriate for a job in a legislative capacity, though there is no connection, and the story still makes the headlines.

The Seanad could be an appropriate House in which to form a committee to approve people being proposed for important public appointments. The point would not be to suggest the best person, second-guess an appointments procedure or go through the skeletons in anyone's wardrobe. The committee would simply look at the matter, check that the person meets all the essential and desirable criteria and say if the person is fit for the job, or that it has no opposition to that person being appointed. It would be a default method rather than an appointment procedure. It would therefore take away from Government any hint of political favouritism in job appointments. I am not talking of board members but of people appointed to paid positions, as boards are dealt with in a different way. This matter could be handled effectively and efficiently by this House.

Regarding the franchise, three consistent threads emerged from all the presentations made, as anyone could see if he or she took the trouble to read through them or sit in on some of the presentations. There was no appetite for the abolition of the Seanad. The matter was open to discussion by all and there was no such proposal. It is also crucial, and an aspect to be noted by the Lower House, that there was no appetite for creating a sort of second Dáil in the Seanad, or a House which would be in conflict with the Dáil. People accepted the argument that the sort of gridlock which can arise in Washington, Rome and sometimes in Paris is not what we want. I support that view.

The will of the people should be articulated in the first place, and with greatest clarity, in the Lower House. Our job as Senators is modification, information and building on what is discussed there. The Upper House should never be able to pervert the will of the people as articulated and decided in the Lower House. That is not what it is about. There has been no proposal to increase the powers of the Seanad to check the Dáil, though it is proposed to increase the Seanad's functions and influence.

What emerged from the presentations was that people wanted the Seanad to remain and did not want it to have greater powers. I have been a Senator for some 18 years and I oppose those who seek greater powers for the Seanad. The Seanad needs some sort of Question Time whereby we can put a question to a Minister. It also needs more topicality but these issues can be addressed. We do not need greater powers to put us on a par with the Dáil. All of this emerged in the presentations and there was no threat in them.

The strongest issue to come through related to franchise. Some 95% of the presentations referred to increasing, expanding and extending the current franchise. Currently, if one removes the Taoiseach's Seanad nominees, 49 Senators remain. Of these, 43 are elected by local authorities and county councils and in some cases urban councils, while six Senators are elected by some university graduates. Regarding my own constituency, it was felt that it was quite unacceptable that only the graduates of certain universities would have a vote in electing people to the university panel. Up to 97% of those who made presentations on that point took that position. Only one or two posed questions about it. For 16 years I have pushed the idea of extending the franchise to every graduate of a third level college, which is the way it should be.

The position is similar in regard to county councils, an issue on which there was a major row and a long debate. I know Members on both sides of the House have felt threatened by proposals for this kind of change, as I feel threatened by the possibility of a further 150,000 people joining my constituency. However, the case made most strongly was that the vote should be taken away from local authority members who should not have this power and that a second Chamber should be elected by the people in a format different to the Dáil. I have considered the workings of second chambers around the world and think the idea of local authority members electing representatives to a tier above them is quite acceptable and what I would describe as a distillation or refinement of democracy. The people at ground level elect others to a local level and there is nothing wrong with local representatives electing people to a further tier above. Nonetheless, I accept the argument that for them to have the significant preponderance they currently have is impossible to justify. Therefore, we need to increase the franchise.

This increase can be achieved by reducing the number of representatives elected by the local authority members or by increasing the number of seats so additional representatives would be elected by the people in a new way. Effectively, the suggestion has been a combination of these options. The proposal is for a slightly enlarged Seanad but I suggest it should be slightly larger again. It is important for local authority members to have their votes, which they value, and important that we recognise their value to Members of this House, although they do not vote for me and I have no vested interest in this, as the House is aware. Nonetheless, I would protect the rights of local authority members and it is important we enshrine their importance in the structures of the Seanad.

There is clear need for representatives to be elected by ordinary people. This must happen and was of greatest importance to those who made representations on this issue. There are various means by which it can occur, including various types of geographically-based constituencies, national list systems and otherwise. As I do not have time to consider all the options for implementation, I will discuss the principle. Some Members will be elected by local authorities and some by ordinary voters. Every third level graduate should have a vote on the University Panel and the Taoiseach's nominees system should be extended to allow him or her to nominate further Members, for example, Members representing both sides of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland and representing the emigrant community. We could not reach agreement on the election of such Members and, therefore, the only way this can be achieved is through appointment by the Taoiseach, which is how we left the matter. The nominating bodies wanted to have more of a say and we should give them this.

The Cathaoirleach of the Seanad should not have to face re-election and should be returned by acclaim not by vote. If he or she is to do an impartial job in the course of his or her period of office, it is unfair for that person to suffer the pressure of having to seek votes from those who may have been rapped on the knuckles on a regular basis.

We must make changes. The report is a starting point in this regard and we should do our best to make progress.