Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

As Members spoke, I observed what a wonderfully constructive debate this is. I thank the Minister for coming to the House to listen to the high standard of debate.

I begin by saying "Well done" to Senator Tuffy. She spoke about this issue on the Order of Business last May but I was not aware she planned to bring forward a motion during Private Members' business. It is a constructive and interesting debate and Senator Tuffy has clearly done her homework. She must have had somebody downloading information for a good portion of the day. Her ideas in regard to the Scottish Parliament are interesting because there are many remote areas in that jurisdiction where people may feel far removed geographically from power. She suggests a process by which either parliamentarians might meet people in their own areas or else people might come to meet the petitions committee. Senator Tuffy did not simply put down the motion and waffle on; she had her ideas on the issue and she put them forward.

The philosophical debate which followed has been equally useful. Everybody who spoke had fine ideas. I listened with enthusiasm to Senator O'Toole. I do not recall the visit to New Zealand but it was interesting because it is based on the same idea. The New Zealand Parliament did away with the upper house and found itself having to invent a senate-like arrangement because it was dissatisfied with the resulting vacuum.

The Minister and I are in agreement that the House should not divide on this issue because there is widespread agreement on it among Members of all parties. All the Fianna Fáil Senators said at our party meeting that they wished this to be an all-party issue. We want the Minister and Government to co-operate with us on this, as I said in the House this morning.

The Seanad reform programme has gone nowhere in the past 18 months. I do not mean to castigate anybody but this is a fact. It is not good enough. As Senator Brian Hayes said, everybody who spoke was in favour of Seanad reform. As he knows, however, the difficulties arise when it comes to the question of how Members are elected to the House. Apart from the university representatives, who are elected by a separate process, Members of this House are elected by the will of county councils and other local authorities. This is where everybody did a runner from the prospect of real reform; they wanted to be radical but not yet.

The Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform came up with many recommendations that we could have implemented. The seed of what Senator Tuffy has proposed was contained in that committee's discussions on the need for consultation with the public. Some 158 groups responded to the public advertisement relating to the work of the committee. It was an amazing response. I remember seeing the advertisements the day they first appeared in the newspapers and thinking nobody would want to come. People flocked in, however, in a breathtaking public response. Two ushers guided them in every day at stated times and we did not have enough time to handle the volume of public interest.

We have let down people because we have not moved on this issue as we said we would. I propose we be selectively radical and take this proposal as a way forward because the germ of it was in our wish to engage with people prior to the formulation of legislation. Of course, civil servants would hate this because it would mean more work for them, it would mean they would have to attend these meetings. It is not that they are lazy, they do not want to rock boats. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, knows this, as someone who has tried to rock boats.