John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

The approach of the sub-committee to re-evaluating the role of the Seanad, advocating and embracing reform and developing new roles for this House, while maintaining its integral character and status as part of our modern democracy, is to be commended. The 2004 report was not the first effort made to address the reform of the Seanad. A total of 11 separate reports on the reform of the Seanad have been published. These principally focused on its composition and electoral system. The first report was published in the aftermath of the Seanad election in 1928 and, aside from the 2004 report, the most recent reports were published in 1997 and 2002 by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.

It should be noted that the conclusions and recommendations of the 2002 and 2004 reports differ in many respects. For example, the seventh progress report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, published in 2002, recommended the direct election of 48 senators and the abolition of all university seats. However, despite the differing approaches recommended by the various reports on its reform, the Seanad is widely considered to face several principal challenges. The 2004 report states that the Seanad's distinctive role is unclear and that the system of election to the House diminishes the public legitimacy of senators.

There is also the issue of university representation in Seanad Éireann. Current arrangements exclude the graduates of the vast majority of third level institutions, despite the fact that a constitutional amendment was passed in 1979 to broaden the scope of the franchise beyond Trinity College Dublin and the National University of Ireland to other institutions of higher education in the State. Aside from the disparity between graduates who are entitled to vote and those who are not, the system has been criticised because it confers a basic democratic right to certain people and denies it to others solely on the basis of educational achievement. Given the constitutional opening, however, I am of the opinion that reform should focus initially on widening the third level franchise. That is a matter I am anxious to progress.

At the request of the Taoiseach, an informal all-party parliamentary group on Seanad reform was established in 2005 and was chaired by my predecessor. The group's role was to assess the extent of cross-party agreement on the sub-committee's recommendations and to advance, with consensus, proposals for the implementation of Seanad reform. The group addressed proposals which attracted early consensus and which are capable of implementation in the short to medium term. The group met on four occasions between October 2005 and November 2006, having adopted a pragmatic work plan with a view to initially progressing the recommended Standing Orders changes that could be implemented in the short term.

Prior to the general election, having consulted with the relevant Oireachtas committees and Government Departments, the group referred a number of draft Standing Orders changes, to be piloted as sessional orders, to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The draft sessional orders relate to the attendance of former Taoisigh and Tánaistí; assessing legislative and other proposals going before EU Councils; reviewing particular draft EU legislation of major national importance; developing a medium-term policy framework for EU affairs to address challenges andopportunities facing Ireland in the next ten years; and public policy review in respect of medium-term economic and social planning and social partnership. I understand the Seanad CPP is currently considering the draft sessional orders.

The all-party group also examined the higher education constituency reform proposals of the 2004 report but consensus did not emerge. Clearly, the question of Seanad reform is a core element of the wider debate on democracy and the political process. The 2004 report acknowledged that it has considerable political implications and that difficult decisions, involving sensitive political matters, will have to be taken. However, it is argued in the report that if progress is to be made, there is an urgent need to accept the political reality that Seanad Éireann must be reformed if it is to make a viable and distinctive contribution to the economic, social and political affairs of our country.

The election of the 24th Seanad is not due for five years. I intend to ensure that the intervening period is used to address reform, particularly the issue of the Seanad higher education constituency. I am anxious to see Seanad reform — based on an all-party, consensus approach — advanced. The reform of our institutions of national governance deserves and requires non-partisan, inclusive methods. I intend to establish and chair an all-party group in the near future which, I hope, will have sufficient weight to deliver consensus and which will reflect the fact that the Seanad does not operate in isolation from the Lower House. I will be writing to the party leaders soon, requesting their nominations in respect of that group. However, consensus cannot be allowed to become paralysis. If I cannot obtain agreement, I will be obliged to proceed in respect of extending the third level franchise.

I take this opportunity to state that the Government welcomes all contributions from across the House. Senators may rest assured that their views are key to the future of the reform process.