Ivana Bacik (Independent)

It might be useful. It would also make it easier to have a topical debate. Yesterday, as we all know, the Order of Business became a discussion about the dreadful events in Northern Ireland at the weekend, which is as it should have been. Yet, we still had to remain within this rather artificial framework of the Order of Business. It would be a great improvement to the perception of the Seanad outside and to our work within were we to say this is a debate on topical issues and to extend the time generally while allowing particular time limits for speakers, including the Leader, if I may say so.

My third proposal for internal reform, before we deal with more general reforms, is with regard to statements on particular issues. I can see there is often great merit and value to those issues but, equally, they sometimes seem rather obscure and it may not be clear, even to Members, why we are debating particular issues at particular times. While we all call for statements on issues, we can sometimes be surprised to see a particular issue on the agenda.

This afternoon's discussion on Seachtain na Gaeilge was obvious because táimíd i Seachtain na Gaeilge, which is fine. However, there is often no rationale apparent to us or the public as to why we have statements. If we gave more advanced notice, it would give a better indication of why we have statements. Perhaps there should be a line or two on the agenda every week explaining why we have statements on a particular topic at a particular time. Where we have statements, given it is sometimes difficult for every speaker to contribute, 15 minutes is too long for individual spokespersons and perhaps an eight or ten minute maximum might be preferable.

Those are some minor points which would improve and enhance the quality of our internal debates. That said, in the 18 months I have been a Member, I have seen the immense strengths of the Seanad. Before I came in, I knew the Upper House served a very valid function. Senator O'Toole pointed out the merits generally of a bicameral system, which are undoubted. The Irish experience has seen some articulate Senators in the past — I am thinking of former Senators such as Mary Robinson and Mary Henry, for example, who used this House as a platform to express radical and progressive views on issues that were not being aired in the other House and probably would not have been aired in public debate otherwise. Those were the sorts of issues that led to legislative reform — I am thinking of issues such as the Bills on contraception that Mary Robinson brought forward in the 1970s and Mary Henry's very valuable contributions on IVF and the need for its regulation, as well as on capacity and wardship, which we are still debating.

A similar point can be made with regard to debate on legislation in the Seanad. Senator O'Toole has got it exactly right. We have much more thoughtful debates, particularly on Committee Stage, because all Members can come in on Committee Stage and this means that those who have individual expertise, knowledge or experience to share on a particular issue can contribute. This is a strength we have over the Dáil committee procedure. For example, I found the Adoption Bill debates this week and last week incredibly informative. They showed the Seanad at its best, teasing out complexities in difficult legislation with many sensitivities, working together with Government and Opposition to try to improve the quality of the adoption process for everyone, and always working in the best interests of the child. That is the Seanad at its best.

Many of the criticisms that are made about Seanad procedures could equally be made about Dáil procedures or committee procedures — I believe we have too many committees. One gets to a point where the criticism becomes too much. One could always say government would be a lot more efficient without opposition, but we must remember this is democracy. As has been said, it is an imperfect system but nobody has come up with anything better. Of course, government might function more efficiently without cumbersome processes of democracy, but that would be a dictatorship. We must bear this in mind and be reasonable in our criticisms.

I absolutely defend the systems and functions of the Seanad. While we should look at our internal procedures for reform, this motion looks at a more substantive type of reform, namely, reforming the structures and the need for greater democracy in the processes by which we elect our Members, which is important. I have had a strong welcome from graduates of different universities to the very narrow proposals that we extend the franchise for the university seats to all third level graduates. I have received e-mails, as I am sure others have also, from graduates of many different universities and institutes of technology — I understand we would have a warm welcome awaiting us at the University of Limerick if we were to sit there. This is a very important reform we need to make. Some 30 years after the constitutional amendment, we need to do this.

Reform of the university seats is only part of the overall picture. The report of former Senator, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, made a very valuable contribution, recommending comprehensive reform of the Seanad as a whole. I fully approve of her proposals that there should be a list proportional representation system for direct election to 26 seats and that higher education should choose six seats, but nobody should have two votes and a graduate would choose which of those two lists to vote for. We would then preserve the indirect elections by councillors.

I do not see the need for the Taoiseach's nominees as this effectively neuters the Seanad. I do not see it as being particularly useful and I think——