John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I concur with his analysis of what is occurring in the media. It is a very serious issue that was taken up by his colleague, Senator O'Toole. The way this is going I have no doubt fewer people will want to enter public life. This is a serious issue. I believe colleagues will agree with me when I say being a public representative is a very honourable profession. We should encourage more people from the various professions outlined to enter public life. In that way we would have greater variety. I am looking at Senator Quinn, for example, who has brought his business experience to bear and made a very significant contribution. As highlighted by Senator Glynn, the Seanad has, no question, made a major contribution in altering legislation. I have always said this at committee meetings and value very much its contribution.

The motion requests that the Government embark urgently on a process of comprehensive Seanad reform. I am pleased to say the Government does not oppose the motion. I was very clear on this and believe we should wholeheartedly support the motion. Reform of this House merits attention.

I should like to comment on the words "public criticism" used in the Senators' motion. The public has every right to expect our institutions of State will work as effectively as possible on behalf of the people. The operations of the Oireachtas must continually earn legitimacy from a society which justifiably demands quality decision-making and legislative action. That is the reality of the social contract. Therefore, I welcome fair criticism and scrutiny of the Oireachtas which can spur necessary reform and which reminds us, as public representatives, that those we represent are ever watchful. However, I do not welcome criticism which misunderstands or willfully ignores the role of and contribution made by the Seanad. While some of the criticisms of the Seanad in the last 12 months have validity, some comments have not contributed to reasonable and informed discourse and have done this House and its Members a disservice.

Despite a wealth of reports on reform of the Seanad and the expenditure of considerable energy and thought over the decades, we have not succeeded in achieving all-party agreement on substantive reform. The motion refers to the numerous reports on Seanad reform. Eight reports have been made since 1943, the most recent in 2004. Therefore, extensive reportage has not translated into successive programmes of radical reform. It is fair to observe that the political system has not embraced wholesale change of the House in the last half century. However, I have sympathy that there is a natural caution in that regard. One must remember that the pursuit of constitutional change requires a considerable mandate which has not always been readily apparent. It is also undeniably the case that the issues involved are complex and multi-faceted. Contemplation of reform necessitates consideration of the constitutional, political, legal, administrative and resource implications and repercussions. Notwithstanding my appreciation of a certain guardedness in relation to constitutional change, the time comes when change must be contemplated. No institution is immune to the need to maintain its relevance, mandate and effectiveness.

An Agreed Programme for Government from 2007 states the Government will determine the extent of cross-party agreement on the recommendations of the report on Seanad reform and advance proposals for implementation. The commitment to seek Seanad reform is part of the Government's overall approach to Oireachtas reform. The 2004 report which the all-party group considered argued that there was "an urgent need to accept the political reality that Seanad Éireann really must be reformed if it is to make a viable and distinctive contribution to the economic, social and political affairs of our country". In terms of its composition, the report recommended a Seanad with 65 seats: 32 directly elected, 20 indirectly elected and 12 Taoiseach nominees. The report made a number of recommendations regarding the functions of the Seanad, including in relation to the scrutiny of legislation, EU affairs, the review of public policy and the scrutiny of public appointments. As acknowledged in the report, many of its recommendations are radical and far-reaching and a number would require constitutional amendment.

The former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, requested that I chair an all-party group on Seanad reform in line with the commitment made in the programme for Government. The aim of the group was to establish, in a small number of meetings, the extent of cross-party agreement on the 2004 report's recommendations. The group met on four occasions during the period 2008-09 and included Members from both Houses representing all parties in the Oireachtas, as well as the Independent Senators. It provided a forum for the comprehensive consideration of reform of the Upper House. I publicly thank the members of the group, Deputies and Senators, several of whom are present, for their contributions. All political parties engaged in a positive manner with the group's business.

Despite the view of all participants that reform was necessary, the reality is that there was little all-party consensus on what route it should take. The all-party group's deliberations indicated that party positions varied from complete abolition to reform within the existing electoral system, save in relation to the higher education constituency. The group's work ranged over the nature of the Seanad electoral panels, its electorate, functions and possible enhanced role in areas such as North-South and EU affairs and a potential role in relation to public appointments.

The group noted the most significant changes to the composition of the Seanad would require constitutional amendment. There was a collective appreciation of the difficulty of pursuing constitutional reform in the short term. After some discussion, therefore, the group narrowed its consideration to four main areas. The first had to do with an enabling amendment to the Constitution to permit subsequent reform by legislation which was discussed in detail. It was suggested the detailed prescriptive provisions currently in the Constitution which set out how the indirect panel system operates could be replaced with a simpler enabling provision that would allow greater flexibility to reform the electoral process by legislation. However, it was generally considered the details of any new system would have to be known before a proposal was put to the people.

The expansion of the higher education constituency was another issue considered in detail. The current system of electing the representatives of graduates of the National University of Ireland and Trinity College has been acknowledged by all parties as anomalous. However, the university Senators were opposed to this issue being treated in isolation, as highlighted by Senator Norris in his contribution today.

The group also considered two other reforms: the scrutiny of certain senior public appointments by the Seanad to improve transparency and the provision for the membership of the Clerk of the Seanad of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The party responses indicated that while there was some consensus on making a number of changes to the operation of the Seanad, there was little all-party support on the major issues of reform.

I have stated previously that I favour widening the third level electoral franchise. However, it should be noted that there are now over 500,000 graduates in the State and widening this franchise could have significant resource implications. Again, this was a valid point made by Senator Norris at the committee hearing. The issue also needs to be considered in the context of examining wider reform. Today's announcement by the Minister for Education and Science that the NUI is to be abolished will also have to be taken into consideration in deciding how we move forward.

It should be noted that the work of the all-party group has been somewhat overtaken by the renewed programme for Government which commits to the establishment of an independent electoral commission which will incorporate a number of electoral functions and be tasked with proposing reforms to the electoral system in several areas, including outlining a new electoral system for the Seanad. The programme also states options for the timing of elections to local authorities, the Dáil, the Seanad and the European Parliament will be considered, to include the possibility of mid-term elections and running some elections on a staggered or rolling basis in order that they would not fall on the same day for every candidate or Chamber.

We seem to be some way off cross-party consensus on reform of the Seanad and I will be reporting this conclusion to the Government. I intend to submit a report for discussion with my colleagues in government shortly. We will have regard to the views expressed by all parties and the commitments given in the programme for Government. We will then consider the next steps to be taken in the process. While consensus remains elusive, I have previously informed the House that the absence of consensus cannot be allowed to lead to paralysis. It is my ambition that the Government will press ahead with reforms from which successive Governments have shied away.