Camillus Glynn (Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"recognising the need for comprehensive consideration of reform of certain electoral matters, including matters relating to Seanad Éireann, notes:

the deliberations of an All-Party Group on Seanad Reform, chaired by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with the aim of establishing the level of consensus regarding options for reform of the Seanad;

the various proposals contained in the submissions made by the political parties as part of this process;

the lack of adequate consensus to pursue constitutional change in relation to reform of the Seanad;

that in the absence of such consensus it falls to Government to give due consideration to reform of the Seanad and make decisions accordingly;

the commitment in the Renewed Programme for Government of 10 October 2009 to establish an Independent Electoral Commission incorporating the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission, with enhanced powers of inspection;

that the Commission will be mandated to, among other things, outline new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann;

resolves to request the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to bring to the attention of the Government the results of the earlier deliberations of the All Party Group on Seanad Reform and relevant matters raised in the course of the debate on this motion."

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit.

One good feature of today's debate is that at least we are talking about Seanad reform, which we have done on many occasions. There have been quite a number of reports on it, one having been published not many years ago, which up to now has been gathering a layer of dust on a shelf. We are talking about Seanad reform and, hopefully, some day soon we will get there.

I commend Senator O'Toole and the Independent Senators on tabling the motion. However, in light of my position in the House, I will be unable to support it.

I am extremely proud to be a Member of the Seanad. I eventually succeeded in becoming a Senator following many efforts to do so and I am pleased my electorate has given me a mandate for a third term. We must consider the issue of Seanad reform in a deeper way than has been the case thus far. We are informed the Seanad is a House of legislation, which is the case, and that as Members of the Upper House we are supposed to have in-depth knowledge of how legislation is amended. If one takes this statement to its ultimate conclusion, the question begs as to how one interacts with the people for whom one is supposed to legislate, namely, members of the general public.

Let us consider the facilities or lack thereof available to Senators. While this may not be a popular statement to make at this time, it is true none the less. Senators are not given an office allowance, the Seanad is regarded by some members of the public as an entity from outer space. People do not see a role for Senators because they never see one and they do not have constituency offices. Provision is not made for Senators to behave and interact in a way than would endear them to a greater degree to members of the public who are, after all, the beneficiaries or objects of legislation passed in the House. As I have stated previously, this is wrong. Senators should have a facility to enable them to interact with those who are paying their wages, namely, members of the public.

Senators O'Toole and Ross indicated which people are disenfranchised under the current system. Another large group of people is also disenfranchised. I raised the ire of Senators on all sides when I made this point on previous occasions. I refer specifically to town and borough councillors who do not have a vote in Seanad elections, despite certain town councils having a larger population than some counties.

If one takes the position that currently obtains to its logical conclusion, a Senator must have multi-locational talents and must be able to take on board the views of people from the four corners of the country. If we were to interfere in a major way with the current system of electing the 42 Members on the five vocational panels, this would certainly be the requirement.

As a democrat, I accept the need for change and reform. The commitment in the renewed programme for Government of 10 October 2009 is to establish an independent electoral commission incorporating the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission with enhanced powers of inspection. The commission will be mandated, among other things, to outline new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann.

As I stated, the good thing about tonight's motion is that we are at least discussing this issue. In the fullness of time, we must do something about Seanad reform but I strongly repudiate the uninformed views of those who argue that councillors should not elect Members of this House. In the exercise of the franchise who is better informed than those with a mandate who are at the front line of public representation? I refer, of course, to county and borough councillors as well as Deputies and outgoing Senators.

I strongly support giving voting rights to graduates of all third level institutions. People in Northern Ireland should also have some say if we are to give recognition to our aspiration to have a 32 county republic although that is a matter for a different debate.

Many issues need to be considered when one speaks of Seanad reform. It is regrettable that this House has been used as a stepping stone into the other House and continues to be used as a place of refuge for some who have had the misfortune of losing their seats in the Dáil. It is necessary to have professional Senators and, like many Senators on both sides, I lay claim to that role in the Oireachtas.

Local authority members have a pivotal role to play in Seanad reform. If electing a number of Senators through single transferable vote from the general population would bring about a connection between this House and citizens, I would welcome any such measure.

I commend Senator O'Toole and his Independent colleagues on producing the proposals set out in the motion. I accept to some extent the comments made by Senators O'Toole and Ross on the Fine Gael Party's policy on the Seanad. The utterance by the leader of the Fine Gael Party was unhelpful and I am given to understand he did not have universal support among elected Members of his party in this House or on local authorities.

In any event, the one good thing about this debate is that Seanad reform is at least on the clár and being discussed. Whether we agree on what steps should be taken is irrelevant; some day we may stop the talk and indulge in the walk.