Áine Brady (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)

On behalf of the Government, I thank Senator O'Toole for putting forward some interesting proposals on the Seanad electoral system, even if the debate is liable to range over similar ground to that covered in the debate on the Second Stage of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) (Amendment) Bill 2008 on 20 October, which resumed in the House earlier today. I am pleased to set out the Government's position on the matters in question.

During his speech on the recent Private Members' Bill, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, gave an extensive account of both the role of the Seanad and the current electoral system. For this reason, I do not propose to revisit these details. Senator O'Toole's motion focuses specifically on the electoral aspect. It is interesting to note that the proposals he is making seem to reflect closely some of the recommendations of the report of the Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform published In April 2004. For example, the report proposed that a number of members be directly elected, a list PR system be introduced, six seats be filled from a reformed higher education constituency with graduates from all higher education institutes in the State being eligible to register, indirect election by Oireachtas and local authority members continue and the system of Taoiseach's nominees be retained. These issues have previously been debated and, as has been pointed out in the course of the relevant debates, it is clear all-party consensus does not exist for all of these proposals, which would require significant constitutional change. As the 2004 report acknowledged, it would also involve some difficult decisions.

One specific element of the 2004 report would be most unlikely to meet with enthusiastic public support in the present climate, namely, a proposal that the number of seats in the Seanad be increased to 65 Senators from the current total of 60. I am rather surprised that Senator O'Toole also appears to propose an increase in the overall number of members of the Seanad, albeit by only one rather than five. This seems to be an inevitable consequence of his proposal that the Cathaoirleach be returned automatically.

However, in the context of demands for retrenchment and rationalisation in public administration, it is surprising to see any proposal being put forward by a public representative that would be likely to give rise to even a marginal increase in cost to the taxpayer. No doubt the main Opposition party would be strongly opposed to such a proposal in view of its desire to abolish the House.

One issue on which there does seem to be a measure of agreement, at least in broad principle, is that of the university constituency. It is generally accepted that the current restriction of the Seanad university seats to three elected by graduates of the National University of Ireland and three by Trinity College graduates is unsatisfactory, although I am aware that some have even questioned the continued existence of these seats. There already is constitutional provision for the extension of the higher education franchise, by legislation, to other institutions of higher education in the State. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has already indicated his agreement with the principle of widening the third level franchise and I can confirm that this commitment stands. However, a number of detailed issues must be addressed with regard to implementing possible changes in this area.

The 2007 programme for Government contained a commitment to seek to advance Seanad reform as part of the Government's overall approach to Oireachtas reform. The matter has subsequently been considered by an aII-party group on Seanad reform which identified a number of possible options on a range of issues, including electoral matters. It also identified a fundamental absence of consensus among the political parties on how best to proceed. It noted that 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. The group narrowed its consideration to the following four main areas.

First, the group considered an enabling amendment of the Constitution to permit subsequent reform by legislation such as, for example, to provide for changes to the electoral system. However, it generally was considered that the details of any new system would have to be known before a proposal was put to the people. Second, the group considered the expansion of the higher education constituency. However, the university Senators were opposed to this issue being treated in isolation. The third area was scrutiny of certain senior public appointments by the Seanad to improve transparency, while the fourth was making provision for the membership of the Clerk of the Seanad of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The party responses on these matters indicated that while there was consensus on making some changes, there was little aII-party support on the major issues of Seanad reform. In the absence of adequate consensus to pursue constitutional change to reform the Seanad, it will fall to the Government to give due consideration to reform options and make decisions accordingly. To inform the Government's consideration, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, intends to bring to the attention of the Government the results of the deliberations of the all-party group on Seanad reform.

As for wider electoral matters, the renewed programme for Government of 10 October 2009 contains a commitment to the establishment of an independent electoral commission with a wide mandate that would incorporate the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission with enhanced powers of inspection and wide-ranging responsibilities. The commission will propose reforms to the electoral system which will include making recommendations on the feasibility of extending the franchise for presidential elections to the Irish abroad. In addition, it will examine and make recommendations for changes to the electoral system for Dáil elections, including the number of Deputies and their means of election. It also will outline new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann, advise on the basis for European elections to reflect new realities of the role and influence of the European Parliament, including consideration of moving towards one national constituency and using a list system. In addition, it will make recommendations on the possibility of extending the franchise for local elections to those aged 16 years and over and set minimum standards for the taking and publication of political polls within the State to ensure fairness and accuracy.

While the particular proposals made in the motion relate specifically to electoral aspects, it is clear from the overall text tabled by Senator O'Toole that there are wider questions surrounding the role of the Seanad. This was also evident during the debate on the recent Private Members' Bill and earlier today in the House. Senator O'Toole made some interesting and insightful contributions to that debate. For example, he expressed the view that in its operation the House as contemplated by Bunreacht na hÉireann was to act as a civic forum, that it was never meant to be a "mini-Dáil" but a deliberative Chamber and that he opposed the idea of additional powers for the Seanad. The motion makes the point "that the House should seek to convince by force of argument and logic rather than compel by weight of numbers and formal powers".

I am unsure that it is self-evident that changes to the electoral system per se are required to make progress on these civic objectives. Perhaps Senator O'Toole is of the view that the Members nominated and elected under the current system are not sufficiently representative to attain these goals. However, one hears regularly, including in the recent debate on the Private Members' Bill, comments to the effect that the quality of debate in this House is very high, possibly higher than in the Dáil. While that may be so, perhaps it begs a question as to whether Senators are content for the House to be regarded in some quarters as a form of high level debating society. Can the Seanad play a more meaningful and effective role, even within its current parameters? As is incumbent on every public institution in the current economic environment, can it identify ways of achieving greater efficiencies and ensuring effectiveness in how it conducts its business? The fact that today it has held two debates covering broadly similar territory appears to indicate potential in that regard.

Senator O'Toole made a striking observation in his contribution on 20 October that "there is no goodwill or support for this House among ordinary people." Clearly, the Fine Gael Party not only shares this view but also believes the Seanad is in terminal decline and calls for a drastic measure. I suggest, however, that the issue of public credibility presents a challenge for the House itself. While changes to the electoral system may, to some extent, be capable of enhancing public identification with the Seanad, it also is necessary in the first instance for the House to demonstrate its relevance to those to whom the Senator referred as "ordinary people". It should, for example, be able to make a substantial input to addressing the difficult challenges the country faces and an influential contribution generally to the economic, social and political affairs of the nation.

Seanad reform involves wider issues than the electoral system, but that is the aspect of most direct relevance to the core functions of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the specific issue raised in the motion before Members. As I have indicated, electoral matters generally will fall to be addressed more comprehensively in the context of the electoral commission. In the meantime, however, the Minister proposes to bring the results of the deliberations of the all-party group on Seanad reform, including electoral aspects, to the attention of the Government as indicated in the amending motion, with relevant matters arising during the debate on this motion.

I understand the Minister is also giving consideration to the approaches to be taken to implement the programme for Government commitment to establish an independent electoral commission. This is, of course, one of a number of items on the electoral reform agenda in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in which the legislation for a directly elected mayor of Dublin is an immediate priority, as is the Government commitment to address the issue of political donations. The debate on the Bill to provide for the directly elected mayor is commencing on Second Stage in the Dáil today and this represents a significant departure in the development of local democracy in Ireland. The Minister will also be taking forward decision-making on local government structures in Limerick on foot of the recently published report of the Brosnan committee. Comprehensive proposals for the modernisation and development of local government will subsequently be set out in a White Paper on local government which is being finalised by a Cabinet committee.