Mark Dearey (Green Party)

I would like to be able to answer Senator Fitzgerald's question. I find myself speaking on the issue of Seanad reform while still learning what the Seanad is about. Perhaps getting the perspective of a Seanad novice might not do any harm in this debate, coming as I did to the House in February this year.

A number of things struck me. The first was the resonance the Fine Gael leader's call for the abolition of the Seanad had among people I know and speak to and who were anxious to know "what it is like there." That is a conversation I have had many times in recent months.

The clauses included in the motion are impressive. The proposers believe "that the House should seek to convince by force of argument and logic rather than compel by weight of numbers and formal powers". That is a lofty and worthy outcome to pursue. Would the demands that follow in the last two paragraphs of the motion help to make it realisable? I do not think they would. They do not go far enough. Either the idea should have been dropped or the demand should have been far more radical. If this issue was put to a referendum, as Fine Gael states it will do, the people would probably vote the Seanad out of existence. It is a question of reform or die. It seems to be that reform - radical reform - is the option that should be chosen in the context of the much greater political reform that needs to happen.

Recently I made the point that the number engaging in the electoral process on voting day, while still high, was slipping. The level of engagement, particularly among younger people, seems to be lower than in the past when I was growing up, when people were less detached from the political process than they are now. That is worrying and the political system needs to respond to it.

The overall reform agenda the electoral commission envisages taking on is something I would dearly love to see happening, as a matter of priority.

It is disappointing that the goals set out in the programme for Government over a year ago to establish an independent electoral commission incorporating the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission have not made sufficient progress at this point. The outcomes this commission looked forward to achieving concerned constituency boundaries, the voter registration process, voter education programmes, advice on mechanisms to increase the participation of women in political life - an issue on which I have spoken on several occasions - a review of the electoral systems for Seanad Éireann, making recommendations for changes in regard to Dáil elections and getting rid of the weaknesses of the multi-seat constituency system. All of these are worthy and engaging ideas that would in all likelihood lead to a far greater level of interest and engagement from voters and future voters. In particular, the recommendation on the extending the franchise for local elections to those aged 16 and over was a strong idea which would mean a person's introduction to the electoral process could happen in the context of their secondary school education. A fertile crossover could be created when the promised electoral commission begins its work and delivers its recommendations which are passed. We are a long way from all that but there are many exciting ideas.

In the context of all these ideas and while I generally agree with the proposals for changing the voting mechanisms for the Seanad, they are a long way short of where we need to go to make the Seanad the Chamber it can be. With regard to the votes councillors have in Seanad elections, I was excluded from that process although I was on a rating and planning local authority. Even in that case, there was a degree of fairly arbitrary discrimination in regard to how councillors could vote and this is magnified tenfold when one considers the range of graduates who can vote. It is fundamentally unfair that graduates from certain colleges can vote while those from, for example, the institutes of technology cannot. It underlines the fact we still have not fully embraced the whole third level sector as being of equal importance and merit. It is a strong signal that the institutes are still considered to be secondary in the overall scheme.

I spoke on radio with Senator Norris one morning in regard to Seanad reform. He described the unfortunate level of wind-baggery that goes with some of the contributions here. This has struck me too, although I could be accused of it at this moment.