David Norris (Independent)

I compliment my colleagues on the Independent benches on tabling the motion. I have listened to the entire debate up to now and I am of the view that not one new idea has been brought forward. A number of interesting ideas have been propounded but not a single new one has been offered. I challenge colleagues to demonstrate that I am incorrect in this regard.

There has, however, been one interesting and welcome development, namely, the statement by Senator O'Malley to the effect that she proposes to cross the floor of the House and vote with the Independents. The Senator has displayed a remarkable and courageous attitude. However, she could not have received a more seductive invitation to cross the floor than that offered in the weak, vapid and inane amendment placed on the Supplementary Order Paper by Senator Cassidy whose name is unaccompanied by any of those of his party colleagues which may perhaps reflect their embarrassment regarding the amendment.

I wish to consider amendment No. 1 in detail. As usual, it proposes to delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and then states the House "notes", which means nothing at all will be done. It notes the deliberations which took place on various proposals, the lack of adequate consensus, the absence of such a consensus, the commitment contained in the renewed programme for Government and blah, blah, blah. It then resolves to request the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to blah, blah, blah.

I have been through all of this before and have campaigned on the issue of Seanad reform for 30 years. It is nearly a quarter of a century since I was elected to the House. One of the platforms on which I was first elected was reform of the Seanad. I assure Members nothing has happened during the entire period to which I refer. Not one scrap or iota of Seanad reform has been introduced. I accept there has perhaps been some minor and ineffective tinkering at the edges of the Order of Business, but there has been absolutely nothing else. On my first day as a Senator I tabled a motion in which I welcomed and suggested the implementation of the recommendations of the all-party committee. Those on the Government side voted down the recommendations to which I refer and which had been brought forward by a committee established by the then Government. That will inform Members as to the degree of movement they can expect on this issue.

I was later appointed to and sat on the all-party group on Seanad reform chaired by the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. The Minister of State has indicated that not everyone agreed that we should proceed with just reforming the university constituency. That proposal was made and I am absolutely unapologetic. The notion that we should tackle the position on the university seats first has often been brought forward. I respectfully demur from what Senator O'Toole stated. There may perhaps have been a slight blurring in the language he used and he may not entirely have meant what he said. However, I make no apology whatever for being a member of the only democratic element in the House. University Senators do have constituencies, of 65,000 and 110,000. Senator Dearey made a most engaging contribution and was humble in a way to which I could only aspire. However, he was elected by the votes of only 237 people. I find it difficult to take lessons from an apparatus which produces elections in which candidates need only 237 votes when people such as Senator O'Toole and I are required to attract the votes of tens of thousands of individuals. I apologise if what I am saying appears to be arrogant in nature, but it is also a fact.

Having dealt with the amendment, I wish to proceed to the Minister of State's contribution. She stated "I am pleased to set out the Government's position on the matters in question." Where have we heard that before? We hear it every night on radio and television when people state "I am glad you asked me that question," which in reality means they are not glad at all and are going to provide a completely wooly response. That is, of course, what happens. The Minister of State also referred to the all-party group on Seanad reform chaired by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, but stated "a number of detailed issues must be addressed with regard to implementing possible changes in this area." Translation: one should not hold one's breath because nothing is going to happen.

The Minister of State then began to wander around various areas of the Constitution, stating an enabling amendment would be required, that the higher education constituency would have to be expanded, etc. I absolutely applaud and support the latter. However, it must be managed efficiently and properly and reflect the interests not only of Seanad Éireann but also those of voters.

I stated not one new idea had been expounded during the debate. However, Senator O'Toole did bring forward a fairly new idea - it represents the most valuable suggestion made during the entire debate - namely, the creation of a hybrid method of election in respect of the panel system. He suggested some element of contact with local authorities could be retained but that the other sections of the panels could be broadened to encompass universal suffrage. That is the way to proceed because it would make Seanad Éireann truly representative.

The Minister of State referred to the commitment to establish an independent electoral commission. It is just that - a commitment. I once heard a very decent Leader of the House, former Senator Mick Lanigan, give a commitment to Senator O'Toole which he then failed to honour. The Senator will confirm that Mr. Lanigan accepted that he had given a commitment but that it was not binding. We know, therefore, how much commitments are worth. The electoral commission is not even in existence but Ministers are relying on it to defend their position.

The Minister of State made a number of interesting comments. For example, she referred to "making recommendations on the feasibility of extending the franchise for Presidential elections to the Irish abroad," to which I say, "Hear, hear." However, the franchise should not just be extended to the Irish abroad, it should also be extended to the Irish on this island. People who are citizens of the Irish Republic and live north of the Border are prohibited from voting in Presidential elections. Members are probably asking why I am referring to the Presidential election. I am doing so because I am interested in it and my hat is in the ring. If anyone did not know that, they do now.

Since we have wandered into this area and given that we are discussing democracy, a recent poll carried out by MillwardBrown Lansdowne indicates that my level of support among members of the public is greater than that of the next two candidates put together. However, I may never be able to enter the contest for the Presidency because the political parties control the mechanism of election. In order to stand, I would require the support of either 20 Members of the Oireachtas or at least four county or city councils. If the political parties believe in democracy, they should take steps to prove it by removing the rigid application of the Whip in order to allow councillors to make an independent determination in this matter.

The Minister of State has referred to whether we are content to have the House viewed as some sort of debating society. I am all in favour of such societies. However, the Minister of State displayed some cheek when she said the House really was a debating society and asked whether it could play a more meaningful role. We could if the Government produced legislation. There are more than a dozen items of legislation from this side of the House; every single one of my Independent colleagues has placed legislation before the House. That takes work, determination and expertise.

I respectfully disagree with Senator Alex White who said we should reduce the time involved. That would be the death of the Seanad. If we were to reduce it further, we would be a total laughing stock. The work we do does not just take place in the Chamber. Colleagues on both sides of the House work 14 to 18 hours a day and I do not want to work for nothing. I want decent, modest recompense. I want my work to be recognised, not just financially. I want people to know about it because I sometimes leave here at midnight. On my way home I hear repeats of programmes in which radio broadcasters say the Seanad does a day and a half's work in the few weeks it meets. Lots of us work hard in this place and we deserve respect.