Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I thank the House for the time given to the motion and the various speakers who contributed. It has been a very interesting debate, but I am totally discouraged. I have spent 24 years trying to make movement on this issue, but no movement has taken place. I am glad Senator Mullen made his concluding points. My criticism of the system of election is not to be taken as a criticism of the people who come through that system. I completely agree with the point made by Senator O'Malley and others that it is quite in order and to be welcomed that people aspire to move to another House of the Oireachtas, be it the Presidency or the Dáil. I do not have a problem with this. I also welcome Members who have been Members of the Dáil. For me, these are not the issues. The issues are the ones about which I spoke.

Senator Ross stated we were in danger of extinction. I value very much the contribution of local authority members. One of the problems is the lack of power at local authority level. If I had time, I would develop this further because I feel as strongly about it as I do about the situation in this House.

The speech made by the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, was appalling. Senator Mullen made the point that it was a mockery. He also made a simple point about the extra Member. If one reads very carefully one will see it would not be an extra Member; I pointedly did not indicate how that person - the Cathaoirleach - would be returned. I could give 5 or 6 ways in which that person could be returned without increasing numbers. I was very careful not to increase them in order that it would not be jumped on as a simple way of having a go. It was jumped on anyway, which I regret. For me, the most serious matter about the speech of the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, is that we now realise the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has not reported to the Government on the outcome of our meetings. That is appalling.

Senator Deary made the point that the motion did not go far enough. I could make a speech about all of the "does not go far enough" speeches I have heard during the years. This is an incremental attempt to effect change. The same applies to the speech of the Minister of State; of course, there are things we could do on our own. I found it a bit much to listen to the Minister of State say the House could do much more itself. I will agree with Leader that he would make many changes here - not as many as I would like - but he does not have the agreement of the Government. That is the reality. I know this to be the case. If we were allowed to change things, we could change them in the way many want.

Senator Alex White raised the question of how we would operate and on what we spend our time. He is right. I will gently add to one point he made about the amount of time spent on the Order of Business. He is absolutely right about the amount of time we spend on it but it is time well spent. Other Parliaments such as the Bundestag spend the first hour or hour and a half dealing with the topical issues of the day; they do not call it the Order of Business, which would be a more sensible way to deal with it.

Senator Alex White is also absolutely right in the point he made about a petitions committee, which would fit in completely with what I stated about us reflecting civic society. Many Parliaments have such a committee and we have seen it in action. We have proposed a Standing Order in order that we could put one into operation in the morning. There are only minor reasons it could not be done. It might cost marginal amounts of money. I have seen committees work where ordinary people with ordinary issues come before a committee of a House of Parliament to make their point. Petitions committees do not have the power to effect change.

The point on which I take greatest issue with the Minister of State concerns her comment about this being a high quality debating society. That is the saddest comment I heard all night long. One could say the same to a senior counsel going into the courts. He or she makes an argument with no power, except the power of persuasion. It is the person who hears the argumentation that makes the decision. If a Minister of State does not understand this, is it any wonder I am discouraged because we are not going anywhere? I do not mind a Minister of State arguing and stating he or she does not agree with me.

If this House cannot produce a debate of high quality with argumentation and persuasion, it is up to him or her to respond. If he or she does not respond, there is no point in him or her saying this House is only a debating society. This proves the point that no thought is being applied.

I welcome very much what Senator O'Malley had to say and her offer of support which is deeply appreciated. I am not surprised because she is a woman who has always been independent-minded and expressed a point of view.

On the issue of broadening the electorate, I assure the Members opposite they do not need to be afraid of everything. For instance, if I may be excused for referring to Senator Ó Murchú as an example, he is elected from the Cultural and Educational Panel. He would be elected on an extended Cultural and Educational Panel if educationists and those involved in Irish culture had votes. I want people to think that way, but the Members opposite are afraid of what I am saying. There are opportunities here, not just threats and crises.

I visited the New Zealand Parliament where they had invented measures to slow down the passage of Bills by introducing extra Stages. There were seven Stages to a Bill which gave more time for debate.

I will be unable in the time remaining to deal with all of the issues raised, except to say this House could bridge the gap between the people and the political system. We could be the conduit between them. This could prove exciting, challenging and effective, as well as restore faith, trust and confidence in what we do. There is nothing to be afraid of. I would be prepared to do this in a way that would help everybody.

I ask that the university panels issue be dealt with, but, in deference to my colleagues opposite, that rather than make the changes for the next election, they should not take effect until the following election in order that there would be more than one term to prepare. In the meantime ordinary people would have an opportunity to make their commitment. All citizens would have an opportunity to vote, but they would have to decide which voting panel to which they belonged. For instance, a person who is a graduate but also a farmer, a trade unionist and an ordinary citizen would still only have one vote and he or she would have to choose the panel for which they would register. This would allow younger people to be given a vote if this was so decided.