Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State and this debate. The concept is good but I have some reservations that it could mean that the Seanad could become a giant committee. We have to differentiate ourselves from a committee system.

There is an obvious appetite for more engagement with the general public and that is what the motion is trying to achieve. In terms of this, perhaps a better way of doing it would be to have a petitions committee like in the US or European Parliament. This would be a committee to which any citizen could suggest changes in legislation. If a suggested change is considered to have merit it would go initially to the Seanad, become a Bill and eventually go to the Dail. This would mean that every citizen would have the opportunity to change the law. I understand that the petitions committee has been a success in the Scottish Parliament.

I refer to the Australian Senate. We should take an international view when considering how to best reform the Seanad. The Canadians are currently looking at reforming their Senate and have examined the Australian Senate. The Australian Senate has been mentioned in the UK as a model to reform the House of Lords. In Australia, the Senate takes a very active role and the government of the day has very seldom had a majority in the Senate. This means that the opposition and other minor parties can make great progress in scrutinizing government operations.

It is interesting to read the recent comparison of the Seanad and the Australian Senate by Dr. Liam Weeks of UCC . He identified three main flaws with the Seanad: it is indirectly elected; the Taoiseach appoints eleven Members, thus ensuring a majority for the Government; and it has no real powers.