Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)

As a journalist for many years, I have talked about rounding up the usual suspects and I do not want to see the usual suspects in here. Some will be welcome but we should not fall back on those.

The battle for light versus heat is at the heart of every debate and it should not favour heat. It is easy to look for heat because it is always a moment of car crash television. In return, I will offer Vincent Browne the advice that on occasion he prefers heat to light. I like to believe this House, in the pursuit of light, should not become just a wider talking shop. In inviting people, we should not produce an alternative outlet for egos. I do not want to see that here and no one else does either. In inviting people, we should not close down real debate by sucking time and energy away from important matters. We should not just appear to be busy and appear to be reforming by inviting in other people. I am sure this was far from the minds of the Taoiseach's nominees when they drafted the motion but I urge caution on this point.

Debate should always be based on principles, theory, evidence and analysis. It should always aim to reach a verdict. To disagree just for the sake of it cannot be the only reason to do so and if people wish to rebut they should do so with theory and evidence. Decision-making in the political process should always be based on evidence. That should be the holy grail. Decisions are often made for political reasons or for the protection of the status quo or both. The holy grail will remain that it must be based on evidence. Many appointments are made in the political system based on who one knows not what one knows. The idea of a meritocracy is something we are pursuing in this society and in this country. In a way, we could have debates with people we know rather than based on what we know. In the new spirit of reform and unity, I urge that we keep that central at all times.

We have set ourselves a major challenge. "Love" is a four-letter word and "change" is a six-letter word and it is an awful lot easier to say than to do. From my time at the doorsteps during the general election campaign, I never heard a word used so often has the word "change". In truth, people find it extremely hard to do and to accept. While we will beat ourselves up over time about the things we have failed to do, there will be a greater queue outside willing to beat us up for the things we have failed to do. We must remember that change is slow. Senator Norris has provided evidence of this, telling us how long it has taken reform to come to the Seanad. The Seanad should be in a constant state of reform but it will be slow and difficult. The public believes us to be out of touch and unaccountable. In part, this is because it is hard to see change. In this small moment of change, we should celebrate it and say that in this unity there is cause for hope.

There is much we can do as Senators in encouraging new people to engage in politics, engaging with people who do not care about politics and making a genuine effort to bring politics into schools. I see the curriculum in schools and it is a disgrace to say it touches on the political system. One of the questions in the junior certificate exam last week asked students to identify a number of houses, one of which was the White House. A young gentleman in the Public Gallery is nodding in agreement. I hope he got the answers correct. Surely that is not enough in terms of educating our young people, who will someday sit somewhere in this House, in this building, I hope, and govern. It is not sufficient to ask them to identify the White House from Áras an Uachtaráin or Leinster House. We must work harder as legislators to ensure there is some improvement in the curriculum in future. We have much to do outside the walls of this room but within its walls, if we believe truly that we are interested in reform, when people come here who are not in our likeness but who challenge us and those who are not safe people come to talk about true change, then we will listen to what they say. We will not suggest their words end up, as countless reports have done, on dusty shelves. We must heed them and make sure the Government heeds them also. Otherwise, we are engaging in a fancy piece of window dressing and I do not wish to be part of it. I welcome the motion with those caveats and I welcome the amendment. I am delighted to speak on this motion.