Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Aontaím leis na Seanadóirí eile a mhol Sinn Féin as an rún seo a ardú. Díospóireacht an-thábhachtach í seo ach cé go bhfuilimid ag cuidiú leis an rún, ní aontaím le gach rud atá ann.

I note in particular that reform of the nomination process is part of the Sinn Féin motion and also part of the Fianna Fáil amendment. There is nothing wrong with the nomination process. One candidate who is a Member of this House only sought a nomination a week before the deadline and got the nomination. What has happened is that the media has generated the notion about the difficulty with the process because its favoured candidate had great difficulty - for good reason - getting nominated. We should have some scrutiny within the system and it should not be open to everybody to put his or her name forward to be president. There should be some evaluation of the candidates and that was done and done well by both the Members of this House and those in the local government system.

I am reminded of the tyranny of political correctness, which is often driven by the our 94th estate. It moved from the Fourth Estate to the 94th estate by the manner in which it deals with issues of significant national importance. Politicians are generally too afraid to say this because of fear of criticism. Unfortunately, it brings everything to far too low a common denominator.

The Minister made a good point about the number of candidates. In the debates we have had to date, due to the fact there are seven candidates there has been insufficient scrutiny for people to evaluate the candidates. Evaluation of the candidates is important because the presidency is an important position. In other countries where there is a large number of candidates, there is a run-off and the stronger candidates then end up more in the public spotlight for the final debates and election process. Perhaps we should consider that.

Commitment to constitutional reform is part of the Government amendment, but I have seen no evidence of that. All I have seen is a populist and superficial approach, based on numerical changes. The presidency is a role that should be strengthened. Currently it is very much a ceremonial role and an important ambassadorial role in representing the country abroad. There is a need for whoever is in the position today to be an inspiration for the people at home because of the personal difficulties people are encountering. It should go even further than that. The role is currently very constrained. Why does the President not have the power to nominate two or three Ministers? That happens in Georgia, where the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are nominated by the president, while the head of government selects the rest. There is no reason suggestions like this should not be considered.

I have been struck since the economic crisis emerged in 2008 that we have been crying out for some form of national government to give leadership and consensus in steering us through our difficulties. Why has this not happened? It has not happened because of the political perception on both the Government and the Opposition side. They avoided what was a perceived political advantage. There is no reason the President would not be in a position in a time of national emergency to ensure a national government is formed and that he or she would have a role to play in that. However, politicians will be slow to pass such powers.

I have criticised the Government for its superficial approach to reform. The announcement made with regard to the abolition of this House was a clear example of populist politics at its worst. The announcement was made at a party dinner when stuck for something better to grab the headlines. The abolition of the Seanad seemed a good choice at the time, although no research or evaluation had been done. If the economic crisis has taught us anything, it has surely taught us that instead of less scrutiny of Government policy, we need to be more diligent in the manner in which we scrutinise the Executive. I will return to this issue shortly.

I agree with the all-island approach to the Presidency. It should start with the Seanad. Senator Cáit Keane mentioned the Confederation of European Councillors, which we established in 2000 having been working on it throughout the 1990s. Many Unionist politicians participated in that and they would gladly have been prepared to be members and debate in this House on an all-island basis, but only on the basis that there would be sufficient numbers of them that they would not be picked off within their communities as a consequence of doing that. That would enhance the peace process and would bring greater harmony and cohesiveness to the evolution of policy in the interest of all people on this island. We have significant common purpose in that regard.

I am sorry the Minister is not here to hear what I have to say. All we have heard to date with regard to local government reform is the rationalisation of some city councils. I understand it is the Minister's intention to abolish town councils but that has not been said. All the amendment deals with is government. Why are we not talking about the devolution of powers, which could be done more cost effectively and more efficiently at local government level? Why are we not rebalancing powers between the Executive and the elected Members who have the responsibility and the mandate from the public? Why are we not looking at the more independent financial streams and getting the structures and resources to back the councils?

Why is there no talk of Dáil reform? The only reform proposal we have had from the Government is to reduce by six or a few more the number of seats. There has been nothing about the fact that 15 people out of 226 within the membership of these Houses dictate the business of the Houses and dictate all decisions and outcomes. As a consequence, there is a failure to have clear, independent, impartial debate of public policy to ensure we have the balance and scrutiny which should exist in any democratic process. That is missing from the framework and there is little to advance it.

This is the type of debate we need to have on a continuing basis. However, we should not just focus on the presidency, but on all the institutions of the State, in particular the Houses of the Oireachtas, so that we have a more robust and effective forum at which all policies can be measured so that they benefit and enhance decisions. The people of this island are looking to us for that kind of leadership, but I do not see it coming from the Government. I will welcome and acknowledge the day I recognise it is moving in that direction.