Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are some very bossy people in both Houses; we can all agree on that.

There are three stages of reform in which we need to be engaging. They are parallel and do not follow from each other. Each should be started immediately. The first concerns internal procedures, about which others have spoken. Senator O'Brien spoke in detail about the Order of Business. I agree with him and believe the Order of Business is an important part of the day, but we need to be much tighter with time. It looks self-indulgent when we go way over time on the Order of Business, as we did today. We need to ensure that we keep to time and that we are professional in our conduct of debates generally.

There are internal procedures that we have already changed. Senator Cummins has very much taken a leading role in bringing about the internal changes. The public consultation committee has been a real strength of the Seanad. We can strengthen it further by trying to engage more Senators in the committee's hearings. The only flaw so far is that there has not been enough participation by a larger number of Senators.

I agree with the Senators who talked about the need for fewer statements. However, our question-and-answer sessions involving Ministers are very valuable. We have had some really good exchanges. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, for example, gave a very important answer on credit unions during the course of a session. The contributions by distinguished speakers, including by Mr. David Begg recently, have been very positive.

There are internal procedures that we can work on, tighten and make more professional. We should lead the way on being a family-friendly Chamber and examine how we conduct our business in a way that encourages those with young families to get involved. This would be part of an international movement on parliamentary reform and we should be part of it.

The second set of changes is through legislation. I agree entirely that the first legislative measure, the easiest, should be to reform the composition of the six university seats and extend the franchise to all third level graduates. This should be done without delay.

I was glad to hear Senator Crown saying that the Bills currently on the Order Paper, in his name and those of Senators Quinn and Zappone, should be examined to determine how best to merge them or take the best parts from each. We should consider taking the best elements of Ms Mary O'Rourke's excellent cross-party report from some years ago and unite on a cross-party basis to agree on achievable legislative change, particularly on the election of Senators. The latter was a key issue in the debate before the referendum. It can be tackled and does not require constitutional change to broaden the electorate for the Seanad.

The third type of change is the constitutional change that would be required for any more significant structural changes to the Seanad, for example, to change the Taoiseach's nominees system. In that regard, the obvious body to deal with this is the Convention on the Constitution. I said this earlier today. Through talking to the Leader, we could work in a collegiate fashion. We could pass a cross-party motion, with agreement on all sides, to refer the issue of constitutional change pertaining to the Seanad to the convention. The convention is seeking an extension into 2014 and it could easily examine Seanad reform as part of its extension, having already examined Dáil reform.

The Seanad has been really strong on Committee Stage debates, Private Members' business and accepting Private Members' Bills. Ministers have been more amenable to accepting amendments and Private Members' Bills in this House and the other. Let us have a communications strategy whereby the Seanad communicates to the press whenever a Minister accepts the Bill or an amendment.

That is something that was lacking in the debate. People really need to put the message out about the work we are doing and the way in which Ministers can be more effective. Some are particularly receptive to amendments and Private Members' Bills. If we were to devise a communications strategy - the entire House as opposed to individual Members - that would be very useful.

The scrutiny of EU legislation and public appointments is referred to in the O'Rourke report. There is plenty more to be said on this matter and I look forward to further stages of the debate.