Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leader for agreeing to this exercise so promptly after the referendum. For many of us, it is an appetiser and we are looking forward to the main course at some stage. We all take different messages from the result of the referendum, debates, opinion polls and so forth. It may be a wake up call for some, a slap on the wrist for others, while for others still, it might even be a vote of confidence. One can imagine the range of interpretations coming from the debate. The fact that it happened is good and I must say I welcomed a comment made by the Leader this morning to the effect that we should avoid retaliation and recrimination. That must be the starting point. As the old Chinese proverb goes, a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. That is precisely where we are.

We can come up with all kinds of ideas to deal with the frustration we are experiencing with the committees. The Oireachtas committee of which I am a member sits on a Tuesday at 2.15 p.m., but Senators are required to be in the Chamber at 2.30 p.m. I attended the meeting today for only 12 minutes and took the advice of the Leader to be here for the start of today's Seanad sitting. That, however, is not the way to do business. Unquestionably, the size of the committees is wrong. Committees with 20 to 25 members dealing with up to four portfolios are unworkable and we all know we are not making progress in that regard. I only make these points to underline the fact that the issue of reform is not confined to the Seanad but is much bigger than that.

I wish to focus more on modus operandi rather than putting forward ideas because there are hundreds of ideas floating around. The Leader might consider modus operandi in the context of how the reform agenda would be advanced. I suggest we have four to six sessions similar to this one but expanded. Each session should have a focus. We must decide what issues we want to deal with because there are too many involved and the debate is too complex. A decision should be made to have four to six sessions covering particular items and we must be really independently-minded in this regard. We must deal with this issue ourselves, as Senators and as a House. We must make a decision that an all-party grouping will absorb what comes out of those sessions. We must do this and not wait for anyone else to do it for us. Our aim should be to help the Government in its deliberations.

We are aware that there will be, according to the Taoiseach, a period of reflection. Reflection generally suggests marking time, but that would be a pity. We must be exceptionally urgent in our approach, if for no other reason than to say "Thank you" to those who voted for the Seanad to remain. Furthermore, those who voted "Yes" and had doubts about this House are also entitled to answers to the points raised during the debate. If we have an unfocused approach and do not harness what is coming from the debate, we will find ourselves wondering at Christmas why we lost so much time. I ask the Leader to consider organising a number of highly focused sessions and to set up an independent all-party grouping within the Seanad to monitor the debate, take on board the points made and come back to the House with views, if not an actual policy.

Many of the specific issues raised are relevant. There is nothing worse than having to speak during the Order of Business, with one eye on the Cathaoirleach, wondering whether one can get in under the wire with something that does not relate to the Order of Business. That is a problem and makes us all feel uneasy, but we do not blame the Cathaoirleach for this. Some mechanism must be found to change this in the very near future. It would be totally wrong to lose out on the opportunity to raise topical issues. If we are not raising topical issues, we are not really relevant. For that reason, we should examine the possibilities. Perhaps the Committee on Procedures and Privileges might be asked to examine this issue. It would be better for us not to be hypocritical in the way we handle the Order of Business. Incidentally, there are some excellent contributions each day on the Order of Business, many of which are relevant. However, that raises the question as to what exactly makes us relevant, a question that was also raised during the referendum debate.

In the first part of the campaign it was said the Seanad had never blocked any Bill. However, people answered that point, explaining that it was not our job to block Bills but to scrutinise and enhance legislation. In the second half of the campaign that point was taken on board. I read one statistic which showed that in 2009, 1,201 amendments had been accepted. That is a huge number and amounts to enhancement. If those amendments had not been accepted, the relevant legislation would have been passed and enacted in a flawed state. We must put our current position into perspective.

My final suggestion is that we approach the editors of newspapers and broadcasters to put it to them that if they were actually present for the real debates, there might be a totally different perception of this House. I was glad to see members of the media here today, but we all know why they were here. It is important that we do not just grouse about this. We must show independence as a House of Parliament and get to the editors, in whatever manner is effective, whether it is face-to-face or through some other form of communication. We must relay to the media that we would welcome their presence and also scrutiny of what happens in this House. I ask the Leader to take this suggestion on board.