Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not need to labour the point now that a reflection has taken place and a number of propositions have been put forward by Senators on all sides. I value those propositions.

What is the mark of a good day in the Seanad? Is it the ritual row in the morning on the Order of Business? Is it getting one's name mentioned in the media? Is it the sense of achievement on the passing of a Bill? Is it the real engagement that occurs on Committee Stage or one's contribution to the analysis? Is it the attendance of some individual to address the House on a matter of national or international significance?

I wish to comment on the views which came across in respect of the three issues on which we reflected earlier, namely, reform of the Seanad electoral system, reform of the functions of the Seanad and reform of procedural and other matters. The Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann allow Senators to carry out elements of this reform themselves by means of agreement. When we consider what the Seanad does - particularly in the context of the issues to which I refer - it is important to consider the broader headlines relating to an analysis of the reports complied in respect of the House over the years. Those headlines show that it is not easy to achieve consensus among the Members of this House or in the wider Oireachtas about what is needed. For example, with regard to the size and composition of the Seanad, the O'Rourke report of 2004 recommended increasing the membership of the House to 65, with 32 directly elected and 20 indirectly elected Senators and 12 Taoiseach's nominees. The policy document produced by the Fianna Fáil Party this year advocates reducing the membership of the House to 51, with 40 Senators to be directly elected, a further eight to be nominated by the Government with the approval of the Dáil and the remaining three to be directly elected from Northern Ireland.

In the context of elections, in 1967 the Committee on the Constitution stated that there should not be direct elections and that Senators should neither be elected on a geographic basis nor on the basis of party representation in the Dáil. The O'Keeffe report of 1997 indicated that there should be a mix of directly and indirectly elected Members, with 21 directly elected - 15 from the European Parliament constituencies and six from single-seat higher education constituencies - and 28 indirectly elected,14 by the incoming Members of the new Dáil and 14 by county councillors. The Lenihan report of 2002 stated that 48 of the 60 seats should be filled by means of the proportional representation-single transferable vote system from a national list, that the university seats should be abolished and that the Taoiseach should nominate eight Senators and four others - in a procedure to be specified in law - to represent citizens in Northern Ireland. The O'Rourke report also advocated a mix of directly and indirectly elected Members, with 32 directly elected - 26 through a national constituency under a PR system and six from a higher education constituency under a PR-STV system - and 20 indirectly elected, through a national constituency, by county councillors, Deputies and Senators under a PR-STV system. The O'Rourke report also stated that the electorate should comprise all those entitled to vote at Dáil general elections, excluding those who had chosen to exercise their franchise in the higher education elections and those entitled to vote in indirect elections. The Gormley report of 2009 stated that there should be direct elections and that these should take place on the basis of a sectoral panel system, with citizens in 32 counties over the age of 16 and those resident here for more than five years entitled to vote. Senator Crown's Bill on this matter advocates that the electorate should comprise those eligible to vote in local elections and citizens living abroad. The Zappone-Quinn Bill advocates that it should comprise those eligible to vote in Dáil, European and local elections, Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, Irish passport holders abroad and graduates of all higher education institutions. The Fianna Fáil policy document to which I referred earlier advocates that 40 Senators be elected directly, ten from each of the four European Parliament constituencies, and that the electorate should comprise all registered voters and the diaspora, as defined by the Constitutional Convention. A Green Party document produced earlier this year advocates that the Seanad should be elected by the people and that the franchise should be extended to the general public.

These are just a number of the issues raised in respect of elections. The reports, documents and Bills to which I refer also make observations on the term of life of the House, the timing of elections, the powers of the Chair and matters such as reform, functions and procedures. This is a matter in respect of which it is not really possible to obtain a quick and consensual response.

I do not want to deal with all of the individual contributions that were made. However, a number of underlying themes marked the debate. I refer, for example, to the scrutiny of EU directives and regulations. There is a river of information moving through the European arena all the time. The directives and regulations in question must be agreed by the participating countries. On one occasion when Ireland held the Presidency of the EU in the 1990s, I recall spending 17 hours at a trade meeting called to resolve a row between two countries in respect of where tractors were being manufactured. The contrived basis for the row related to the coefficient of rubber in the bumpers of the said tractors. One can be obliged to consider issues which emanate from the European Commission and the European Parliament in minute and complicated detail. Of course, we have an all-party Oireachtas committee which deals with European matters. The Seanad can, quite rightly, reflect on such matters now and those Senators who are committee members can carry its views to their committees. I note that the House is due to discuss a motion relating to this matter in the coming days. I must inform Senators that, as far as I can ascertain, very few if any of the propositions put forward in the past in respect of legislative change and reform have actually been followed through in terms of an analysis of what they mean from a legislative and constitutional perspective and how, in the context of how the Seanad is actually set up, they might work.

What I intend to do now is proceed as I have said. I will discuss with the party leaders in the Dáil the concept of Seanad reform as part of the process of political reform.

We need to engage further on this. The question of a task force has also been mentioned. There is so much information available that it is necessary to have some structure by which it can be crystallised into coherent sections on which people can make their views known so that we can follow through.

There were a number of valid suggestions. Senator Healy Eames raised the question of me reflecting on Members who were nominated under the rule that applies at the moment, whereby the Taoiseach makes nominations to the Seanad. I remind the esteemed Senator that any one of the 60 Members is entitled to be considered for a nomination to serve at Cabinet, even Senator Healy Eames. That is a constitutional facility.