Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Taoiseach to the House. We are very glad to have him here, particularly in a spirit of peace and, dare I say, reconciliation following the very welcome outcome of the referendum. The outcome gives us more than a chance to reform. It was clear from the debate that there is now an imperative for us to reform not only Seanad structures but also, as colleagues have said, Dáil structures. I very much welcome the Taoiseach's comments in that regard.

The reform process is not something we can kick to touch or delay. We must move swiftly on bringing in substantial reforms in light of the referendum result. It would be appropriate to ask the constitutional convention in the longer term to consider constitutional change to the structures of the Seanad but, in the shorter term, we need to move on legislative change without delay. There is fundamental and substantive change that can be made to the Seanad through legislation. We already have a good deal of preparatory work done. There have been a number of reports, and two Seanad reform Bills, by Senators Crown and Senators Quinn and Zappone, are on the Order Paper.

Plenty of work has been done. I endorse entirely Senator Cummins's calls for a task force on Seanad reform, perhaps led by the Taoiseach's office. It could comprise Seanad representatives on a cross-party basis, along with Deputies and academic experts. I strongly suggest there should also be parliamentary draftspersons. Thus, within three months, following some short public consultation, it would report back with an appropriate draft of legislation, perhaps combining the best elements of existing reform proposals.

Having read through existing proposals, I believe there are some obvious reforms we might seek to include in the legislation. I propose four specific changes that I envisage being made through legislation without any undue delay. First, as the Taoiseach announced, we should have legislation on the University Panel in accordance with the 1979 referendum. I suggest that there be one panel with six university Senators, the electorate for which would comprise graduates of every third level institution in the State who are Irish citizens. We should retain the current principle that there is not a residency requirement for eligibility to vote on this panel, therefore preserving the principle of representation for citizens resident outside the State.

The second aspect the legislation should address is the composition and electorate for the five vocational panels. There are some very practical suggestions in existing legislation, including the aforementioned Bills. The process for nominating to panels should be altered. This could be done without constitutional change. We could allow, through legislation, for existing nominating bodies to retain power of nomination but we could also allow popular nomination, perhaps by 500 persons, as per the Bill introduced by Senators Quinn and Zappone, and by local authorities.

I do not think we need any sort of judicial assessment to ensure that those nominated would be appropriately qualified in accordance with Article 18.7.1˚. It would be sufficient and far easier to require that those who make the nominations should themselves be satisfied that the persons they nominate are sufficiently qualified. I agree with the proposals in the two existing Bills that the electorate should comprise all of those resident in the jurisdiction, that is, those who are entitled to vote in local elections. This would ensure greater diversity of electorate and hopefully also of representation.

I do not think voters should have to opt for one of the five vocational panels. I do not see why we should not have five votes per elector so that each person would have a vote on each of the five panels. Indeed, those qualified to vote on the university panel could opt to vote on that instead of one of the other four - most obviously, the education panel.