James Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate on the Bill and the Minister to the House. I have listened, here and via the monitor in my office, to what many of the speakers have said. There is a real appetite for reform and an acknowledgement that there are deficiencies in the Seanad as it stands, particularly in terms of what the report describes as elitist and one which disenfranchises so many of our citizens. This must be addressed. The previous speaker highlighted his experience of it. The fact that so many third-level institutions are excluded from the university panel electorate is not healthy. The absence of clear and defining guidelines or public understanding of the Seanad's distinctive role must be addressed. While I agree with a large number of the good points in the report, many need to be further explored and examined.

I believe in the comment that a reformed Seanad must be seen by Irish citizens as having a legitimate voice and a role in the political process and that it should have adequate powers and functions. However, I will return to it regarding what it might mean depending on the level of access a diaspora would and should have. I agree with the concept. The Seanad is enriched by the presence of Senator Lawless and our Sinn Féin representative from Northern Ireland. However, there is a major issue to be explored. Other speakers have discussed the logistics of achieving it. I refer, for example, to how all Irish passport holders in Northern Ireland and elsewhere around the world would be informed and how arrangements would be made to enable them to vote. Our diaspora is not very different - in terms of being information technology, IT, savvy - than many of our own people. Many of them are older individuals who may not be IT savvy. The report alludes to county libraries making IT available. How would this be done with people abroad? I particularly think of many of our countrymen and countrywomen residing in the UK who went abroad and sent money home but find themselves in situations of hardship that make it difficult for them to access such facilities or have a full understanding of them.

As other speakers said, there is so much more the Seanad could do. Scrutinising EU legislation is one example. The report alludes to committee work and bringing people before the Seanad. How would it impact on our existing committees? As somebody who was involved in the successful pre-legislative scrutiny of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which was held here in this Chamber, I wonder how we would manage the process without duplication and conflict with the committee system, which has worked well. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a very important process around our legislation and I am very pleased it has become standard. I think the principle of one person, one vote is certainly something to which most of us subscribe. I have heard what speakers have said about the power of local government and the concern about further undermining of that. I believe there is a problem there in terms of the powers local authority representatives have and their ability to exercise those powers and a shift away from them to the more permanent office or board of management. That certainly is something that requires examination and needs to be addressed. This is not a criticism of the management, which I believe does great work on our behalf.

I do not want to spend too long going through the report. It says Seanad Éireann lacks a distinctive identity, too closely reflects that of Dáil Eireann and fails to realise the constitutional ambition to create a largely vocational Chamber. It speaks about achieving more balance of vocational representation and educating people. A bit that really disturbs me says that the level of knowledge and practical experience required of candidates in the Constitution should be defined in legislation. I would be very worried about that. It smacks of more elitism.