It will also have some remarks to make on Northern Ireland, to which I subscribe. They are not in conflict with the view of the other group, but they flesh out some of the detail which I hope will be useful to the work of the sub-committee.
I thank the Chairman and other members of the sub-committee for this opportunity to say a few words on Seanad reform. It is an important task. The work the sub-committee is endeavouring to do relates to the composition of Parliament, an institution that is the cornerstone of every democratic state. A key question the sub-committee will address is whether a bicameral system or a unicameral system is best suited to the circumstances under which we operate in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am aware that the sub-committee has received many submissions on this and related issues. While I do not wish to anticipate those or any of the sub-committee's ultimate findings, I merely wish to add to the points I made that I venture a personal conviction that there is a constructive role for a second Chamber, particularly one which stands some distance apart from the cut and thrust which prevails in the partisan atmosphere of the Lower House. I have been on record for three decades as saying I am opposed to any concept of the abolition of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I will not expand on anything I have said previously, but believe the starting position is that there has to be two Houses of the Oireachtas.
The 1937 Constitution model for the Seanad is based on a vocational system. As we all know, it was intended to endow the political process with an extended range of expertise and knowledge. That was President de Valera's thinking behind the system. There is a widely held view now that after 60 years we need to re-evaluate how this model has evolved in practice and whether there is a need for a fundamental overhaul to enable the Seanad, and Parliament as a whole, to respond more effectively to today's challenges.
In addition to examining issues relating to the composition of the Seanad, the sub-committee will also consider the most appropriate role and function of the Seanad for the future. I have already made a submission to the sub-committee on two areas of special interest to my Department. They relate to the elected Northern representatives, which I mentioned, and what role a reconstituted Seanad could play in our efforts to bridge the democratic deficit which developed regarding European Union issues in the Northern Ireland, EU and international sections in my Department and my remit as an officeholder. The strong view of my Department, as distinct from my personal view, with which I agree, is that the Seanad can play a fundamental role in both of these important areas. When we consider EU issues both internationally and domestically, we realise that the EU dimension of the democratic deficit will grow rather than diminish in the future. That is an important point for the sub-committee to take into account. Just because issues do not get world headlines does not mean the Houses of Parliament should not discuss them. We should not link what is in the media with what is important. These are very important issues and we must deal with them in the Houses of Parliament.
It is worth noting that there has been a quantum shift in the role of Parliament in the period since the State was created. The sub-committee has been asked to look at an institution of the State which started at one period in time and has been in existence for many years. While its responsibility for making laws continues to be as important as ever, there is an increasing emphasis on the oversight role. The Houses of Parliament, particularly through an enhanced committee system, have a greater framework of accountability within which issues and policies of the Administration are subject to public scrutiny. This has been a healthy development.
Another significant development is the establishment of the new Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. It is amazing how that has been put in place with little or no discussion. If we asked the first 100 people we met on the street about it, I would be amazed if one knew about it. Perhaps I am wrong. The legislation to establish the commission has been enacted. The commission will underline in a significant way the independence of the Houses. It will be different from what it has been in the past. The commission will be provided with the resources to sustain the administrative machinery of Parliament for years without having to go to the Minister for Finance and the Government. That is different from what it was at the foundation of the State. It is only logical in the context of the developments I mentioned to enhance the role of Parliament that the sub-committee should now set about the task of drawing up a blueprint for a modern Seanad.
Our Constitution has served us well for 70 years. I have been involved in all the reports of the constitutional committee for the past six years in Government and for the two and a half years when I was Leader of the Opposition. I have been involved in all the work since the beginning of 1995. I played a full part in Deputy John Bruton's constitutional commission in 1996, together with David Byrne, now the Commissioner. I worked closely with the Government at the time and dealt with all the reports. I learned as I went along that it was not simple to implement many of the ideas I had, given the legal complexities, etc.
The Constitution and the way it has evolved, although there have not been many amendments, shows it is a living and breathing document. An enormous body of constitutional jurisprudence has developed in the decades since the 1937 Constitution was adopted. Any fundamental change in the character of a State institution set up pursuant to the Constitution needs to be approached with great care. That is the enormous responsibility of the sub-committee. The nature of the functions to be conferred on a newly constituted Upper Chamber must of necessity have regard to the impact those changes will have on the existing constitutional system.
The constitutional system is based on checks and balances between the State institutions of which it is part. One cannot do one thing in isolation as one must be careful of the checks and balances. That is not easy. I do not want to be misunderstood or for people to think I do not want major change. I only make the point because one must watch the bigger picture and be careful of the checks and balances. The sub-committee should be as radical as it needs to be in its deliberations. I do not believe a solution must fit neatly within the existing framework of checks and balances, but rather it must have regard to how it impacts on those and compensates appropriately. I am not saying something should not be done because there are checks and balances.
All the earlier studies will be of great interest to the sub-committee in its work. I mentioned the two fine reports by Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Brian Lenihan on which a huge amount of work was done and which were published in the past seven or eight years. They will be beneficial to the work of the sub-committee. I know the sub-committee's deliberations will be informed by our shared concern to create and nurture healthy institutions of State which will continue to serve the people from whom all legislative, executive and judicial powers derive under God. That is the constitutional position.
I take this opportunity to offer further assurances of my full support for the work of the sub-committee. The Government will give full and detailed consideration to any recommendations made. It is my fervent wish that the process now in hand will lead to broad consensus on the reforms needed and that we will be able to get all-party agreement to proceed with any recommendations. I wrote to the party leaders last March proposing that when the recommendations were to hand, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would chair a group of representatives of the parties with a view to furthering the recommendations, including by way of referendum, if necessary. I said that because if the report comes back to Government for one reason or another, it will probably not go anywhere. The only way to bring it forward is for a committee of the parties to do it. It is the only way we will get change.
I cite the example of an honours system. There have been approximately eight attempts since the foundation of the State to introduce an honours system in this country, but they have always run into the sand. I am not talking about replicating the system in any other country. Irish people who achieve something significant in their walk of life must go to other jurisdictions to get their awards. That is wrong. An awards system should not be based on a system of monarchy or anything else. It is only an awards system. The reason it has not worked - I have failed on one occasion to get the parties to engage in this - is that it has not been done on an all-party basis. My suggestion is that once the sub-committee has finished its work, we should set up a committee of all the parties under the chairmanship of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, currently Deputy Cullen, to further its work.
I welcome the public consultations in which the sub-committee is engaged. I acknowledge the time and effort the individual members are giving to the process when they could be elsewhere. I look forward to the report and the recommendations on the fundamental structures and functions of the Seanad. I wish everyone well, particularly during the public hearings. I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to make some remarks.