Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1987

Vol. 116 No. 6

Government Review of Seanad Éireann: Motion (Resumed.)

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to carry out an urgent review of the powers and functions of the Seanad and the methods of election of its members.
— (Senator Ross.)

First, I should like to compliment the Senators who brought this Private Members' Motion before the Seanad. Indeed, a similar appraisal by the other House would also be a constructive exercise. The debate so far has been open and the siege mentality which is often the response to a motion such as this has not been apparent.

As a new Senator with only limited experience of the House, when I considered this motion a number of questions presented themselves. Is there a real necessity for a second House? If there is, what are its functions? What is the best and fairest method of election to ensure the most effective representation? How can the House be reformed to be a more relevant and effective Chamber? First, I propose to address myself to the method of election of Senators. There are a few points I should like to make regarding the university Senators. There are six university Senators; four of them are Dublin based and two of them are Cork based. They are elected by an elitist electorate and obviously the main centres of population have an advantage in the matter of the spread of the electorate. This factor alone militates against the other regions in terms of representation on the university seats.

Senator Kennedy in his contribution last night spoke of extending the university franchise to other third level institutions. With the eight regional technical colleges, this would spread the electorate further on a geographical basis. The Minister pointed out last night the imbalance between the two university panels in terms of their electorate, where one university with a quarter of the electorate of the other elects three Senators, as does the first. There is a group I would be personally concerned about and who I feel have a very definite claim to vote on a university panel. That is the group of second chance students at third level who have obtained their degrees through night classes and English universities. There are areas which warrant close scrutiny and the appropriate action in terms of regional equity and universal suffrage inside the group who have successfully completed third level education.

Another very important and related area is the broadening of the qualification of candidates for the university panels. The Senators who are elected on the vocational panels, of which I am one, have come under attack both inside and outside the House. Senator Ross made a big play of the fact that Mr. Ken Whitaker failed to get elected on a vocational panel. Ken Whitaker is someone whose contribution to this State is immense and I have no doubt that his contribution to this House would be outstanding. The question arises however: would he have been elected on a university panel? My first involvement in a Seanad campaign was in the recent campaign. It is a very demanding campaign on the vocational panels but it is not without its reward. It is both an education and an enriching experience to meet with the councillors of all parties throughout the country. One becomes very much aware of the very high calibre of public representatives we have at local level. I am a member of three local authorities and a member of various sub-committees. I have always been impressed by the level of competence, integrity and dedicated patriotism which has been apparent among the local representatives in my own area. Indeed, Councillor Tom Brennan was awarded an honourary doctorate of the national university while serving as a member of Waterford Corporation a couple of years ago. This is an honour that is not lightly bestowed.

The councillors of Ireland are the frontline people in terms of knowing the needs and aspirations of people at local level. They are members of regional bodies such as health boards, regional development organisations and regional tourism organisations and they are involved in planning, in the development of and in decision making for their regions. As people who can get themselves elected with an average of 1,000 votes, they have the first basic endorsement by the people so that all of those contesting on the vocational panels must present themselves to a very knowledgeable electorate. Whereas councillors who are members of political parties will tend to vote on party lines, there are a good number of Independent and small party councillors. The political party councillors must select from inside their own group and local and regional factors come to bear. There is a good geographical spread among the Senators elected on the various panels. This is extremely important in terms of the relevance of the Seanad. The imbalance in the growth of Dublin as against the regions is a national problem requiring urgent remedy.

There is a 7 per cent involvement in university education from Waterford as against a 12 per cent national average. For instance, there is a 14 per cent participation from Cork, double that of Waterford. This again underlines the national imbalance in the university electorate. We had the recent announcement by the Government of their plans to decentralise. Originally, eight areas were to have benefited but now only four, Galway, Sligo, Ballina and Cavan, have been selected. Waterford has been left out. Indeed, the whole south of the country has been left out. The regional studies by Buchanan in 1962 forecast 50,000 to 60,000 population for Waterford but Waterford has only reached a population of 39,000. Yet Galway, which is to benefit by decentralisation to the tune of 200 jobs in the Department of Defence, has gone from below 30,000 to 47,000 people.

I believe this Chamber, through the vocational panels, has the sort of geographic representation that can highlight the imbalance and make a major contribution to the planned development of the nation in all its many facets. Because of the nature of the electorate the Senators on the vocational panels are close to their electorate and there is an on-going feed of informed views and ideas from the grass roots through the councillors to the Senators.

As chairman of the south eastern airport company which runs Waterford Airport I am very much aware of the need for a policy and proper funding of regional and local airports as a vital part of the national infrastructure in terms of regional development. Waterford is providing the first international scheduled service for many of the airports outside Dublin, Cork and Shannon. Ryanair introduced a Waterford-London service in 1985. This service is firmly established as a daily service. I would see this House as being a particularly appropriate forum for teasing out a meaningful policy in this area.

As a new Senator obviously I have not had sufficient experience of the House to make an indepth assessment in terms of its functions and effectiveness. There is no perfect organisation or body and the Seanad, I have no doubt, could benefit from reforms. From my limited experience there is one observation I should like to make. A question time similar to that in the Dáil would enable the House to respond quickly to issues of public importance as they arise and do that in an effective way. I believe this is a priority reform. I had experience recently of not being able to raise a matter of great public concern to a population of 110,000 people in what I would consider a meaningful way because of the procedures of the House. Whereas I was able to make a case regarding the closure or prospective closure of the County and City Infirmary in Waterford in a general debate, I was not able to get a specific response from the Minister for Health as to why the hospital was being asked to accept a 24 per cent cut in its allocation, whereas the national average for voluntary hospitals was 7½ per cent. Finally I welcome this debate and it is my hope that reform will result which will enhance the role of the Seanad to the benefit of the country.

May I welcome the Minister of State to the Seanad and wish him well with his new portfolio? I will be brief because I fail to discern the substance of this motion and I fail to understand the statements made in support of it. In interviews given by Seanad members to Sunday newspapers it is difficult to see a clear reason given as to why an assembly that has served the country well for 50 years should now be altered or abolished for no sound reason. In my opinion, it is not coincidence or concern for the welfare of this State which prompts the movers of this motion to desire the abolition of the right of the Taoiseach to appoint 11 nominees to the Seanad. Why is it now an abuse of power although it has not been so for the past 50 years? The Taoiseach was entitled to bring in people he thinks should be brought in. He has that right and should never be denied the privilege.

I came to Dublin in the mid sixties to seek employment. During a period of 16 years of single party Government when we were blessed with full employment, the abolition of the Seanad was far from the minds of people such as the PDs. I worked in an industry that was allied to construction and I made many good friends. I came to know Dublin and to love the Dublin working class people. There was one gentleman who got my attention because he had a wonderful ability to manage people. Full employment brought certain problems because people could pick and choose jobs. There was a lot of industrial unrest. This particular gentleman with that magic touch could solve every problem. One day I asked him what the secret of his success was. At that time he was a foreman on a construction site. Nowadays he would be termed a contracts manager. He said: "It is very simple. Before I get into an argument I try to see the problem from the other side".

I would humbly suggest that Senator Ross should adopt that approach before he so quickly levels criticism at his fellow Senators. He should put himself in the role of some of the Senators in the Chamber who are also members of urban district councils, county councils, VEC committees, local health committees and the boards of management of community centres. Perhaps he could put himself in the position of somebody who has set up and developed and manages a manufacturing industry employing 18 people and who markets the products throughout the Middle East, in the trouble spots of Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Quatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman to name but a few and who hires a four wheel drive in Dhahran in Saudi Arabia and drives across an unfinished road to the new city of A1 Jubail, to win orders to keep those 18 people in employment. When he arrives back with the orders he discovers that the people have no incentive to work because of the need for a more equitable tax system. He discovers why people need to go to such far distant places and realises that small viable Irish industry must be given new technology and machinery to enable them to manufacture a competively priced product that will sell in the EC in a new market which has been created of 320 million people, a market that has been opened up by the ratification of the Single European Act. Or perhaps the Senator should spend an afternoon in a housing estate where people are living in low cost houses and children are sleeping in damp bedrooms, where the level of unemployment is 60 to 70 per cent. In addition to that perhaps he would find time to go to a match on a Sunday and enjoy it.

However, the Senator has generously conceded that there are several able Senators among the Taoiseach's 11 nominees. I assure Senator Ross that we will not be queuing up for his nod of approval. I believe that a democratic system, by its very nature, will see people of different abilities and talents elected to positions of authority at any given time. However, the movers of this motion seem to perceive a perfect Seanad occupied by perfect people. We all know there is no such thing. It brings to mind what one of the greatest Irish writers of all times said about perfection. The famous Dame Melba, then the greatest soprano in the world and also a great beauty in her time, took Shaw up when he wrote in a Sunday newspaper that there was no such thing as a perfect human being. She said if she were to marry George Bernard Shaw and they had offspring, with her beauty and his brains, surely that would be perfection. Shaw aptly replied and said since she had taken him into the realms of supposition; "What if we had offspring and the child had my beauty and her brains?" So much for perfection.

We are also told that the Seanad should be a more representative group and the Members should not follow a party whip. Why should we be afraid to follow party lines, so long as those lines are straight and based on sound political judgment? The movers of this motion appear to believe that everyone in the regiment is out of step except them.

Finally, I believe we would be ill-advised to interfere with the powers and functions of this House or the election of its Members when we recall that a handful of votes at a general election is the difference between defeat and success. Many a great Deputy lost his seat on that handful of votes, perhaps a Deputy who has great ability and patriotism, is dedicated to the service of his country, educated and with a deep commonsense, and having made a contribution to many debates in his lifetime. Should he be let go with no alternative open to him and should the country suffer the loss of such a person? I say no. The Seanad is ready to avail of the services of such eminent men. Senator Ross should try standing shoulder to shoulder with men of this stature and then he might be a little bit slower to introduce such a motion or to make such comments on it.

I am happy to support the motion set down in the names of my colleagues Senators Ross and Murphy although I do not agree with everything either of them has said. It causes me some pleasure to have listened to some of what Senator Ross said because it indicated to me that at least one of my constituents, and Senator Ross is such, actually read my election material, a number of the proposals which he put forward having appeared prominently therein, one of which in particular I repeat in the presence of the Minister because I believe it is both helpful and positive although it may not appeal to the political parties, that is, that the dates of election to both Dáil and Seanad should be made to coincide, thereby preventing the Seanad being used as a safety net for rejected politicians. I say this without wishing to be offensive.

I noticed with a degree of wry amusement that Senator Ross spared the blushes of my other colleague. Senator Robinson, when he listed the names of all those Senators who were in this position. As I am sure most of my colleagues here know, my friend and colleague Senator Robinson did on one occasion stand for the Dáil in the interest of a political party and was rejected and then came in through the Seanad. From my point of view she is the exception that proves the rule, although I heartily approve of that rule. There is something dangerous to democracy in the notion that this upper House can be used as a safety net. Listening to the plain people of Dublin, if not of Ireland, during the recent election this was something that was very dearly to the fore of their minds. I remind the House — and I do not wish to be personal — that it has happened in the past that persons have been rejected, not only for the Dáil but also in the election, limited as the electoral process is, for the Seanad and then put in by the process of nomination. That is dangerous. In a democracy the right of the general public to reject the politician is as important as the right to select and that right is thereby being frustrated.

I would support the idea of the reform of the electoral system. At the moment a small, unrepresentative clique of politicians vote on all five panels. I was interested to hear that Senator O'Shea has had his life enriched by meetings with county councillors and so on. I am glad that his spiritual life is so easily enriched. I will comment no further. On the one hand the Minister remarks on the fact that this group of politicians vote on all five panels and considers this, and I use his own words, "singularly appropriate". He is, on the other hand, distressed by the awarding of a second parliamentary vote to a citizen who had the good fortune as well as the intellectual capacity to achieve a university degree, again the Minister's own words. I find this very curious. It is strange and it is inconsistent. Why should he be so worried by one group of eminently qualified citizens having two votes and, at the same time, feel it singularly appropriate that another group, who are not always held in very high public regard, especially with regard to the numbers of junkets and so on that go on, should have five votes. I cannot understand this.

Does the Minister not recognise the value of education? Does he not regard this as an additional qualification? If so, has he discussed this point of view with his ministerial colleague. Deputy Mary O'Rourke, Minister for Education? The Minister asks two subsidiary questions. He asks why should one university with an electorate of 15,000 elect three Senators while the other with an electorate of more than four times that number also elect three Senators, and why should university graduates rather than other third level graduates have the vote? That is an apparently innocuous question but I think it is dangerous and it is rather senseless.

It is very relevant.

If I may be allowed to continue, Senator Manning, I will explain precisely what I mean on this issue. It is difficult to construe this as other than a continued antagonism to the University of Dublin representation. The Minister indicated that he felt that on a number of issues he had nothing to apologise for. More power to him. I also have nothing to apologise for in representing the University of Dublin. It would be a pity if in this country we felt we had something to apologise for in Trinity College. I am very grateful that we have this representation. I discussed it with a senior colleague in university this morning and he said to me: "Who are we to question the wisdom of Eamon de Valera, who decided that the University of Dublin should have three representatives?"

This is not merely a lighthearted thing because there was a very specific intent behind this. That intent was to give some degree of safeguard, a feeling of reassurance to what was perceived as the religious minority. That was a most generous act. The university which I have the honour to represent was instituted in the beginning very clearly as an instrument of colonisation. There is no question or doubt about that historically. However, we are coming up to the 400th anniversary of that institution and Trinity now is an institution that reflects fully in both social and religious terms the total spectrum of the life on this island. It would be an extraordinary irony if at this moment an attempt was made, using facile mathematics, to reduce the representation. Despite the fact that Trinity is now 85 percent Roman Catholic it still retains a very particular, a very individual voice. I say this intending no disrespect. I am not trying to rank university Senators. I am extremely impressed by the contributions from my other university colleagues. I have learned a good deal listening to the contributions from around the House from Senators the machinery of whose origin I may be less than satisfied with. It is important that Trinity also be allowed to retain its representation.

An easy mathematical analysis was done. There are four times the number of registered voters, and so on, in the electorate for the National University panel as compared to Trinity. If one looks at the percentage of graduates who vote, Trinity has a consistently high poll between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. The National University is very considerably lower — between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. In saying this I do not wish to denigrate the voters in either constituency. I know the great difficulties on the National University panel. For example, it is split between a number of colleges, and so on. It indicates on the other hand, that the graduates of the University of Dublin clearly place a very high value on this representation. In addition, I would ask the Government to consider how an attempted interference with the representation of the University of Dublin would be perceived in the North of Ireland. It may be perceived incorrectly, but there is no doubt in my mind that it would be seen as a dimunition of a dilution of the right of dissent.

It is an unfortunate coincidence that my co-religionists do not participate as fully as I think they ought to in the democratic process of this State. It is notable that there is only one Deputy in the Dáil who is a member of the Church of Ireland. It is very remarkable considering that there are three members of the Jewish faith in Dáil Éireann and I salute them for their industry, one in each party. They are a tiny religious minority. There are two members of the Church of Ireland in this House, Senator Ross and myself, both representatives of Dublin University. This is a point worth bearing in mind, although I would have to stress absolutely that I am not a sectarian candidate. I do not wish to appeal to a sectarian vote, but I think it is worth drawing the attention of the House to this fact.

Taking these sort of considerations into mind, would it not be inconsistent for a party with the aspirations to national unity of Fianna Fáil to close off this kind of representation in the light of the way in which it might be viewed from the North of Ireland.

I would like to address some of the technical points with regard to reform of the Seanad. I mentioned the idea of making the dates of the Seanad and Dáil elections to coincide. This would be a very good thing. The method of election should be looked at also. I will not indulge myself any further in any cheap gibes at Senators of other groups. I think it is much better if everybody co-operates in this regard.

The intention of the Seanad was to provide an area of expertise, of expert critical analysis and assessment of Bills. It seems that the best way to do that is to activate the vocational aspects referred to in Article 19 of the Constitution. A committee may be established to review the functions of the Seanad about which I am not more than slightly optimistic, because there have been six such committees already established which really did not accomplish a great deal. If such a committee is established it would seem that the method of election is one thing that must be looked at. As a preparatory to that a review could be made of the principal areas of legislation so that one could isolate what areas of expertise one wishes to concentrate into this House. Very frequently there are discussions on matters of health, and so on. Therefore, why not have the Irish Medical Association, nurses and dentists rolled into one electoral group and the membership of all these professional organisations and bodies voting to elect their representative. In so doing we will get what was actually intended for this House, an expert view brought to bear on highly technical pieces of legislation.

I have completely dismissed this notion of universal suffrage for the Seanad. It is an absolute nonsense. I am most surprised to hear it raised. I noted with some degree of incredulity that it was raised by Senator John A. Murphy. I refer to Deputy's John Kelly's work on the Constitution where he says:

The only popular election to the Senate, held in 1925, was a failure due to lack of public interest.

Not only do I believe it would probably be a failure due to lack of public interest again but such a suggestion completely misunderstands the functions of the Seanad. I do not see how one could operate constituencies based on geographical rather than vocational criteria. We have 60 members. We would certainly have at least two or three times that number of candidates. With regard to a ballot paper for such an election we are going to have a thing like the Great Wall of China being unrolled if we take this road. It would take people an hour to read it, let alone to vote on it. It is completely impractical.

I return to this notion of the absurdities of a geographical concentration in the Seanad when I recall Senator O'Shea chastising the university members for representing Cork and Dublin. They do not represent Cork and Dublin. They represent the universities. There is no geographical element. It is almost inevitable that the university Senators should represent the areas in which those universities are located. They do not represent the pool of population.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute remaining.

I believe there is plenty of time. It is agreeable on this side of the House that if Senators want to take a little time longer it would be in order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is a matter entirely for the House.

I greatly appreciate the indulgence of the House and I will try not to be too long-winded. Perhaps I could have another couple of minutes.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would like to have some guidelines. It cannot be open ended. There must be some guidelines for the Chair; otherwise we cannot operate effectively. Shall we say 20 minutes?

I doubt that I shall require 20 minutes. I am most grateful for the indulgence of the House. Perhaps I could make just a couple of further points. One is that I welcome the opportunity for the debate and for listening to the ideas of other people. It is slightly unfortunate, but understandable, that the vast majority of the publicity surrounding this debate actually occurred before the debate took place in the House. There is an element of disrespect for the House in this which I find regrettable. I listened to an occasionally heated debate on the wireless at the weekend and I saw several articles in the newspapers. I would rather wish such discussions would come after the debate, and that the House would be treated with a degree of respect. I understand some of the motivation behind this. It is human and unfortunately it is easier for Senators to attract the attention of the media outside this House. This is something that should be looked at.

I want to draw the attention of the House to two very interesting books that I acquired, Irish Politics Now and Magill Election 1987. There is no mention of the Seanad in either of them. How can a book purport to be Irish Politics Now with no reference whatever to an essential element of the Government of this country. The same is true of Magill Election 1987 which refers only to the Dáil and not to the Seanad. That is most regrettable, but it certainly reflects a common view. Many people during the election asked me: “When are you up for election again?” They had no idea that there was any association whatever between the Seanad election and the general election which they placed in a different category. As Senators we should try to facilitate press coverage of this House and, indeed, try to insist that it is properly covered. I notice, for example, that only one newspaper this morning appeared to carry any coverage whatever of what was an important meeting of this House yesterday. That is most regrettable.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is nothing new.

I hope something can be done about this. I also understand from the human point of view that some of the debates are technical, some of them are merely read. As a lecturer, I know that the easiest way to put your students asleep is to read something, however brilliant and distinguished. If you eyeball people, at least your audience has the idea that you may dry up; an accident may happen; there is a little bit of electricity in the air. I am sure the gentleman of the press also feel this from time to time.

I have a suggestion to make which may be completely out of court but I will make it with good intentions. I have been very impressed by the courtesy and efficiency of the officials of this House, in particular the people who look after the stenography area, the report of the House and so on. I wonder if it would be possible, in the event that there is only one person from the press, or nobody from the press, here at certain times, to allow a preview of the rough transcript to be made available or made visible to the press late in the day, so that they could then run their eye over it and select out items that would be of interest. In other words, I feel the House should go as far as possible technically to facilitate the press so that we may get coverage, because this is an extremely important element in trying to get a further degree of respect for the Seanad.

I have just one further point to make and that is this question of the matter of expenses of Senators, and so on. I feel that I am not in a position to comment upon that except to say — it does also raise this question and I would be concerned about this area — that if we get a reputation for junketing, then we will be held in less respect. I saw in this morning's newspaper that the very process of asking these questions is itself a very costly exercise. I cannot help noticing in reading down through the questions asked in the Dáil at Question Time how many of them are concerned with matters of vital national moment, like the financing of sewerage tanks for particular constituents. Many people regard those items as a complete waste of money. Such abuses raise the question about an examination of the function of the Dáil itself.

Finally, I would like to say that, while I welcome the debate, I noted also that on 10 March the Minister quoted from the record of the other House and went on to emphasise that, at this stage of our affairs, the priority is the effective management of the economy. I am very glad to hear that and I would point out that the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be laid at the door of this House since we have no function with regard to money Bills. If there is a responsibility in this regard, it lies very plainly with the other House. I hope the other House will accord to this House the respect which I have increasingly come to feel for it.

I congratulate the proposer and seconder of this motion on having the courage of their convictions and saying what many of their calibre have been thinking but did not have the courage to say. However, this motion, if carried, would degrade this House and lower it to the status of a debating society for the elite and educated or, as they are sometimes referred to, the old school tie brigade. I do not think that will ever happen. Society has not changed down the years. Mar a deir an seanfhocal: aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile. In other words, birds of a feather flock together. I sincerely hope this motion will be defeated because in some of the points raised in favour of this motion it was suggested that Seanad elections should be taken out of politics. What is wrong with politics? Do not politics and politicians rule not only this country but the world? In this country and most of the free world we have democracy. In other countries they have not got that great privilege. I hope we will retain and maintain it.

Another point made was the Seanad should not be available to ex-TDs, retired from Dáil Éireann. Are we saying that those men, who have given years——

——ladies and gentlemen who have given years of experience and service to the people should be debarred from the Seanad and denied that opportunity? Or would it be all right for them to come in here through the elitist society, in other words, through the university panels? Would it be all right for them to come in that way but not through the political parties? I see nothing wrong with the present system. I see nothing wrong with young, energetic men who have the brains and ability, and the humility to start at the bottom through a political party by joining a cumann and because of their talents getting onto corporations or county councils, eventually ending up in the Seanad. Should they be denied that right because they came up through a hard school where experience counted? Should they be denied the right to further their experience and their knowledge and to use it in turn for the good of the people of their country? This is another question I would like to ask those people. Because they did not stay in the elite society but preferred to be humble and plain people, are they to be disregarded and rejected?

Another point made was that it was degrading for candidates to have to canvass county councillors. I think they were speaking from inexperience. We must forgive people who are very well educated and who have a lot of book knowledge but are ignorant about the political system. As another speaker said, it is an education itself to meet people of the calibre and quality who are on local authorities today from all parties. Every man and woman in this country, regardless of their status in life, is free to be an independent, to join a party or whatever but there is no way they can be debarred from giving their services in the interest of the people. Those are very decent and respectable people.

I advise Senator Ross and any other Senator who spoke about councillors going on junkets that some professional people would get more for one hour's private consultation than a county councillor would get in expenses for a month. When they go on a junket, it is not referred to as a junket but as an indepth study. I advise my learned friends to make an indepth study of the political system of this country and talk to the plain county councillors. I assure them that they will learn more in the university of reality than they ever learned in the artificial universities of which they are graduates.

The point was made that this House was not representative of all the people. This House is representative and so is every county council and every assembly elected by the majority of the people. They represent the gentle and simple, the illiterate and literate, the farmer, the fisherman and the professional. The full stratum of society is represented on local authorities. Does the Senator say those people should not be elected? As my poor old granny used to say — go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a hanam — does he want the hob-nobs of society to rule or does he want democracy to work and the general public to have their say and elect people? That is what they will do and this House will see that they are allowed to continue to do it. We have many eminent professors in this House, graduates from all schools, but we have graduates too from the plain vocational schools. When we left school we entered the university of reality and I think we might be able to teach them a thing or two. We hear a lot from experts here about this beautiful society. Where were those experts when the Bill was going through this morning, men who should have a good input into that Bill, men the Minister asked to give him their views on the Bill? Where were those experts who should have been here making a contribution and listening to what was going on? I suppose they were busy in their professional careers across the river, or elsewhere. They use this House as a platform, but are they sincere? To be fair I think one of them answered the question when he said that, while he enjoys the House, or words to that effect — I cannot quote him verbatim — when he goes to bed he wonders about the value of the House. I can assure him that, if he was as dedicated as the politicians, he would not worry when he goes to bed at night about the value of the House because it would be printed in indelible ink on his mind that it is a very valuable forum and can play a part in promoting the welfare of the people of Ireland. That is what we are here to do.

In the university of reality we learned all about the present and the future; in the other universities they learned about the past. Past history tells us that this country was ruled for quite a long time by the elite and aristocracy. Generations fought to get rid of that. The days of the multiple votes by the landlords are gone. The votes are back with the plain people and we will keep it that way.

I read a book one time which stated that an expert is one who knows so much about everything that he ends up knowing nothing about anything. I wonder about those experts. I heard a very eminent Minister for Finance say in an interview on RTE that what he did was done on the best financial advice available to him and it was something that did not work out. I am saying that experts put this country where it is today. Experts told the farmers to run to the banks and to borrow head over heels. Experts told us all in business to keep borrowing. Where has the borrowing landed us? Are any of the old farmer clientele or any of the people in the working class areas of this city in debt today? They did not follow the advice of the experts.

As one who spent 20 long years on the road as a salesman I know that, whenever I had a sale to make to a professional, I had only to prove on paper that my product would save him money, but when I had to sell to the product of the national school or the local technical school, I had to prove that it would be of advantage to him. That is the big difference between the university of reality and the universities as we know them. I advise them to think deeply about the value and the calibre of people we have here and to think deeply about the calibre of people who represent us on local authorities. They are the salt of this earth and I will allow nobody to deny them their right to select people.

It was said that some of the people selected by the Taoiseach were all right. By implication some of them were not, but that was not said. I ask the Senators to think seriously about that remark. I do not ask him to withdraw it, but I think he should sleep on. I am surprised that anybody of his calibre should make such a derogatory remark about follow Members of this House. The implication was that they were not capable, and I resent that very much. It is a shocking statement for anybody with brains and ability to make.

Another Senator said that members of a certain church were not represented in this House. I can tell him that the present Taoiseach was the first man to cross the Border and bring representatives of the other church into this House. In our political system there is nothing to debar anybody from getting into a local cumann or standing as an independent. We had many Church of Ireland people as county councillors both as independents and from political parties in our county. I would not like it to go out from this House that there is any bar against anybody because all that is necessary to stand for election to this House or Dáil Éireann or a local authority is to be a citizen of Ireland.

In conclusion I would like to advise Senators that the day of the elite and the aristocracy forming selective groups is gone. There is room for them and there is a need for them because, like the proverbial chain, every link is necessary. We are all part of the system and none of us can do without the other. If they want to be part of the great political chain that drives the wheels that keep this country turning, they must become part of that system. That is why being selected by the plain people is important. While the plain people have the right to decide who will be elected to a local authority, to the Dáil, or to the Seanad, democracy is sound and the heart of Ireland is sound. I hope it continues that way.

I welcome the opportunity afforded to me by this debate here this week and next week. The Seanad in its present form is 50 years old this year and 50 years in terms of parliamentary history is a very long time. If we add the 14 years of the life of the first Free State Senate, this House has about 64 years experience behind it. If we look at the other European countries there are few Houses of Parliament which have had such continuity in this century — not France, not Germany not Spain. In fact, very few countries in Europe have second Houses which have survived over such a period of time.

Like all institutions, it is time for us to take a hard look at ourselves, our role and, most of all, our potential. This House has a great deal of untapped potential. It is our job to bring that potential on-stream. All institutions must renew, or else they will decay. We are at a time in our history when it is right for us to think in terms of renewal and right for us to see what potential we have to offer.

I accept the sincerity of Senator Ross in bringing forward this motion. I can also understand his frustration at certain aspects of the functioning of the House. I must also say I was not, overall, persuaded by the extent of the case he presented. I found some of his references to "political hacks" offensive. They were at an undergraduate and strident level which has no justification here. I felt there was a strong current of elitism running right throughout his contribution. If he had the same experience as some Members of this House of the committee system during the lifetime of the last Oireachtas, he would have seen the very important contribution, in a very detailed way, made by some of the people who would perhaps come under the term of "political hacks", as described by him last evening.

I found his view that interest groups should have direct access and representation as of right in a House of Parliament a dangerous and deeply undemocratic idea. It reminded me of the corporate State idea which was bruited in the thirties which, happily, never came into being in this country, but which was part of the political system of other countries. The idea that interest groups should be able to nominate their own people without any sort of democratic sanctions into a House of Parliament is unsustainable.

I was surprised, in Senator Ross' speech last night, that he did not even address the blatant inequality which characterises university representation. I would say it characterises it in favour of his own constitency. This type of representation excludes something which obviously could not have been provided for at the time the Constitution was being drawn up, representation for the very many thousands of highly qualified people, especially in areas like science and technology, who are graduates of colleges now recognised by the NCEA.

I do not want to get into a university bashing mode in this important discussion today but I wonder at times why a pass BA from Trinity should be four times more valuable in terms of a vote than a pass BA from my own college. University College, Dublin, or why a pass BA, good as it is, in history and politics should confer a right on a citizen who may only have a doctorate in science from one of the higher colleges which are not part of university. It is an important point which Senator Ross did not even address last evening. Nonetheless, I welcome the initiative and the opportunity which the debate offers us. I will concede that he made some very valid points which we must face up to.

Senator Norris made an interesting contribution. I hope the Senator will not find me condescending when I say that, from what I have heard of his contributions so far, I believe he will be one of the finest Senators in this House and I believe that he will be here for a very long time. I listened very carefully and with great attention and respect to his contributions in all debates. However, in his contribution today I was reminded of a statement made in the other House a few weeks ago when Deputy Brian Lenihan referred to the "spendthrift ways" of Deputy Barry Desmond. Somebody who can make a statement like that deserves a certain amount of credit.

I felt that the Senator's case today was greatly weakened by the fact that he urged all of us to reform ourselves but then said, "Hands off Trinity." In other words, people who are elected by the county councillors constitute, in some way, a dangerous threat to democracy. Nonetheless, there is the blatant inequality in representation which exists for very good historical reasons. It is something which I would not like to change. I want to see Trinity continue, more or less, as it is. I felt that his case was greatly weakened by the exhortation to virtue on the part of all of the rest of us, while, at the same time, reserving the right to keep Trinity as it is and as it has been over many years.

Senator Murphy made an extremely valuable contribution last night, both in tone and in content. Both he and Senator Kennedy addressed the fundamental problem which faces all political systems concerning the role of a second House. The case made by the Progressive Democrats for the abolition of the Seanad was raised. Senator Murphy very rightly said that it was a facile suggestion. I believe we could go a lot further. It is an example of stroke politics, of pandering to people who have not thought about the question. It goes down well in the pubs or, more likely, among PD supporters in the golf clubs and the other more eminent clubs around town. It is a question of pandering without examining the implications of what is being said. Senator Murphy made the case very clearly last night that any attempt to abolish the Seanad — this is at its most offensive and most negative — would involve us in the most widespread constitutional reform. Probably about 30 Articles would need to be amended and I to not think anybody has the stomach for that at present.

We could talk all day. Senator Kennedy made some very solid points last night about the justification for second Chambers. We could talk a great deal about the precise relationship between second Chambers and lower Houses in whatever system but I do not think that that sort of discussion would get us very far here today. There are one or two fundamental principles which must govern the relationship of the upper House to the lower House. It must not be a threat to the lower House. It must not undermine the dominant position of the popularly elected lower House.

The first Free State Seanad, to which Senator Murphy referred last evening, was a very powerful, very distinguished and very hardworking body. It found itself in conflict with the then President of the Executive Council, Mr. de Valera, and with a majority in the lower House. Mr. de Valera found that situation to be intolerable — the popular will could not and should not be allowed to be frustrated by an upper House which was not popularly elected. He brought in a Bill to abolish the Seanad. Senators will be pleased to know that our predecessors voted against that Bill to abolish the Seanad. However, it became law 18 months later.

That very dramatic episode at the time illustrates the nature of the dilemma. If the second House is too powerful it is obnoxious and there is no place for it; if it is too weak, what is the point in having it? Mr. de Valera erred on the side of caution in the powers he conferred on the second House in drawing up his Constitution. The time has come when we should think in terms of stronger powers, such as longer periods of delay for legislation, being conferred on this House.

In the thirties, in an era when confrontation was the order of the day, when civil war memories were still very deep and very bitter, perhaps it was not easy to think in terms of compromise. In the eighties most legislation which comes to this House and to the other House is technical and complex. There is very little principle of a fundamental nature embodied at the heart of most legislation today. From time to time there is, but not in a great deal of it.

Most countries which have a second Chamber today have some sort of arbitration mechanism whereby, if there is a conflict between the two Houses, it can be worked out in a reasonable way without leading to some sort of constitutional crisis. It would not damage our system, in fact it would greatly help it, if this House had stronger powers of delay and if these could be exercised by Members in this House without the fear of leading to some sort of constitutional impasse. In other words, there could be some sort of arbitration device whereby, if there is a difference of opinion, it can be sorted out.

However, that is getting slightly ahead of what I want to say. I was talking about the justification of a second House in our circumstances. There is, I believe, only one justification for a second House and, that is, that it be a good second House, that it be effective and be seen to be so by the population, that it be hardworking and be seen to be so, that it has and be seen to have a definite and distinctive role. These are the criteria which, if put into effect, will justify the existence of a second House and also that as far as possible it represents a point of view not easily representated in the other House.

Our task in this new Seanad, and during the course of this debate and in whatever may follow the debate, is to try to ensure that these criteria can be made a reality. There are two central points in all of this. One is the role which we want for the Seanad. The main role of the Seanad, obviously, has to be that of legislation. That is why we are here. I agree with Senator Ross, however, that it should be possible within our framework of Government to give this House far greater scope in bringing in Private Members' Bills.

I believe that giving such freedom to this House would result in a greater diversity of legislation on specific topics, sometimes of minority interests or of importance to minority groups in the country, legislation which might very well benefit from not having been drawn up by civil servants, but which could be drawn up by support groups to various Senators in this House, drawn up by groups outside, brought in here not as a final document but subject to the full scrutiny of Members of this House and then move to the other House if the legislation is deemed to be worthwhile.

I believe there is in our community a great number of people who are talented, who would love to devote their services in this way to helping to draw up private legislation of this sort. The Civil Service, of necessity, and Governments through the sheer pressure of work on them will frequently put to one side ideas which are worthwhile but which do not have mass appeal. I believe we would be bridging a link between the wider community if this House had the facility to bring in a greater volume of Private Members' legislation in the knowledge that it would be listened to.

When I look around at the Members of this House I am astonished at the diversity of talent in it, bad as we are told it is. We have expertise in this House on the environment, in the world of archaeology, in horse breeding, in the arts, constitutional law, stockbroking, trade unions, industrial relations, fisheries, Gaeltacht, the world of medicine and people who have a very deep interest in and knowledge of the problems of the handicapped. I could go on. We can look around and we can see that the range of expertise available to the community in this House is rich, is diverse and it is a question of tapping it.

There is also in this House, as the last speaker mentioned, a great deal of common sense so that the potential is there if the possibility were also there for the introduction of Private Members' Bills in the knowledge that they would get a fair hearing. That, of course, also requires that people who talk a great deal about Private Members' Bills would be in a position to go out, do the hard work and bring in Bills which are realistic and which have some chance of becoming law. It is a challenge which we should face up to and it is a point which I hope the Minister will make in a serious way to the Government.

In legislation we have the traditional role of careful revision. Anybody who has watched this House over the years cannot but be impressed by the careful revision of legislation by a small number of Members, but enough to make it effective, of this House in the previous Seanad. It is a role which must obviously continue. I believe the Seanad has a role, which has not been properly expanded upon, to offer in the whole area of parliamentary committees. I am very sorry the Government are moving so slowly on the question of establishing parliamentary committees in this session. I am sorry that they do not seem to be enthusiastic about the question of committees. I believe many Members of the Seanad want to be involved in making the parliamentary committees a success and that they have the expertise to offer, which I mentioned a few moments ago.

There are other possibilities for this House which have not been tapped. The Seanad could provide a forum for members of the European Parliament. It does not require a constitutional change to give members of the European Parliament a right of audience in this House. We should have far more frequent debates on European matters and there is no link as such at present apart from the joint committee, which does not provide a satisfactory link in this way. There is no proper link between our elected members of the European Parliament and the Oireachtas. I am quite sure the possibility of having members of the European Parliament given a right of audience in this House at certain times is something which could greatly improve the flow of information within the Oireachtas and the European Parliament and ensure also that the members of the European Parliament did not behave in the sort of very isolated way to which many of them have become accustomed.

I also see the possibility of us changing our Standing Orders to allow major interest groups in the country to come into this House, not as of right as Members, but to present a case, to have a direct contact between important groups in our community and a House of the Oireachtas, so that these people could come in to make their case, be questioned by Members of this House and at least what they were saying, the point they were making would be on record and they would have a sense that they got a fair hearing and that we had, to a certain extent, been more enlightened and enriched by what they said. I believe that again such an interface between the world of legitimate interest groups and the Oireachtas could have beneficial consequences all round.

There is another point about the Seanad which people who criticise Parliament all too frequently forget. The term Parliament comes from the word "parley" to talk, and in the old days back in the 13th century, when Parliament came into existence, it was a place where people came together to talk out their differences; talking was better than fighting. Parliament at its essence must be a talking shop. People who dismiss Parliament merely as a talking shop do not know what they are talking about, do not know anything about the history of the development of Parliament. There is nothing wrong in Parliament being a talking shop where the great issues of our day are talked out in an enlightened, informed way. I would like to see more debates of an extensive national nature being held in this House, debates on issues which are frequently never raised in the Dáil but about which half the country are frequently talking.

I have just indicated a few areas where the role of the Seanad could be greatly extended. The work certainly is there, and it is our job in this debate and afterwards to find it and to do it. The second question is that of representation: who should be Members of this House. Senator Murphy again last night made the point of Mr. de Valera's sense of exasperation in trying to find a perfect system of representation, and concluding that it simply was not possible. I do not believe it is either.

The present system has a great deal to recommend it but there may well be room for changes. I totally reject the attacks being made on members of local authorities. I do not say that because I have been elected from that panel. I say it because I am a member of a local authority. I am also an occasional habitue of the common rooms of universities so I can make certain comparisons. I deal with academics in my other life. Even still, some of my best friends are academics. I am not so sure that creating comparisons is very helpful.

The amount of expertise which a member of a local authority will pick up over a very wide variety of subjects is very extensive and impressive. There may well be members of county councils who bring the system into disrepute, but the vast majority of members of local authorities have a very deep sense of commitment to people, to ideas and very often to reforming and making work a system which only they could make work, so archaic is it in ways.

There is a great deal of commonsense and commitment among the local authority members in this country. Whatever system is devised there should be a way in which members of local authorities, who are elected and are answerable every five years to their electorate, have a say in choosing Members of the Upper House.

On the question of university representation I want to see Trinity remain. It stands for an important link. The reasons have been outlined by earlier speakers from Trinity as to why it should remain. I have not time to go into it now, but at a later stage it is a question I could come back to. It might be too easy at this stage to say: "Senator Ross would like to see the system reformed; OK let us start in his own back yard." That would be a little bit facile and nobody in this House wants it.

Fine Gael welcomes this motion. We are committed to this House and we will co-operate in attempts to improve it. We do not see it as a cosy club. We see no need to get into a conspiracy to protect the best interests of this House. Far from it. We and Fianna Fáil said when this motion came up: "Let us have as full a debate as is needed; there is no question of rushing it through; let us give as much time as possible because we want to talk about it as well."

We live at a time when we all see our country beset by enormous dangers and difficulties. We see our society grappling with unprecedented problems and we want to see the institutions of this State animated by a desire to tackle these-problems as effectively and fully as possible. We want to see the institutions of the State setting an example, which we can only do by ensuring that we do our best in this House. We must be prepared, if necessary, to change, to adapt and to expand. That is the only answer to our critics. It is a right course for this House. If we must change then let us face up to it. I welcome the debate here today as the first step in that direction.

At the outset I should like to respond to something Senator Norris said in relation to the representation from Trinity College. I had the pleasure and the privilege to vote in the recent election of the three Trinity College Senators and I very much enjoyed participating in that election. I find it very hard to understand how I could have a vote in that election when friends of mine who also went to third level colleges had no vote in the Seanad election. I was delighted to hear the Minister refer to that and suggest that it was something that needed to be reviewed. I go along with that.

Having succeeded in getting elected to Seanad Éireann I now feel very much compelled to defend it and to highlight the important part it plays in Irish political life. Senators are aware that there is now a full scale public debate taking place on the usefulness or otherwise of this institution. I welcome this debate. It is significant that certain Members of the Oireachtas are now openly campaigning for the abolition of Seanad Éireann, which is being criticised with increasing regularity.

The proposers of the motion currently being debated are not in any way suggesting that the Seanad should be abolished but are merely suggesting that certain reforms are necessary. Nevertheless, this debate is taking place at a time when the abolition of the Seanad is being discussed and so we must now confront this issue. I have no doubt that the Seanad, as a political institution, has a very important role to play in the Irish political system. The Republic of Ireland is a liberal democratic State where Government is derived from public opinion and accountable to it. About one-third of the world's population live under such a system, or roughly 1,000 million people.

Of fundamental importance in any liberal democratic state is its legislature. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of such legislatures are broken into upper Houses and lower Houses, the more familiar ones being the House of Lords in Britain and the Senate in the USA. The primary function of the upper Houses is to scrutinise legislation and, if necessary, to delay its introduction. This power of delay, which is also a feature of the Irish Seanad, is its essential function. It ensures that further checks and balances are imposed on the Government by subdividing the Legislature and, by giving the upper House this delaying power, further debate is stimulated, Government power is modified and consequently minorities can win the time necessary to publicise their dissent and possibly to convert a majority to their point of view. So goes the universal function of an upper House. Upper Houses can and do play an important part in the liberal democratic system.

I appeal to those calling for the abolition of the Seanad to consider very carefully the long term effects of doing this. How wise is it to abolish an institution of democracy? As history shows, liberal democracy is a very fragile form of Government. The history of western Europe is proof of this. I suggest that the commitment to democracy, even in Ireland, is not as strong or as sacrosanct as we have been led to believe. Therefore, the abolition of an institution of democracy at this time should not be contemplated. Accountable democratic institutions must be encouraged in today's world and today's Ireland.

Today on a regular basis our democratic institutions are being criticised more and more, the Presidency, the Dáil, the Seanad and our county and borough councils. I suggest that these institutions which are accountable and elected by the people are fundamental and essential if our democracy is to survive. In recent weeks the costs of our institutions has also been questioned. Questions such as, can we really afford the Presidency, or is the Seanad too costly, are being asked again and again. Of course, these questions can and should be asked.

This country has very serious economic and financial problems at present. Is it being suggested that we stand up and proclaim to the world that our country is in a shambles and that we can no longer afford to pay for a Head of State or an upper House? Such a move would be irresponsible and no self-respecting nation could contemplate such action. Are people really suggesting that we now do this?

The Progressive Democrats are suggesting that we do this. I would like to comment on a speech made by the leader of that party over the weekend as I believe it is relevant to the debate. Deputy O'Malley stated that the Fianna Fáil Party are perverting democracy by undertaking policy U-turns on a number of important issues. He suggested the behaviour of that party ran the danger of stretching the already stretched confidence of the general public in our political system to breaking point.

I would prefer the Senator not to go on as the Deputy is not here to defend himself. We normally do not criticise Members of the other House.

I appreciate that, but I felt it was important in that he made major references to democracy in his speech, which is very relevant to the debate taking place at the moment. However, I will take your guidance on that matter. I appeal to the Progressive Democrats, who are contemplating introducing legislation in the autumn to abolish Seanad Éireann, to consider seriously the wisdom of abolishing an important institution of democracy and the effect this will have at this time.

The movers of this motion are unhappy that the Seanad tends to be dominated by party political people who follow a party political line. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that the Irish political system, whether desirable or not, is firmly based on a system of strong party discipline. This is a much greater issue and cannot be debated in the context of Seanad reform. Ireland, like the UK, has a Cabinet system of Government. In such a system, because of the nature of party politics, the Executive is all powerful at the expense of the Legislature.

Many reforms are being suggested to increase the power of the Dáil, including the abolition of the multi-seat constituency, the introduction of an effective committee system, and so on. Because party politics form so much a part and parcel of our general political system reforms must be introduced. However, Dáil reform must come first. Until the Government have the capacity and the desire to do that first, we are wasting our time calling for Seanad reform.

This motion currently being debated also suggests that the system whereby TDs, county councillors and outgoing Senators elect the Members of Seanad Éireann should be changed. Again, I might use this occasion to defend county councillors and the work they do. May I suggest that county and borough councillors play a fundamental role in our democratic system in that every parish in Ireland has its own elected representatives? These men and women do a vast amount of voluntary work and put in long hours on a completely voluntary basis. Their role is totally underestimated; and I am sure you will agree with me on that, a Chathaoirligh.

Getting back to the motion, the first question we must ask is what type of people we want to have in the Seanad. I suggest that this Seanad has a vast range of ordinary interests represented in it, and that is a good thing. It represents ordinary men and women and many interests. It would be very wrong to have this House dominated by a few large, and possibly undemocratic, vocational groups, as the mover of the motion seems to be suggesting. In such a situation who would decide what groups should be represented and how many? Quite frankly, I am convinced that the present system of election produces a far more balanced and democratic institution. Vocational groups, as it is, play a major role in our democratic system in other ways and are well able to have an input into the system. It would be very wrong, and would undermine further confidence in this House, if we were to allow it to become totally dominated by the elite, the intelligentsia and the academics and, consequently, remove it further from the people. The present method of election allows important sectional groups access to this House and, as I have said already, have a wide range of experience in our Senators.

It has also been suggested that the provision in the Constitution whereby the Taoiseach has power to appoint 11 Senators is an abuse of power. As a practical politician, Éamon de Valera introduced this to ensure that the Government of the day had a majority in this House. However, he had another important role for this provision and that is to use it as a device to ensure that important groups would be represented in the Seanad. This is far from an abuse of power; it is a device which has greatly enhanced and enriched this House. This device, more than anything else, ensures that important vocational, sectional and cultural groups are represented here and all Taoisigh to date have recognised this fact.

In conclusion, I suggest that the 25th Seanad is a very fine and balanced Seanad as regards its membership. I resent very much anybody suggesting that I or any of my colleagues should not be here. This House is certainly not just a House for failed TDs as the results of the recent Seanad elections demonstrated. Many big names failed to get elected in those elections. It is up to each and every Member of this House to play an active role in it; it is up to the Members themselves to increase its relevance and improve its usefulness. We should ensure that more Bills are initiated here and, indeed, a Chathaoirligh, you suggested that yourself on your initial election. I am very confident, however, that we can rise to this challenge.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the role of the Seanad. I think this motion is a timely one and has obviously created very considerable interest both in this House and outside. I stood for election partly on the question of the role of the Seanad as, indeed, did some of my colleagues and others who stood for the university panels, where we tend to produce longer election manifestos perhaps than Senators going forward for the panels. I would like to refer to the portion of my own election address which dealt with this, because I felt it was important in seeking election this time to spell out the role of the Seanad as I saw it and the importance of having a debate on how to improve and further the contribution which the Seanad can make.

The stand I took was as follows: It was under a heading entitled "The role of the Seanad" and stated:

During the recent general election campaign a proposal was made to abolish the Seanad mainly on grounds of cost. Any measure which would reduce the burden on the taxpayer warrants serious attention. Does a country of this size need an Upper House of Parliament? Such an appraisal of the Seanad is both helpful and timely. It cannot, however, be made on purely economic grounds. At the time when the role of Government has expanded and become more complex it would be a mistake to diminish or over-simplify the legislative function. That function will be of particular significance over the next few years if we are to secure the comprehensive reform of legislation which is so badly needed. Dáil Members have many other pressures from their constituents in examining estimates of individual Government Departments and in exercising control over Government activities through Question Time, etc.

The main contribution of the Seanad can be summarised as follows: (1) Committee Stage debates can often be more detailed and constructive than in the Dáil, as was evident from the major amendments made to three recent Bills introduced there — the National Monuments Bill, 1986, the Control of Clinical Trials Bill, 1986, and the Status of Children Bill, 1986. (2) A second scrutiny of legislation provided by the Seanad prevents a measure being rushed through on an emotional tide or for immediate convenience. This is extremely important in sensitive areas such as emergency legislation, the recent Criminal Justice Bill and extradition law. (3) Senators are often the mainstay of Oireachtas Joint Committees, on EEC Legislation, Development Aid, Women's Affairs, Marriage Breakdown etc. (4) Private Members' Bills initiated in the Seanad in areas such as family planning, adoption, illegitimacy and homelessness have generated a public debate leading ultimately to a Government response. The university Senators have had a particularly good record in this area over the years. Undoubtedly, there is room for improvement in the composition, powers and procedures of the Seanad; but ultimately its effectiveness stems from the calibre and commitment of those elected.

I have put that on the record because, as I say, I was standing to some extent on my perception of the role of the Seanad. That perception goes back to the time when I was first elected in August 1969. When I sat in here last night and listened to the speech opening the motion by Senator Ross I was concerned that both his approach and his criticisms seemed to pick some of the easy targets in a rather selective way without in fact addressing the basic question: do we want a Seanad; if so what role should it fulfil; and then how do we set about ensuring that that role is best fulfilled? About all, I regret, that, partly outside this House and partly in this House, there is emerging what I believe is an unreal divide between university Senators and the Senators who are nominated and elected through the panel system. That divide is being characterised as those who are independent and those who are members of a political party.

As you know, I have had experience of both. I was first elected to the Seanad as an Independent Senator and I served as an Independent Senator from 1969 to 1976. I then joined the Labour Party and I was a Member of the Parliamentary Labour Party from November 1976 until November 1985, when I resigned and became an Independent again; and I stood for election on this occasion and was re-elected as an Independent and I now take my place in the Independent benches with my university colleagues.

Having participated both as an Independent and as a member of a political party, I cannot share the kind of facile divide that is being put forward. I found the contribution of the political group that I belonged to and of individual members of that group to be a very serious and a very significant one, and one that was taken very seriously by the members of the parliamentary political group. We need to be very careful in our assessment of the party political composition of a large portion of this House and their contribution. We need to look a bit more at how our democratic system works in a real sense.

Our democratic system is a parliamentary democratic system. It works largely through the organisational structure of political parties. Before we totally throw out that system we need to look very closely at it, and very closely at the possible alternatives to it. Even in the United States, where they have more of a divide between a Presidential Executive and a more independent Congress, which has a separate role as a legislature in a way that our Executive and Legislature are not separated, party politics play a role. We must avoid characterising, and then characterising in a pejorative way, people who belong to a political party and who are deemed, if they do, not to have any independence of mind, of thought, or of contribution, or, indeed, any worthwhile contribution to make. I say that in general terms and also from my own experience of Members of this House, because a number of the most distinguished Members of this House were in my judgment, party politicians, if that is how one wants to characterise them. They were members of parties and accepted the Whip of their party while they were Members of this House.

I am thinking of the Leader of the last Seanad, Senator James Dooge, and people like Senator Eoin Ryan and the late Senator Alexis FitzGerald — all party politicians but committed to the Seanad and people who, in my experience, never made narrow party contributions. Indeed, their contributions were particularly significant because they were made by a leading Fianna Fáil or a leading Fine Gael Senator, sometimes showing a criticism of or a willingness to indicate that the particular Senator did not accept in full measure the party line on something. I have frequently had the experience in this House of hearing whether it was Senator Eoin Ryan in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill or Senator Alexis FitzGerald on a number of occasions saying that he took issue with some aspect with a particular line. When the Coalition Government were in office he would frequently be critical of Government legislation, notwithstanding that he was a member of the Fine Gael Party.

I regret the fact that there has been a tendency to have this kind of divide and that somehow it would be the solution to it all if party politics were excluded from the Seanad altogether. I wonder would it. Let us explore that. The Seanad would be a very strange place, a unique representative body. It would be unlike any other representative body, and I wonder just how well it would work in practice. It is difficult to imagine how the work could be structured, how the contributions would be structured, how the business would be ordered and so on.

It is worth reflecting on whether it would be the panacea to all our ills. I would prefer to begin, as I say, with the real question, which is: for a country of this size, in our straitened economic circumstances, do we need a Seanad? That was, as I understand it, the main motivation of the Progressive Democrats. It was the cost factor which led to the proposal of that party to abolish the Seanad. Personally, I do not think it was either well thought through or well argued after it had been announced, but the main thrust of it was on cost grounds.

In the part of my election address which I have read into the record of the House I was attempting to address the reasons why, in my view, we do need a second Chamber, a Seanad, that we should appreciate and realise the importance of these reasons, and then, given our acceptance of the principle of having a second Chamber, see whether we are happy about the way this particular second Chamber does the job. If I may summarise these reasons again, a second scrutiny of legislation has been shown to be necessary, particularly when a measure is brought in on some emotional tide, where there is some outrage that requires emergency legislation. Frequently in this House legislation has been examined a second time in a way that has brought about significant checks to an Executive which wants simply to get the legislation through. I believe that that is extremely important for the future. It is a safeguard to our democratic institutions, to human rights and to civil liberties in Ireland, and it is a very important one.

Secondly, Committee Stage debates of measures in this House are often very much more detailed and very much more constructive than in the Dáil. The Dáil's record on Committee Stages is a worrying one, because in many instances, particularly on the more important financial measures, the Dáil runs out of time. I see the Minister looking at me in some surprise, but I think it is fair to ask, over the past ten years, how many Finance Bills have been debated right up to the end on Committee Stage. Is it not the case that the Bill goes through at a certain stage because the Dáil has run out of time? In this House we do not run out of time on Committee Stage. We debate. The extent to which there is a lively Committee Stage or not may depend on the extent to which two or three or four Senators will get stuck in. We had extremely good Committee Stages in the recent Seanad on Bills such as the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, the Clinical Trials Bill and on the Status of Children Bill. More than 90 amendments were introduced to the Status of Children Bill. The Bill was transformed and, in my judgment, greatly improved because of the meticulous Committee Stage. On record, the Seanad is more inclined to do a serious analysing job of legislation because, precisely, there is more time.

Another important point in defence, if you like, or in justification of having a second Chamber has already been highlighted by Senator Manning, that is, the contribution which Senators make to joint committees. Again, that does not need much additional justification. Senators tend to carry a number of the joint committees; they are the mainstay of them. In order for the committee to commence its business on a particular day there has to be at least one Member of each House, but very often the comparison of a working session, for example, of the Committee on EC Legislation, which I have been a member of since 1973, is that you have one or two Dáil Members and perhaps three, four or five Seanad Members in on a subcommittee. It is again for the good reason that Senators have less call on their immediate time from their work in their position as Senators than Dáil Deputies would have, but they provide the mainstay on these joint committees.

I hope we will see a continuation in this Parliament of the emphasis on committees and committee work. I say that because I am concerned that we have not had motions put down already for the reestablishment of the various joint committees. I had hoped we had made progress and that we had matured into realising that neither the Dáil nor the Seanad can afford any more to be 19th century debating Chambers, that both Dáil and Seanad must do their work through the role played by these joint committees in various areas. I mentioned the Committee on EC Legislation, the Committees on Development Aid, Women's Rights, Small Businesses, the Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies and so on. This is important work.

I also referred to the role of introducing Private Members' legislation. Senator Ross seemed to me last night to be rather dismissive because these Bills are never passed. That is to misunderstand the very significant contribution that can be made by introducing a Private Members' Bill and by having a debate on it. It is part of a broader education process as much as anything else: that representatives of others — and most of the people in the Seanad are representative of others — should on the public record, with the Minister present and contributing, debate the particular issues. The Seanad has a good record — perhaps the areas reflect some of my own preferences — in the areas of family planning, adoption, illegitimacy and homelessness, to name a few. Capital punishment has been pressed for debate; there was a commencement of a debate and it has helped to raise public consciousness in what I think is an important way.

Let me approach now the possible attitudes the House might take to this motion. I suppose the preliminary question we should ask ourselves is: are we in favour of there being a Seanad? From the contributions made that seems to be — certainly as far as Members of this House are concerned — a widely shared view that there is a need to retain the Seanad. If that is so, there equally seems to be a shared perception of a need for reform. Most Senators who have contributed have pointed to the need for improvement or reform in some measure in relation to the Seanad.

There are two ways in which we can approach reform of the Seanad. We can either decide that we must do it in an institutional way by having a constitutional change, or we can decide that we can do it within the present constitutional framework. If we decide that we must have change by way of constitutional amendment, as Senators will be well aware, that engages us in a process which is time consuming, which is expensive, which is contentious, and which is unlikely to be considered in isolation from its implications for other aspects of the Constitution. For those series of reasons I believe it would be more appropriate, more fruitful and more worthwhile in terms of time and expenditure of personal and economic resources to concentrate on the extent to which the Seanad can be reformed within its existing constitutional framework.

Already a number of Senators have referred to the extent to which this can happen. Senator Manning referred to the possible development of a link and a forum for members of the European Parliament. A number of Members have referred to Article 19, to the exploration of giving direct representation to vocational groups. We can order our time and order our business in a much more constructive way. We can develop our own committee approach in a much more constructive way, if we wish to.

One question that can be raised is that, if we are talking about reforming the Seanad within its present constitutional framework, that will not meet the cost-cutting desire, particularly of the Progressive Democrats. You will not save money if you reform the Seanad within its present constitutional arrangement. I suggest to the House that you cannot reduce the size of the present Seanad under the present Constitution without a constitutional amendment, but you can reduce the size of the Dáil. You can actually significantly reduce the size of the Dáil if you want to cut down on the cost of political representation. You could significantly reduce the cost, if the argument is one of cost, by reducing the number of Dáil Deputies. It would not require a constitutional amendment: you just simply take fewer Deputies per proportion of the population. That would significantly reduce the cost. I suggest that, if that is the main thrust of the concern of the Progressive Democrats, they should look very closely at the possibility of substantially reducing the Dáil representation whilst considering the question of the improvement in performance and procedure and general contribution by the two Houses of the Oireachtas without engaging in a time consuming, unnecessary and fairly wasteful constitutional amendment.

I want to turn now to the question of university representation. Inevitably, since this motion is put forward in the names of three university Senators, there is a tendency to say that if there is to be any reform it should begin with the university representation. I do not have any great worries about a focus being turned on the university representation. I am quite open to a discussion on broadening the base of university representation. But before we consider broadening it I think we should know how broad it is already. I was very very interested in the contribution by Senator Seán Haughey, and not just because he is a constituent, on this point of the representation of the Dublin University constituency, why he had a vote but others in third level colleges did not. What Senator Haughey might have referred to is the breadth of the Dublin University constituency. Members of the House may not know who elects the representatives of the Dublin University constituency.

The Senator has about two minutes.

That will do me, a Chathaoirligh. Since the mid-seventies, for example, the graduates of the Froebel College of Education, Sion Hill, St. Mary's College of Education, Marino, St. Catherine's College of Home Economics, Sion Hill and the Church of Ireland College of Education vote in the Dublin University constituency. So, too, do the graduates of Bolton Street, Kevin Street, Cathal Brugha and the College of Marketing. These are now electors for the Dublin University constituency. This, of course, is extremely welcome. It means that, although the Dublin University constituency base is lower than the National University of Ireland, it is growing faster. There is a very fast growth — I say this particularly to Senator Manning who I know has a considerable interest in it. The Trinity constituency grew by 50 per cent from the last election to this election. That is fairly formidable. It will go on growing very rapidly. It is becoming a much broader electorate because a very considerable number of the electors are not graduates of Trinity College but are electors of the Dublin University.

Therefore, already there has been a considerable development within the university constituency. In my view, that, if anything, makes a stronger case for those third level colleges who are not in a system of being able to return representatives. The fact that you now have a much broader base for the university representation — for example, to the Dublin University constituency — means that the other third level colleges should be looked at and accommodated within a system of returning representatives as part of the university representation in the Seanad. There is a case to be made, but the case is better made if the extent to which there has already been a broadening of the base is understood.

You said I had three minutes, a Chathaoirligh, but in my last half minute I would like to ask: Where do we go from here? This is not the first time we have debated the role of the Seanad, certainly in my experience. It would be a pity if we simply had this debate, aired all our views and then let it go after that. I hope that, as a consequence of having this debate, and because there is a very considerable interest in it, we can establish a Seanad committee for a start to take this on. Let us take on and consider the issues that have been put forward. Let us go another stage and have a constructive follow-through and have a reporting back by a committee which this House can then consider. We are obviously not the only people who can have a view on the role of the Seanad. However, we have a considerable insider knowledge of what we are elected to try to do, what we do try to do, and in particular how we could do the job better. I hope this will not just be a debate, airing it all and then forgetting about it. I hope there will be a constructive response of an institutional sort, that we will take it further and examine the role of the Seanad in that manner.

Politics, and indeed politicians, have always been a subject of intense debate in this country. I must confess to being somewhat surprised that this House is being asked to debate a motion about itself and its functions and, indeed, its method of election at a time when hostility towards this House is growing not, I might add, from the general public but, sadly, from politicians themselves. I have to question the wisdom of the two university Senators in putting down this motion. Also I question their motives. If the intention is, as they put it, to improve the working of the Seanad, to make it more relevant to the people and, indeed, more accessible to its Members, then I welcome that attempt. However, I suspect that there is much more to this motion: that, knowingly, or unwittingly, it is an attack on this House and is further ammunition for those in the other House and outside who in their foolishness believe that the abolition of this House would serve democracy more efficiently and more effectively. That is something I will return to later.

It is not my intention to berate either of the two honourable Senators from the university constituencies who have moved this motion. I believe Members of this House should show a united front in the face of attacks on its very existence and I hope that any comments I make will be seen in the context of the motion rather than in a personal sense in respect of any of the Senators from the universities. I would be a strong defender, as are many other Senators who have contributed to this motion, of the concept of university representation.

University representation enhances, rather than diminishes, the House and in that respect the election of university Senators to this House has certainly enhanced it. It is natural that Parliament should from time to time look into itself and discuss ways and means of improving its structures and modus operandi. Normally such an exercise would be applauded by all but to spend hours of public debate on an issue that would be more relevant to a House committee or, indeed, to a special all-party commission in the present climate is not helpful towards enhancing the status of Seanad Éireann or the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I was pleased to hear Senator Robinson making the point that she also believes that the deliberations of this House in the context of the motion should go to a committee of the House. This is not to suggest that I am in favour of stifling debate. I just happen to believe that this House at this time should be discussing matters of more relevance to improving the wellbeing of our citizens rather than giving another opportunity to our enemies and to the enemies of democracy.

Senator Haughey in his maiden speech to the House touched on this. He said that the perception we had that in, having a liberal democracy it was strong, was a questionable concept. I agree with him considering our history and the present conflict in Northern Ireland. There is a political party, not represented in this House of their own volition but in the other House, who are pledged to the abolition of Seanad Éireann. They have offered no plausible reason for its demise other than one of cost, as has been pointed out here earlier. On the basis of an answer supplied by the Minister for Finance in the Dáil last week, this House costs the Irish taxpayer less than £1 million per year. I know that £1 million is like Monopoly money to many of the people who are unemployed and have not got the money to buy bread but compare it to the £3 million for the recent referendum. The cost of the Seanad to the Irish taxpayer in proportion to its contribution to the life of this nation is a paltry sum.

I wonder if that political party I am referring to, the oddly named Progressive Democrats, are aware of the people who live on the fringes of Irish political life who do not recognise this or any other institution pf State, who are pledged to overthrow these institutions by physical force if necessary. How they must be rubbing their hands with glee at the antics of a party who wish to dismantle our democratic institutions. It is not enough for them or, indeed, any of the people who follow their policy, to cry "foul" and accuse me of distortion in this matter. They are pledged to its abolition because in their opinion it costs too much. Where will they put their greedy hands next? On the Presidency? After all, they will argue, we could do without one. Will that be followed by an assault on the Dáil itself? Where will such people stop?

It is for these reasons that I question the wisdom of the university Senators in bringing their motion before the House at this time. I suspect the real reason for the motion is to denigrate once again the system of election to this House whereby 43 of the 60 Members are elected by indirect suffrage through the votes of members of city and county councils, TDs and outgoing Senators. The system of indirect suffrage is a well established one in several democracies where they have a second Chamber. In France, for example, the system is similar to our own and I have not heard any ongoing criticism. Perhaps the French have more important things to be doing than to publicly criticise their upper House.

Senator Ross has argued that the Seanad is a home for party hacks. While I resent the use of such an insulting jibe at honest men and women who wish to serve their country through the party political process, in common with other Senators I defend the system of election whereby the electoral college includes county and city councillors. I made a reference to the French example. The French Senate holds a very esteemed place in the French political life. The Senate is the product of universal, equal and secret suffrage and is protected by the constitution. Indeed, a former president of the French Senate in analysing the composition of the Senate in France in terms of the original representation of national sovereignty which the Senate assumes in Parliament and which this Seanad assumes, said the Senate brings together qualified men and women, administrators of communes and departments, who are both expansion minded as regards the economy of the regions and concerned with human contact with the populations they serve.

The Senate is elected by indirect suffrage in France. It ensures the representation of the territorial entities of the Republic and in that context there is a close similarity with this country. I believe it is incorrect for Senator Ross to describe the procedure as being antidemocratic. I suggest to the Minister that, at some stage in the future, the role of voters should be extended in some way to the representatives of urban councils and town commissions. I do not mean in their entirety but perhaps a representation from those bodies on a delegate basis. It happened in the forties in the election to this House. Local authorities delegated a certain number of their members to vote for the Seanad.

Senators Murphy and Ross, in their denigration — and I have to accept that it is a denigration — of county councillors and of the system of election, have never experienced the joys of a Seanad canvass. A trip around the county and city councillor circuit would give them a new perspective on life as it is lived in the real world and not in the rarified atmosphere of the college campus or on the floor of the Dublin Stock Exchange. I went through that gruelling process and it is a gruelling, mentally and physically demanding process, as my colleagues on all sides of the House will testify. I found it also a stimulating and informative experience. My father and his father before him served on Leitrim County Council so I am not unfamiliar with the life of a councillor. I must confess that I came back from that canvass with an even greater respect for our local public representatives than ever before. A group of men and women of all parties and of no party take their role in the Seanad Electoral College with great seriousness and discharge their duties, not in an uncaring, indifferent manner, but as responsible public representatives.

For the benefit of Senators Ross and Murphy and other university Senators the advent of a Seanad election in Ireland is a family occasion. The cooks in the house bake an extra cake of soda bread, extra provisions are brought in for the coming influx, the parlour or front sitting room is tidied up and the spare room is got ready in case a weary aspiring Senator arrives too late to get a hotel or a guesthouse bed. It is a uniquely Irish activity that has become part of our folklore. For those members of the general public who are not directly involved in the race for the Seanad, there is a consciousness that something is stirring in their area. There is the frequency of cars arriving at the local councillor's house, a more frequent knock on the door, or being waved down on the road and the plaintive cry of! "I am lost" or: "Is this the councillor's house?" only to be told that, although the name is the right one, the councillor lives in the next parish and inevitably you go on your way with a cry of "Good luck in the Seanad" and you decline politely the inevitable request: "Perhaps you might like to come in and have a cup of tea".

I can understand Senators Ross and Murphy attempting to do away with all that tradition. They would call it whimsy and irrelevant. Because they are not part of it, they do not understand it and what they do not understand they wish to abolish. I believe there should be some provision for election or nomination to the Seanad of those members of the public who are not political by nature or inclination, and yet believe they have a positive contribution to make to the life of the nation. I would not be in favour of allowing outside nomination bodies to vote for their own nominee. That smells too much of power without responsibility.

The university Senators in their motion and support of it seem to question the legitimacy of politicians making their contribution to the House. In case the Senators do not already know — perhaps I am being a bit unfair on them — this is a political House. By its very nature it always will be. What is so wrong with being a politician? I do not make any apologies for it. I wish the Sentors and others who support their train of thought would stop denigrating the profession. If they want to be part of the political process of which this House is an integral part, let them start acting like responsible public representatives.

The protestation that they are somehow in the system but not part of it is specious argument. This third person syndrome is much beloved of a growing number of new politicians in our two Houses, an example being: "The people are fed up with all politicians and I agree with the people." They conveniently ignore the fact that by their actions they are stripping away yet another layer of credibility and respectability from the institutions of the State, institutions which a previous generation not only debated and negotiated for but ultimately died for.

I heard a suggestion recently that the Seanad should employ its own public relations staff to rebut all the inaccurate attacks on it. I hope that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will take up such an idea. It is time this House fought back. I am proud to be a Member of this House. As someone who has a background in journalism I believe this House could do with a better press. In that respect I appeal to the printed and electronic media to devote more of their column inches and news and features programming to the activities of Seanad Éireann. I believe in a free press. This House should be the guarantor of a free press. In a democracy a free press should be in the vanguard of protecting the status and importance of the Houses of Parliament not in a cloying, obsequious manner but in a responsible, objective and above all, proud manner. They should be proud of our institutions.

Sadly the Irish psyche is such that as a nation we find it very difficult to be complimentary even to our friends. To those who try, as many politicians of all parties do and have done in this House, and through honest endeavour have sometimes failed, as a nation we can be particularly vicious. I am not naive enough to suggest that this debate will change that unfortunate situation but at least it gives me an opportunity to state that I am proud to be Irish. I love my country with a passion, as many Senators do. I also respect its institutions. If our leaders sometimes fail us I do not get any satisfaction from such an eventuality, unlike some of my contemporaries.

I find it very difficult to support the motion because I believe the motives behind it are somewhat suspect. I have also had occasion to debate with both Senator Murphy and Senator Ross the status of the Seanad on two separate occasions recently on national radio. As a new Member whose family have a record of public service going back to even before the foundation of the State — my late grandfather was elected to Leitrim County Council as far back as 1919 — I was appalled at the cynical remarks of both gentlemen on those occasions about this House and its procedures, egged on by excited journalist/ broadcasters who knew full well that the spectacle of two university Senators indulging in nudge, nudge, wink, wink innuendoes about the upper House was guaranteed to have their public laughing in the aisles.

I was brought up to believe that the concept of political service was a vocation, an occupation to be proud of and not something to be dragged through the muck or to be held up to ridicule. So long as public representatives have no respect for themselves or for their unique calling, they will never command the respect of their fellow citizens. We are a small country with a great many problems, many of them at our own making. The recently elected Government, drawn from the party I am proud to represent in this House, are at last making a genuine attempt to try to solve our problems and lead our people into a new life. If any Government are to succeed, then respect for their role as custodians of the people's hopes and aspirations must start within these Houses of the Oireachtas.

My mother often told me as a small boy and later: "Hold on to your good name, son, because without it you have nothing". This House and all those within it should remember that axiom the next time someone denigrates its functions and its status. While I agree with parts of the motion, especially in the area of improving the procedures such as the introduction of Question Time and so on, I cannot accept the spirit in which my two colleagues have put it before the House and, therefore, sadly I will be voting against its acceptance.

This debate is an interesting one although I believe it is coming far too early in the life of this present House having regard to the fact that 35 of our Members did not serve in the last House. However, the motion calls on the Government to carry out an urgent review of the powers and functions of the Seanad and the methods of election of its Members.

I believe that the Seanad, as it is at present constituted, is capable of taking on additional responsibilities and greater powers. I am very conscious of my experience as a Member of the House almost continuously for the past 25 or 26 years. The predominently representative role into which over the years the Dáil has evolved leaves its membership with insufficient time to devote to legislation compared with other Houses of Representatives whose members are not as accessible to the ordinary members of the public as ours are here. Senator Mary Robinson indicated the effectiveness of the Seanad debates and the large number of amendments we have been able to convince Ministers of various Governments to accept on different pieces of legislation. That is something that feeds the ego of Members when one feels that one is able to improve on proposed legislation.

No institution is perfect. Too many people conveniently forget that this is a bicameral democracy. We would save millions of pounds if we were to do away with all the democratic institutions. I do not know whether people would miss their freedom on the first day, but certainly they would before the second or third day was over. That is the whole basis of a democratic society. It is the system our Constitution lays down for our people. The only way we can change that is by changing or amending the Constitution. Do we want to change? The procedures under which our parliamentary democracy works were inherited from Westminister. They have remained substantially unchanged since 1922.

On the other hand, social institutions which the Oireachtas has to deal with have been radically overhauled. The Civil Service has been greatly enlarged. Over 100 State-sponsored bodies of one sort or another have been set up. The Government are now involved in almost every aspect of life. This enlarged machine is still nominally controlled by the Oireachtas which operates on procedures which are over 60 years old. There must be not just a review of the functions of this House of the Oireachtas at this time, but a continuous effort to improve the effectiveness of both Houses so that the public get better value from the institutions of the State. That should be an ongoing process. I hope this debate may be able to expedite that process.

In this House in 1986 we considered and debated fully 68 different reports and motions. That is very important. Our membership of the European Community and the servicing of the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EEC are an additional responsibility which the last Seanad took very seriously. We still have 17 reports on the Order Paper. In this Seanad we have not been able to tackle any of them yet. I am confident that the Leader of the House will order a number of them in the coming weeks.

I agree with Senator Robinson that it is a pity we have not reconstituted the joint committee because it is only through discussion in the Oireachtas that we can draw attention to the various changes in legislation and in administration which bear significantly on the lives and incomes of the people. I agree with those who say that democracy is always taken for granted until it breaks down or is replaced by a dictatorship. The great value of a House such as this is that the members have the opportunity of giving of their time, talents and experience to bring them to bear on the business of the State.

The one thing Ministers do not want is advice from either House of the Oireachtas. In each Department there are thousands of highly educated, very competent civil servants who feed their Ministers all the advice any Minister could possibly wish to have. What we require most of all to be reflected in the legislation that passes through this House is a modicum of sense, how the cap fits the man in the street. As has been said by Senator Manning, there is a diversity of experience in this House. There are people of different backgrounds who can bring their experience and their expertise to bear on questions which arise. It would not be possible to get that reflection of the common interest if all the advice the Ministers were to receive was coming from very highly skilled experts living in any one place or here in the capital city of Dublin.

As a Seanad, it is important that we should be able to take on any criticism from whatever quarter. I do not think any politician can be accused of being thin skinned. We should endeavour to make our contribution to the administration, to the development of the State and to the well being of the people as conscientiously as possible. It is important that our efforts should be seen to be just that.

Many democracies across Europe have changed from the bicameral system that blossomed over the last couple of hundred years in most countries. Not one of those countries have the same type of representation that the ordinary voter in this country enjoys. There is no country I know of where an ordinary citizen can walk up to a member of parliament on the street and hold him by the sleeve or attract his attention and unburden himself of his problems. I do not think it is possible to do that even in the UK. Certainly I would not like to chance it in Germany or France. I would not like to apprehend a member of parliament going into the Chamber of Deputies in Rome. The police there would take a very poor view of anyone so doing. These people are not as accessible as the Deputies are in this country. From that point of view, it is important that legislation, that reports, that problems that may arise or that the policies of the 120 State-sponsored bodies should be aired in a forum in which members can put points of view across.

The vocational basis for this House gives the House a very clear advantage. It is disingenuous of Senators to look at the membership of this House and see nothing but politicians, of whichever hue. Most Irish people are politically motivated and are interested in politics but a very small percentage are political activists, 7 or 8 per cent of the total population. The people who help with the campaigns, the people who collect, the people who are the basis of democracy can only be described as public spirited people, people who put themselves out without gain, who stand for local councils or for other elected office. The remuneration does not justify the amount of effort, the amount of time or the imposition on one's family, irrespective of what level of politics people may serve in. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the actual problems and the actual worth and role of public representatives in this country. I hope people who read debates that could be taken to be disparaging will not be put off from serving their country through local councils or through political parties. It is important that we should continue to have that great freedom of expression our Constitution guarantees and that people should have the right to associate with one another. There is no better way of doing that than through one of the developed and constitutional parties — the parties who support the Constitution and who do their bit to ensure that people will be free to walk the streets in safety.

When I came into this House in 1961 each Member had a seat to himself. You were assigned to it and did not move out of it. I was assigned to a chair and on my left was the late Professor George O'Brien who was a very distinguished professor of economics in UCD and on my right was the late Dr. Sheehy Skeffington. I was certainly the youngest Member of the House then. At that time there were six Independent or university Senators who were independent in every sense of the word. In the first year of that Seanad we met 12 times. Each time one got up to speak, one had the excitement of making a maiden speech all over again. Life was very easy going. The only incident I can recall was one day on the question of a vote when, the Chairman, the late Professor Ó Buachalla, asked for the Senators in favour to stand. Since there were only four Independent Members present, I was asked if I would support them to make a fifth to call a vote. I did and brought the ceiling down on top of me from both the Government and the Opposition.

At that time university Senators were men of great stature. Their views and their policies may not have been readily accepted by all sides of the House, but at least they left an indelible impression on the House. University Members of the Seanad served the country well in my experience over the past 25 years. For that reason, and not because of any of the contributions made by the proposers of this motion. I think that diversity of opinion is very important in this House. Traditionally people representing those great academic institutions have tackled the ordinary problems in this House. They have looked at Bills from the perspective of their academic environment, as compared to the party membership of the House, the 46 people elected, who were inclined to view legislation from the perspective of whether one was on the Government side of the House or on the Opposition side of the House. I see nothing wrong with that. It is the essence of democracy and I hope it will continue for many years to come.

In 1981-82 the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, over which I had the honour to preside, amended a number of the Standing Orders, which I thought were put into effect, whereby the House could invite distinguished persons to address the House. Unfortunately that procedure was never put into practice. We should look at those Standing Orders again and endeavour to update the procedures of this House to make it more effective to take account of the changing role of society, to try to create an atmosphere in the Seanad in which we could have an opportunity to address important questions of the day as close as possible to the day on which these questions arise.

One of the frustrating problems in this House is that it is very difficult to have an indepth discussion on topical questions because under a number of Standing Orders the topics we can raise are quite limited. We should do something about the Adjournment matter procedure because, in effect, only one Senator has an opportunity to speak and there is a very short reply from the Minister. If we got something that would fit the bill, a mix between the facility for the Adjournment matter and the facility Deputies have in Question Time, that might add a new dimension to the House and we might be able to raise many more questions of interest.

It is important that we should review the functions of the Seanad. We should see what additional powers the Seanad could handle. Last year we had a record number of meetings, almost 80, and we handled a great deal of legislation. We introduced eight or nine Bills and over 60 motions were put through in open ended debates. I cannot recall an item on which there was a closure motion in this House in the past 16 or 17 years. It is very important that people who have a contribution to make are encouraged to make it and are given a very full and honest hearing. I hope that will continue in this House as well.

I do not oppose this motion. This House should always be prepared to have a process of self examination. We should be prepared to extend our sittings. We have an obligation, especially under EC legislation, to consider all the documentation that comes from the joint committee and we should give the work of processing the reports which emanate from the joint committee a greater priority. It is true that many directives are getting through without due public attention and without notice being drawn to them. For instance, the Department of Agriculture have applications for just a fraction of the refund of the cereal levies which the Commission made available to us following last year's harvest. The main reason is that that facility has not been drawn to public attention. If we had an opportunity to discuss the report on cereals which was on the Order Paper for months it would have been possible to highlight the fact that many millions of pounds are waiting to be claimed by cereal farmers.

I do not think we will ever have a perfect method of election. My view is that it would be better to improve the facilities in the Seanad. We should endeavour to enhance the working conditions for Senators and we should try to get as much legislation through as possible. I hope all the reports on the Order Paper will be cleared before the summer recess.

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate and I am very honoured to be a Member of this House. Contrary to what Senator Ross said in his contribution, I see myself as representing the constituency of the whole county, not necessarily a constituency that I would have represented as a Dáil Deputy. I note that neither the proposer nor the seconder of this motion is in the House at present to hear the debate. I realise that there is considerable interest in this motion and that it has generated a considerable amount of interest. I cannot say it is interest of a kind that will lead to a broader understanding by the public of the affairs of the Seanad, its role and function. I question why we in this country find it so difficult to have radio or television debates on current political issues of a controversial or vital nature without descending to the level of airwave brawls where no one succeeds in putting forward coherent points. These contributions do not enable the public to understand the issues in question. To date people outside these Houses who knew little about the Seanad, or its powers, or its membership are no more enlightened on what we are about, if the comments I received about the broadcast yesterday are anything to go by.

My interest in or indeed my knowledge of the Seanad was limited until I started coming here as a Minister of State for debates or with legislation for other Ministers. Prior to that time I was conscious of the Seanad very largely due to the contributions and commitments of a few Senators. Prior to being in politics I was involved with the women's movement. I mention in particular two women, former Senator Catherine McGuinness and my colleague Senator Mary Robinson. I would like to pay tribute to Senator Robinson as she alone raised issues of vital importance to women at a time in the early seventies when it was not fashionable to do so and when there was very poor female representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas — I do not mean poor in the context of the individuals, I mean poor numerically. I recall her efforts in the cause of legislation on illegitimacy and contraception, neither of which got anywhere. I got a true and accurate picture of her efforts to raise these issues, and the obstacles she confronted only quite recently when I was reading files of her letters and petitions to Ministers requesting support for her legislative measures or her motions when I was in the Department of Justice as a Minister of State.

In recent years the ratio of representation of women here has been a cause of general concern to many women and their organisations. I regret to say that the present Seanad does not show any increase in that representation. However, more recently I have had the opportunity to see the work of the Seanad in debating and analysing legislation. I say this particularly in the context of legislation with which I was closely associated, the last Bill, the Status of Children Bill, now being debated in the Dáil, was initiated in this House and went through its Committee and Report Stages here. This was the legislation which, four years ago, commentators said would never see the light of day as it was too controversial, that the Irish people were not ready for it and, like divorce, that it was not suitable for the present Irish society. It was controversial. The complex Bill was first introduced to this House last year and was very closely examined and diligently amended. The number of amendments was in the region of 90 to 95. These were made by Senators who had a specific interest in social legislation. It is regrettable that there has not been general acknowledgment of the important role played by this Chamber in that instance in which there was no party position taken and when the overall emphasis and concentration was on the needs of a particular group — children born outside marriage.

Before dealing with the issue of reform as proposed by this motion I would like to comment on the proposal by the Progressive Democrats to abolish the Seanad — though I know that is not what we are talking about today. They base their proposal strictly on financial savings, and as such, I feel it is a dubious reason, a form of political cannibalism. It is dishonest and simplistic in so far as it is an attempt to manipulate people to believe that our economic ills today are largely due to perpetuating existing parliamentary structures. This is not so. One is inclined to ask, why stop there? Would they want to close all the embassies, get rid of county councils and perhaps even abolish parts of the Judiciary, though one suspects that would not be on their agenda? It is a less than honest proposal from a party who also put forward a less than honest proposal in the last election, which was that they would reduce the tax rate to 25 per cent when people in that party knew that that candidly was not possible or probable in anything but the far distant future.

I turn now to the December, 1967 report of the Committee on the Constitution which dealt with the Seanad. Articles 18 and 19 are the ones involved. The committee discussed changes in the existing Seanad and clarified how these changes could be brought about. They said and I quote:

If the Seanad is to be retained it does not necessarily have to remain unaltered in matters relating to its composition and method of election. In this connection we think it necessary to point out, first of all, that in the Constitution as at present drafted, extreme flexibility is allowed in the basic provisions relating to the Seanad, such as the composition and strength of the panels, the nature of the electorate, the method of voting, (subject to the provisions of Article 18.5), and the timing of elections. A great many fundamental changes in relation to the Seanad can, therefore, be brought about simply by the enactment of ordinary legislation. For that reason, we have not felt obliged to consider each and every existing provision relating to the Seanad, since we are, at this stage, primarily concerned with the Constitution. None the less, we have considered various possibilities for meeting the criticisms which have been expressed from time to time in relation to the Seanad and our views thereon are briefly summarised in the following paragraphs.

There is extreme flexibility and there is a possibility of making changes in that context without necessarily having constitutional referenda. There is room for change, for improvement and it would be expedient on us to examine all areas. We do not need political navel gazing but we should examine the areas of democratic participation in politics. For instance, I, like other Senators, would like the representation to be more truly vocational. We should encourage active members of organisations representing interests such as consumers, trade unions, sporting bodies, womens organisations, youth organisations and the arts to become Members of the Seanad.

I emphatically defend the role of the county councillors as voters. They represent an important political layer. I feel that their entitlement to two votes — a vote in the Dáil elections and a vote in the Seanad elections — is as valid, if not more valid, than the entitlement to two votes held by university graduates. Perhaps in reviewing possibilities for change we could look at the two sub panels, the outside panel would be nominated or elected directly while the inside panel would remain as it is, that is, elected by county councillors, TDs and Senators.

It is worth mentioning that we have already abolished a Seanad in this country. That was in the thirties. Problems were created for Mr. de Valera at the time when it was subsequently decided to bring back a second Chamber. From being strongly opposed to the bicameral system Mr. de Valera presided over the re-establishment of the Seanad as we know it today. In 1934 Mr. de Valera saw the Seanad as being allies of the Opposition in its operation. He was motivated by the fact that it was opposing the work of the Dáil. If one were to seek one overriding reason to explain Mr. de Valera's motivation to abolish the Irish Free State Senate, it could perhaps be found in the simple fact that it hampered him in the implementation of his policies. The then Fianna Fáil Government said they felt that the action the Seanad was taking was designed deliberately to hamper or prevent the Government from doing its duty in carrying out the policy which it presented to the country and got approval for. In other words, the Seanad of that time was preventing the Fianna Fáil Government from carrying through the manifesto they put before the people. This reason, more than any other, inspired Mr. de Valera to move the abolition of the Seanad. At that time he was unaware that eventually he would face the problem of whether to establish a second Chamber and there was a great deal of pressure on him to establish this second Chamber. In an article in The Irish Times of 10 June 1936 it is stated:

We are convinced that almost any kind of Second Chamber would be preferable to none. The perils of unicameral government in the Free State are far greater than they may seem to be on the surface, and we shall welcome any form of revising Chamber that will prevent the unbridled career of an autocratic Dáil.

The fear generated by the existence of a unicameral Legislature tended to lead to the view that any sort of revising Legislature was better than none and as such warranted sincere consideration. This argument in itself was fine with Mr. de Valera but the main problem was the loss of public faith which he would suffer by accepting the formation of a second Chamber soon after lauding the abolition of its predecessor. Given the experience of history and the radically different conditions, we should be looking around for some forum, some Chamber or some system which would enable the same kind of work to be done in a consultative, examining role as it is being done by the present Seanad. Finally I support the suggestion of Senator Robinson. I suggest this debate should not end here. Ideally we should have a committee which would look at the terms for those elected, the powers, functions of the Seanad, the election process and all the areas which have been referred to in the contributions to this debate and then if possible come back to the House with those findings.

It has been the practice to adjourn the Seanad at 5 o'clock. I am now suggesting that we adjourn this debate until 6.30 p.m. next Wednesday and that the House meet on that day at 2.30 p.m.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 4.55 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 June 1987.
Top
Share