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.