Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1987

Vol. 116 No. 7

Government Review of Seanad Éireann: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

The 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.)

Mr. W. Ryan

I suppose having been here for over 20 years — 26 years — I could say a little on this motion. Like other speakers I want to say how pleased I was that Senators Ross and Murphy decided to table it. However, I do not congratulate them on it because they could have tabled this motion down through the years but they did not do so until a threat circulated by the new political party — the Progressive Democrats — to have this House abolished. Then suddenly people became interested in having a review of the conditions here. They know the House cannot be abolished without a referendum. There are many other things we could do here through committees and I am sure that, when Senator Lanigan is replying tonight, he will point out those things.

Of course it is much easier for the university people to table motions. They have more time for that than those who have been elected on the panels. Personally, I feel there is no comparison between the work we do as panel elected people and that of the University elected people. We have to be here every day the Seanad is sitting. We have to listen to speeches from Senator Ross and Senator Murphy and others. Then they go away and we have to stay here because a vote may be taken. I understand that Senator Ross said in his opening remarks that he would prefer to see all university graduates voting and the Seanad elected by the universities. Well, I would not like to see that happen and certainly I am not opposed to graduates being here as Members of the Seanad. I congratulate those who have gone through this Chamber in the past and those who are there now. They made very good contributions and I am sure that many of the present 43 are also university graduates. But in my experience, and indeed I think most people agree, the best politicians in the Dáil and Seanad come up the hard way. They start at local government level. Many people now get degrees in politics but the best university in which to get that degree is the local authority. Many people who began as local authority members ended up as Cabinet Ministers or Ministers of State in later years.

Senator Ross also read out a litany of names last Wednesday — defeated Dáil candidates and defeated Deputies who are now Members of this House. I would like to know from Senator Ross what is wrong with that. I am sure Senator Ross has the same ambition as every other young person who comes in here has — to be a TD — but of course Senator Ross knows very well that he has no hope of getting that far. There is nothing wrong with defeated TDs or Dáil candidates being Members of this House. Many of our well known statesmen began their careers here and, if they had not been elected to this House, they might never have reached the positions they held later, men like Garret FitzGerald, John Kelly, John Boland, Brian Lenihan, Michael O'Kennedy and many others. When statesmen have given service for many years I see nothing wrong with their retirement to this House for a short term before they leave public life. I have served with men like Dr. Jim Ryan and Gerry Boland and others who had given a lifetime to politics. It is only fair and reasonable that such people should get one term in this House before they finally retire.

We have had quite a lot of talk in recent times by one political party — the new party — about this House being abolished. One would imagine from all they say about this House that if it was abolished it would pay off the national debt. You would get that impression by what is being said. One of their members had the cheek — even though she was entitled to do it — to ask a question about the expenses of Senators and have them referred to by name. But she did not ask what were the expenses of Deputies by name. I wonder was that because it would embarrass some members of her own party who have been here for a while. I believe the Minister had no option but to give the information but I think that it is the first time a Deputy asked in the Dáil about what was happening here. Deputies should look after their own House and we can look after ours.

There are quite a number of ways that moneys could be saved in the Dáil as well as here. We have 60 Senators — it has been 60 since the House was established in 1922 or 1923. The Dáil increased their membership as the population went up and perhaps we could do without some Dáil Deputies. Certainly we could do without many five-seat constituencies. I know if that happened — if we had fewer five-seaters — we would have fewer PDs in the Dáil. If you compare a Dún Laoghaire five-seater with constituencies like Mayo, Kerry or Donegal, where there are only three-seaters, I doubt that a Deputy in Dún Laoghaire would have to travel five miles from his or her own house to the farthest end of the constituency whereas Deputies in those other places may have to go 100 miles. I am merely pointing out that there is no comparison between the amount of work a Dáil Deputy in the city and a Dáil Deputy in the country have to do.

It is well worth recalling that in 1969 or 1970 the then Minister for Local Government who happened to be Deputy Bobby Molloy, now a member of the Progressive Democrats, attempted to bring in a Bill to abolish all local authorities in areas with a population of less than 12,000. If he had succeeded at that time every urban council in the country would have been abolished and a number of corporations. The next thing would be that our county councils would have been abolished. Is this democracy, starting with the abolition of urban councils, then the county councils, then the Seanad and perhaps the other House?

There are many countries in Europe and in the world today where they would love to have two Houses, or to have even one proper one. They have so-called Houses of Parliament behind the Iron Curtain where they have elections but only one candidate is allowed to stand. Is that democracy? We should be proud of the way we conduct our business in this House and in the other House, too.

I want to refer briefly to the media. We got little or no publicity down through the years. In my time here there was a reporter from the Irish Independent who sat every day in the Press Gallery when we were there, and he was on his own practically all the time. He has now retired and I do not know whether he has been replaced. An article appeared in The Irish Press on Monday, 1 June which I consider a scurrilous article about this House written by a man named Jim Hastings. I never heard of this man before. He is probably trying to make a name for himself. He might be interested in politics and he might be hoping to end up as other press people have in the Oireachtas. There is an old saying: “If you cannot beat them, join them”. That is what some of those press people might be doing.

In that article he reported that two Senators had claimed no expenses and he printed photos of the two Senators who claimed no expenses. That is not true. One of the Senators mentioned — I am not blaming the Senator in any way but there was only one, former Senator McGuinness, who did not claim expenses. That appeared in The Irish Press and I did not see it corrected since then. That paper had a headline that Senators had a salary of £10,500 a year for 78 days work. Most people are aware that most Senators work 365 days a year, seven days a week and 18 hours a day. They do exactly the same work as a Deputy; everyone on the panels has to do that type of work. They have to travel the country to meetings night after night. It is most unfair that The Irish Press should publish a one-sided story especially when they never come into this Chamber. Last year, on numerous occasions our Leader referred to the poor attendances of the press group in this House.

Talking about the salaries we get as Members, I am not sure of this but I would say I am not too far wrong — I reckon that we are probably the worst paid people working in this House and that includes everyone, cleaners, ushers, everyone else. The salaries of Senators have changed a lot because when the Seanad was first established a Senator had the same pay as a Deputy and that was £1 a day. People said he had a colossal salary at that time. When I came in here and when you came in here a Leas-Chathaoirleach, in 1961, our pay was £750 and a TD got £1,000. Today the gap has widened; we get £10,000 and they get close on £20,000 which I think is wrong for the amount of work we do. I have often said to people talking about the salaries we get that I was prepared to swop my salary for theirs but nobody has taken me up on that offer yet.

Again, the method of election was criticised by Senator Ross. That has been changed. Different methods have been tried since 1922 and none of them was a success until the present one was established whereby we are elected by councillors and members of corporations. I have been nine times around the course and I never regretted it; I never saw anything wrong with it. We enjoyed it; we met councillors; we discussed their problems with them. After the election they kept in touch with us. We have to keep in touch with those people from time to time also. If any of the press think we are doing nothing and they are prepared to come around with us for a week, we will prove how wrong they are. In conclusion, I am sure Senator Lanigan will say at the end of the debate what we propose to do about this motion. If we had a standing committee to look into the possibilities, apart from changing the system of election, there are many things we could do to make this House more interesting. Thank you.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Ar dtús ba mhaith liom a rá gur mór an onóir dom bheith i mo Bhall den Oireachtas. Pé sórt díospóireachta a bheas againn ar an rún seo, seans thar barr d'aon duine é bheith sa Seanad agus óráid a dhéanamh ar whatever type of legislation is being discussed at a particular time. I must say that in terms of the debate over the past couple of days I would take issue with many things. I have found a certain sense of defensiveness about the responses by some Members from the Government side of the House. I would also say, incidentally, that that does not go for all that came from the other side of the House. Much of it to my mind was very constructive and very progressive. I certainly feel it is right for Members to defend the House. There is a clear duty on Members of this House to defend themselves and to defend the institution. It was very difficult for me to listen to the way in which those of us on the Independent bench were sort of cast aside as elitist, and different, and with nothing to contribute. As an aside I should like to say that my mother was very pleased to hear I was referred to as elitist during the week by the powerful people of Leinster House. She feels I have made it at this point in time. For the record I should like to say — it was raised by Senator McGowan and Senator Fennell in their contributions — that I can make as many connections with one side of the House as the other. I see Senator FitzGerald from Dingle who can establish for anyone in this House that I was raised in a nest of blue shirts in Dingle, as he will quite clearly tell you. By the same token, people should recognise that I have two very near relatives on that side of the House in Senator Martin O'Toole agus Nioclás O'Concubhair.

I could extend those connections to many parts of the Fianna Fáil Party. The party do not in any sense set themselves up to represent the common people of Ireland. We are no different from the rest of them. In terms of who I am, what I am, or my right to speak, Joan and I have a mortgage, two ten year old cars, five children and a cat. We have as clear an indication of what input needs to be made as anybody else around here. The idea of our removal here from the national school or from the vocational institutions is something I resent very much being a principal of a national school, the product of a national school and a worker in a national school. Indeed, my children attend a vocational school and I hope they did well in their group certificates today.

The reason we are on the university panel raises a question of its own. I am here because of my commitment in many ways to society, to education, to the trade union movement. I believe that, having worked at all levels of education, I might look to the educational panel to be elcted here. I have worked in first level, second level and third level. I have represented and negotiated at all those levels. There is no way that I could be elected to represent an educational interest because I am not a member of a political party.

I say that but it is not a criticism of political parties. I recognise that the system and the structure have been built around political parties, but they have done many things which to me have been incorrect. It is incorrect that there are only six seats in this House that can be filled by people who are not members of political parties. That is not right. That cannot be right and that is one of the reasons the system of election should be looked at. It is not that there needs to be a total and radical change, but there certainly is some indication that the vocational input should be in some sense broadened and that perhaps those people representing vocational interests, whether it be the labour interest or the education interest, might in some sense be elected by people working or occupied in that particular area. Before somebody stands up and shouts about it that is not a put-down of county concils.

There is no need for anybody to stand up here and speak about the good work the county councils are doing and have done. We are all aware of it and aware that they represent people on the ground. For the record let me say I believe they should have an input into the Constitution of this Chamber. What I do not believe is that they should have almost a 100 per cent decision on how this Chamber is structured. I think it should be widened. That is all I am saying.

Perhaps I differ from the rest of my colleagues here but I do not object to the nominations procedure because I think that, used properly, it can actually broaden the perspective of the Chamber. I do not object to it as an idea. It is a good idea provided it is not abused. I object to the cynical abuse of the Chamber merely as a stepping stone down to the Dáil but there is nothing any of us can do about that. If people set out to do that it is very clearly an abuse of the Chamber. The whole system of election and selection should be looked at very closely so that it could be, in a sense, broadened. Everybody's interest can be responded to in different ways.

I am sorry the Minister, Deputy Flynn, is not here. That is no reflection on the Minister of State but the Minister, being an old adversary of mine I recall — as I recalled to him yesterday — that about seven years ago in the hall downstairs at the end of a dispute over teachers' salaries when part of the settlement was that teachers were to be granted — as they still have unfortunately — a 25 year salary scale before they reach the maximum. The Minister, being a Member at the time of the Fianna Fáil Government, indicated to me that the INTO had settled for an agreement which put him nine years away from the maximum of his scale whereas when he came into the Dáil he was at the maximum. He felt that his union were not representing him. I recall that because the Minister clearly said that his views also needed to be represented. I feel I can represent here the views of members of a party in a way that their party might not represent them.

A party, of course, will always have to base their policy on the lowest common denominator of agreement that can be reached among all members. Very often that does not cover the needs of all their members. This is the reason for a vocational input. It is not to state that, because somebody comes from an agricultural background, or an educational background, or an engineering background, or a management background, he or she is in some sense more important or has something more important to contribute than people who have been elected without any qualifications. That is not the point. The point is that they give a different perspective. The point is that they give a different input. The point is that they can broaden the ambience of discussion and the parameters under which any Bill or any item has been drafted. That is the reason for it. There is need for an extension of it. There is certainly need for a change and a broadening of the election process.

Saying these things is not a criticism of the Seanad as an institution. It is something that I feel would strengthen it. One message I would stress more than all else in what I have to say is that we should be our own most stringent critics and it is the self-examination and self-exploration of the role of the Seanad that will eventually give us the strength to develop it and to sell it. In terms of the response of the media it is all very well to say to the media they do not report what goes on here. I am long enough dealing with the media to know that the media only report news. If what we are doing here is not news I do not in any sense object to the media not covering it. It is up to us to present the arguments that will be acceptable.

The type of facile media comment which I object to very much is the kind of score line that is kept in some papers. I saw it in one of the Sunday papers two weeks ago where there was a headline about the number of Senators in the Seanad Chamber at a particular time. It is very easy to respond to that by showing the number of members of the press gallery who are working in either House of the Oireachtas at a particular time. In terms of preparation for speeches, in terms of preparation for an input or a contribution Members here have to work in the library, in their offices and in many other places. It is absolutely facile and simple reporting to say that because people are not in the Chamber they are not working. It is not clear and it is not true.

Every Member of this House should respond to what has been said by the PDs. I am sorry none of them is here to make the case. Of course they will not have anybody here. I suspect one of the reasons they object to the Seanad is that they have no way of getting anybody elected to it.

It always worries me when people begin costing a principle. I always feel for my wallet when somebody says: what is the cost of a right? What is the cost of a principle? This State and the Supreme Court of the State are in operation for 60 or 70 years and in that time to my knowledge in terms of damges etc. the courts have never attempted to put a price on the loss of a constitutional right. There is no way of doing it. Neither is there a way of putting a price on democracy. The facile argument of saying: "Let us abolish the Seanad" is very populist though I am glad to see that the media in their deeper insights over the past week or two are beginning to look slightly differently at it and their attitude to it, I sense, is changing. You could stand up in any pub in Ireland and say: "Let us abolish taxation; let us abolish the Seanad; let us abolish the Presidency; let us abolish the Dáil", and they would all get precisely the same response —"a great idea". It is just simple feeding the prejudice and the ignorance of people who know no better.

The idea of cutting down on the democratic institutions of the State is very definitely a most specious argument. It is anti-democracy and it represents the "regressive" democrats, as far as I am concerned. It is the specious argument of regressive democracy and it is the first step down the road to Fascism, a statement I made about it during my campaign and it cost me votes. I am saying it now for the record. I defy anybody to stand up and explain to me how it is in the interests of democracy to abolish one of the institutions of the democratic structure of the State. Beyond that, in terms of the constituencies we are supposed to represent, it bothers me to hear people referring to their constituency in the terms of their "narrow constituency".

I want to take issue one more time with Senator McGowan about what he said about his difficulties in going around the Twenty-six Counties and in meeting all the different county councils, and the effort he put into it. Senator McGowan should consider himself lucky that his party still recognise the Border. I had meetings in thirty-two counties in order to be elected here. I had to go outside the State. We represent thirty-two counties which is, in a sense, part of the width that we can bring to it.

Speaker after speaker stood up to defend county councils which, in a sense is defending the people who are going to vote them in or out the next time around. That is perfectly understandable from my point of view. I was elected by the graduates of Ireland. I was elected by them in the knowledge that I had no intention of representing their interests in here. I have never set out to do that. I believe that the interests of those of us who have survived and exploited the third level of education are really concerned with the needs of those who do not have pressure groups, who do not have support, who do not have a voice and who do not have representation. I am here to represent what the graduates of Ireland consider to be those who are not represented at all. It is important that this be stated and clearly seen.

In terms of extending the franchise I state for the record — and I will take on what I represent — the university and the constituencies are incorrectly set up at present. I qualified as a national teacher from St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, and also I have a university qualification. For somebody to say to me that because I spent a couple of years at night school at university that gives me a greater right to vote than the years I spent in becoming a national teacher is total and absolute balderdash. It makes no sense whatsoever to consider that people in certain third level institutions do not have a vote while others do.

Senator Farrell stated that we represent an elitist section of society. That is quite true, but I wish Senator Farrell had asked why do we do it. Why is it elitist to get to third level night education? Why do only one-tenth of the population get it? That is the question the political parties must ask themselves. That is anathema to me. It is unacceptable and it is wrong. Third level education should not be a privilege. It should be an investment in the future in a real and certain way. It is quite in order for 10 per cent. of the population to be elected from the community, not in an elitist sense but in a representative sense. I am sorry for going over my time. I have said only half of what I have to say.

I will conclude by saying that there should be an extension of Private Members' Time. There should be discussion in areas which are non-threatening to the executive Government. The Seanad should not pervert the course of democracy as outlined by the First House, but it should review the position and initiate more legislation. We should certainly extend the third level franchise. We should have fuller and tighter debates. The Second Stage debates of Bills go on for too long. I believe 15 minutes is long enough. We should also encompass special purpose committees in areas like foreign policy, neutrality and the national question, if we dare to speak about it. We could do a lot of good work in those areas and sell ourselves to the people in a most persuasive fashion.

Professor Hillery

In deference to at least one of my colleagues on this side and others who wish to speak, I will not go on at considerable length. Like other Senators, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the motion before the House. It is a good thing to take a critical look at ourselves and at the institution of the Seanad. Let me first focus on the powers of the Seanad. It is a fact that the role of the Seanad is subordinate to the Dáil. It is also a fact that the duties of the Seanad are political and the decisions that we are required to take will always be political, irrespective of changes in the format of the Seanad. This subordinate role is not peculiar to this country. It is characteristic of indirectly elected Upper Houses in other countries also.

Despite the subordinate role of the Upper House the Seanad can and does serve as a safeguard against ill-conceived or hasty action on the part of the Dáil. Furthermore, it provides a second scrutiny of legislation by a second group of representatives. It is fair to say that the Seanad — and the record will bear this out — takes a constructive, balanced approach to legislation and other issues that come before us.

Much comment and criticism in relation to the Seanad is focused on its composition and the method of election. In 1937 Éamon de Valera acknowledged this difficulty and recognised how difficult it was in practice to devise a completely satisfactory scheme for the Second House. The clear intention of the Constitution is that the elected element of the Seanad, at present 43 of the 60 Senators, should be composed on a vocational basis. The issue of vocationalism — and Senator Murphy underlined this — was much in vogue in the thirties at the time the Constitution was enacted. It is a fact, nonetheless, that the 43 elected Senators in the House now, some 50 years after the enactment of the Constitution, possess certain minimum requirements based on knowledge and practical experience to qualify for the specific vocational panels. The record shows that many of these elected Senators can and do make effective contributions to legislation by drawing on their vocational experience and qualifications.

As I have already stated, the duties of the Seanad are political. Therefore, overwhelmingly, the Members of the Seanad are politicians rather than delegates of particular interests on nominating bodies. Unlike Senator Ross, I do not favour direct election by nominating bodies of their own representatives to the Seanad. Such direct nomination would immediately reduce the democratic element of election which obtains at present, and would introduce unnecessary party political activity in commercial, professional, vocational and cultural bodies. Political activity of this kind would be rejected by most of the nominating bodies themselves. Furthermore, it would hinder, if not prevent, the political decisions which the Seanad is obliged to take. Neither the Government nor the Dáil of the day could tolerate a situation where legislation could be held up by a number of Senators who would, in effect, be merely delegates of particular nominating bodies and interest groups. The very fact that most Senators are now elected by people who themselves have been elected ensures a democratic element in the composition of the Seanad.

Senator Ross favours direct election by the nominating bodies themselves. He describes the Seanad campaign as degrading, humilating and absurd. Like previous speakers, I have been through the course a number of times. I certainly have not found it matching any of these headings. It should be pointed out that Senator Ross has never gone through this particular means of election, through the vocational panels, and therefore cannot talk from first hand experience. I personally find the campaign tiring. Who would not, as it is so intensive? However, I find it a highly instructive, informative experience. I wish to spell out some of the realities about the people who elect the 43 Senators. For the most part they are county councillors and county borough councillors who put themselves before the people for election.

They are unpaid, public representatives who are prompted to enter public life by a sense of service to their local communities, councils and cities. They are practical people who are in touch with and understand people's problems on the ground. They are voluntary representatives who give generously of their time and expertise. They are experts on local issues and they have a very clear vision of what the Dáil and the Seanad should be doing to solve people's problems. I can say quite objectively that I have learned a lot from Seanad campaigns and from the contacts I have had with councillors throughout the country. This means that I can contribute to the work of the Seanad, a House of the Oireachtas, in a more meaningful and practical way.

The composition of the Seanad has also been criticised because some of its Members are said to use it as a route to the Dáil, and others are elected having failed to secure Dáil seats. Does this criticism really hold up in practice? Many of the people who are elected en route to the Dáil, or on the way back, have proved to be outstanding parliamentarians. Surely we want all the knowledge and expertise in the House that we can get as a contribution to political progress.

There are others who choose to serve in the Seanad rather than the Dáil and who, for one reason or another, wish to make a career in the Seanad. The recently retired Senator Eoin Ryan of Fianna Fáil and Senator Jim Dooge of Fine Gael come readily to mind in this respect. They made outstanding contributions but had no desire to serve in the Dáil. They were able to make a very substantial contribution through their work on the Seanad.

In conclusion, I think this critical look at the Seanad is worthwhile. I am glad Senators Ross and Murphy put down the motion. I would hold that a detailed study of its reform should be in the context of Oireachtas reform, that is, a study of the reform of the Seanad and the Dáil should take place at the same time. In the absence of such a comprehensive review of the Oireachtas I think there is scope for improving the work of the Seanad. We could do a better job. The debate on this motion has produced a range of views and ideas from Senators which may form the basis for improvements in how we conduct our business. I will leave it to Senator Lanigan, when he is replying, to indicate how we might advance this fruitful discussion and provide some mechanism so that we can give effect to some changes without constitutional or Oireachtas reform being undertaken.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I have listened to the debate so far with great interest. I welcome an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I also welcome the spirit of the motion put forward by Senators Ross and Murphy, though I regret on another level the sort of "us" and "them" element which has crept into it and a certain attitude of superiority on the part of Senator Ross in particular, which I have no doubt he will defend when he replies to the debate. As I see it, there are many of us who got selected on the panel system of election who could have contested a university seat but who, because of the party political commitment and involvement, have deliberately chosen this route to the Seanad. It is a far harder and more arduous route. I do not wish to claim that it is a superior method or that one's involvement because one is elected on the panel system is in any way better than the involvement of anybody else who arrives here by a different route. Overall, I would say that the debate has shown a very positive commitment to the Upper House and a marked willingness on the part of everybody who has contributed to make this House work effectively.

Given such a broad area of agreement and so much goodwill, it should be possible to harness the energy and commitment of Senators to pursue that end. Certainly we in the Fine Gael group of Senators would be very much in favour of supporting the suggestion brought forward in the course of the debate by Senator Robinson, who mooted the idea that a committee of Senators should be established to examine ways in which the Seanad might work to a fuller potential. That is something the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach might give consideration to at the conclusion of this debate.

It saddens me to think that one of the institutions of our relatively young State should be the subject of so much adverse criticism and denigration. In recent months this attack has been spearheaded by a neophyte party who have jumped on what they perceive to be a populist bandwagon. Their criticisms are, in the main, ill-informed. A recent Dáil question which has been alluded to by Senator Willie Ryan, the Dáil question concerning legitimate expenses of Senators, only serves to illustrate this attitude. It is clearly intended that crude inferences should be drawn from this so-called revelation. By all means seek information about State expenditure, but I contend that the information should equally be sought and given about Members of the Dáil.

I expect that members of the Progressive Democrats claim expenses and that, too, should be a matter of public record, lest anyone should think for a moment that these claims are being waived in the national interest. It is extremely disappointing that a political party should become infected by the national malaise of denigrating and debunking our own institutions. We have, sadly, a tendency in this country to undervalue our own institutions and to speak disparagingly of them — a sort of national begrudgery. I contend that this attitude is part of a folk memory. Indeed, it is a relic or a hangover from our colonial past and one that we would be well rid of. As Senator O'Toole said, it is antidemocratic.

It occurs to me that it is all the more surprising that a brand new, shiny political party should adopt such a dated and antediluvian attitude. Why not be proud of our Seanad? Why not be proud of the distinguished people who gave many years of service to Irish political life and to national thought through membership of this House? By all means reform, renew and revitalise the workings of the Seanad but it is utterly extreme to promote the abolition of our Upper House of our National Parliament. As many Senators have said, it is unconstitutional to propose such an abolition.

The Seanad should not be a sacred cow either. There is no reason why it should not be a vital and dynamic arm of the Oireachtas. In my almost six years' membership of this House I have seen it at its best and also I have seen it at a low ebb. The potential of the Seanad is largely untapped because it is constrained by too many outdated rules, conventions and structures. I have some constructive ideas as to how it could be revitalised and revamped.

I would like to see our MEPs being invited into this House to report regularly to the Oireachtas and to the Irish people on the major events of the European Parliament. I am not happy that our MEPs have an adequate method of communication with their electorate and, even more than we as Senators, I feel they are often squeezed out by domestic political happenings. In particular they, and we too in the Seanad, suffer from a concentration by the media on events in Dáil Éireann.

I am confident that our MEPs would welcome such an opportunity and that it would add greatly to our sense of being European and having a real voice in Europe. It must be remembered that when our Seanad was brought into being under the Constitution there were no MEPs and, as such, reform and development have not taken cognisance of the fact that they are now an important part of our political process.

The initiative to broadcast proceedings of the Oireachtas began in the Seanad. We should be very proud of that fact, because it was initiated in this House. It is high time that the next logical step forward in media terms was also initiated. Again it should be initiated in this House. I refer to television. I would welcome such a development with a view to having both Houses televised as speedily as possible. Again, the net effect of this would be to make the proceedings of the democratic Parliament of this State more relevant to the people it represents.

There is considerable scope for the establishment also of a foreign relations committee of the Seanad. A number of speakers alluded to the possibility of such an establishment. Such a committee got under way in this House under a former Senator, Mrs. Gemma Hussey, now a Member of the Dáil. The then Ambassador of the United States to Ireland, William Shannon, met with an informal committee of the House. Although I was not a member of it I am glad to understand that there was a useful exchange and that all involved saw considerable value in the exercise and, indeed, spoke for an expansion and development of the idea.

If the recent campaign on the Single European Act proved anything, it proved the obvious need for that type of parliamentary forum. The absence of such a forum at present, prior to any review or revamping of the Seanad, need not stifle Senators' initiatives in this area. Foreign policy resolutions can be raised on the Adjournment or, indeed, brought forward by groupings within the Seanad. In view of the reservations expressed by people opposed to the Single European Act and, indeed, the manifest apathy and ignorance of so many people, regular progress reports on political co-operation with our European partners would be welcomed in this House. I would hope, of course, that such debate would be constructive and would avoid being polemical or scrappy. Such a type of unseemly debate is not the normal tenor of this House. That very fact is one of the strengths of this House and should be recognised. Most people who know about the level of debate in this House praise it for the fact that in the main it is free of party political rancour and is well thought out, constructive and deliberative.

I would like to make reference to the methods of election which form part of the motion put forward by Senators Ross and Murphy. I see a need for reform in this area. I would like to make reference to the nominating bodies. The obtaining of a nomination either by a nominating body or by an Oireachtas party, is an art in itself and one which the university Senators know nothing about because they have not had to experience that particularly rigorous test. I would agree with Senator Hillery in that I would not wish to see nominating bodies having a direct right of election to the Seanad themselves. It would, as Senator Hillery so rightly said, have the effect of politicising voluntary bodies. That would have a very negative effect on these bodies and would really drag them in the direction which would not enhance their whole raison d'être.

There is room for reform in the actual method of election. I can claim to be a veteran of four successful campaigns and so I can speak with a certain degree of feeling in this area. I remember once having a discussion with a former Deputy, Gerry L'Estrange, who in a conspiratorial fashion indicated to me that it was he who had initiated the whole business of taking the campaign on the road. Prior to that, he told me, intending Senators wrote to their electorate in much the same way as the university Senators conduct their campaign. Gerry L'Estrange had the idea that it would be so much nicer to personalise the campaign and to go visiting the members of the electorate. He got into his car and proceeded on the odyssey. Of course, once one person did it, all did it. It has become a feature of Seanad campaigns now.

In find it an interesting exercise and Senators who have spoken called it instructive. It is all that. Indeed, I would invite Senator Ross on a future occasion to consider accompanying me on the odyssey. I feel that there are still certain gaps in his knowledge. He could very clearly benefit from such an outing. It would be to his benefit and to the benefit of the county councillors. They would really like to see Senator Ross, who has such an interest in and concern for the fact that they have right of direct election to the Seanad. Senator Ross has a limited view of this campaign. He spoke about candidates from the same party conducting their campaigns on the basis of back-stabbing and deals. I quote from the record of the House of 3 June. I would ask him to verify this statement when he replies to the debate and to give concrete examples of exactly what he is talking about. Personally, I did not engage in back-stabbing nor did I engage in deals in the course of my four times successful election to this House. That kind of "off-the-wall" comment brings this House into disrepute.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I categorically reject such arrant nonsense. The Seanad campaign, unfortunately, as it is currently conducted, is about stamina. It is about orienteering skills. It is about the ability either to drive a car or be driven. It is also about having the necessary funds to take part in such an exercise. That type of approach to any democratic election excludes certain categories of people who should have the opportunity of contesting Seanad elections and who should have the right to consider being represented in this House. I refer to the disabled and marginalised people. I refer also to many women of ability who, because of a lack of funding or a lack of the specifics required by the campaign as I have outlined them, are precluded from taking part in this particularly arduous and difficult campaign. For that reason I would like to see the method of election on the panel system looked at again to see if it could be regionalised or in some way rationalised in order to allow more people who are interested and more people of ability to take part in the campaign.

I conclude by saying that Fine Gael have a concern that there should be meaningful reform of our parliamentary systems in order to up-date, streamline and fine tune these Houses so that they will be of immediate relevance to the electorate. We in Fine Gael intend to bring forward a series of proposals for strengthening the Seanad. These recommendations will be made public within the next two weeks. On one level it could be said that by debating this subject in the House at the moment when there are so many severe recessionary problems and so much that is bothering the electorate, we are indulging in navel-gazing and could of course, be accused of fiddling like Nero while Rome burned. Those who moved the motion perhaps thought about that before they put it on the Order Paper.

At the start of a new Seanad it is a good idea to take a harsh look at ourselves, to shine the bright light of scrutiny on this House and on the method of election and how it works. It is a good idea to bring forward constructive, meaningful proposals which would allow us to be more relevant and more accurately to reflect those whom we represent.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan. I have just come back into the Chair. Are we finishing at 8 o'clock? There are three Senators and the Minister to speak for ten minutes. Perhaps the Leader of the House might give me some guidance now.

Mr. Lanigan

I would like to use up the time that I have available. There are certain things that I want to say. I do not want to curtail anybody in his or her contribution to this motion. I know that there are certain Senators who have not yet spoken. I am not suggesting that we finish this motion this evening. At the end of my contribution I will be suggesting a continuance, after consultation with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and the possible setting up of other committees. Having heard committee reports we might come back again to continue the debate. I do not want this to be an open-ended discussion. I do not want any open-ended discussions in the Seanad, but this is an important discussion. I would like Senators who want to speak and who have not had the opportunity to do so, to bear with me. We do not have time. The Minister is entitled to speak and it is right that Senator Ross should speak. It is suggested that Senator Ryan wants to get in.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Ryan wants five minutes.

Mr. Lanigan

I suggest that if Senator Ryan would give his time to Senator Ferris that would give us an opportunity to have a concluding speech by Senator Ross and a speech by the Minister.

Mr. McCormack

It is my intention to speak on the motion. Do I understand from what the Leader of the House says that he wishes the motion to conclude tonight?

Mr. Lanigan

Could I just curtail any further discussion? This was to be a three hour discussion and I decided that we could extend it. We extended it by over an hour and a half. That is not normal practice in this House. People who have not had the opportunity to contribute may get the opportunity in the future. It is essential that Senator Ferris should speak as there has not been a Labour Party contribution to the debate. If, a Chathaoirligh, we stick to the rules of the House, I will speak, then the Minister will speak and if there is time Senator Ross will speak. I do not want to curtail business too much. We can go on until 8.10 p.m., if Senator B. Ryan is agreeable, but Senator Ryan would have to give up his time on this motion.

Mrs. Bulbulia

On a point of order, Senator Lanigan said that some time in the future it might be possible for other Senators to contribute to this debate. What exactly does he mean by that? There are Members on this side of the House who obviously would wish to make a contribution.

Mr. Lanigan

If I make my contribution and Senator Ross comes in then the position might become clearer.

An Cathaoirleach

You cannot extend debate as you decide. I do not want to be knocking any Member of the House but it was decided to have a three hour debate. Then it was agreed by all parties to extend the time to a four and a half hour debate. That finishes at 8 o'clock tonight.

Mr. Ferris

I proposed to the Leader of the House to extend the debate to 8.15 p.m.

Mr. Lanigan

I suggest there will not be an opportunity for everybody who wants to speak to speak. I suggest that I make my contribution and it may be that the contribution will make a hazy situation——

An Cathaoirleach

Could we agree that Senator Lanigan speaks? I have the names of others who wish to speak — Senator Ferris to get a few minutes, the Minister to get ten minutes, Senator Brendan Ryan, and Senator Ross to conclude. That will be for another day. I cannot take more names now. We decided on a time and the next thing is that there is a quarter of an hour and then half an hour. This did not happen before and as Cathaoirleach I cannot have it happening tonight.

Mr. McCormack

This matter is dear to the hearts of everybody here. I am a new Senator and matters have been raised in the debate about which I would like to comment. As one who has been through a number of Seanad campaigns I should have an opportunity of contributing to the debate. I am not saying that I have to get in out of turn——

An Cathaoirleach

With due respect to you. Senator, even as a new Senator you are aware that we were talking about a four and a half hour debate and we are now into the last half hour of it. Five Fine Gael Members have spoken. Senator Lanigan to continue, please.

Mr. Lanigan

When this debate started it was my intention that anybody who wanted to speak should not be deprived of the opportunity. We decided to extend the time limit but that did not mean that everybody had to take up the time that was allotted to them. If the Senator on the Fine Gael side who did not get in is feeling a little bit peeved I suggest that he goes to his own party and asks that in future a proper allocation of time be given as between the Members of the party.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate initiated by Senators Ross and Murphy. It is appropriate for all institutions, whether they be elected or selected, to consider from time to time the direction in which to proceed. There are those who question the motives of the proposing Senators in having this motion brought before the House, at a time when a new political party have, as one of their main aims, the total abolition of the Seanad. I do not subscribe to this viewpoint. I do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Progressive Democrats that the Seanad is an irrelevant and expensive debating society and a haven for failed politicians. There are as many failed aspirant Senators in the Dáil as there are failed aspirant TDs in the Seanad.

I do not consider that failure to get elected to the Dáil means that one has failed politically and I reject the disparaging remarks of certain members of the PD Party about Senators who ran for the Dáil and failed to get elected. Indeed, in Dáil elections the majority of people now Members of the Seanad gained a far higher number of first preference votes than the majority of PD TDs. We are not here to consider the abolition of the Seanad but rather to discuss how the role of the Seanad can be made more relevant to current political and social needs.

Before I address this problem it should be pointed out that there is a greater real public concern about the role and conduct of the Dáil than there is about the role and conduct of the Seanad. I would not like to have the Seanad operating on a "them" and "us" basis. This theme has gone through many of the speeches that have been made. There is a role within the Seanad for Senators who have been elected through the panel system or, as the university Senators would say, the political system, as there is a role for those selected by the Taoiseach of the day. Equally, there is a role for university Senators, even though in 1967 the report of the committee on the Constitution suggested that in arguments adduced against university representation, item 84, that whatever historical reasons there may have been for special representation for universities in the Dáil or Seanad in the past this could no longer be justified today and the Constitution should be amended to abolish it. This recommendation did not mean abolishing the Seanad, but abolishing university representation.

I do not subscribe to the suggestion that those of us who are elected under the political panel system are any better or worse in our political judgment than those who come in through the so-called academic road. People who live their lives in academia are often removed from the hurly-burly of political needs — I must say here, that my typist must come from a hurling county because she put down "hurley" and "burley" for hurly-burly, and for that I thank her — and this makes them no better or worse than those of us who live our lives very nearly totally immersed in politics. There is a need for having a balanced Seanad where the viewpoints of everybody in society are taken into account and where there can be a divergence of opinion as to how best solutions to our, economic, social and cultural problems can be addressed and, hopefully, found.

It was suggested by some speakers from the proposing side that it would be better to have the Seanad election totally changed. The major changes proposed refer to the direct elections of Senators by Seanad nominating bodies. I cannot for the life of me see how this method of election would produce a Seanad with as broad a spectrum of society represented as we have not alone in this Seanad but indeed in previous Seanads.

The election process to the Seanad is a brutal, punishing exercise in terms of physical and financial discomfort. Anybody who has travelled the roads and the by-ways of Ireland would know that, and our bank managers unfortunately know it too well. The electors are representative of every section of society — we have millionaire councillors, we have employed county councillors, we have academic councillors, we have unemployed councillors and we have rural and urban councillors. I believe you will not find a more representative electoral college in any other limited franchise election and, without labouring the point, an electoral college which takes its elections very seriously and vote responsibly so as to have pride in the people they elect and respect for the institution of the Seanad as a result.

Even though I do not consider that any system of election is sacrosanct and cannot be changed, the present system has been successful in producing a balance of opinion, education, age and ability within the Seanad and because of this we should not change for the sake of change. This point was addressed by An tUasal Seanadóir Mícheál Ó hAodha on the first sitting day of the new Seanad on 27 April 1938 when he said, "The more it changes, the more it is the same thing."

The arguments put forward by Senators Ross and Murphy and, indeed, some other Senators, about the composition of the House are not new ones and indeed we read that on the first session of that 27 April 1938 debate Senator Tierney had the following to say:

The position that arises now is that the real character and composition of the Seanad have been rudely and thoroughly emphasised right at the start of its proceedings. We were supposed to have a Seanad in which Vocational considerations were to prevail over all other considerations. We were assured very virtuously by members of the Government Party that they objected even to sitting together as a Party. The unfortunate thing is that, once you get a Party complexion introduced into the House, that Party complexion, from whatever side of the House it comes, is altogether incompatible with any real or honest vocational character in the House. Whenever there is anything like an election, and particularly when the election is bound up with any kind of job, you might as well try to keep a cat from cream or a duck from a puddle as to keep political parties from getting in.

He also said that "we still suffer in this country from weaknesses and that Parliamentary Government is still threatened" and so the argument goes on. The attitude of many of us in this House does not digress too far from the comment of Senator Condon in the same debate when he said:

I cannot see for the life of me see why because a man is a politician that he must be ruled out as a vocational representative. Every one of us has been elected on a Vocational Panel and most of us are politicians but politicians are not such terribly vile beings as some people seem to imagine.

The comments made in 1923 are the comments being made now. The comments of Senator Condon and Professor Tierney of the day mirror what is going on in this House today. As has been said, things do not change.

It would appear that the argument as to the best method of election to the Seanad will continue and I am quite certain that an ideal solution will never be found. The argument as to whether you will get better Senators or a more meaningful Seanad by changing the method of election is one which has no real impact on the motion before us.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Lanigan, may I interrupt you to allow the Minister to attend a vote in the other House?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

I will return immediately after the vote.

Mr. Lanigan

It can truthfully be said that there have been very eminent Senators on all sides of the House, and long may it continue to be so.

Like many of the preceding speakers, I have often felt frustrated by the operation of the Seanad. I have often felt that we find ourselves in a type of political straitjacket from which there is very little chance of extricating ourselves. I have taken part in debates in this House on matters of grave public importance in which extremely valuable contributions have been made by Senators from all sides. I have truly felt that these contributions have been of major value and that they contributed, in no small way, to the betterment of legislation. But I have found myself totally frustrated by the almost total lack of interest by the media in these deliberations. There are some elements of the media who attempt to report the proceedings of the Seanad and we appreciate the work of those journalists who sit here day after day, taking note of our proceedings. I cannot, however, let the occasion pass without commenting on the almost total lack of coverage given to this House by the Irish Press Group of newspapers. I seem to be harping on that group each time I get up to speak here, but they feel they can comment on the operation of the Seanad and can publish critical articles about the operation of the Seanad. Apart from their critical attitude they have carried only one non-attributed report on the operation of the Seanad in the past number of months. At least the other newspapers who cover this House allow the reporters to have their names over the articles printed.

We in this House do not look for coverage of our proceedings for the sake of self aggrandisement but, rather, so that the public should be informed of the activities of a House of the Oireachtas — a House without which, constitutionally, the Oireachtas would be invalid. One should look at the validity of the Seanad in terms of the Oireachtas. The totality of the Constitution would have to be changed if the Seanad were abolished. We must realise when we are debating in the Seanad that we are not speaking in, as some people would have it, a debating society. We are speaking in a House of the Oireachtas, without which this country could not be governed unless there was a complete change in the Constitution.

I suppose that the reporting of Oireachtas Bills is not the stuff from which headlines are made and I suppose that because we do not have a Question Time the journalist who thrives on crossfire and gossip — which Question Time can generate — feels out of place in an atmosphere which is not seemingly charged with that fire. The problem with the Seanad is not so much a problem of what is not being done by us here, but rather the problem of seeing that there is a fair media presentation of our work. It has to be acknowledged by any student of political systems that the role of the Seanad has changed over the past number of years.

In the areas where Senators live the public do not differentiate between the roles they expect of a Dáil Deputy and that of a Senator. While the intention in establishing the Seanad may not have included a role for Senators carrying out local constituency work in the manner of TDs and councillors, this is the way the job has evolved for many Senators. Despite the expectation that Senators should carry out similar work to TDs, the salary of Senators has declined relative to the TDs. Between 1938 and 1960 a Senator's salary was 75 per cent of that of a TD. It has declined as a proportion of a TD's salary throughout the sixties and seventies and this trend has continued in the eighties. Today, a Senator's salary is only 56 per cent of that of a TD.

It is difficult to quantify the quality of work in the Seanad and the contributions which it makes. On a quantity basis, from 1965 to 1971 the Seanad met on average 33 times per year for 224 hours per year; from 1972 to 1978 it met on average 37 times a year for 232 hours per year; from 1979 to 1986 the Seanad met on average 42 times per year and for 270 hours per year. At sittings of the Seanad Senators carry out more detailed work on Bills, especially on Committee Stage where there is more scope for amendments to be made. The Seanad serves to provide a second scrutiny of Bills in a less politically motivated atmosphere than the Dáil where the opportunity for such changes arises. There is less public and media attention focused on the workings of the Seanad. This is a double edged sword as it also acts to diminish the public image of the workings and contributions of the Seanad and serves to downplay the work of Senators.

Apart from increased sittings and longer hours of sittings, there has been a major increase in the level of committee work in which Senators are involved. In the period from 1965 to 1971 there were 160 committee meetings which lasted for 179 hours. By 1972 to 1978 the number of committee meetings had increased to 289 and the hours of meetings had gone up to 353 hours. In the period between 1979 and 1986 the number of committee meetings increased to 802 and involved 1,359 hours of work. The amount of time involved in preparing for these committee meetings must also be taken into account and the level of detail and complexity of the issues raised at these committee meetings. Senators were also involved in the work of the New Ireland Forum in 1983 and 1984. There was a total of 28 private sessions and 13 public sessions of the Forum and submissions were received from 317 different sources.

When people talk about the Seanad some people also talk about the cost. The salary of a Senator in 1986 was £10,298. Since 1980 the Seanad salary increased by 57.3 per cent up to May 1986. During this period the consumer price index rose by 76.4 per cent and the increase in average manufacturing wages was 93.2 per cent. The ratio of a Senator's salary to gross domestic product per person employed was .72 per cent in 1982 and this had fallen to .60 in 1986.

These comparisons do not take into account changes in the nature of the job of Senators. It is quite obvious that the role of the Senator has been changing and that individual Senators have to devote more and more of their time to Seanad work. Within this atmosphere of change, we must ensure that the relevance of the Seanad comes more and more to the front and we must look at our procedures and amend or change them where necessary. Our best instrument for initiating change is the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Not enough use is made of Standing Order 29 under which matters of urgent public concern can be brought before the Seanad by suspending business for the discussion of urgent matters whether they be of a national or international nature. Adjournment debates should be addressed more to matters of national concern rather than as at present when the time is used for purely local issues of very little political or national relevance. I am delighted to see today that Senator Brendan Ryan, without any hinting from me, used Standing Order 29 to initiate a debate.

Mr. B. Ryan

Not for the first time.

Mr. Lanigan

Not for the first time, but the Senator uses it and I use it myself. It just shows the possibilities. The committee should address the possibility of having a Question Time type of confrontation with Ministers. This format should be examined with a view to having a question and answer session which would not be based on seeking information on social welfare or associated issues but where policy matters could be examined.

Seanad Members in the past have been very active on committee work, particularly on committees which have had a very heavy workload. This should be acknowledged when the new Oireachtas joint committees are formed. Consideration should also be given to the formation of an ad hoc house committee of the Seanad which might be useful to investigate issues which concern the public. Many Bills, in recent years, have been introduced in the Seanad and I am delighted that the present Government have continued this practice and that the first Bill introduced in this Seanad is major legislation. The introduction of Bills in this House tends to place the spotlight on Seanad business and I see this as a major way of making the Seanad more meaningful. I assure the House of my concern for the future and stature of this House of the Oireachtas and I will do my utmost to preserve it from the onslaught of those ill-advised and badly informed people who would diminish this very important element of democracy.

I welcome the discussion that has taken place and thank the proposing Senators. However, before we have an urgent review of the activities of the Seanad by the Government there is a great deal of work which we can undertake ourselves before placing our review findings in the hands of the Government who have many other priorities at present. I suggest that, at the end of the discussion this evening, we go back with the total report of the debate that has taken place here to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should set up a committee to analyse what has been said, analyse what the public are supposed to be feeling, and analyse the work being done here and the potential of this House for good within Irish society.

I ask the proposer and seconder of the motion to accept what I am saying in the light of what has gone on. I suggest that we adopt that kind of procedure and if they are not satisfied that we can do our own work ourselves, we can come back again and ask the Government to have an urgent review of the working of this House. Again, I thank the proposer and seconder for bringing the motion before the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak on it and I sincerely hope that as a result of this motion we will have a Seanad which will be more relevant and which will have a major part to play on the Irish political scene.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Brendan Ryan, Senator Ferris, Senator Ross and the Minister want to get in. Did I hear correctly that this debate is to finish at 8.15 p.m. or can I take it that we can allow five minutes to Senator Ferris, five minutes to Senator Brendan Ryan, ten minutes to the Minister and Senator Ross to conclude. Could we adjourn the motion and take it another day? Would it help if we let the Minister in now and take the other speakers later?

Mr. Lanigan

If we have a three hour debate and allow it to go to four and a half hours, people get up and say they did not have an opportunity to speak. Many of the people who want to speak are on this side of the House and they have not had the opportunity to speak. I think we should conclude the motion this evening at 8.15 p.m. which will have given adequate time for everybody. I suggested that we could come back to it again at some future date. I have not heard from the proposer for the motion.

Mr. McCormack

Many speakers exceeded the time limit. It is not my fault that happened. I should have an opportunity to contribute and I do not mind waiting to hear the Minister. What about the Cathaoirleach's suggestion about tomorrow evening or at any time tomorrow?

Mr. Ross

I am not sure how many people want to speak. My view is that I have got 15 minutes. I am prepared to give up some of that if it would help, but only five or six minutes. It looks to me as if we have eight speakers left. If the Leader of the House does not want them all to speak, or he feels we should not all speak, I accept that but the House should be aware of the fact that we have eight Senators left who want to speak.

Mr. Lanigan

I will not allow this to be an open ended debate. Senators who want to speak will have an opportunity to speak but not this evening. We will be adjourning this debate sine die because I cannot guarantee when we will be coming back to it again. If the proposer is prepared to adjourn the debate sine die I am prepared to go along with that.

Mr. Manning

Could we allow the Minister to speak and while he is speaking the issue can be dealt with by the Whips?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

A Cathaoirligh, I wish to thank you and Members of the House for giving me an opportunity to speak briefly on this very important matter. I want to make it very clear I have great respect for the men and women who have represented us over many years here in this House and given very loyal and faithful service to our people. I want to put it on record that many of them were elected by local authorities, Members who have given service to the people. I thank them for that.

I would prefer to contest 20 General Elections in a row than one Seanad election. It is a very major and costly campaign as you travel throughout the country. There is no doubt about that. The people who put themselves forward are very much respected by all members of the local authorities and they look forward to see them putting forward their views on many matters affecting our country. I have been a member of Dáil Éireann for 18 years this month. I have heard excellent contributions from Members of this House over the years. I want to thank the newly elected Members who made their maiden speeches here and performed in an excellent way. The Taoiseach said if there was agreement among all the parties that there should be a look at this House in regard to constitutional change that could be done. There is no organisation that cannot be improved. We must look at it in an objective way.

Many Members of this House who were Members of Dáil Éireann have made a wonderful contribution here. Many who are here today were formerly Members of the Dáil. They are here to continue to give a loyal service to our people. I would not like anyone to think this House does not give a service to our people. Legislation going through this House has been debated in great detail over the years. Some very good proposals have come from this House and returned to the Dáil. I thank Senators for that also.

I have no doubt that the proposers of this motion put it down in good faith. It is a very worthwhile motion. It has been debated in detail. It has been a good debate but to come up with all the answers is another day's work. It will be difficult to get a consensus of opinion to suit everybody.

I cannot accept the motion. I believe that this House of Parliament here serves us and has served us well. The Progressive Democrats have decided in their policy document that it should no longer be here. I cannot agree with that. It is a cheap form of publicity and a case of sour grapes since they could not elect anybody to this institution. I could not let the occasion pass without saying very clearly what I think of this Chamber. It has been a good Chamber down through the years. This is my third time to hold Government office and I have seen the Seanad operating very well. This House is very good at debating issues without any rancour. The debates here have been of a very high standard.

Regarding the subsistence allowance to Members of this House, they received nothing but what they were entitled to under the Act, no more and no less. It is only right that I should say what the position is. The media and others would create big headlines if anybody here got a penny more than they were entitled to. They get only what they are statutorily entitled to under the Act. I want to make that clear. That is their right.

In conclusion I am very glad to have had an opportunity to speak on this matter and I have no doubt there will be further debate on it in the future. If we can bring about improvements they will be welcome and we will see a wider scope of debate. If that could be agreed on, it would be very good for parliament. In no circumstances do I see a role for abandoning the Seanad. It is cheap publicity on the part of the Progressive Democrats to try to suggest that. In my opinion that is not on because past and present Members of this House have given excellent service over the years. I respect that.

The Seanad is representative of all shades of opinion, culture, ideas and views. I do not wish to refer to who is here and who is not here but the panels speak for themselves. Many Senators are doing constituency work also, and more perhaps than Dáil Members do. I say that with due respect. They also have to keep in contact with their local authority members who keep them informed of what is going on, and who are very quick to explain the position. I respect those people who represent universities. They play a very important role here.

In conclusion, I could not agree to the motion but if a proposal comes forward to streamline the Seanad we will look on it very favourably.

Debate adjourned.