On a point of information, is it intended that the Government be represented at this debate?
Role of Seanad Éireann: Statements.
No, it was made quite clear that was not necessary.
They have other things on their mind.
That is not the reason. On the Order of Business last week when agreeing to arrange a debate on the role of the Seanad I expressed my approval and that of my colleagues for the general proposal. I also stated that a full and open debate would be beneficial if approached and I know it will be, in a responsible and constructive manner.
The powers and functions of the Seanad are enshrined in the Constitution enacted by the people in July 1937 and in operation from 29 December 1937. The duties and responsibilities attaching to Members of the Oireachtas is well defined. The Oireachtas is clearly a very important part of our democratic system. I agree fully that as Members of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas from time to time we should examine our role and improve the working of the House if at all possible, mindful of our responsibilities under the Constitution.
Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution states that the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas. No other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State. Each House of the Oireachtas exercises its powers and performs its functions through the voice or the decision of its Members. In our democracy the Houses of the Oireachtas are, as we all know, accountable to the people in the hierarchy of accountability and the people are the sovereign authority in the State. As Senators we have a very important role to play in the affairs of this nation and it is no harm to remind the House or our importance from time to time. The Constitution sets the parameters within which the role of the Seanad must be considered. While allocating equal and complementary powers to each House in some areas, Articles 31.2, 14, 12, 10, 33.5, 35.4, 28.3.3º, 21.2, 46.2 and 24 allocate to Dáil Éireann superior parliamentary authority in relation to certain matters.
With regard to reform, we must be realistic in our approach. The concept of the Seanad should be stressed. It is not a carbon copy of the other House but it should endeavour at all times to carve for itself an individual, definite and distinctive role. Consequently, in the areas of legislation and, in particular, in financial areas we must accept that the powers of the Seanad are, in general, less than that of the Lower House and that the Dáil is the main organ of the legislative machine. The Dáil has superior constitutional powers in regard to non-money Bills in so far as a Bill to amend the Constitution may be initiated in the Dáil only and a Bill, in certain circumstances, may be deemed to be passed by both Houses by resolution of the Dáil pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution.
The Dáil has superior parliamentary authority in regard to the finances of the State and this arises from its exclusive power to initiate money Bills. However, the point should be made that the Seanad, by resolution passed at a sitting at which not less than 30 Members are present, may challenge the certification by the Ceann Comhairle of a Bill as a money Bill.
In order to fully understand the role of the Seanad we must go back to the concept behind the Constitution of 1937 and the subsequent enactment of the Seanad Electoral (Panels Members) Acts. In October 1937 during the Second Stage debate of the 1937 Act the then President and Minister for External Affiars, Eamon de Valera, said "We were far from favouring a Seanad which was going to be a reproduction of the primary House". He said that in choosing a Seanad formed on a location basis, "we did that because we believed that it might be possible on that basis to get a Seanad which would not be a mere reflection of the primary House".
Obviously the fundamental aim was to obtain a body of persons possessing specialised knowledge and experience that would play a watchdog and a revising role in regard to legislation. Of the 43 Members elected from the five panels, at least 16 must be elected from candidates nominated by the various nominating bodies. In the present Seanad, 24 of the Members were so elected. As you are aware, in relation to the 43 elected Members the legislation stipulates that each must have knowledge and practical experience of his or her particular panel. Add those 43 elected Members to the six Senators elected by the Universities and to the 11 nominated by the Taoiseach and you have a Seanad with a great diversity of talent and with specialist knowledge. This is the case in the present Seanad. We have the excellent specialist knowledge of various Senators in all areas of life whether it be education, the trade union movement, industry or agriculture. It is no harm to point out that we also have a great divergence of opinion which many times leads to interesting and very fruitful debates.
Looking back, for example, to the people nominated by the various Taoisigh over the years you will find such fine people as Stephen McGonagle, Séamus Mallon, John Robb, who was with us all for a long time and Bríd Rogers. They all added greatly to the dimension of the Seanad. Others come to mind for example, Brian Friel who was mentioned here today and people with specialist interests and knowledge such as Eamon de Buitléar and George Eogan. I remember sitting on this side of the House many years ago with an eminent person in financial matters, Ken Whitaker. I just mention those people in passing as being very important people and indicative of the wide variety of nominations made by the various Taoisigh over the past number of years.
Since my appointment as Leader of the House I have always endeavoured to have Government Bills initiated in the Seanad as has Senator Wright. Our track record in this area speaks for itself. Bills initiated in the Seanad have been debated fully and in great detail. The obvious advantage of debating a Bill in the Seanad is that whereas many Bills are debated in the Dáil under a time restriction, the Seanad has traditionally allowed the debate to run which means that Bills are debated thoroughly.
Another area where we can carve a greater role for the Seanad is in the automatic debating of joint Oireachtas committee reports. We have done this very successfully over the last number of years. I mention the report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities whose statutory role in vetting EC directives is all the more important with 1992 just around the corner.
I am aware that many Senators are dissatisfied with the Standing Orders relative to public business in Seanad Éireann. Many Senators consider Standing Order 29 to be too restrictive and some favour the introduction of what is referred to as a topical hour. As Leader of the House I have endeavoured to provide a mechanism for discussing what might be described as a sudden emergency or topical events by the more frequent use of Statements. We have been very successful in this area.
Another suggestion often put forward is that Question Time or some form of Question Time similar to that in the Dáil might be introduced in Seanad Éireann. On a cautionary note while accepting that there might be merit in the suggestion, I must point out that in view of the constitutional provision that stipulates that the Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann, difficulties would definitely arise. I have no doubt we would experience difficulty regarding the availability and accountability of Ministers. It has been suggested, not very often thankfully, that the Leader of the House might act in their stead. The obvious disadvantage is that the follow-through queries or supplementaries which are the strength of Question Time would largely be lost.
I must emphasise again that the role of the Seanad is not to be a carbon of the other House and it is not appropriate to attempt to make it such. The role of the Seanad lies not in following identical lines to that of the Dáil or in seeking to have all of the procedures of the Dáil introduced in the Seanad. For the very reason referred to above in relation to a Question Time or form of Question Time, the introduction of reforms similar to those recently adopted in the Dáil, including the selection of up to three different matters on the motion for the Adjournment and the introduction of grievance time might not be feasible. I am sure many Senators will refer to those ideas and I look forward with interest to what they have to say.
I refer to the exclusive role of the Seanad as a forum for the introduction of Private Bills. We have had two recently, the Altamont (Amendment of Deed of Trust) Bill and the Limerick Markets Bill. As Members are aware, this mechanism was largely unused since 1978 but came again to the forefront in the last Seanad. Those two Bills have passed through Second Stage in this House.
I look forward with interest to hearing the views of other Senators. Members' contributions will be noted carefully, hopefully, many of them will be used by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to improve the working of the House.
I wish to place on record my thanks to the Leader of the House for the speedy way in which he agreed to take this debate and for allowing it to be an open, ongoing debate for this session. People on all sides of the House can put forward views which I think are increasingly strongly held about the need for change.
I do not think any one of us has the panacea or the magic list of changes that will do all we want to do, but at least let us all hear each other's ideas. I am glad, in spite of Senator Murphy's question, that there is no Government representative as such in this House. This is the business of the Seanad. It is business that we should be able to agree on and implement without "Big Brother" Government being involved more than is constitutionally necessary. It was useful that the Leader of the House at the outset put the debate into its proper constitutional context and indicated the constitutional parameters which limit our scope of action in the House. It is better to start this debate in a sober, realistic way rather than to put forward a range of proposals which have no chance of being implemented.
This debate is not about apologising for the fact that we have a second chamber. It is about ensuring that this Chamber gives value for money, has a role that is realistic and provides better legislation for our people, better safeguards for the public interest and an assurance that issues of public importance will be debated speedily and in a responsible way. Those are the things we want from a proper functioning Seanad. They are things we are not getting at present from this House but, hopefully, at the end of this debate we may at least know how to go about getting them. If we as a House can fulfil these objectives we need not worry. Nobody should say then that this House should be abolished.
There are many people outside and maybe some even who have been Members of the House who would raise serious questions as to the future of the House as it is at present constituted. I am very heartened by the signs on all sides of the House of a new openness to change as far as we are concerned. We will be judged on this by the urgency we bring to this debate and on whether we take ourselves seriously as parliamentarians and take this House seriously. If we do not take the House or our role seriously, then who will? That is what this debate is largely about.
This debate is set in the context of changes in our understanding of what democracy means. Democracy is not static. Our understanding of the term has grown and expanded over the past decades. In all areas of our society as a people and in all our institutions we have become a more open, participative and sensitive society. Nobody would deny that. This has happened over the past number of years. In virtually every major institution today there is the need and very frequently the willingness to give a greater sense of accountability and answerability. We are conscious today of phrases such as "democratic deficit", "gender discrimination", "minority groups", "regional discrimination" and so forth. These issues are important. They are very much part of our expanding sense of understanding democracy. They are on the agenda of any serious political movement today. All of them aim at enriching the concept of democracy. This debate is about asking ourselves how this can alter its procedures towards that same goal.
If we look at the way in which Parliament has developed in this century, we can see enormous power in the role of Parliament. When this State was founded and when our forebears stood in this House 70 years ago, Parliament had very few competitors. It had to work within the confines of the Constitution but it did not have to share its law-making function with any extra-territorial body. There was no EC; no pooling of sovereignty; there was no other body making the laws which would bind Irish people. There were no social partners when this Parliament was set up, framing policy with Government to the total exclusion of both Houses, indeed to the total exclusion of members of Government. There were no social partners deciding the major aspects of public policy. When this House was set up the courts had yet to expand their role to the extent that today there are many people who virtually see the courts as almost the fourth House of the Oireachtas. There were very few organised pressure groups when this Parliament came into existence. There were always the various churches, one in particular, and there were different groups which could make their point of view known but there were not the organised pressure groups to the extent that they exist today, groups pursuing their sectoral interests often backed by formidable financial resources.
When we go back to that time we can say that legislation, for the most part, was comparatively simple. It was a simpler time. It enabled the ordinary Members of the Houses to understand the basis of most of the legislation that was processed through the Houses. When this House was set up there was not the powerful mass media that we know today, a mass media which, among the many things it brings to public life, is a sense of often creating the agenda, a sense of frenetic activity, a sense of setting the agenda rather than reporting it.
In the situation of that time Parliament had a relatively powerful role but every year of the past 50 years has seen a weakening of that position as far as the Houses are concerned. The phenomena I am referring to are not just a feature of this country. They have happened in virtually every country, every democratic system we care to look at. Again, we start with the first point I mentioned, namely, the growing internationalisation of politics. When we, as a Parliament, stop to think about the changes which are proposed for this House and for the other House in the ongoing development of the European Community the implications are quite enormous. How often do we think about the consequential loss of power and position, of the sidelining of our Houses of Parliament, consequent upon the developments that are taking place? We are going into all of this with our eyes open, with very little public debate but at least we have had referenda which have backed the various developments and so forth. I believe we have paid very little attention to the effect of all of this on the future development of this and the other House.
The concept of the corporate State is something which has been growing in other countries as well. The corporate State is virtually made flesh in the institutionalisation of the dialogue with the social partners where in a sense the major sectoral groups sit down with Government over the heads of the elected representatives to decide public policy. It is a process which has, to a certain extent, brought results. There must always be dialogue within any Government or any political party and the major social interests groups in society but it is a very bad development that this dialogue becomes institutionalised and virtually takes the place of the policy-making process which should rightfully be decided finally in the Houses of Parliament. This is something which Governments like because it is not particularly messy, it involves small numbers of people, it can be manipulated by both sides and it produces results but in terms of the place of Parliament and our role as politicians it is something which has extremely dangerous long term and even short term consequences.
Again, we are looking at the position of pressure groups in all countries today. They have become more and more powerful, often more and more insidious. There was talk in recent times of golden circles, of people being on the inside, of having inside information, of knowing where exactly to put the right word in the right ear to get the right result. This has probably always happened and always will happen but we are at a stage now where a large proportion of most major business budgets is spent on the business of persuading governments to do what that business wants, of pressure of that sort. That also takes place outside of the scrutiny which Parliament is there to give, away from the consultation with the elected people and again is something which in all countries has damaged the position of Parliament.
Most Bills which come in here now are very complex. We in this House have performed very well on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. We have had the Companies Bill, the Insurance Bill. There is a range of legislation coming through the Houses today which is enormously complex. The case hardly needs to be made for in-built expertise in the Houses of Parliament to enable Members to scrutinise legislation in the best possible way.
These are just some of the factors. I have mentioned the internationalisation of politics, the growing complexity, the role of pressure groups. The power of the mass media also has had an extraordinary effect on the place of Parliament. In the old days here the newspapers would report in great detail what happened in the Houses of Parliament. Indeed in the time of Parnell it was the reporting in the Freeman's Journal and the other newspapers almost verbatim of the debates at Westminister which enabled Irish people who perhaps had not been to school to have these debates read out to them in their villages and towns throughout the country which gave them a very detailed grasp of the issues and the personalities involved. That day has long since gone and there is no point in complaining about it.
The media today has a great tendency to simplify issues. The sound bite rules. If you cannot say it in 30 seconds then it is not worth saying. We all know that complex issues cannot be reduced to 30 seconds, that all politics is not a presidential confrontation between two or three major political leaders. Unfortunately more and more of the media tends to present political debate and conflict in those terms. Again, it is something we have to live with but it has done great damage to the rest of Parliament. Why should we sit here today talking at great length perhaps about a subject that does not grab a great number of people when a short statement or an abusive statement or an outrageous statement is more likely to be reported. There is a change which the growth of media power has brought about. We have been well served by our media in this country, radio, television and most of the newspapers in that they have a responsible attitude but nonetheless they, too, are part of this growing development. Of course we have mentioned the growing role of the courts but that is not for this debate today.
Our problems are very little different from those of most other countries. The difference, however, is that we in Parliament have not fought back. In most other countries parliamentarians fairly early on recognised what was happening and recognised they had an obligation to fight back, to win back power for Parliament, that if they were not going to fight for it nobody was going to give it to them.
This brings me to what I believe is the nub of the problem we are discussing here today, our lack of belief in ourselves as parliamentarians. We should never forget that it is Parliament that is sovereign, not Governments. We have the right in the Constitution to make our own procedures, to adopt new roles for ourselves, to set up whatever committees we wish in this House. All that is needed for the most part is the will of the House. Yet, all these years we have waited for Governments to give us the lead, for Governments to come in and make changes for us. We have waited in vain, and we will wait in vain if we expect Governments to do it. We will wait in vain until we decide what changes we want and set about implementing them ourselves.
It is a fact of political life, and we all know it, that no Government welcomes a strong, busy, effective, inquisitive Parliament. All Governments feel they know best, that they have the best experts, that they have thought out the problems fully, that they have had full consultation with all the people who matter. We could write the script ourselves as to how Governments feel on these matters. They do not want committees sending for Ministers, sending for civil servants. They do not want competition from well briefed TDs and Senators who again will hold up the legislation, ask awkward questions. They do not, in fact, like spending too much time in the House. We all know that to be a fact. Ministers regard themselves as very busy people. I am talking about all Governments, so I am not making this a party point. We see the way in which some Ministers have, in the presence of all of us, virtually treated the House with contempt, racing through scripts paying little attention, making it clear that it is a bore to be here and they cannot wait to get out.
We see the steady succession of junior Ministers coming in, sent in to do a job, often knowing nothing of the legislation which they are expected to pilot through the House. I am not blaming them in particular. They are sent in. We cannot expect them to lead a crusade which effectively will make their lives more difficult and that is what we are seeking to do. We are asking for this particular crusade, this change, the net effect of which will be to ensure that Governments are more carefully criticised and scrutinised, that they are more answerable, that Minister will have to spend more time in the House, that they will have to take it all more seriously. Why should we expect them to lead that battle, if it comes, it will come from within this House itself.
Various questions are raised by a debate like this. One of the first questions which is raised is whether we need more powers as a House. The Leader of the House did indicate the constitutional parameters within which we must operate. Personally I do not think it is a question of greater power. I do not think any greater powers are necessary for this House to perform more effectively. Again, the Leader of the House made a very important point at the beginning of this debate when he pointed out that in many respects this House is subordinate to the other House. That is only as it should be and it is enshrined in the Constitution. Members of the other House are directly elected. It does express and represent the sovereign will of the people as expressed through elections. Certainly it is not our job to frustrate the other House. We would not be a good Seanad if we, as we are at present constituted, saw it as our job to harry the other House, to frustrate, to make life difficult for the Government on a non-issue basis. That happened in 1934 when there was a very different Seanad, different in composition, the elections were held at different times from Dáil elections and there was a conservative majority in this House against Mr. de Valera's radical majority in the Lower House. On that occasion the Seanad did set out to frustrate the will of the Lower House and Mr. de Valera, as we all know, brought in a Bill to abolish the Seanad which the Seanad, as again we all know refused to pass, not unreasonably, I suppose, but which became law 18 months later. Looking back on that, I think that Mr. de Valera was absolutely right.
He was always right.
Do not give her the opening, Senator.
It was one of the occasions where I find myself in agreement with the late President de Valera. He brought in a Bill to abolish the Seanad and I think on the arguments of the day he was right. You cannot have a situation where there is conflict between the two Houses. We do not have to push for extra power, we do not have to be in competition with the Dáil. It would be a foolish move towards reform to go in that direction. Broadly speaking, the powers we have in this House, the powers which we largely do not use, are similar to those of many of the other second Chambers in the European Community. There are eight second Chambers within the European Community and in all of them the emphasis is on the detailed scrutiny of legislation, the emphasis is on the initiation of legislation, the emphasis is on providing the widest possible degree of debate on public issues. Each of the eight second Chambers in the European Community — and I have not strayed away from that — see their role largely in the same terms in which anybody who looks at it carefully in this House would also see it.
I will be making some specific proposals before I finish as to how we might enhance our own effectiveness within existing parameters. One of the questions which will undoubtedly be raised during the course of this debate is whether we should change our electoral system. I have a very open mind on that. Obviously all of us are here because of the electoral system and there is a great natural tendency, whether it is from the university seats or from the panels — I cannot speak for those who come in through the Taoiseach's nomination — for those of us who have been through the two electoral systems to be happy enough with the system which elects you, to feel reasonably comfortable within it. If we are serious about this debate then we have to look very carefully at the electoral system and see whether there are ways in which it could be improved.
I should say again that the panel system here is not all that different from that which operates in a number of EC countries. It is not something that we took out of thin air and put into place here. I am not referring to the vocational aspect of it but the actual electoral college of public representatives is not altogether different. France, Holland, Spain and Belgium all have elements of election from regional and provincial councils as part of their second Houses. Italy and Belgium have elements of direct nomination into the Upper House so in that sense there are plenty of examples which rest somewhat on the principal of an electoral college of people who themselves have been elected as a step into the second Chamber.
Senator Fallon made a point and it is a key one in many ways as to whether we will be successful or not. That was that the Seanad should not be a carbon copy of the Dáil, that there is a need for a different sort of person in the Seanad, a different type of representation. However, that is a concept which I would not push too far. We are a small country. The political class, those who are involved in politics is not an enormous number. If we start looking for differences for the sake of differences, then we could find that we are down a not particularly productive route.
Again it is a question which I hope will be aired over and over during this debate, the extent to which and the way in which this House should be different from the other House. This is a political House. It is a House of Parliament. It is, by definition, political and one would expect that the bulk of its Members would be politicians. Again, I would make no excuse for this. I happen to hold the very unfashionable view today, often enunciated by the late Mr. James Dillon, that, as he put it, after the priesthood, politics was one of the most noble of vocations. I genuinely believe that. Politics and the life of politics is about public service and public participation and I certainly would never make any excuse for having had the privilege of being a Member of a House of Parliament or being involved in politics and I do not go with the fashionable dismissal of politicians today.
Having had the privilege of being a Member of both Houses of Parliament over the past ten years, I have the height of respect for the vast majority of politicians. I certainly would place them on a higher level than many in other professions, other businesses and so forth, in terms of integrity and commitment and a sense of the public good which I find in Members of all parties in both Houses. Of course there are exceptions and, of course, there are people who bring politics into disrepute but when you are talking about the vast majority of politicians they are not the caricatures which we see in some of the satirical programmes, which we see in cartoons or, indeed, which have become part of the public consciousness. The fact that this has become so may well be our own fault in the sense in which maybe we represent ourselves and in which we do our work.
In any event I see nothing wrong with a Parliament made up largely of politicians. However, there is the question of the panel system and without examining the fundamental of whether it should be there at all or not — and that is something which I hope will be discussed during the debate as well — and I would not be at one with the late President de Valera on the institution of the vocational panels and the way in which that was brought about, but if we have the vocational panels, as we have, it would require constitutional reform to change from that. I do not think we are into constitutional reform, we are into reform within what is possible. There is a strong case at present for tightening up the qualifications needed for nomination to many of the panels. If we require a certain expertise, then that expertise must be demonstrable in a way which is not the case at present. We all know that the rules at the moment are too lax and we could look very hard at them. It might not suit some people but if we are serious it is something we should look at very seriously.
Should we retain the political electorate that I spoke about a moment ago, the county councillors and the city councillors? I would be — and Senators may say I would; they have always been very decent to me — a strong supporter, within what is possible, of retaining this particular electorate. There is a certain security in knowing that those who vote for you have themselves been elected. They have had to face an electorate. They have been elected. They are involved in the daily nitty gritty of politics. They see how the laws which are made in both Houses, or indeed the statutory instruments which are not made in either House, operate on the ground. They are the people who are closest to the electorate and closest to the people for whom laws are made. They are familiar with the real problems. I think they are realistic. At least they themselves have their own democratic mandate. I am not sure that you would get — again within what is possible under the Constitution — a particularly better electoral college.
Should nominating bodies — as Senator Norris has on occasion mentioned — be allowed to nominate Senators directly? I think that would be a bad idea. We all know how voluntary public organisations can be manipulated by small groups of people, cabals or cliques can take over. They can often be run for small groups of members. Sometimes they are more difficult to get into than an exclusive K club and almost as expensive. You can have a situation where you could have small groups, not particularly accountable, nominating members directly into Parliament. For all their faults the elected representatives can be removed. Some of them are removed at regular intervals. They are democratically accountable. I think having nominating bodies put people in here directly would be elitist in the worst sense of the word. Why should some people, because they are members of the RDS, have the right to nominate a Senator or to be parties to nominating a Senator and somebody who lives down the road who is a member of Irishtown Football Club, not have the same right? Maybe it is not a particularly good example. Maybe there could be areas of expertise but I am not sure why the doctors' union or Liberty Hall should have the right directly to nominate people into a House of Parliament. I do not see that it is better than going through, however imperfect it is, the democratic structure that is there at present. Such a scenario is far more open to manipulation that the present system.
We might reach a compromise. We might say that nominating bodies might have a certain number of votes in addition to those who already vote on the panels. That may be worth looking at there. Maybe this would inject a new element of thinking and be a compromise between the two views.
I would like now to look briefly at the question of the university seats. This is a question about which I have a great deal of mixed feelings and thoughts. As we all know, university seats were there historically, in this State at least. First of all, in the Dáil of 1937, they were there largely to ensure that the unionist minority, who could vote for the Trinity TDs, would have a strong unionist presence in the Lower House. The other reason was a total hangover from Britain, that for some reason graduates were better people that non-graduates and because a person had access to third level education they had a greater stake in the country, they had a wiser point of view and so forth and so graduates were given this particular privilege. It was abolished in the Dáil by Mr. de Valera in 1937 but was brought into the Seanad. I find that on any democratic basis it is very difficult to justify the presence of university seats in this House. In fact today most graduates are disfranchised. Graduates of the University of Limerick, Dublin City University, of the Regional Technical Colleges, who have done maybe four or five years of graduate and post-graduate work, do not actually have votes on the university panels. They are disfranchised.
It is very hard to justify the view that because I am a graduate and Senator Fallon might not be, that in some way I am worthy of two votes in elections and he is worthy of only one. It is a very difficult point to justify. How then do I justify the University presence in this House? I do it in very simple grounds. There have been long years of extremely good representation from the universities. The University Senators, by and large, maybe more than most, have paid their way in this House. Different categories of University Senators have provided a voice for strong minority groups in this House from the late Senator Owen Sheehy-Skeffington to our present President of Ireland, Senator Murphy, Senator Brendan Ryan, Senator Norris, all in their own way, and many others have a distinctive point of view which has been articulated forcefully in this House, which certainly has enriched the House, which has added to the debate. University Senators have, by and large, been extremely conscientious in their attention to the duties of the House and have been among the good Senators in this House. They may not always have found favour with the Government parties of the day. They may have irritated people by their stance on particular issues, but I would be very slow, in spite of my views about the difficulty in democratically justifying Seanad representation here, to argue for any great change there. I would say we certainly should speed up the process of enfranchising those who at least fall within the categories of graduates. I would like to see the system reformed and maybe a little democratic humility from time to time from some of our university colleagues. The university panel has justified its existence and I would be very slow to change.
The question of the Taoiseach's nominees was raised by Senator Fallon. This is one of the great areas of lost opportunity in this House in particular. It has probably never been used as fully as it should. We all know, being realistic, that there will be party pressures on any Taoiseach which he must live with, but up to the recent election — and I understand the problems Deputy Haughey had in 1989 — there was at least an attempt to bring in some distinctive voices from outside politics, most of whom did enrich the work of the House.
We can look at people like John Robb who is an enormous loss to this House, the voice of civilised unionism in this House, Séamus Mallon, Stephen McGonagle, Bríd Rogers, academics like George Eogan who made a very useful contribution to the last Seanad, people like Éamon de Buitléar, who again made a very valuable contribution and, of course, Dr. Ken Whitaker, who was a very honoured Member of a number of Seanad. When we look at such names we can see the value of using the Taoiseach's nominees in a way that is productive and positive as far as the House is concerned. It is a great pity that it has fallen into disrepair at present. I hope that when next there is an election the then Taoiseach will go back to the old tradition.
I am not saying that simply putting distinguished people into this House means that they are going to perform very well. We all saw in the last Seanad that there were a number of the Taoiseach's nominees who certainly, to use the business phrase, did not wash their faces. They certainly did not add anything to the debates and simply did not adapt. Perhaps it was not their fault; perhaps one needs a certain sort of personality to be able to adapt and flourish and contribute in this House. Certainly, putting distinguished people in does not automatically ensure a better performance in the House.
One proposal I would like to make today to Senators concerns the question of emigrant representation. There is a move afoot at present to give the vote to emigrants but I am not sure if it is going to be practical or feasible. There are many problems attached but we could certainly adopt a derivation of the French Senate procedure and allow part of our representation to come from Irish people voting overseas. It would not upset the balance of power in the Dáil but would ensure that emigrants would elect a number of people to this House. Elections could be held and three or four of the Taoiseach's nominations could be filled by emigrant representatives. We talk a great deal about maintaining contact with our Irish community overseas, of building up links, of making them feel they have a voice at home, and would be a practical, symbolic and inexpensive way of ensuring Irish overseas representation in this House. I want to know if we could come up with a definite recommendation on how this principle might be translated into reality and I hope my suggestion finds favour with all groups.
There has been some recent talk, by Senator Norris in particular, about holding elections to the Dáil and Seanad on the same day. Presumably, the purpose of this suggestion is to force people to opt for one House or the other. I see the point he is trying to make but I do not agree with him. Most other parliamentary systems allow for reasonably easy movement, depending on the will of the electorate, between one House and another. I have had the privilege of being in both Houses and while both have their advantages and disadvantages I find this House infinitely preferable; it is more civilised, debates are better and there is a better atmosphere, but I also learned a great deal during my time in the other House.
My question to Senator Norris and others is whether this House is worse off because it contains people who have been in the other House and who may want to go back there? Is it a disadvantage to have people like myself, Senator Doyle, Senator Naughten, Senator Cosgrave, Senator Wright, Senator O'Keeffe, Senator Hussey and Senator John Ryan, some of whom may have served as Ministers in the other House? Those of us who have experience in the Dáil, bring that experience with us to this House. It is important to foster a living linkage between the two Houses.
I do not think that great benefit would accrue if people were forced, arbitrarily, to opt exclusively for either the Dáil or the Seanad. The danger of such a requirement is that the two Houses become over-compartmentalised; and professional Senators emerge, who can build up their own base and live on that and almost cocoon themselves into one House. This would not further Senator Norris' objective of ensuring better representation in this House.
One frequently hears well meaning debating societies, chambers of commerce, rotary clubs and so on lament that the second House is party political. Why should it not be party political? Parties are open democratic institutions; they are the fulcrum of our parliamentary system, which would not exist without them. Parties provide the discipline and organisation which makes parliamentary democracy possible. One of the most pressing needs of public life is more people prepared to join political parties and to make use of them to articulate public policy and to change society. The party system is one of the ways open to the ordinary person seeking chance and rather than deprecate the role of political parties in this House I would like to see it enhanced and strengthened.
A House without parties or in which the party element is greatly diminished could well become a House of prima donnas, of single issue people and we all know what they are like. Life is very comfortable if one has only one issue to pursue and only one constituency to please and to blazes with the rest of the community and society. Without strong party representation we would get single issue people in here in big numbers with no obligation to think about wider political and public interests and re-election for those people would depend upon pleasing the sectoral interest group which elected them originally. It is an appalling prospect.
I remember as a student being at a debate in the L + H in UCD in 1964. Sean Lemass was Taoiseach, James Dillon was Leader of the Opposition, they were both present at the debate and Garret FitzGerald, then a young economist, was the third speaker, I forget who the fourth speaker was but it was a good line up. Seán Lemass made a statement then which has lived on, that a Dáil full of graduates would be a truly appalling prospect. Likewise, I feel that a Seanad full of special interest people, single issue people university people and so forth with a very weak political party content would be a bad Seanad.
We must accept and be glad that political parties are there to make parliamentary democracy work. In the early days of the State some people thought, with a certain innocence and naïveté that it would be wonderful if every Dáil issue could be decided on a free vote and indeed it was the hope of Kevin O'Higgins among others at the foundation of the State that we would have an assembly-type democracy where people might come in and make up their minds independently on every issue. However, very quickly it was seen that that would not work. The Government need a dependable majority if policy is going to be pursued in any sort of ordered way; our present structures evolved in response to need although we need to improve them drastically. Becoming a non-party political House as many people outside the House suggest we should not be an advance.
Earlier I said that we should look at the vocational concept which underlies the composition of our electoral system. There may not be much we can do to change it without changing the Constitution; I am not going to talk about it now but I will listen with interest to other views on the subject.
Let me mention here a few specific areas where I think reform should be effected. We will be judged, ultimately, on our skill in dealing with legislation; our prime function is to give detailed attention to Bills coming before the House. I disagree with Senator Fallon when he says that we do this very well. On occasion we do; the Environmental Protection Agency Bill is a case in point. I remember the only occasion on which I ever walked out of a House of Parliament in protest was a day here at the beginning of 1989 when there were only about 14 Members in the House because the election had not taken place. That morning Minister Pádraig Flynn came in with a Bill containing 125 sections which was put through within a couple of hours. In the afternoon Minister Albert Reynolds came in with the Central Bank Bill. This was an equally long and complex Bill, all Stages of which were also put through this House in a matter of hours.
There have been other instances of the guillotine being used in this House and it should be a fundamental principle of the House that the Leader be prepared to sit Friday, Saturday and Sunday in order to debate a Bill properly rather than have recourse to the guillotine. Once we start using the guillotine we are on a slippery slope where the convenience of Government and of Ministers counts for more than our role as Senators and the importance of the legislation. This decline has begun in recent times.
I am not happy at the way in which our committee work takes place. It might well be expedient that this review look at the possibility of having some legislation placed before public committees of this House where civil servants could be brought along, as has been the case on a number of Bills that have been through the other House in recent times. A special committee could perhaps, be set up to deal with very complex legislation, but for ordinary Members here there is a definite lack of the kind of advisory backup service which would be the norm in any modern parliament. Members need such a service and it should be provided. Why, for example, should I not, as a right have access to the civil servants who draft the Bill, when civil servants are public servants? The Bill is in the public interest and I am a public representative. Why should her or his expertise be available only to the Minister of the day? Why should others not have a right rather than as a favour access to information, explanations and so forth so that there might be some level of equality when we come to examine legislation?
There is need also, for much greater flexibility when dealing with Private Members' Bills. It was wrong today and on the last day for the Leader of the House to refuse to permit the printing of Private Members' Bills. What harm could that do? On the Order Paper today there is the Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, a Suicide Bill, the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, the Nuclear Free Zone Bill, the Register of Members of the Oireachtas Interests Bill. All of these address problems that need to be tackled. Whether the Bill as published would be the answer to the problem we do not know as the Bills are not being published. These Bills should be published and there should be, as a right, time for Private Members' Business.
At present the Government takes a "dog in the manager" attitude to Private Members' Business. It says, "No, you cannot print your Bill" and "No, we will not address the particular problem." That is an infantile attitude for a modern parliament to adopt. We should insist very strongly on the right to print Private Members' Bills and for a specific time for debating them. The Government do not have to accept the Bill and indeed may disagree in principle with it or have something better to offer, but at least let the Bills be published and debated.
The amount of time allocated to Private Members' Business is totally inadequate at present. Some weeks there is an allocation of one and a half hours, some weeks none at all, so that a major party like mine will get one or two chances only, a session to address a matter of great importance; this also applies to Independent Senators. I thought that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges had agreed that Private Members' time would be taken in a single block each week for two, two and a half or three hours, so that a complete item of Private Members' Business might be completed weekly instead of carrying it over to the following week. That would be a move towards greater opportunities for debate on Private Members' time; I am certain that much of the trouble we have here on the Order of Business is due to the frustration of many Members at their inability to raise issues about which they feel strongly and for which Private Members' time would provide some sort of outlet. That is a necessary change.
I come now to the matter of the Adjournment debate. The absence of a Question Time in this House makes the Adjournment debate vital for a Senator seeking information and greater accountability. A queue forms most days to place questions for the Adjournment when a Minister is brought in to account to an elected Member of Parliament for an action or decision; last week the case of Nicky Kelly was raised, sometimes it may be a question about a school, but it is always a matter of public importance where the Minister has some degree of accountability.
There is no reason why two items may not be dealt with on the Adjournment each night. Most people do not need 20 minutes to make their case; they could make it in ten. Why not have two 15 minute sessions or two 20 minute sessions here each night? We need more slots for Adjournment debates and this reform could be implemented almost at a stroke. If it involves the attendance of two Ministers, that is tough.
Another important issue that any reform committee must address is the question of debates on European issues. As a Parliament, our handling of European issues has been a national disgrace especially in the other House. We spend little time discussing matters which affect our daily lives substantially. We would all agree that the House needs a strong European dimension. Civil servants might not agree, nor the Department of Foreign Affairs, nor Government Ministers, but anybody who cares a fig for the role of Parliament and for the development of public policy knows that our treatment of European issues has been a disgrace. There is a very simple reform that this House could adopt. It could designate itself European Chamber or a Chamber which will devote a great deal of its time to discussing European issues. European issues encompass matters agricultural, social, educational and so forth. We could give right of audience and access at certain times to members of the European Parliament to enable them to participate in these debates so that there would be linkage between this House and the European Parliament to facilitate the exchange of ideas so that what European delegates learn in the Community can be shared with us and may possibly enrich the debate here. I will be proposing that we examine in detail how we might develop a distinctive European dimension as a House. It could be done without any constitutional change if we resolved to do it.
Change is also needed regarding flexibility of debate. People sometimes say when they are trying to put politicians down, that the Dáil or Seanad is but a talking shop. I would make no apology for that, it is one of our functions to be such. The derivation of the word "Parliament" is from the word parler, to talk, to discuss, to sort out differences by talking rather than by war. One of our most important functions is to talk out the great issues of our time. Why should major events be discussed fully on “the Gay Byrne Show”, or “The Late Late Show”, on “Today Tonight”, in The Irish Times, in The Cork Examiner in every pub and debating society in the country and not in the Houses of Parliament? We need to be a talking shop. It is our job to debate, to get the truth, to air ideas, to lead opinion and to do it not through various appearances or statements from our offices which are included as sound bytes on radio or television, but to do it through reasoned debate using the Chamber for its intended purpose.
This House has all the time in the world. We have time to sit on Tuesdays or Fridays to allow for the fullest debates possible. We do not need the long breaks which are forced upon us. We could meet in September and we should have been here last September to debate many of the major controversies and scandals happening then.
I take issue again with the Leader of the House on the question of Northern Ireland which I raised on the Order of Business. It is a disgrace to this House that we have not discussed the issue of Northern Ireland, still the single greatest problem facing this country, in almost a year. What is wrong with us that we are not discussing it? That is what this House should be about. I can discuss Northern Ireland on the Rodney Rice programme, on the Pat Kenny programme, in an article, at a university debating society but in this House where there is a diversity of views I may not say anything worthwhile on that subject. I can see no justification whatsoever for the lack of opportunity to respond to major issues. We need not go chasing after every flavour of the month or become trivial in the pursuit of issues, but we should be able to respond to serious issues.
I want to mention the role of the Leader of the House. The position involves a good deal of work and heavy responsibility, yet the Leader of the House is not an office holder. He does not have the status and prestige appropriate to that post. The Leader of the House should be given the status and recognition of office holder; I can say this easily from the Opposition benches; Senator Fallon could not say it. Probably everyone in this House would agree that the Leader of the House should have that particular status and if it means paying an appropriate allowance, so be it.
While looking at reform we should consider links with other parliaments. We do not live in a cocoon here. All of us who have talked to parliamentarians from other countries realise that we all have the same problems. We are all fighting Governments who want to play down the importance of Parliament and with civil servants who want to rule by statutory instrument. We must all be wary of interest groups who would manipulate us. We are all faced with the difficulties of conveying the interests of the public to Government and our own views to the public. We should begin to explore links with other second Chambers in the European Community states build up a series of common meeting places and bonds so that shared experiences may mutually enrich us.
These are some ideas for reform and others will surface during the course of the debate. When Senator Honan was Cathaoirleach she sought to have the House receive distinguished visiting personalities, which is something we might again raise. She also pioneered the idea of public hearings on certain issues. I am not going to pre-empt what she might say but these ideas should be on the table for any serious debate.
We have waited too long for this debate; Seanad reform has been talked about for over a decade. The time for waiting has passed. This debate gives us all an opportunity to put forward our ideas and analysis and when it is over the Seanad should set up a small representative committee to process ideas and look at specific proposals from each party within a definite time limit. That committee should then agree upon a set of proposals which, if accepted, would give this House the properties I prevously mentioned as desirable.
This House must give the public value for money. It has to give itself a realistic role to ensure that our presence here means better legislation, better safeguards of public interest and that matters of major importance are publicly debated. That is quite a small agenda and if this debate helps us to achieve it it will have been worthwile.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for allowing this debate to take place. Senator Manning who has been a colleague of mine for a long time, alluded in his long contribution to other times in this House which were simple times and to great changes which have taken place and to the pressure we find ourselves under today.
I share the views of many Senators that this House is badly in need of reform. Member of European Parliament, Barry Desmond, tabled on Tuesday about more power for the European Parliament where he wants more openness and debate. We would want to watch how much openness and power continues to be taken from us as elected people of this nation and given to Europe. If we were to talk about reform in the context of Europe taking power from us we would need to do so with a clear head and in a non-party political way; the debate should be open to all of us as individuals without any whip.
We are elected to the Seanad by a particular method to which Senator Manning referred. It is wrong for some people outside of this House to say that we are not democratically elected because the people that elect us have already been elected by the people of this nation and are quite clearly, therefore, the voice of the people.
Senator Manning talked about other ways of election to this House. There is one alternative which I have thought about and I will mention it here and in another forum if I am allowed to sit on that forum. I refer to the areas that elect MEPs. I would have to canvass Munster on this issue which would be quite comfortable although I do get support outside of Munster. I do not find criticism of how we are elected wrong and maybe there is an alternative way to elect us.
It is wrong that this House should be a closed shop. Sometimes the Independent Senators seem to think that Senators who are members of political parties are specially privileged. University Senators enjoy more protection from their electorate than we do. Having said that I would pay tribute to present and past university Senators with whom I have had dealings during my years in this House.
Senator Manning suggested that some Senators are cocooned by their membership of the Seanad and have never set their sights on other places. Clearly I would fall into that category. I had a chance to stand for the Dáil: I did not take it. I had a chance to stand for Europe: I did not take it. It is quite clear where my commitment lies. I have never regretted my decision. As a public representative for many years, I am totally committed to the Seanad, which I firmly believe in. Some of us must stand firm and be seen as solid, serving Senators. In the past I have been very critical of people who use this House for a short time and then leave. I may have made that statement in past years when I saw elected Senators, committed to this House, losing their seats on panels to people in their own party who were simply using the House to get back to the Dáil. I felt deeply hurt and my views were quite strong. I suppose that it is a sign that I am either getting old or raving when I can forgive. It is a rare commodity nowadays.
Watch that, Senator Honan, it is very dangerous.
I did not get to you yet. It is in the Programme for Government that this House is to be reformed — Senator Murphy was confused last week, which rarely happens. They are considering reform in this House and in the Dáil.
The great thing about the Seanad is that, regardless of the many parties and independent Members in this House, it is not subject to party politics. I say that sincerely. In this House, I hope we behave as individuals and the House is the better for it. As Senator Manning said, we have shown we have the skill to deal with legislation. I agree with him also on how little back-up, advice and help we have as Senators. There is so much comment on our salaries and expenses that it should be known that we have just one secretary here in Dublin shared between three rural Senators. That is the back-up we have. At one time there was very little difference between Seanad and Dáil salaries. The division now is around £10,000 or so. That is far too great and it is wrong.
Because of recent events in Irish life, which seem to have shaken everybody, no time is more appropriate than this week for a discussion on Seanad reform and what we stand for. I, like most of my colleagues, have confidence in the system and in our two Houses of Parliament. It would be sad for all of us if we were to lose the confidence of the nation this evening, because of recent events. Of course, there is room for improvement in our work, how much we do as Senators and the effectiveness of that work. I worry at times at the extraordinary amount of criticism of this House. It is up to us here to correct that criticism and to put in place the major role that this House should play in the future of the nation.
Having no Government presence here this evening, the atmosphere for this debate is more relaxed.
Between ourselves we should debate, whether in committee form or otherwise, how the House will proceed when this debate is over. Only we can reform this House. When we discussed the matter some time ago, I was of the opinion that the three hour debate on motions in this House should not be broken into two one and a half hour debates again. Senator Manning made reference to this. I considered that to be crazy because there was no continuity in what colleagues had said. I understood that it was agreed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that the three hour debate would take place on one day. That has not been established. I support Senator Manning and ask, as we both seem to be on the same wavelength, that it should be established immediately.
In recent years and particularly now I cannot understand why there is no Question Time in this House. I do not mean a photocopy of what happens in the Dáil, but, to have relevance to the country and to the nation that we represent, we should be able to discuss serious matters which arise quite quickly. I would ask the Government to look at this also. Perhaps Ministers did not want to come in here for a Question Time which would be the same as in the Dáil and just a repeat of what had happened in that House. It could be quite different.
The Government programme on Oireachtas reform, speaks of extended sittings of the House, extra sessions and a return to committees. It states:
In future, suitable Bills will be dealt with at Committee Stage by a select committee and debates in the Dáil on these Bills will be confined to Second Stage and Report Stage. Streamlined voting procedures in committee will be introduced, so that there is minimum interruption in the flow of business.
While I would support the idea of some Bills going to committee. I have seen, at first hand, the advantage of Bills being taken by select committees. Members of this House who sat on those select committees came to the House with an extraordinary amount of knowledge to debate the Bills when we did take them here. I hope when the Government reform of the Oireachtas takes place they have select committees of Members of the Seanad as well as the Dáil.
We have, of course, an inbuilt Government majority in this House which gives it a unique character in that the Government cannot be beaten because of the Taoiseach's 11 nominees. Therefore, we have less drama here than there is in the Dáil. They are biting their nails five minutes before the bell rings, wondering whether they are voting with us or against us, or whether we are voting with them or against them. The Seanad has very little such drama so there is less tension here. The late chief, Eamon de Valera, was right in his judgement on such activity. We work hard at valuable debate, with less party scoring off each other.
I have also witnessed here in the Seanad in the past two years at least one Minister prepared to accept amendments in this House. We should have more of that. I ask the current Ministers and indeed future Governments — whatever their composition might be — to accept more amendments — not just Government amendments. We also have a calmer atmosphere in this House and more time to give to Second Stage debate.
I want to put down a marker here this evening as a person in public life for quite a number of years and in this House since 1977. We have ourselves to blame for not being relevant to the people outside. Over the years we have allowed people outside this House to take from us some of the powers and decision making that should have been ours. There are people who make themselves kingmakers, who have never stood for election to any position. Self-placed people in top posts, never elected to anything, are laying down the law for all. We have seen this in the past year, and perhaps in recent weeks more than ever before. Perhaps we, who have been elected, should take a hard look at whether we are to blame for allowing these people to take power which should belong to us. We have stood back and allowed this to happen and certainly the founders of this nation, on all sides — I am talking of a time before splits occurred, after the fight for freedom — never intended that to happen.
The two Houses of Parliament, the elected Members of the Seanad and the Dáil and the county councillors, those elected by the people, should be the decision-makers in this country, and not anyone outside. It is happening more so now, with European directives and regulations. It is happening while we are here thinking we still have a hold on things. We have king-makers on the one hand and Europe dictating on the other hand. This is why we have lost some of the respect of our people which we must together try to recover. Since I was very young I have firmly believed in the political life of this nation. I believe in the political system of this country and serve it with great joy. Only by working together vigorously with no one standing in our way, can we get back the confidence of the people to continue to legislate for them.
This House could play a very important role as a watchdog on EC legislation. We have not had enough debate on what is happening in Europe. If we are not informed and do not have sufficient debate on the decisions being made in Europe, what chance have the people outside this House of being brought up to date on what is going on there?
It has also been said that we are supposed to apologise for being members of a political party. I, for one, will never apologise for being a member of the party I belong to. I am a bit worried at times whether it is quite the same but——
The Senator has no worries.
I will never apologise for being a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and I do not see that it ever stopped me, Whips or no Whips, Leaders or no Leaders from saying what I had to say. I have always felt I had the freedom to say and act as an individual while hoping, at the same time that I was behaving in a responsible fashion. I can understand the independence of some people serving in public life. Some Senators seem to think they are above me because I am a member of a political party elected by ordinary county councillors. I do not see them in that fashion. I would like them to see me as an equal, if only in the political arena. They may not do so in other circles but that does not worry me. Some of the people who served in this House from all political parties, were giants, no matter how you would judge them, in their stand, their decisions, in all they stood for and the respect in which they were held.
In dealing with Bills here we have a tradition of careful revision. Perhaps that is done by only a small number of Senators, but it is important that it is done. When I was Cathaoirleach we looked at our Standing Orders and I had many meetings to discuss some of the Standing Orders that needed changing. I would welcome more parliamentary committees and I would certainly welcome more debate on relevant national issues. It is sad that one of the institutions of this young nation should at times come in for such criticism and it is up to us to prove to those critics that their criticism is ill-informed. I am proud to be a Member of this House. I hope that we will set up a committee to carry out some of the reforms that are urgently needed to stop this criticism. Perhaps some of the proposals made today, or referred to, will be taken on board.
It was the Seanad that initiated the broadcasting of the proceedings of the Oireachtas. This is important and may not be widely known. I attended that first meeting, and there was very little enthusiasm for broadcasting the business of either House. Both Houses are broadcast now and everyone is delighted. Some of those who are delighted now with the televising of their statements and who watch with great care at 11.15 p.m. were not so enthusiastic at the first meeting when we moved that the proceedings of the Houses of the Oireachtas should be televised. However, we got our way. It is a great programme and the whole nation is watching it.
I wish to refer to the Taoiseach's 11 nominees. There is reason for certain members of the party to be so nominated. In the past we had people like Séamus Mallon, Ken Whitaker, Brian Friel, John Robb, Chris Kirwan and Michael Mullen. I saw and served with all those men, and with Bríd Rogers. They were good Senators. We needed them here. This was the forum that suited them and they added to this House, I regret that we have not even one of them here today. That is for another day. I hope the appointment of the eleven will not be for another few years.
I referred to king-makers thinking that they have all the power and that is our own fault that this happens. It is a deadly serious matter that, on 26 October 1991, the head of a State body, making a statement at a function, "surprised his audience by offering a definition of politicians; they are people who sit on the fence while keeping their ears very close to the ground". The present head of a State body made that statement this evening. He would not have made it if "Dev" or Lemass were Taoiseach or he certainly would not be in the job this evening. It is our responsibility to see that such statements are not made by people holding such positions.
Let us now move forward as a meaningful Seanad. The commencement of this debate has been sensible I would hope some of the points I have made will be taken up at another time. I hope that when this debate is over that we will not have a long delay before carrying out whatever is to be done. It is not good enough if the Leader allows us to say how sincerely we feel about Seanad reform if, when the debate is over, nothing is done about it. I hope the follow-up from today will come on-stream shortly. I do not know whether the Cathaoirleach or the Leader of the House intends to put this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or to another committee. I think it should go to a committee to find the best way to reform this House and make it more relevant to the people outside.
Regardless of recent events and all the headlines perhaps every politician has not lost the respect or the support of the people. Recently in the local government elections I saw that strong, committed councillors, in spite of the atmosphere in which they were campaigning, had held the respect of the people they serve. Every Member here now could make the same statement, but people are concerned that we should not pass on to others the responsibilities which are absolutely ours. We have allowed it to happen and before it is too late we should get together and reverse the process. I say that as a person dedicated and committed to politics. I never apologise to anyone, I hope I will not have to in the future, for serving in public life. It is a profession I am proud to be associated with. Together we should go on and prove to the people looking at us that it is as good a profession as any other. These hurlers on the ditch who could be named, who criticise us week in, week out, and make little of us at times, have never even been elected to a confraternity. They do not have the guts to put their name on a ballot paper. I hope to be allowed to continue to serve for some years to come. I appeal to the Leader of the House or to whoever has responsibility, to set the process of reform under way immediately this debate is over.
I would like to congratulate both Senator Manning and Senator Honan on their contributions. Both of them are committed Members of this House; indeed, I have paid tribute to Senator Honan for her single-minded commitment to this House. If I have, at times in the past spoken disparagingly, perhaps in public discussion, about the calibre of representation in the political parties in this House, on more mature reflection I would like to qualify that.
I am very proud to be a University Senator. Senator Manning was kind enough to talk about the contribution made from this side of the House, but whatever contribution we have made it is possible only because of the existence of political parties. In a sense we are a luxury here, a luxury of which, perhaps, our colleagues should be glad, but we certainly would not be able to perform if the whole House consisted of University graduates. The work of political parties here, reformed or unreformed, is absolutely indispensable. Indeed, Edmund Burke two centuries ago virtually claimed that the operation of democracy would be impossible without the work of political parties.
Much has changed over those two centuries, but the existence of political parties is absolutely essential for the operation of our democracies. As has been implied by the two previous speakers, that is a point that must be hammered home to the public. If they are cynical about politicians at the present time, then it is their job perhaps to tell that to the politicians, or perhaps even to elect better politicians; but to extend a curse to the whole assembly of politicians is like saying "The air is polluted; therefore we will not breathe it any more" when the solution is of course to improve the quality of the air. So, I begin by paying perhaps a belated tribute to the party politicians in this House who carry forward the business of Government and the business of opposition and who are charged with that responsibility. It could be said that we University Senators in a way have influence perhaps without ultimate responsibility except to see ourselves being re-elected, which perhaps in my case does not arise again but sin scéal eile.
I would like to begin the sustantive contribution by referring once again, as I did last week briefly on the Order of Business, to the revised Programme for Government agreed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, published perhaps elsewhere but the full text was in The Irish Times last Friday week, 19 October. By the way, I referred to the Progressive Democrats in this House as “cuckoos”. I am aware the word “cuckoo” is used in a general disparaging sense; it is a mildly disparaging term of abuse. But I meant it pretty accurately in the sense of Members who come into a nest which they have not built, and which indeed is their sworn purpose to abolish, but nonetheless they nestle down in the nest for their own purposes in the interim. I think that is pretty good analogy between the Progressive Democrats and the legendary cuckoo.
When I suggested that, there was no mention of Seanad reform, in the revised Programme for Government. Senator Dardis countered that by suggesting that the text clearly makes reference to Oireachtas reform and, therefore, within Oireachtas reform, he says, obviously the Seanad is included. I understood Senator Honan more or less to say the same thing a while ago.
The fact is that the fairly substantial part of the programme as published which deals with parliamentary reform specifies only Dáil reform; the Seanad is not mentioned at all. I would have thought that, if there were people in Government really committed to looking at legislative reform in its totality, they would have mentioned Seanad Éireann and I think its omission is very significant.
There are quite detailed provisions in that section for parliamentary reform. For example, there is talk about extending the sitting hours of the Dáil, of having a select committee handling Committee Stage of a Bill in the Dáil. The reference to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges throughout that section is, in fact, a reference to the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Once again there is a reference to the facilities for topical debates but all the references are specifically to the Dáil. In that context of detail, the omission of all reference to the Seanad is all the more significant.
The Government, the programme says, are determined to speed up progress in this legislative programme. It goes on to refer to reform of Oireachtas procedures and it gives a long list of Bills which it proposes to introduce. It does not say anywhere that those Bills, or some of those Bills, are to be introduced in Seanad Éireann. More than once the Leader of the House, Senator Fallon, has expressed his sincerity in working for the initiation of legislation in this House. He said that he and Senator Wright work hard towards that end. Why then did they not make representations to the Government when a programme was being negotiated providing for, among other things, parliamentary reform? Why did not Senator Fallon and his colleagues use their influence with the Government negotiators to say "Look, it is a very important part in parliamentary reform that you mention Seanad Éireann specifically"?
I think it is necessary to explain what I said last week and to back up my allegation that the omission of Seanad Éireann in the revised programme is a clear admission of lack of interest in Seanad Éireann on the part of the Government partners. The revised programme is very much a Progressive Democrat programme. There are all kinds of things like jobs, tax reform, abolition of ministerial pensions, a European affairs committee, national lottery reform but it is well known that all this is Progressive Democrats party policy. They succeeded in getting a great deal of it on to the revised Programme for Government. If that is so, then the absence of any mention of Seanad reform, it seems to me, is also due to Progressive Democrats influence. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Progressive Democrats are absent from today's debate. I know that if the Leas-Chathaoirleach were listening he would probably chide me for referring to absent individuals, but, in fact, I am referring to an absent party; and I think their absence is a clear indication of their lack of interest in this House.
One of the most fundamental questions in which we sitting Senators should be interested is: what is the Government's intention with regard to this House? Why did they not mention it in the programme? Are the Progressive Democrats remaining silent on this issue because it does not suit them at present to push it? They cannot have their way in everything obviously. They have tasted the sweets of office, their power in this House, and it is very much to their liking. Perhaps there is a moratorium on their clearly expressed policy to abolish this House. Perhaps it will come around in the next heave, but in the meantime I have to say I greatly regret that the Government have no policy on this House. They simply are glad it exists as an area of patronage.
Perhaps the Progressive Democrats now recognise something I pointed out a long time ago: the constitutional difficulty of abolishing this House. This House cannot be abolished without disemboweling the Constitution, and those who talk in a facile way about getting rid of Articles 18 and 19 of Bunreacht na hÉireann should have looked much further into many other references to Seanad Éireann which are stitched into the Constitution and which makes it impossible to abolish this House without a new Constitution. Is that what the Progressive Democrats are waiting for? One way or the other, it seems to me the minor party in Government, who are far from minor in terms of influence, have no interest in Seanad reform.
We talked about all this not so long ago. Partly in response to the Progressive Democrats clamour for abolition of the Seanad, Senator Ross and I put down a motion which was taken beginning on 3 June 1987 and which called 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. All that debate can be read in the issues of the Official Report following that date, 3 June 1987, Volume 116, No. 5, and subsequent issues. That debate went on for quite some time. There was a Minister present on that occasion, Deputy Flynn, Minister for the Environment, but he made a totally non-commital contribution. In effect, he kicked for touch as it were. Since in that debate and in other debates I spoke at length on the subject, I do not propose to repeat what I said there. The most fundamental question of all, of course, is: are the Progressive Democrats right? Does this country need a second House? It must be said that there are very strong arguments for abolition, very strong arguments that this country does not really need a second House, particularly if the Dáil were doing its business properly, that it is too small and too poor to need a second House.
When I was not in this House — that is the long period from 1983 to 1987 when I was absent because of a regrettable lapse of judgment on the part of the electorate — I did have some doubts about the justification for the existence of this House. It can be put very simply and it is a very broad political point and I do not want to dwell in it: second Chambers are very desirable, if not absolutely necessary, where you have a federal constitution, — as in the United States, for example — where it is highly important that the small states feel that their contribution to major matters is as valid as that as the hugely populated states. In that situation the Senate becomes the more powerful of the two Houses. It may well be that, as the European Community develops and as the smaller countries feel the lack of their own political clout through their very small numerical representation, the case will grow for a second House in the European Parliament and that the Twelve or, as they will become eventually, many, many more, will introduce a second House to compensate for that numerical disproportion as it were.
Outside of those two cases it seems to me there is great force in what the Abbé Sieyés said at the close of the French Revolution and in the Napoleonic period and indeed, no man was better able to make a judgment, having lived through and under a bewildering succession of constitutions. What the Abbé Sieyés said about a second House was: "If it simply confirms the work of the first Chamber it is superfluous; if it attempts to contradict or contend against the work of the first Chamber it is pernicious". We can say there are examples of countries which abolished their Senate because it was superfluous — New Zealand, for example. Denmark abolished its second chamber for the second of the Abbé Sieyés reasons, because it felt that the second chamber was pernicious. Indeed, Mr. de Valera abolished the Seanad in 1934 because it was pernicious in his view and was working against the democratically elected first House.
Let us be honest about it. The very existence of a second House has to be justified. We have to advance very strong arguments in order to justify its existence, particularly in a country as small and as poor as this. Let us face it also: the whole grand vocational dream has not really worked out. This would be an ideal House and an ideal supplement to the work of the Dáil, and well worth the money spent on it, if the theory of the Constitution were reality, if the Members here were all experts in their particular fields and had no axe to grind except bringing their vocational expertise to the work of legislation. But we all know that is not so and that is not the way it worked out.
Senator Manning went over some of that ground today and picked up in detail many of the reasons why it did not work out. He made a contribution which was distinguished for its scholarly knowledge as well as for its political experience. He dealt with some of the stock accusations made against the House as it stands. For example, we all know that in many cases Seanad seats are held out as compensation for failure in the Dáil or an award for long political service to parties or a springboard for a comeback to the Dáil. When I say Seanad seats are given, I mean that the electorate is so restricted that in certain cases one's chances of being elected are very high indeed if one has party favour and party sanction.
Like Senator Norris I would maintain that one essential reform would be that Dáil and Seanad should be elected on the same day so that a choice would have to be made. This does not mean that the Seanad would not be political but its politicians would clearly have opted for this House and would not be forever hankering after the other House. I felt that was about the weakest point of Senator Manning's contribution. It is a point which Senator Dooge raised as well in an essay, which I recommend to the House, called The Role of the Seanad which was published in a volume called Essays and Memory of Alexis FitzGerald, a distinguished late Member of this House, edited by Patrick Lynch and James Meenan and published by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, 1987. In that essay Senator Dooge——
The former Senator Dooge.
Well, in the United States they have the civilised practice of referring to a former Senator as Senator.
Acting Chairman
We are in Ireland now.
I know that. The former Senator Dooge held all kinds of office in this House — Cathaoirleach, Leas-Chathaoirleach, Leader of the Government, Leader of the Opposition. The essay is well worth reading but again I thought, rather like Senator Manning's contribution today, a bit unconvincing on that particular point. What former Senator Dooge says is that it is a good thing that you have in Seanad Éireann people who have been in Dáil Éireann, people who have had ministerial experience perhaps. They can bring all that to the House. Senator Manning spoke about the intermingling of both Houses, that that was a good thing, that we were not really watertight Chambers but he knows as well as I know — and he himself is a beneficiary of this delayed nomination procedure — that many of the Members come here as a second best and have itchy feet to get back to the Dáil. In fact, they make no secret about it from time to time. For instance, congratulations are offered to officers of Seanad Éireann on their promotion to Dáil Eireann. In regard to the former Clerk of the Seanad who is now Clerk of the Dáil, on that occasion I remember that many of the Members expressed their hope they would soon follow him to that place of bliss, etc. It is that atmosphere, I think, which is very bad for this House and which degrades the House, the fact that members do not come to it full of enthusiasm for their period of service here. They use the facilities of the House in order to make their comeback. I certainly would agree with Senator Norris that if the quality of this House is to improve an essential reform is to have elections on the same day so that people will have to make a clear choice.
I followed Senator Manning very closely in his argument to have Members elected directly from vocational bodies. It was suggested, by the way, by the Seanad Electoral Reform Commission, 1959, that at least some of the Members, some of the 43, would be directly nominated, direct representatives of vocational bodies. Senator Manning suggests that this is elitist, and I think I agree. I do not necessarily object to a political electorate. I do not particularly object to the idea that the majority of Senators here are elected by people who are themselves politicians. The political business of the House must be done; otherwise this House would be meaningless, where it would be some kind of advisory body which did not have an integral part in the legislative process. I would be totally opposed to that.
This House, while it need not necessarily duplicate the procedures of the other House — and that is a reason why I am sorry that the revised programme did not give all this more attention — certainly will have to be involved in legislation and certainly there will have to be a Government majority in this House. All that is true. But I have an open mind about the electoral method. I would like to see some direct representation from vocational bodies because only in that way can we restore the truly vocational nature of this Chamber.
Senator Manning suggested that this House could also be the place where the emigrant interests could be represented. Well, I have to put it on record here that I think the idea of emigrant representation is one of these fashionable things floating around, like sexual harassment. It is the flavour of the hour. People suddenly bring in emigrants or imaginary sexual grievances of 20 or 25 years ago because it is just the cant at the moment. Emigrants, unfortunately, are an eternal blot on our system of Government and so on, but I cannot see what useful purpose would be served by having lobbies of people who live in another country — by the way, I represent the plight, if you like, in which we all are: I have two daughters in the United States — but I am not in favour of people in another country who pay their taxes elsewhere, who have their whole existence in that country, purporting to be part of another country. In fact, much of the agitation for emigrant representation is a political gimmick. It would benefit certain parties in this State a lot more than others, and God only knows how it could be regulated, where you would draw the line, or what time limit you would give to an emigrant. Therefore, I am not particularly interested in that.
On the other hand, I fully agree with Senator Manning when he says that the Seanad is an ideal Chamber for giving us a badly needed European dimension. I think it was Mary Banotti who brought this question up again the other day and I certainly think that the House would benefit from direct reports from our Members of the European Parliament back to this House and illuminate the appalling ignorance indeed in which we have been kept, deliberately almost, by Government decision not to have an Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs. As well as that, it would be most appropriate were we to use the House to welcome foreign statesmen. I know we have done so, but they generally have sat silently in the Visitors' Gallery when in fact it would enliven and dignify the proceedings of the House were we to decide that such people would be welcome to address us.
At the outset I talked about the University Senators' role versus the role of the party politician and how I wanted to make it clear that I have a high regard for the role of the party politicans, who are indispensable really. I am not sure whether we can defend the whole idea of University representation at the moment. Clearly, it is anomalous in view of the growth of third level colleges at quite a quick rate in the last several years. Indeed, it was the President, formerly Senator Robinson, who in her contribution in that summer 1987 debate on reform of the Seanad pointed out that her own alma mater and her own constituency at that time of Trinity College, Dublin, was not such a rotten borough as would appear at first sight because it was drawing in all kinds of third level colleges under its aegis, those who are by extension graduates of Trinity and who will make that constituency much more representative than if it had been left to the campus in College Green. The same is true of UCD and of the NUI. Already within the aegis of the two existing constituencies the electorate there is being broadened and democratised slightly but I readily concede the force of the argument which says it is totally unacceptable that, for example, the graduates of the new University of Limerick and Dublin City University should not be represented. I fully support Senator Jackman's insistent plea that the franchise be extended there.
The question is: where do we go on from there? Is it logical not to give this elitist franchise, if you like, to the nursing profession, for example, to anybody who does a further course of study? Why should it be a university degree? Where do you draw the line? That is a question to which nobody has actually given any detailed thought. If the Seanad were otherwise vocationally reformed and returned to its pristine vocational idea, then the Universities would fit very well into that general background.
Obviously, I accept both what Senator Fallon and Senator Manning said about the limitations of what can be done. Senator Fallon said we must be realistic, that the Dáil is the superior House, though by some strange quirk of expression we call it the Lower House. There can be no question but that Seanad Éireann, however reformed, has to be in the second place as it were. Indeed, I think Deputies themselves would very jealously guard their proper role as direct representatives of the people. That is one reason, I suggest, maybe a subconscious reason, why there may be a reluctance to give this house a higher profile. The Dáil would be concerned and, of course, all the Ministers are themselves — at the moment anyway — all Dáil Deputies would be concerned that this House should not get above itself; it should not get uppity, so to speak. I fully accept that.
I also accept what Senator Manning said, in considerable detail, about the way in which the role of Parliament has ever been more restricted through the growth of all kinds of extra parliamentary power, such as the Programme for Economic and Social Progress as an example; the initiatives in social partnership, which is kind of a neo-corporatism, something I had not thought about until he said it; and the further whittling down of parliamentary power by the enormous importance of the media, by the European Parliament, by the general loss of sovereignity etc. We have to take all that as read, as it were, but within that there is still great scope for reform in this House.
I thought Senator Manning was a bit disingenous when he said that it is up to ourselves to initiate reform. "Ourselves" is somewhat a disingenuous word in this context. "Ourselves" means the Government party as well as the Opposition and the Independents, and that part of "ourselves" does not necessarily want to reform the House. Senator Conroy does, I am quite sure, as another committed Senator, and Senators Fallon and Honan; but they are not, as far as I know, the "heavies" in the Government, in the political establishment. When Senator Manning says it is up to ourselves to reform the House, I would reply to that by saying there is only so much that we can do here. We can agree to extended sitting hours and to some form of Question Time, although I accept Senator Fallon's reservations about lack of ministerial accountability to this House. There are all kinds of things we can improve on. One of the reasons there is a fuss on the Order of Business and sometimes a lot of peacock strutting is due to frustration because people want to bring up topical matters and as yet, there is no provision for doing that in the same way as now in the Dáil.
I want to come back to the point that government is central to reform. There is no such thing as a self-reforming Seanad. All Governments have treated this House with contempt when they want business done. I often think it is instructive that the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, was genuinely anxious to reform Seanad Éireann. It was one of his eager crusading enterprises before the hard life got to him. What he came up against, of course, was that there are powerful vested interests which do not want this House reformed. Yet, it must be reformed because, as Senator Honan and Senator Manning suggested, there is a very critical audience out there, a very critical public. Senator Honan drew attention to the undesirable criticism in many ways that this House gets but there is also a considerable amount of ignorance and apathy about the role of this House. If the Dáil is beginning to be almost only barely credible or acceptable to public opinion because of various factors, then we have to work even harder.
I agree with other points such as the single issue Senator but I am not really aware of any single issue Senator at the moment. It was suggested that such a person made no real contribution to the business of the House. It is interesting, for example, that Senator Norris, whose interest in homosexual reform is perhaps the most prominent issue associated with him, is always at pains to point out that he wished to God that this issue was out of the way so that he could get on to the 101 other things which interest him. I agree with Senator Manning on that point.
While I am not altogether making a swansong here — I am very interested in and committed to this House — I have a fundamental conviction that the Progressive Democrats are out there beavering away, latching on to a fairly popular perception about this House. They would not have suggested the abolition of Seanad Éireann unless they knew they had considerable support for it. The stark alternative before us is, reform or abolition.
Having listened on this and many other occasions to Senator Murphy right back to 1977 I would be very sorry indeed — although we have crossed swords on more than one occasion — if his talents and contributions were lost to the Seanad. He illustrates in many ways the importance of the Seanad and the role of this part of the Oireachtas, a role which is very different from that of the Dáil.
The Dáil is, as many Senators said, the direct representation of electors in relation to legislation. Let us face it. We are here as a Parliament to endeavour as best we can, with all our human and other failings, to see that the best possible legislation is devised, examined and finally promulgated for the good of the people as a whole. This House gives time for reflection; for a second look at legislation. It gives the opportunity under political, but not quite so acutely political, circumstances for a Government to change their mind or modify a Bill. We saw quite recently in the Environmental Protection Agency Bill the Seanad playing a very significant and worthwhile role in relation to legislation.
When I first came into the Seanad I had no idea — rather like the mass of people in this country — of the role which the Seanad played. I still retain the impression I had then. It plays a very valuable role in the life of this country in ensuring that we get much better legislation than we would otherwise. I have listened to people such as Ken Whitaker Eoin Ryan, Alexis FitzGerald and a Minister being cross-examined during the Committee Stage of a Bill and it is a far more searching examination than he or she is ever likely to face in the Dáil. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the Dáil but the circumstances are very different. Our legislation has benefited from the presence of the Seanad.
I would like to see many more Bills coming through the Seanad. Let us face it: many Bills are not really party political in any sense. They are Bills which any sensible or reasonable Government would put forward. There is a lot to be said for these Bills being examined in this House. We are a political House. I say with great respect to my colleague, and I will cross swords slightly with him immediately, not all University Senators are non-party Senators. Quite a few of them have been politically involved in parties. It gives an opportunity for Bills to be subjected to a really searching analysis and we all know of instances where Bills have been greatly improved.
Moving to the election of the Seanad, it was devised in 1937 in a totally different political climate from that which exists today. It was very much the era of the corporate State when people on all sides of the various divides were urging strongly that there should be vocational representation. There are good arguments for this. Nonetheless, in practical terms it would be extraordinarily difficult to see that each and every vocational interest were represented in this Seanad, desirable though that might be in many ways.
Let us look at the actual forms of election to the Seanad and the panels. They give a general division and there is no doubt that even though there may not be a direct vocational representation, anyone coming through on any of the general panels usually is somebody who has very considerable experience or knowledge in relation to vocational matters and is very often directly involved with some particular vocational body, in my own case, the CII. In the case of a number of Labour Senator colleagues it is with various unions. There is a very considerable expert input into this Seanad which might not necessarily be readily available in the other House. A Deputy has an enormous constituency work load. I am sure we have all met our good colleagues from across the water. I remember one of them boasting to me, he was a very strong constituency man, he said. He went down at least one day a month to visit his constituency. You would last here I suppose about one weekend in any party if you visited your constituency once a month as a Deputy.
We operate under very different circumstances and there is an enormous work load on Deputies no matter what party they belong to. This makes it extremely difficult for them, for example, in relation to doing home work, reading up on legislation and getting advice on it. That is compounded by a fact which is one of the disgraces of this Legislature, both in the Dáil and Seanad, that there is an almost total and absolute lack of research back-up facilities. I do not see any excuse for that whatsoever. It is in nobody's interest and it is greatly to the detriment of the ordinary citizens of this country.
Despite that fact, and here the Seanad comes into its own to some considerable extent, people out of their own dedication and determination make it their business to do a great deal of non-political work, often at times unrecorded by the media, perhaps unnoticed and not immediately politically rewarding — at times you might say they might be better off from a political sense doing other things — but nonetheless in all parties there are many members who spend a great deal of time working to ensure that we have whatever knowledge they can assemble together to make serious contributions to these debates.
I am enormously impressed and indeed humbled at times by the extraordinary high quality of virtually every contribution I hear in this Seanad. It compares more than favourably with Legislatures elsewhere. It is exceptionally impressive.
The Seanad election is perhaps the toughest election of the lot and it is also the most educational. As the Chair and I well know, by the time you go through the country, visit people, have a cup of tea and listen and discuss things you learn a lot you would not learn sitting up here in Kildare Street. It should be compulsory for every Minister to go on a Seanad campaign under the general panels. It would be highly beneficial. No disrespect to them, but we all learn by it. It is a very tough campaign.
As regards the universities, yes it is illogical but it was not illogical in its time. It was necessary that through the university mechanism, you were able to ensure that a certain minority were de facto ensured parliamentary representation. That was very important. Now it is a changed world but nonetheless it played its role in its time and is to some extent still relevant, though very much less so. You get all sorts of anomalies, for example, people in the University of Limerick do not have a vote and those in another university have a vote.
There are no university Members present at the moment and perhaps one should not comment when people are not here, but there are times when I would not necessarily agree entirely with some of the expressions and views of our colleagues from the university panels. Nonetheless they express views that are held, often minority views and, at times, unpopular views. Sometimes they are populist views. At times views are expressed which need to be expressed or which need to be given an opportunity for expression in the Legislature and the university provides that forum. However, it needs to be reformed. I am not speaking on behalf of the university system. I have never been elected on the university panels. I have no intention of going on them; indeed, I am not sure if I would be entitled to go on one. They have had a number of representatives who have made a very big contribution to this House.
The third group are the Taoiseach's nominees. It is entirely right and proper that the Taoiseach of the day should have an opportunity to put a number of people in the House and not just for the sake of giving the Government a majority. I wonder at times if it might not be better all round if — I hope it is not going to occur in the next year or two — there were Government defeats in the Seanad. It would be a healthier Legislature. In the Dáil they can have it on a purely direct party political basis but a little more latitude in the Seanad would be to everyone's benefit including ultimately the Government's.
I take the point that the Taoiseach of the day should have the right to nominate people, for a number of reasons. There are gifted people in this House, some of whom have been mentioned already by Senators Manning, Honan and others. It is excellent that there should be some way of bringing into the Legislature people who might never be elected through the other system or who might not want to be. We could all name people who have graced this House and not only that but made a serious contribution to it. It should be the right of the Government to nominate people. There are very good people in parties who for one reason or another fail to get a seat and it is right that there should be the possibility of a nomination for them. I do not really see why, if we looked at things slightly differently, there should not be at least some possibility of one or more of those nominations going to the far side of the House. It is invidious that it is entirely Government people who are elected by any Government group. That is fine for the Dáil but for this House we could have a little latitude. That may be a minority view but I am not altogether sure that if it became the tradition it might not be a healthy tradition.
It should be possible, as indeed Taoisigh have from time to time, to nominate somebody whom they want to make a Minister. One example was former Senator Dooge who was an outstanding Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr. Moynihan was on another occasion appointed a Minister by another Taoiseach. Let us be quite clear about it. Ministers and Ministers of State as a rule should come from the Dáil. That is what is appropriate. That is what is right and necessary but this House would benefit greatly if there was a tradition that perhaps one Minister and two Ministers of State were appointed from the Seanad as a rule, not just as an exception by one Taoiseach but as a normal procedure. If that were to happen there would be a little more balance between the two Chambers.
There should be someway in which topical matters and questions could be raised in this House. With great respect to colleagues on all sides, and I am not lacking in guilt in this respect, the Order of Business used to be a very orderly and relatively brief affair. I am not convinced that the present developments, understandable though they may be, add anything to this House.
I do not agree with the idea that Senators should in some sense represent Euro-constituencies. We are a very small community. We are not trying to represent Ulster-Connacht, Munster or Dublin city. We are supposed to be contributing in a national sense. It is very educational for someone like myself who is from Dublin to travel all over the country. It would be far better for us all to do that. This House and its Members make a major contribution. There are improvements we could make without Government intervention. I agree with Senator Murphy that reform is necessary. If we do not start putting our heads together and proposing reforms it will probably be done for us.
I agree largely with the contributions made by Senators Murphy and Conroy. There are a number of questions to address and it is on how we address them that the function and usefulness of this House depends. It could be said that it is either a question of the abolition of this House or the reform of the House. Listening to Senator Murphy it would be a shame to lose him from the political arena. I was sorry to hear him say that he thought this might be his last term here.
I am disappointed the Progressive Democrat Senators are not here and did not participate in the debate. The question of abolition or reform of the Seanad is a live issue and it is a cop-out on their part not to be in the House. They are on record as seeking to abolish this House. We could benefit from them making an appearance, putting on record what their position is in relation to this matter.
Senator Murphy said that the House could be either pernicious or superfluous and that in either of those events we did not need this House. I imagine that had the Oireachtas come into existence at a different time we might not have a second House but in the historical time in which it occurred bicameral legislatures were the norm and we followed that norm. If it had happened at a later stage it is quite possible that we would not have seen the necessity for it. At the time there was a strong argument for it in terms of its usefulness, its representative capacity and its function in relation to legislation.
I am not one who would propose that this House should be abolished. We have a responsibility to deal with it on two levels, one in terms of reform and the other in terms of reorganisation. I would distinguish between reform and reorganisation: reform, involving both inside and outside the present constitutional provisions, and reorganisation, what we can do to ensure that this is a better functioning House within the provisions of the Constitution. That would be the approach I would take to it rather than discussing the question of abolition or reform. It is really a question of what steps we take to reform it and what constitutional changes would be required. On the other hand, we have a more pressing requirement which is to ensure that this House is operating efficiently. That might require reorganisation.
The functions of the second House were proposed in 1918 at the conference on the reform of the second Chamber by Lord Bryce. I agree with many elements he regarded as the proper functions of a second House. He identified four major areas. The first one was the revision of legislation, the ability of a second House to have a second look at legislation that had come from another House. The second House is able to tease it out somewhat further, look at what was said in the other House and ensure that no loophole is left before legislation is passed. Secondly, not to revise legislation but to initiate it. It was the intention from the very beginning that this should be a House in which legislation would be initiated.
I was interested to hear Senator Conroy say that the majority of legislation which goes through both Houses is of a non-controversial nature. I do not see why roughly an equal amount of legislation could not be initiated in both Houses. The work could be divided up at the beginning of the session. The function of not only this House but of the Oireachtas would be much improved because we would be able to pass more legislation quickly and efficiently. That is a simple matter. That was the original intention in 1918 when reform of the second Chamber was being discussed.
Thirdly, there is the question of what is called the interposition of delay in relation to legislation; the idea being that the second House has the opportunity to ensure that legislation which may have far-reaching effects may be delayed for a period of time. I am not sure that would be a desirable development at present. I do not think you need to delay legislation for weeks or months except in so far as some further expert opinion is required. That is a function that was probably abused by the old Seanad when legislation was delayed for long periods of time and in fact ended up preventing the Government from carrying out their business rather than facilitating the passage of good legislation. I would have some problems with that but I can see that the very process of a second House does require that a certain delay will take place while legislation is being carefully examined and teased out.
Finally, it would be a forum for debate on important issues. The Upper House would have vocational expertise and representation to deal with matters of far-reaching concern that might not be early addressed by the Lower House in its day-to-day operations, being concerned with the bread and butter of actual government. There is a wider area of both domestic and external affairs that could benefit from expert discussion, from the expertise of those who have been elected to a second House and from their vocational expertise. We need not depart very far from those stated intentions almost 80 or 90 years ago.
The question we must look at is how best we can reform the Seanad and ensure that it carries out a proper function if we decide that these are roughly its functions and that it has a useful purpose.
We have to look at the question of the franchise and composition of the Seanad. The question of the franchise is probably the most debatable of all. Are we going to have a confined register of voters or a universal franchise?
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.