Senator Costello is in possession but as he is not present, I call on Senator McKenna.
Role of Seanad Éireann: Statements (Resumed).
Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo ar súil sa Teach seo, mar tá an-trácht ar ghnó an t-Seanaid lasmuigh den Teach agus laistigh chomh maith.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the role of the Seanad. I was amazed recently to see the statistics regarding the number of people who watch "Oireachtas Report" each night it is broadcast. The Houses of the Oireachtas have become the focus of greater public interest and awareness. Questions are being asked about the role of this House and it is appropriate that we should have this debate and account for our stewardship.
As previous speakers said in the debate last week, there is room for improvement in relation to the functions of the Seanad. It is important that the public be aware of the role of the Seanad in the scheme of legislative procedures. The question which exercises the mind in the first instance is the election of Members to Seanad Éireann. A number of review committees were established to report on various aspects of the role, structures and the method of election to Seanad Éireann. In a bicameral legislature it is only to be expected that the role of the second House should evolve over a period of time and adapt to changing circumstances.
One of the main arguments in favour of a second Chamber is that it helps to safeguard ill-conceived and over-enthusiastic action by the Dáil and provides a means by which a more detailed consideration can be given to different Bills. The Seanad should not be seen as inferior or second rate. In recent times some of the most revolutionary and progressive legislation initiated in this country was introduced in the first instance in this Chamber. A number of important Bills were given an extremely good hearing and a number of amendments were introduced in this House to major legislation.
The opportunity for wide-ranging debate in relation to legislation is greater in this Chamber instead of the cut and thrust and the narrow political element more evident in the other House. This House plays an important role in initiating legislation and Bills coming from the Dáil are thoroughly studied. The contributions from all sides of the House are not as political as in the Dáil.
This House contributes invaluable expertise to the parliamentary process but, unfortunately, this is not perceived to be the case outside the House by a variety of different so-called "experts". The problem emanates from the system of election to the Seanad. I referred to this earlier. A number of Senators are not directly elected by the people; with the exception of the Independents and the Taoiseach's nominees they are elected by members of local authorities and that seems to cause confusion. I refute the idea that people elected by local authorities are not a representative group. They are because members of local authorities are elected in the first instance by the general public and they in casting their votes they represent the public in relation to the 43 Members elected to this House by the local authorities. It is not true that there is not proper representation in relation to the election of those Members to the Seanad.
There are enormous difficulties in relation to the election. Only those who stand for election to the Seanad and travel the length and breadth of the country over a number of weeks fully understand the difficulties involved. It is true to say that one is in a world of one's own. One loses track of time. One has only one thing in mind, to be elected. The difficulties encountered by all candidates are enormous.
The idea of dividing the areas into Euro-constituencies is worth having a look at because it would tidy up the election process. There would be practical and logistical problems in terms of how to divide the less different seats within the Euro-constituency and fit that in with the provision whereby nominating bodies have the right to nominate individuals on different panels. That is an area we should look at seriously. It would overcome the huge problems that candidates face. Having said that, I do not think there is anyone who has put his name forward as a candidate who has not tried everything in his power, including travelling the length and breadth of the country, to ensure election. Unfortunately there are only a limited number of seats and many people fall by the wayside.
The Seanad has also been criticised because it fails to reflect the vocational character originally envisaged. It may be said that many of the 43 Members elected by local authorities on the vocational panels tend to be politicians who are either on the way up or on the way down but I refute that. There are a number of people in this House who are committed to it and have no ambition to be a Member of the Dáil.
How many in Fianna Fáil are in that position?
The Senator will get her chance. I am only giving my views. I will treat the question with the disdain it deserves.
The Senator knows more about Fianna Fáil than I do.
It is important that Senator McKenna be allowed to continue without interruption.
I thank the Chair for his protection. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with people in this House who have ambitions to become Members of the Dáil. It is important to point out that most Senators are members of political parties. I include the Independents in that because they have their own political philosophies and there is nobody who will suggest that because a person is sitting on the Independent benches they do not have an attitude and frame of mind that reflects a political philosophy. I am sure that at election time they exercise their franchise and vote for the parties which reflect their philosophy. I do not think there is anybody in this House who is not a party politician in some way or another.
They are not under a Whip.
I ask Senator Hederman to let me finish.
Provided the Senator addresses these points.
We are making statements on the role of the Seanad. I am giving my view. I am sure Senator Hederman will have an opportunity to contribute and she can make all the points she likes. I am entitled to give my view. The Senator is entitled to give hers when it is her turn.
I would like that point to be addressed.
There is no obligation on the Senator to please Senator Hederman.
I was only urging him to address the point.
Senator McKenna has the floor at present. He is entitled to make his statement without any interruption and I respectfully ask Senator Hederman not to interrupt.
I thank the Chair. I will give the Senator time to reflect on this and answer when she is making her own contribution, but if we had a situation where there were no political parties and everyone had a right to go his or her different way and there was no such thing as a Whip, can you imagine what type of political set-up we would have?
Anarchy.
I was going to reply but Senator Hederman has replied for me. There is no reason why the vocational panel should not be represented by politicians. Many eminent people who came through this House were party politicians. Nobody can refute that and the contributions they made to this House were enormous. Many of them proceeded to the Dáil and made equally outstanding contributions.
Our system is a democratic one and works largely through the structure of political parties. We cannot deny that and we cannot get away from that point. Before we decide to throw out that system, as Senator Murphy said last week, we need to look very closely at it. To suggest that people who are members of political parties in this House do not have a view is absolutely contemptible. I very much regret the view that it would somehow solve all our problems if party politics were excluded from the Seanad altogether. One can imagine what kind of place it would be without politicians. It would be extremely difficult to imagine how the working of the House would be structured, how contributions would be made and how business would be ordered.
If we accept that elections to the Seanad should be taken out of the political arena and become the preserve of nominating bodies only, I ask the question, how many nominating bodies do not have some type of political base? Every nominating body I know of has a political base in some shape or form and good luck to them. I welcome the fact that they do not try to hide their philosophies and views. It is a very healthy situation to be in. The majority are composed of people who have political affiliations in some shape or form and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. I await with interest what Senator Hederman has to say in relation to this.
On the Order of Business every week a number of Senators come in and in order to get cheap publicity, in particular on the Independent benches——
Is the Senator excluding me?
The Senator can speak for herself.
Questions may be put but not necessarily replied to. I request the Senator to continue with his speech.
In relation to the Order of Business, there appears to be an orchestrated attempt by certain Members of this House to gain maximum publicity by raising a variety of different issues. But for the fact that we have such a capable Cathaoirleach much of the work would become an absolute laugh. Senators who are inclined to behave in this way should ask themselves what affect they are having on the working of this House and what sort of an image they are giving to the public in relation to the activities of this House.
The Cathaoirleach has never prevented anyone from making a legitimate contribution or raising something they are concerned about but at times one wonders what is the reason behind some of the contributions made by some Senators in this House. Before we start talking about reform in the strict sense of the word we should look into our own hearts and see in what way we, as individual Members of this House, can in some shape or form improve the workings of the House.
In any consideration of the constitutional and legislative provisions relating to the composition, powers and functions of Seanad Éireann it is useful to put the matter into perspective and examine the political theory underlying the existence of bicameral parliaments, that is, those parliaments which have two Houses and to endeavour to answer the question as to why some countries prefer a bicameral system to a unicameral system.
This question has been described as one of the most controversial in constitutional law and the answers given to it reflect the diversity of parliamentary institutions. Cogent arguments in favour of bicameralism in a unitary State such as ours are well summed up in the report on bicameral parliaments prepared by the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments and published as far back as 1966. The protagonists of a bicameral system invoke an argument which seems to them decisive. The work of legislation has more chance of being done well if it is carried through two processes, each process complete in itself. In the words of the late Senator Alexis FitzGerald which I quote briefly: "Argument is strengthened in the Seanad by being less partisan".
Inherent in these arguments in favour of bicameralism is the premise that a second House should have lesser constitutional powers and prerogatives than a properly elected House and that it should not be constituted and elected in the same way as the first House. Otherwise it would be superfluous as representing the same type of opinion in the same way. Constitutional powers are, therefore, so bestowed that the Government are responsible only to the first House, thus a defeat of the Government even on an important issue in the second House would not ipso facto involve the downfall of the Government. However, for reasons of prestige and because they may adversely affect public opinion, Government dislike defeats in the Upper House and so many constitutions seek to ensure that the Government have a working majority in the second House.
How then should a second House comport itself if there is a majority in it opposed to the Government of the day? This situation has been described and indeed analysed in detail by Professor Bernard Crick in his book entitled The Reform of Parliaments. He refers in particular to the work done by the House of Lords in dealing with the Transport Act, 1947, a Bill which was initiated by the then Labour government. Professor Crick states, and I quote:
There was a real endeavour by the Conservative Opposition as well as by the Labour peers to make constructive amendments. The Opposition sharply criticised the detail but they admitted that the mandate for nationalised transport in some form was definite.
Professor Crick, therefore, concluded, and I quote briefly:
The passage of the Bill in an efficient form would have been impossible but for the existence of a revising Second Chamber.
The second House in such a case, so runs the thesis, should recognise the constitutional superiority of the first House. It should not capriciously obstruct measures for which the first House has a clear public mandate and in general should use its own powers constructively and with discretion.
Assuming then the principle of bicameralism, the next question seems to be to resolve what should be the composition and the mode of election of the second House. It has been said of the House of Lords, for example, that if it did not exist then it could not be invented. However, in common with many other unitary States, we have had to invent and the history of the Seanad since 1922 reflects the changing attitudes towards the role of the second House which have manifested themselves from time to time over these past years. Commissions and parliamentary committees have expressed their views on the best method of selecting a second House and political commentators have waxed eloquent on the subject. In all of this discussion, however, Sir Kenneth Wheare in his book entitled Legislatures makes a crucial and important point when he states:
First of all it may be worthwhile to get out of the way a doctrine about the proper function of a Second Chamber which rests upon an illusion: the notion of a Second Chamber above and beyond politics, composed of eminent gentlemen and ladies of great distinction in various walks of life but politically neutral.
He continues:
There is undoubtedly a case for saying that a Second Chamber should contain people who are less dependent upon party considerations than are the Members of the First Chamber but if Second Chambers are to be anything more than debating societies and discussion circles, party is bound to come in.
He concludes his remarks stating:
The Second Chamber is invited to give its opinion upon measures and policies initiated and pushed forward by a party Government, supported by a majority party or a coalition of parties and criticised by a minority party or parties in the First House. How can it avoid politics and party politics at that, and why should it? The Second Chamber is part of a political system. Its business is politics. It need not be as partisan as a Lower House but it must, unless it is to be completely powerless, express views and take decisions which usually means taking sides on political questions.
The report of the Seanad Electoral Law Reform Commission puts the position as follows:
We would like to emphasise that even if the Seanad was composed entirely of vocational interests elected wholly by vocational organisations, it would still, because of the powers and duties vested in it by the Constitution, have to make decisions which are in the fullest sense political. No alteration in the system of elections or in the composition of the Seanad can alter this fact.
Like most democracies the Legislature in Ireland has two Houses, a lower or first House called the Dáil and an Upper or second House called the Seanad. The Dáil consists of Members who were directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, whereas the Seanad consists partly of indirectly elected Members and partly of nominated Members.
The report of the Committee on the Constitution in 1967 examined these matters. That committee, interestingly enough, was chaired by Deputy George Colley and included Deputies Seán Lemass, Robert Molloy, Don Davern, Seán Dunne, Denis Jones, T. F. O'Higgins, David Andrews, Gerard Sweetman, James Tully and Senators James Dooge, Michael Kennedy and Eoin Ryan. They asked themselves the pertinent question "Is the Seanad necessary"? and they stated:
While Constitution makers and political theorists seem in general to prefer a bicameral legislature the problem of devising the perfect second chamber has proved to be almost insoluble. There is no formula which is likely to be acceptable to all people. However, the recognition of the fact that perfection cannot be achieved has not deterred the majority of countries from making the attempt to devise some system which is considered to be at least of some utility in their special circumstances.
The 1967 committee concluded — and I believe that this should be noted by the three Progressive Democrats who are nominated members of this House — and I quote:
We are satisfied that what most countries expect in providing a second House is that they will thereby have a safeguard against ill-considered or hasty actions on the part of the first House. A second group of public representatives will have the opportunity of examining legislation and commenting upon it. The first House will thereby be given time for reflection on the utility of measures which it has proposed. Furthermore, a reasonable opportunity will be given to affected interests to organise public opinion in relation to controversial matters. In addition, important technical matters may receive in the second House more comprehensive treatment than it had been possible to give them in the first House.
James O'Reilly, Senior Counsel, and Mary Redmond, Senior Council, in their book Cases and Material from the Irish Constitution have this to say:
The Seanad has made valuable contributions to legislation in this country in recent years. Such notable examples of these contributions include the Redundancy Payments Bill, the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill.
Then, of course, there is the Companies (No. 2) Bill and the Environmental Protection Agency Bill which were initiated in this House and every aspect of which was closely monitored and scrutinised by this House.
The principal provisions relating to Seanad Éireann are to be found in Articles 18 and 19 of the 1937 Constitution. There are, of course, many other clauses in the Constitution which relate to the powers and functions of the Seanad. The report of the Committee on the Constitution 1967 state:
If the Seanad were to be abolished it would be necessary to go through the Constitution from start to finish and to make alternative provisions for all these safeguards resting upon the existence of the Seanad which are already contained therein.
Moreover, that report concludes:
If the Seanad is to be retained it does not necessarily have to remain unaltered in matters relating to its composition and methods of election.
In this connection they pointed out that the Constitution as at present drafted affords extreme flexibility in its basic provisions relating to the Seanad, such as the composition and strength of the panel, the nature of the electorate, the method of voting and, indeed, the timing of elections. A great many fundamental changes in relation to the Seanad can, therefore, be brought about simply by the enactment of ordinary legislation without any change in the Constitution. I believe, therefore, first, that the Government should initiate and launch Bills in the Seanad in sufficient numbers so as to avoid the bottleneck just before the summer and Christmas recesses which leaves the Seanad with too little time to exercise its revising function properly; second, that Question Time should be introduced as a matter of urgency in the Seanad so that the Government can respond to questions relating to matters of urgent public importance. I believe that this might help to eliminate and, indeed, solve some of the problems that seem to arise here daily in regard to the Order of Business; third, that the Government should introduce legislation for a change in the election of university Senators in accordance with the provision contained in the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Election of Members of Seanad Éireann by Institutions of Higher Education) Act, 1979. The 1979 Act inserted a new paragraph 2º in Article 18.4 of the Constitution so that Article 18.4 2º now envisages the franchise being extended to other institutions of higher education and other third level colleges, such as the new University of Limerick, as may be fixed by law. Thus, under Article 18.4 2º a Member or Members of Seanad Éireann may be elected by, as stated in the Constitution, institutions grouped together or by a single institution. I, therefore, urge the Minister for the Environment, as I did when speaking on a similar motion in Seanad Éireann on 3 June 1987, to introduce appropriate legislation to give effect to this provision in the Constitution to extend the third level Seanad electorate and to widen the franchise include graduates of other appropriate third level institutions.
It was Lord Bryce who said that a second chamber has four major functions: (1) the function of revision of legislation; (2) the function of initiation of legislation; (3) the function of the interposition of appropriate delay in the passage of legislation and (4) the function of full and free debate on large and important questions. Lord Bryce described the revision function as follows:
The examination and revision of Bills brought from the House of Commons, a function which has become more needed since on many occasions during the past 30 years the House of Commons has been obliged to act under special rules limiting debate.
We have seen that, of course, so often so far as our own Dáil is concerned. On the function of the initiation of Bills, Lord Bryce says:
The initiation of Bills dealing with subjects of comparative non-controversial character may have an earlier passage through the House of Commons if they had been fully discussed and put into well conditioned shape before being submitted to it.
On the function of delay in a second Chamber, Lord Bryce states:
The interposition of so much delay and no more in the passage of a Bill into law as may enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it.
This would be specially needed as regards Bills which affect the fundamentals of the Constitution or introduce new principles of legislation or which raise issues whereupon the opinion of the country appear to be almost equally divided.
We have in the Visitors' Gallery a very distinguished visitor, Dr. Nicholas Marshall, Mayor of Budapest and his wife who are on an official visit here. We welcome them and hope they will enjoy the rest of their visit. It is a pity they were not in the other House as I think it would have been lighter entertainment.
I would like to join in your remarks in extending a welcome to the distinguished visitors.
On the fourth function of general debate and discussion, Lord Bryce states:
Full and free discussion of large and important questions, such as those of foreign policy, at moments when the House of Commons may happen to be so much occupied that I cannot find sufficient time for them, such discussions may often be all the more useful if conducted in an assembly whose debates and decisions do not involve the fate of the executive government.
It seems to me that these statements written by Lord Bryce in connection with the 1918 Conference on Reform of the Second Chamber represent a useful basis for discussion of the role of Seanad Éireann or other Second Chambers, and as a background against which to judge and assess the role and performance of the First Seanad from 1923 to 1935 and of the Second Seanad from 1938 to date. Dr. Donal O'Sullivan, the Clerk of the First Seanad, writing in 1940 has summarised the key role of the First Seanad in the formation of the new State. He made the following pertinent and salient points:
(1) In these early days the Seanad proved to be of very great value to the new State.
(2) In personnel it was probably the equal of any Second Chamber then existing and it exercised a considerable and wholly beneficial influence on legislation.
(3) Its principal achievement lay in the proof it afforded that Nationalists and Unionists could work harmoniously together in a parliament for the good of their common country.
(4) It would be less than truth to say that each side met the other halfway because in general they never gave the impression of taking sides at all in a Nationalist or Unionist sense.
Senator James Dooge, former Cathaoirleach of this Seanad, has observed that even allowing for the natural loyalty of Dr. O'Sullivan, who served as Clerk of the Seanad throughout its first 13 year life, this is a remarkable testimony to the role played by the first Seanad in the building of the new State. The performance of the first Seanad and the work of revision was quite impressive while during the total life of the first Seanad, lasting 13 and a half years, the Seanad received 489 non-money Bills from the Dáil, and it amended 182 of these. The total number of amendments made by the first Seanad was 1,831, an average of well over 100 per annum, and practically all of these were accepted by the Dáil, most of them, indeed, without amendment.
While the revisionary function was the main feature of the first Seanad, the other functions as set out by Lord Bryce were not neglected. In the field of Foreign Affairs there were notable debates on the Briand-Kellogg Pact on the adherence to the optional clause of the Versailles Treaty, and on the report of the Imperial Conference of 1930. In regard to the Second Chamber from 1838 to date, Senator James Dooge observes that in the case of a number of Bills of distinct political significance the number of Seanad amendments is remarkably high.
Examples are the Land Bill of 1963 where there were 27 amendments; the Succession Bill, 1965 had 41 amendments; the Housing Bill, 1965 had 27 amendments; the Ground Rents Bill, 1965 had 33 amendments; the Health Bill, 1969 had 36 amendments; and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Bill, 1978 had 44 amendments. These figures indicate both hard work on the part of Senators and flexibility in the attitude of Ministers.
In regard to the function of initiation of Bills, the Seanad has been used extensively from time to time. A number of these are the Air Pollution Bill, Status of Children Bill, Companies Bill and the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. These fit well, indeed, into the type of Bill described by Lord Bryce as appropriate for the Second Chamber. In regard to the function to delay the passage of a Bill, in practice the limited power of the Seanad to delay a Bill has not often been used. A major exception, however, relates to a Bill of constitutional importance. It might normally have been expected that the Bill to abolish proportional representation proposed by the Government in 1959 would readily have passed the Seanad and been voted on by the people in a couple of weeks. The accidental circumstances of the illness of two Government Senators allowed the Seanad to defeat the measure and so cause considerable delay during which public opinion became more strongly engaged in regard to the question. When the referendum was finally held some months later the proposal was defeated by the electorate. The relation of the delaying power of the Seanad to the formation of public opinion is illustrated by the tactics used in that case by Seanad Éireann of defeating the Bill on Fifth Stage rather than on Second Stage in order to maximise the delay and the publicity. It is, perhaps, ironic that in this particularly apt illustration of the delaying power of the Seanad as described by Lord Bryce, the popular vote endorsed the view of the indirectly elected Seanad against the view of the directly elected Dáil.
In conclusion, I believe that under all these four headings as outlined by Lord Bryce that Seanad Éireann — the first Seanad Éireann and the second Seanad Éireann — have made a valuable contribution to the development and to the advancement of this country.
I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the role of the Seanad here. On too many occasions the role of the Seanad has been discussed outside the Seanad. In some cases the discussion has not taken place to the benefit of those in the Seanad or, indeed, to the benefit of the people. The bicameral system, works extremely well and has been a great servant of democracy for many, many years.
There have been moves over various times to get rid of the Seanad and there have been various reasons given for its abolition. There has been no coherent argument which would convince me or the majority of the people that the Seanad does not have a major part to play in the formulation of Government policy, the formulation of Bills, the initiation of Bills and the changing of Bills.
Consideration has been given to the fact that many people see this House as a talking shop without power. This is a misrepresentation of the facts as enunciated by Senator Kennedy. The number of Bills which have been initiated here is enormous and in the recent past the number of Bills which have been initiated in this House have been increasing. I sincerely hope that trend will continue. Many important Bills have been initiated in this House and then gone to Dáil Éireann and on many occasions there have been few, if any, changes made to those Bills. However, this does not mean the Dáil has not seen fit to change sections, but the debate that took place in the Seanad helped the other House in its deliberations.
The Seanad, as constituted, has been criticised by many people as not being a Seanad disagree which represents the people. I would disagree with this argument. The Seanad often represents the people in a more basic way than do TDs. Senators are elected by people who have been elected by the general public. Indeed, they are elected by county councillors who have been elected at local level. Members of the Seanad in general are elected by the TDs who have been elected by the people. Then you get down to another more basic level of representation, the county councillors.
It has been said by other Senators that possibly there should be a widening of the franchise. I agree that in relation to the universities it seems incongruous that Trinity College Dublin, should have such major representation in this House at a time when the number of their graduates is much smaller than the number of graduates from the other colleges in the country. I am glad to see that recently DCU and the University of Limerick were granted the facility of having representation here. Unfortunately, they have not yet had representation but they will be able to take part in the election process on the next occasion.
It has been suggested by many people that the original idea of vocational education and the panels' system in the initiation of the Seanad by Éamon de Valera was that the panels would consist of people who had expertise in their own fields. Some people now suggest that this is not what happens. Because of the fact that Members, generally speaking, are elected by political parties it should not be forgotten that to get on to a particular panel in the Seanad one must have expertise and experience in the field in which he stands for the panel election. In other words, one cannot be a member of the labour panel if he has not taken part in labour negotiations. One must have been involved in negotiations on either the trade union or employers' side. Just because one is a member of an employers' federation does not mean that one is qualified. For the labour panel, one has to have been actively involved in labour negotiations and in the organisation of labour. Similarly, with the agricultural and other panels one has to have expertise in order to get on to these panels. There is no doubt in my mind but that even though there has been a departure from the original idea we have a system which works in terms of the expertise that is available to this House from each panel. This is very noticeable when a Bill comes up, whether it refers to legal affairs or to agriculture. There are always people in this House who have the expertise to take part in the deliberations that are necessary on such Bills. The parliamentary draftsman drafts Bills and these Bills have had to be changed radically before they went from here to the other House. It is necessary to have this second House whether it be to initiate Bills or to revise Bills which come from the other House.
There are frustrations involved in being a Member of Seanad Éireann because there is no question but that the Dáil is the place of power. When one talks about frustration one will find the same frustration in backbenchers on the Government and on the Opposition sides in Dáil Éireann as you will find here in the Seanad. We have a Government which includes the Ministers, the Taoiseach and the Attorney General and unless one is a Member of the Government I have a feeling that one is not totally taking part in the operation of the Dáil or Seanad. Backbenchers in the Dáil have the same problems as Members of the Seanad.
In the Seanad, as a member of the Opposition, one feels that one has not the opportunity to change things. It has to be said equally that if one is on the Government side in the Seanad there are more frustrations because one cannot get involved in the arguments that one would like to get involved in. One is sitting on the Government side of the House and is basically there to back up the Government, even though one can argue a case for changes in legislation. In fact, a Government Senator has not the same scope to attack as a Senator on the other side. The Opposition in the Seanad has the frustration of not being able to influence business at Government level and this will continue.
There is a necessity at all times to keep examining and revising the role of Seanad Éireann, just as much as there is a need to keep examining the role and operation of the Dáil. Indeed, in the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges there is a debate going on as to what changes can be made to make the House more relevant on a day-to-day basis. If there were more debates initiatied here on issues of importance, Members would feel they had a better part to play in the day-to-day business of running the affairs of State. It is very frustrating to come in here on occasions and find that while a debate is taking place on radio, on television, in the newspapers and on the streets yet, because of the rules of the House it is very seldom possible to get a debate going on an important topic on the day on which the topic arises. There is possibly a need to have some structure, such as Question Time, or an hour or half an hour that can be set apart each day the House sits to debate matters which are of immediate concern to the general public. If they are of immediate concern to the general public they would obviously have to be of immediate concern to the Houses of Parliament. It would not be difficult to allow half an hour each day the Seanad sits for statements on matters of this nature. They could be dealt with in the House without having to call on Ministers to come in to reply.
The Order of Business should be tightened up. There is no sense in the Leader of the House having to reply to questions which are thrown at him without any notice. It is virtually impossible not to get into a row because of lack of information on the part of the Leader on any particular day. He has to wait to get replies from his Ministers or from the Government side. If we had on the Order of Business a Question Time related to questions which had been submitted beforehand there would be a better organised Order of Business. People putting questions would have a far greater chance of getting proper replies to them.
There have been suggestions that the Seanad should be abolished because of the fact that it might become a haven for former TDs, a rest home before they retire finally, or that it could be used by potential TDs. In fact, if one looks at the make-up of the House it will be noted that the present Seanad is composed of people who are, in general, younger than the Members in the other House. I am not sure of the average age here but I have seen it come down dramatically in recent years. If at times the Seanad is used as an apprenticeship or training by people who want to get into the other House, I do not see anything wrong with that as it gives them the opportunity to learn how the Houses of the Oireachtas work. It affords them a unique opportunity to speak to Government Ministers and to higher civil servants. Politicians with ambitions to become Deputies should not be made unwelcome in the Seanad. If people without further ambition dominate this House it will indeed become the kind of rest home people had thought it was in the past.
It has been alleged that people who have lost Dáil seats use this House as an umbrella to stand under while waiting to regain those seats. I see nothing wrong with that because the vagaries of our electoral system with multi-seat constituencies and proportional representation dictate that certain people of great value to Irish politics can occasionally lose there seat for reasons not connected with performance or commitment. Membership of the Seanad gives such a person an opportunity to fight for re-election from inside rather than outside the Oireachtas which makes for better representation for constitutents; the TD who has been elected in his place will have to work extremely hard to hold his seat with the demoted terrier in the Seanad yapping at his heels. It is a disadvantage of the PR system that people of value can lose their seats regularly. The Seanad plays an active role in ensuring that a high level of parliamentary representation is fostered in this country — probably higher than in other places where the list system ensures that individual parties dictate who gets into the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is not the same here.
The role of the Seanad would be enhanced if definite functions were entrusted to people other than the positions of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach which are at present the only formal positions in the Seanad. All other positions are honourary ones whether as Leader of the House or Leader of the Opposition, as Whip of the main party or the Whip of the Opposition. Holders of these positions are not recognised in the Oireachtas as office holders and consequently they are not entitled to official secretarial services. For many years I was leader of the Opposition and then of the Government Senators and had no secretarial backup service at all; I had to use the same secretarial pool as every other Senator. The job of Leader of the House, of Whip or Leader of the Opposition cannot be done properly without secretarial services including secretarial assistants. Through the years secretaries who worked for me have had to work extremely hard and not only as secretaries; they have had to be PROs and ombudspeople between my office and the offices of Ministers. They have had to do many things that Ministers secretaries do not have to do. Ministers secretaries have secretarial staff to assist them, including secretarial assistants to take care of typing and telephone work. If we are going to examine the role of the Seanad, we should consider placing the officers of the Seanad in positions of real power and responsibility must accompany power. Responsibility without power does not make sense.
The electoral system for the Seanad was definitely set up by a masochist of some description because only a masochist could initiate a system where by prospective Senators have to travel more than 11,000 miles to get into the Seanad in the first place; they have to travel every boreen in the country. This is an excellent exercise if you are involved in tourism. There is not a Senator in this House who does not know every back road and main road from the tip of Donegal to the tip of Wexford whether in the backwoods of the country or in the larger cities. When a Senator talks about cross-Border relationships and problems on the Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal and Louth borders, we know what they are talking about as we have all been through these areas and we have talked to local councillors there. We have visited the North of Ireland on many occasions to meet local representatives. We are aware of problems with industry, farming and labour in Border areas. We are equally aware of inner city problems. It is a bonus to people outside the House that Senators have campaigned throughout the country in rural and urban areas and from top to bottom.
This House has a unique basis for the debate of issues of national importance. TDs are generally well informed about the country in general but they are not particularly interested in national issues unless they have ambitions to get into Government and without those ambitions they should not be in the Dáil at all. Basically, TDs interests are confined to the constituency from which they come and the system dictates that they spend three quarters of the week in Dublin and then return home. A Dublin TD's constituency will consist of a small part of the city; there are few opportunities for cross-city talk. The inner city Deputy will not be interested in anywhere except his own constituency; the Deputy for the outer city area will only be interested in that area. Senators on the other hand have to interest themselves in the entire country and in a diversity of issues, and they have a better knowledge of national problems than a hard working Deputy who confines himself to the area which elected him.
This House should not be a mirror image of the Dáil; that was not the founding intention. If a better Dáil is required the Dáil itself should be reviewed and its membership possibly enlarged. The Seanad should not ape what goes on in the Dáil. We should examine the situation here and establish principles by which we could make ourselves more responsive to current issues. If a matter of public importance requires debating we should take more time in the evenings or on a particular day to deal with such matters rather than retain the present arrangement where a motion on the Adjournment entitles a speaker to 20 minutes while the Minister receives ten minutes to reply. Under Standing Order 29 a matter of urgent public importance can merit special time but often when people look for a debate on a matter of public importance in the Chair will not allow it for procedural or other reasons.
The image of the Seanad would be enhanced if the working system in the Seanad were improved. A radical change is required here. We have adhered for almost 50 years to certain rules and regulations and the rigidity of the system as laid down by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges does not always facilitate debate on current issues.
The role of the Seanad has not been fully debated for a long time. The statements made here over the last two days are important because the public is not informed of what goes on. We are not a type of TD; we are Members of Seanad Éireann and we should be proud of that. We take part in the process of legislation and many Bills initiated in this House have been accepted without changes by the other House. This House has also made many amendment to Bills initiated in the other House and has corrected legislation which would otherwise have remained flawed. Good legislation is produced because the second House has more time for debate than the first House; once a Bill is passed here and returns to the Dáil, Members there have a chance to go through the arguments pertaining to all sections of that Bill with more information than they would get from the explanatory memorandum that Ministers hand out with each Bill. Similarly when a Bill comes from the other House we can read through the relevant Dáil debates and get the feeling of the Bill from the Minister introducing it and not be confined to the words on the paper or in the explanatory memorandum. We can avail of excellent opportunities to discuss the Bill with the Minister through the debate on Second and on subsequent Stages.
The Seanad is of inestimable value to the legislative system. There are certain changes that would improve the performance of the House and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should initiate those changes. Fears are sometimes expressed that changes made here may not be acceptable to the Government. Let us produce the necessary changes and consult the Government afterwards.
The Seanad could be used to better advantage if MEPs were allowed occasionally to take part in debates. They do not have any opportunity to do so at present and while we might not want to give them many such opportunities — prospective MEPs would not wish present MEPs to enjoy much publicity in either House of the Oireachtas — if we are debating EC reports it might be helpful if MEPs would sit in as they do in the European Parliament. Having listened to the debate they could, like a rapporteur, give their impressions of what went on and make certain suggestions.
At present only Heads of State are allowed to address the Joint Houses of the Oireachtas; when visitors of major consequence come to Ireland they should be given the opportunity to address the Houses on matters of major concern in their own countries. I was glad to see the Mayor of Budapest here today. Public representatives from Eastern Europe would have much to tell us about the changes taking place there. I am not suggesting that city mayors should be allowed in but Heads of State should be allowed to make formal statements to the Seanad on occasion.
There should be more contact on a formal basis between the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Seanad and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Dáil. At present there is no opportunity for a formal exchange of views between the two Committee on Procedure and Privileges and because of this, conflicts arise which could be prevented by formal contact on a regular basis. It often appears that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Dáil is the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of most consequence but, in fact, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Seanad is of equal importance. They should meet on a regular basis to sort out any problems that arise between the two Houses to ensure that Members of both Houses can discharge their duties efficiently; at present we do not have computers for each Senator. PCs are shared between three Senators. There is no other office in the world where formal, private or political information is accessible to two or three public representatives.
The Seanad has played a major role in the political evolution of this country. The first Seanad played a very positive role in the changeover that took place from British to Irish rule because there were so many Unionists in it. Even without Unionists the first Seanad would have been a good one. The Seanad has fulfilled its role since 1937 to the betterment of parliamentary democracy and changes in its structure and in its method of operation would enhance the role of the Seanad in the minds of the people.
I welcome this debate. I have been a Member of the Seanad for two years now and it takes a new Member a certain length of time to get to grips with what is going on. As far as I am concerned this debate is the most important one in which I have participated during my two years in this House.
It is a great pity that a Government Minister is not present on this occasion as I believe they were on previous occasions when this topic was discussed. I do not believe it sufficient for Members of the Seanad to have a cosy chat about reform and sort out some details. The changes needed are so fundamental that they require serious Government input into our negotiations and deliberations.
It is interesting to note that there are but three Members present in the House — perhaps I am not supposed to comment on attendance but I am used to a city council with active, vibrant, dynamic debate, where people do not make up their minds before they come in. We are talking to ourselves here. Other Senators seem to have a great penchant for stitching things into the record — I think that is what they call it — something that has never inspired me because I do not think anybody bothers to read the record. I would like to think I was wrong on that point.
This topic of discussion has come up on at least six previous occasions since 1937 at regular intervals of ten years. In 1937 some very minor changes were introduced in the panels which it would not be relevant to go into. In 1957 when the then Deputy Noel Browne suggested the abolition of the Seanad, the matter was taken more seriously; a Commission of Seanad Electoral Reform was set up which made some worth-while amendments. They suggested something I would approve of, which is that vocationally nominated candidates should be elected by a vocationally established electorate representative of the nominating bodies. That amendment should be considered and implemented. But nothing happened then just as, I believe, nothing will happen as a result of this debate. It is another time filler while we wait for something else to come up.
In 1967 the role of the Seanad was discussed again by a committee reviewing the Constitution. No major recommendations were made and nothing happened. In 1977 the Committee on Procedure and Privileges tried to initiate a major overhaul of the Seanad but minor changes took place in the Standing Orders only. In 1987 the matter was debated again. I have read those debates and it is interesting to see that some of the Senators, in particular Senators Manning and Murphy, made very similar points in 1987. I mean that as a compliment to them because nothing changed and all they can do is repeat what they said on that occasion.
It is 54 years since the 1937 Constitution was enacted and nothing fundamental has changed. Surely it would be relevant for us to consider the sort of changes we require to enable this Seanad to contribute to the challenging times this country is facing. Can anybody imagine any other organisation trying to cope with the hurly burly of life and with 1992 coming up, who would proceed with its business, frozen in a framework of rules set up in 1937? I am a member of the board of the First National Building Society and I have learned a great deal from it about how the private sector operates. I cannot imagine trying to operate that building society with rules and regulations laid down in 1937. The thought defies credulity but that is what we are doing in this House.
I do not want to be accused on this or on any other occasion of suggesting that the Seanad should be abolished. I do not believe the Seanad should be abolished and I would like to stitch that into the record. I would like to put forward the reasons we need a Seanad and, although other speakers have covered some of these points, I wish to put them in at this stage so that my subsequent remarks will be explicable.
Major problems are now facing the country and a dynamic Seanad could contribute substantially to their resolution. Calm, reasoned, detached and rational debate should take place in this House on major matters, away from the heat and pressures of the other House. TDs represent multi-seat constituencies and are beholden to their electorate in a way that we in this House are not.
The Seanad is an essential component in the governing process. Legislation is becoming highly technical and complicated. We had a classic example of that with the Environmental Protection Agency Bill. Legislation filters up to this House from the Dáil where the majority are party politicians and it is important that this House takes a long, cool look at all Bills. The Seanad is a layer of throughtful, reasoned democracy which we cannot afford to do without. There are times when there should be a detached judicial view of legislation when it comes before this House, remembering that it leaves to go to the President to be signed and she may refer it to the courts if she thinks it unconstitutional before or after signing it. We should bear that fact in mind.
We should avail of the opportunity to attract talented people into this House so that their expertise would be generally available to the Houses of the Oireachtas. We all know many fine people who should be in this House but who could not or would not cope with the rigours of a TD's existence acting as messenger boys and carrying out parish pump type politics.
We, in this House, have an obligation to take a more responsible, less populist view of some of the problems facing us where resources are scarce and demands insatiable. This House should not be competing with the Dáil. Its role is clearly complementary.
I take my role seriously. I was elected to this House as a watchdog for the ordinary person in the street. Legislation can come through the Dáil in the heat of the moment but we have an important responsibility to make sure that in that mood of over-zealousness, inappropriate measures do not go through. We must be allowed to exercise that right. I find it distressing that small clique who now run the country are dismissive of the local authorities and of the enormous contribution they should and could make. Anybody who knows anything about the country, particularly rural areas, can see the tragedy of allowing that great well of talent and those enormous opportunities exist, come to naught. It is the same as far as the Seanad is concerned. In the same way also, we only allow a member of a political party to run for the Presidency. They must have the support of a major political party. These are all part of the same narrow-minded syndrome.
There seems to be a large measurement of agreement that there is something wrong. If there were not, we would not be having this debate. We all know we bore the pants off the public. The press find us fairly irrelevant. We are irrelevant and I do not think we should blame the press if they do not cover our deliberations. The press have to sell newspapers. They have to print information news, people are interested in. It must be meaningful. I am not saying we should gear ourselves to suit the media. If we were fulfilling our role in the way it should be fulfilled, the media would be interested and they would cover our deliberations.
There is agreement on a whole range of points: there should be more time for topical issues; MEPs should be allowed to attend the Seanad; there should be an opportunity to question Ministers; we should have more Bills initiated in the Seanad; we should have more Private Members' time; we should expand the role of the commitees; major interest groups should be allowed to come in to the Seanad to give their case a fair hearing and we should have proper secretarial services, computers and so on. Although I support all the reforms I have just listed they simply tinker at the edges. They do not alleviate the fundamental problem.
The Leader of the House, Senator Fallon, whom I hold in the highest esteem and believe to be a very thoughtful, intelligent person, has said on numerous occasions that this House should not try to be something it was never meant to be, namely, a mirror image of the Dáil. I agree with him, but has he ever asked why this House tries to be a mirror image of the Dáil? I know the reason and any honest Member of this House must, at heart, agree with me, although I would not necessarily expect Members to say so publicly.
I have done a small amount of research in Who's Who in Irish Politics. There are a number of these books available. If you look through them you will discover that, leaving out the six university Senators, 41 out of the remaining 54 Senators in this House have previously been in or have run for, the Dáil. That is almost four out of every five Members in this House. The Acting Chairman is an honourable exception as is Senator Honan but there are not many exceptions. The figures speak for themselves. I am happy for anybody else to check them out: I have had them checked and double checked and I believe they are correct.
Where are the vocational groups, the interest groups, that were supposed to be represented here? Can we genuinely say they are represented? You must obtain a nomination from such a group in order to run for election but that is all. They have nothing to do with the actual election of Members to this House. We have diverted the Seanad from the original premise on which it was based when it was set up by Mr. de Valera in 1937. The problem is not that there are political parties represented here. I do not think anybody would imagine that this House could be made up of 60 Independents similar to the present five. I would ask the Members of this House to differentiate between the words "political" and "party political." People seem to consider those two words synonymous. They are not. Party politics has a place in this House and there have been many eminent party politicians here. From recent memory one can name such Fine Gael Senators as Senators Dooge and Alexis FitzGerald, highly thought of by all. On the other side, Senator Eoin Ryan, Senior, was a most eminent contributor to this House. Senator Mary Robinson, now our President, made a magnificent contribution as a Labour Senator, to this House. Let nobody say I am slamming all party politicians and let no individual Senator take offence at anything I say. No individual or group of Senators is to blame. It is the party system in operation.
I have read the contributions to Essays in Memory of Alexis FitzGerald. The laudable sentiments of many of these essays encouraged me to come into the House. Edmund Burke defined a party as follows: “A party is a body of men united, promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.” Another sentence refers to an “honourable connection”. I know all that. I also know that Wheare, who was mentioned by some of the other speakers said: “A Second Chamber... need not be so partisan as a Lower House.” I put it to Senators that this House is just as partisan as the Dáil.
That is the Senator's opinion.
That is my opinion; the Senator, quite rightly, gave his opinion and I am giving mine. In a few moments I will reply to some of the statements which Senator McKenna made in his very valuable contribution.
Will the Senator mention what individuals——
Senator Hederman without interruption, please.
——do not have adequate interest in the specific panel on which they have been elected?
I am sorry, I did not, unfortunately, hear that. There is nothing more understandable than that men or women united by common ties and interests should work together as a unit to promote those interests but when 55 out of the 60 Members of this House are under a party Whip, that is where the trouble begins. There are I am sure, honourable exceptions.
Did the Senator not say earlier that the alternative would be anarchy?
I am sorry the Senator did not realise I was being facetious. I knew anarchy was what the Senator was thinking of so I popped in the word. I heard it so many times, "we must have the party Whip or there will be anarchy".
In the two years I have been here I have not seen any member of the Government Party break the party Whip. They may say there was never an occasion. I simply state it as a fact in support of my case. We know what the party Whip means and what a three-line Whip means. I am not very interested in whether it is a three-line or a two-line Whip. All I know is the outcome. I beg Senators not to take anything personally. I want to make it clear I am concerned. I made a speech like this in 1976 when I went to America, long before I knew any of the very honourable ladies or gentlemen of this Chamber. This method of inflicting the party Whip and party discipline on this Chamber is totally undersirable, unnecessary and harmful to the working of this House. It is not democracy, it is hypocrisy.
As far back as 1930 Albert Einstein saw the dangers inherent in a European system similar to ours. He said that the only thing that has discredited the European forms of democracy was not the basic theory of democracy itself but the impersonal character of party alignments. I presume what he meant was that, when you have a party Whip the humanity goes out of politics. We have people so dedicated to an objective that they disregard the effect the party Whip has on them. They are excused because they were under the party Whip. That excuses everything. That can lead to a very undesirable outcome.
I feel sorry for the members of political parties who have to conduct themselves in every legislative situation exactly as the party Whip ordains. I hope it does not sound as if I am talking down——
Do not be one bit sorry.
I am happy to know I need not be sorry for the Senator.
That is a misconception. The Senator does no service to the House if she continues talking in that vein.
Acting Chairman
Senator Hederman without interruption, please.
I am a democrat. I am very happy to put my views to the House and to hear Senators' replies. I will sit here and listen most attentively. I am putting my views and it would be a waste of my time, and indeed the time of the other Senators if I was to come in here and give some sort of patter to fill up half an hour. That is not what I am here for. I have no interest in doing that and it is not what I intend to do. I intend to say what I think and I shall be very open minded and listen with great interest of the replies.
This excessively rigid discipline, demanding a dog-like subservience to the party line in all circumstances, reduces elected representatives to the status of ciphers, silicon chips, where there is no need to have a mind because other people make up your mind for you. It makes a nonsense of democracy. It also reduces what democracy is supposed to be all about — Government by the people, Government by a handful of men in control of the party apparatus.
As a result, party politics and the system that they enshrine are falling into disrepute and in the era of instant communications, the public are now becoming aware of this. I think Senator McKenna touched on this.
Do you want a parliament or——
I never said party politics were falling into disrepute.
Acting Chairman
Sorry, Senators, Senator Hederman, without interruption.
No, but the Senator mentioned communications. I may be mistaken. It may have been another Senator.
(Interruptions.)
Senator Hederman, without interruption.
Acting Chairman
Does the Senator wish to take the Chair?
You will vacate the Chair?
Acting Chairman
No, you can do it from there.
Thank you. Senator Hederman, without interruption, please.
What I recollect Senator McKenna to have said was that because there was more widespread communications now more people could see what was going on. That is why the message is now reaching the public. That is what I mean by falling into disrepute in an era of instant communications.
When discipline within a political party or a political framework ceases to be something which is natural and spontaneous and there comes instead a mindless imposition, enforced with undeviating rigour, the effect is corrosive and counterproductive. The right to exercise freedom of conscience, at any level in society, and no only in the Houses of the Oireachtas, is not a mandate for anarchy and should not be confused with it any more than liberty should be confused with licence, but this is a chant I have heard over and over again. I have no objection to there being parties in this House. I have no objection to party politicians. I am talking about the system by which discipline is enforced. That is quite clearly what I have said and I am not retracting any word of that.
I wish to refer to the nomination by the Taoiseach of 11 Senators. I read, in the Official Report in 1987, a splendid speech by Senator Seán Haughey, defending the importance of the Taoiseach's right to nominate the 11, so that it could be ensured that important groups would be represented in the Seanad, vocational, sectional and cultural. That may have been the case last time and I did note, on the last occasion, that five out of the 11 Senators nominated by the Taoiseach did not take the Whip. On this occasion all 11 took the Whip and nine out of the 11 Senator nominated by the Taoiseach had run for the Dáil. I found it a little amusing to read in Who's Who in Irish Politics that one of those nominated was “an able woman with a future, if she can take a Dáil seat”; and about a Progressive Democrats Senator: “This (nomination by the Taoiseach) gives him a lifeline to work on his base and prepare for next Dáil election.”; about another eminent Senator: “could be a name to reckon with in the future ... if he can get his seat back”; in regard to a Senator who is a colleague of mine in the council: “His nomination to Seanad by the Taoiseach is a very pointed ploy to unseat Deputy... next time” and in relation to another Senator:” An Taoiseach gave him a political lifeline by including him in the `eleven'.”. This is the cynical and unscrupulous use of this House to further the political careers of party politicians in Dáil Éireann. I do not think this was what the eminent Leader, Mr. de Valera, had in mind in 1937 when he established this Seanad, nor was it for political patronage or the objectives which I have outlined.
I am not saying that no Member of this House should ever go to the other House or that no Member of the other House should never come to this House. A Member of this House could gain valuable experience should they decide that this was not the right forum for them and should they wish to use their talents in a different House. That is most laudable and understandable, but it is not so, Members should not come into this House for the purposes I have just outlined, that is, that they should look on this House as a sort of purgatory before they get to the real place. Senator Lanigan made that point. The real power is in the other House. There is a total lack of understanding of what this House is supposed to do or what it could do. The nub of the problem is that those Senators who are really looking to go elsewhere know that if they want to have the approval of central office for their nomination at the next election, they must obey the party Whip. If you wish, I will give you examples. If you do not want them, you may take them as read, I will not inflict them on the House.
The Senator tried to get a nomination herself but without a party she was unsuccessful.
Senator McGowan, you will have your chance to make a contribution.
How right Senator McGowan is. Because I did not have the party apparatus, I could not get a nomination. I thank the Senator for making my point so eloquently. In this country, in any of the institutions, whether it is the Presidency, the Dáil this House, unless you have the party machine behind you you cannot get anywhere. I quite agree with the Senator.
We have reached the stage where members of political parties in this House or in the Dáil have put down amendments which they believed in and subsequently they had to vote against their own amendments when they discovered the party did not support them. I have seen the same situation arise in City Hall on numerous occasions. Members of parties say to me, "The party Whip was on" as though I should accept it and should not be so awkward and difficult. That seems to give everybody in a party the right to, vote whatever way they are told to vote. I have had a Member say to me, "The party Whip was on. I did not agree with it but, I was under the Whip". I am sorry the Senator in question is not here because he could nod his head in agreement.
Surely the Senator does not think that Members will be voting in all directions? Let us be realistic. The Senator is talking in cloud cuckoo land.
Acting Chairman
Sorry, Senator McKenna, Senator Hederman without interruption, please.
I appreciate the Senator's interruptions. They give me a chance to get a glass of water.
I appreciated Senator Hederman's interruptions likewise.
Acting Chairman
Senator McKenna has already made his contribution.
On a lighter note, I remember being told when I was considering coming into this House that the seats were more comfortable; perhaps it was in the Essays in Memory of Alexis FitzGerald. We have armchairs, so we can sit and listen to each other and we can deliberate. In the other House the seats are rather more uncomfortable. That was a very interesting and accurate summing up. I am flattered there are six Members in the House now, but that is unusual.
Senator Hederman is missing rather often herself, for a Senator making remarks about other people.
Acting Chairman
I cannot allow this Senator, you know the procedure. Senator Hederman, please.
I accept that I am not here all the time. In my defence may I say that, if the Seanad were to operate in the way I outlined, I would be here more often.
A lame excuse.
Considering the farce which is perpetrated in this House most of the time, one cannot blame Senators for not being here.
The Senator will not be seeking re-election to this House again, then?
I may seek re-election if there is any sign of this House reforming itself.
Senator Murphy in his thoughtful contribution mentioned that the Dáil tended to see the Seanad as a threat. If things were working properly the Dáil should be concerned about changes made in legislation here. They should recognise the legitimate power of this House. That is part of our role, to make certain that we control or curb an undemocratic institution. The threat we present to the Dáil at the moment is that there are 41 Members of this House who apparently want to be in the other House. That may well be the reason the Seanad does not have the high profile it would like and why it does not get as much work to do. We should have Senators here who want to be Senators, who are interested in the Seanad per se and are not frustrated would-be TDs. The media often ignores the deliberations of this House. Is it surprising? They consider us irrelevant, and we are irrelevant. I do not think we should blame the media for that.
Much has been said during the course of this debate on the noise and general brouhaha that erupts during the Order of Business. It has been said that we must bring in new regulations to prevent that from happening. Perhaps we should look at the fundamental reason why it happens. Members are frustrated because everything is so irrelevant and boring, as far as the public is concerned, because we do not do the job we were originally founded to do. I would ask Senator McKenna to exclude me from his remarks. I have never, as yet, made any fuss during the Order of Business. I have always behaved as I have been asked to by the Cathaoirleach. I do not say that I will continue to do so. The frustration of other Senators who have been here so much longer than I have may get to me. Can one blame Senators if they look for headlines during the Order of Business? It is the only time they, or this House, are likely to get coverage. We tend, then, to be portrayed in the newspapers as entertainment value, as space fillers, which I deeply regret.
This House has an important role to play. The Constitution states:
Every Bill initiated in and passed by Dáil Éireann should be sent to Seanad Éireann and may, unless it be a Money Bill, be amended in Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann shall consider any such amendment.
That places an obligation on this House to ensure that we have an opportunity to amend a Bill and send it back to the Dáil. Just before we broke up for the summer recess the Competition Bill, 1991 and the Payment of Wages Bill, 1991 came to this House and I remember the other side of the House agreed we would not really have any effective opportunity to amend the Bills because the Dáil had gone into recess. The Bills had to be passed and could not wait until after the summer recess and what happened here was irrelevant. That denied us the opportunity to fulfil our functions as defined in the Constitution. We could not discharge the responsibilities placed on us.
As an elected Senator I have to look to my electorate and be answerable to them for what I am elected to do. There is an honourable option: It is to resign. I am not one to resign, I am not a quitter, and I do not think there is much point in throwing in the sponge in protest in a hotheaded way. Many of my colleagues, like Senator Honan and others, have been here a great deal longer than I have and I must ask them seriously what we should do if we cannot fulfil our obligations in a constructive and positive way. I suggest that unless radical reforms are forthcoming the only option open to us may be to resign.
I believe that if there was just one change we could bring about — and that is not a lot to ask — if the elections to this House were held on the same day as the elections to Dáil Éireann, in one fell swoop, that would solve a great number of problems and a great deal of what is wrong with this House. I am not going to go back on the reasons; I hope for those who are here it is fairly clear.
I reiterate what I said at the beginning: I am not in favour of the abolition of this House. I believe I have outlined clearly on the record that this House has a very important role to play and I would like to see it play that role. That is my preference. But, if that cannot be done, there is a very strong case to be made that the House should be abolished. Mind you, whether anybody outside would care, is probably a moot question, if anyone would even notice is perhaps what we should be considering.
I would like to invite fellow Senators, and particularly those who have been here longer than I have, to answer some of the points I put forward, and I assure them that I will listen with an open mind. I would like to make it clear I have not thought this up in the last year or two. I quoted earlier on from a speech I delivered in the United States in 1976 when I was asked to speak on democracy as it operated in Ireland. Most of my comments were made then, in 1976, that is, 15 years ago, not today or yesterday. That is why I beg my esteemed colleagues not to take any personal pique at anything I have said. I am really speaking about a system which I suppose we can say we are all caught up in.
Senator McKenna asked if I would be seeking re-election because of what I said. I hope that will not be the case because, like many Senators, I firmly believe that politics is an honourable profession. I agree with what was said by Andrew Oliver in Boston over 150 years ago:
Politics is the most hazardous of all professions. There is not another in which a man can hope to do so much good to his fellow creatures. Neither is there any in which by mere loss of knell he may do such widespread harm. Nor is there another in which he may so easily lose his own soul. Nor is there another in which a positive and strict veracity is so difficult. Danger is the inseparable companion of honour. With all the temptations and degradations that beset it politics is still the noblest career any man can choose.
That is why I hope that I will be able to remain in this House.
I do not intend to make a long contribution to this debate but there are a few points I would like to develop. Indeed, there are possibly a few points that I would put to Senator Hederman. Basically Seanad Éireann is a vocational body. It can be said that that was the original intention and to a great extent the existence of the Seanad has shown that, politics need not play, and to my mind should not play, a major part in all the activities of the House.
That does not say that I disagree with the party political system, as Senator Hederman has intimated she does. I think that is part of her frustration at the whole process of the House — her independence, as she sees it. She says that in a political party people are whipped into business, whipped in to vote, and do not have any say in the decision. Of course, that is very far from the truth. That is not the situation at all. There is consensus and, if necessary, a majority decision inside the party on issues prior to voting. Those are the facts. Of course, in her case, her decision can be made on the bicycle on the way in because she has nobody to dispute with her. There is no conflict. If she makes up her mind on something she can come in here and say it and that is it. In a party there is consulatation, there is consensus, or, if not, there is majority decision. She ballyrags to some extent the whip system, but Senator Hederman herself used the politcal whip system to good advantage to become Lord Mayor of Dublin — I think it was in 1988 and 1989 — when the Whips of Fine Gael and Labour whipped her into the Mansion House. That is a fact.
I do not want to dwell on that any further. It is easy to come in here and attack fellow Senators — and I would consider a major part of Senator Hederman's contribution to be an attack on her fellow Senators, an attack on the party political system and an attack on the House. What I did not get from her were many constructive proposals for the reformation of the House. It is very easy to criticise any structure, but more important is what somebody puts forward to build, develop, change or modernise a structure to bring this House into line with the 1990s, 2000 and beyond — if such reforms are necessary.
I am of the opinion that Seanad reforms are necessary, but I do not believe the best way of going about it is to attack Members of this House who are elected through the democratic system and who perform on behalf of this country, because 43 Senators have the country as a whole as their constituency——
I did not attack any Senator; it was the system.
——and must address themselves on that basis. Indeed, Senator Lanigan outlined in very great detail the efforts and the sacrifices that are made by candidates to get elected to this House, in particular those who are elected through the panel system, who are voted in by members of county councils, county boroughs and Members of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann. For the vote that puts them in here they have to travel 11,000 or 12,000 miles, through the length and breadth of this country, through the cities and towns, meeting public representatives on the ground, dealing as a professional with a professional, and convincing them that they are the best person to represent their point of view on that panel.
For somebody to be elected to this House this is an enormous task. It is an enormous challenge to travel 11,000 or 12,000 miles in four weeks and visit four, five or six hundred people who have a vote and try to convince them that you are the best person to be elected. It is inappropriate for a Member of this House, who is elected on the postal vote system — I speak in particular about the university Senators, who do not have the same task or the same challenge of travel — to attack those who have put in such an effort to be elected to this House, and who come in here weekly to work on behalf of the nation and to address themselves to whatever legislation is initiated in this House or whatever legislation comes from the Lower House to be amended or passed.
If I have a crib with the workings of this House it would be with the Order of Business. I think it is totally inappropriate for the Leader of this House to have to respond in a few minutes on business of the day, and on legislation for the week or sometimes the following or consecutive weeks. People jumping in on the Order of Business and expounding, sometimes willy nilly, on personal issues without having given any prior notice to the Leader of the House, is an abuse of the House. I would like to see a situation where prior notice of questions is given in this House, where the Leader has an opportunity to discuss with the relevant Departments what is the approach, the intention, so that on the day he can give a more precise and more informative response.
The House is comprised of 60 people, 43 of whom are elected through the system I mentioned, that is, by the local authority members and by votes of people in both Houses; six people are elected through the University Panel and 11 nominees are made by the Taoiseach of the day. I can appreciate the situation regarding the Taoiseach's 11 nominees. Indeed, this was a well thought out provision by Éamon de Valera for the composition of Seanad Éireann — it would be impossible for legislation to get through both Houses of the Oireachtas and get to the President if we did not have a system where, when the Lower House passed a Bill, this House was not in a position to do so also, after consideration and amendment where necessary. I believe that this House should amend any time it feels it appropriate to do so, and the opportunity should always be there for that.
Indeed, I would go further and say that I think more legislation should be initiated in this House, in particular legislation relevant to the local authority system, because basically the local authority view is very much in evidence in this House so far as it is the local authorities who elect 70 per cent of the Members to this House. In recent times we saw the Environmental Protection Agency Bill come through this House. That was a very helpful development because at the end of the day who will be involved with that agency other than the local authorities. It was very appropriate that it was debated, amended and got the full attention of this House. In fact, I understand that over 40 Members of this House contributed to the debate on that Bill. That is an indication of the seriousness with which Members of this House took that Bill.
In relation to the composition of the House, I feel that, if anything, the local authority system does not have enough say in the number of people who get nominations to this House. If this is to be a true democratic House then there is no better way for democracy to be implemented to the full than by increased nomination through the local authority system. In the thinking of Europe today we are very much moving towards a situation where there is consciousness that the people at the very bottom — that is, the small local authority, the region — should be more involved in decision making and in particular in the opinions and the advice given before decisions are made.
In this House there is only one local authority body with a nomination. That is extraordinary. One local authority body has one nomination to this House, yet 70 per cent of the people elected to this House are elected by local authority members. I do not think that is in the best interests of local democracy. I do not want to say — and I am not saying — that any of the nominating bodies should not have a nomination, but what I am saying is that the local authority system should have an increased number of nominations. The General Council of County Councils is the only body that has a nomination to this House. I was fortunate to have that nomination but they have it on one panel only, that is, on the Administrative Panel. Yet the local authority system addresses itself daily to areas such as agriculture, health, education——
Is the Senator going to fight now to get some real power for local authorities?
Yes, I have been fighting for local authorities since I came in here and long before I came in here——
To get some power——
Indeed, I might say that the Senator travelled a fair amount of this country looking for the support of local authorities when she was looking for the nomination for the President, attended every local authority and asked for their support.
Because they have the right to nominate.
I thought I might impart that bit of information.
Quite correct. I do not like to see people denied their rights.
The local authority system is connected on a daily basis to practically all five panels that have a nomination or in the Seanad — are administrative, agriculture, cultural and education, labour or industrial and commercial. I would like the local authority umbrella body or bodies to have a nomination on the five panels. Then you would have a truly democratic approach to the Seanad, and, if they were elected here, they could play a very positive role in dealing with the areas of interest to local authorities but bringing a more concise approach on the Floor of this House.
At the moment their only opportunity for nomination is on the Administrative Panel, with one nomination. I do not think that is giving local authorities a fair crack of the whip. Only a few years back the national umbrella group of the county committees of agriculture had two nominations to this House.
What were the county committees of agriculture made up of? They were made up of members of local authorities. Instead of the role of local authorities and their involvement in this House being enhanced, it has diminished. If there is to be reform of this House then I would like the local authority to have a bigger involvement in the process of nomination to this House.
I do not intend to hold up the House any longer. What I would hope is that over a period reforming motions might come before this House. Today and last week we have been discussing the role of the Seanad. I do not see anything wrong with bringing a reforming motion before this House, allowing us to have a deeper debate. I am not sure whether Standing Orders permit this. What I do not want to see is that we talk for two days about reforming this House and then it is dropped; but in two years' time somebody decides we will have two days debating it again. That would not be in the best interest of this House. I would like to see, possibly over the next few weeks before this session finishes, that something definite and positive would take place on this matter, that some structure would be set in place and that we would have some opportunity to take on one, two or three reforms, if the House thought them necessary. I believe there is a consensus in this House for a certain amount of reform. Therefore, I hope that at the end of this debate something positive will have come out of it.
I tend to agree with my colleague across the way that we certainly want reform here. We are talking about a Seanad which was established under a Constitution in July 1937, more than 50 years away; but in the lifetime of the running of affairs of countries it is not a great length of time. I certainly want reform and I will spell out the areas in which I would like to see reform. However, for many reasons, I do not think there is any need for a shake-up to the radical extent sought by Senator Hederman.
I see the need for a place in politics for Independents, as the Senator and her colleagues are Independents. Certainly there is a place within a political system but we have about 160 Members of a Parliament in this country and I cannot see how a political system in a democracy could work if you had 160 or 170 Independents. I do not like the notion of the kind of ultimate purity of the Independents and the corruption of the members of the political parties in a politics system. You cannot run a country in that manner; there is scope for both. There is huge scope for a political party system, and I make no apology for being part of that system within the party of which I am a member, but, at the same time, I have a lot of latitude to have independence of thought and independence of movement in the context of that membership of the party to which I belong. To that degree I would not go overboard on this notion of the ultimate purist Independent as opposed to the corrupt politician in the political party.
The Constitution enacted in 1937 was, I think, one of the wiser moves of de Valera when he was in power in this country. One of his fans is across the way from me. He was a man who raised hackles or was the subject of adoration.
Be careful now.
The 1937 Constitution has worn the years extremely well but there are problems when we seek some reform here. Those of us who have been elected through the panel system and who have a loyalty to those who elected us around the country have a great belief in the system that obtains and in the local authority system and all that goes with it. Having said that, I think there is scope for some kind of reform to give a measure of direct representation to certain vocational interests. One of the problems is this. There was a concept in 1937 within the bicameral system of an Upper House that would not be as fiercely political as the Lower House and in which there would be vocational representation. There was a pious hope that by giving nominations to bodies such as the Irish Farmers Association or the chambers of commerce, the ICC, the libraries or the Royal Irish Academy that this would result in a House with Members with an avocation to these types of groups. That has happened to a degree but not to the extent it might have done, because of the nature of the electorate.
There is scope for reform in certain ways. For example, the newly elected Taoiseach has the right to arbitrarily nominate 11 Senators after a Seanad election has taken place. That is a reasonable provision to give whatever Government are elected a working majority in this House without which you would have legislative chaos. Having said that, in the context of a House with only 60 Members I believe a Government would have adequate control here if instead of having 11 nominees they had perhaps as few as seven nominees. You could still maintain a House of 60 Members by making four seats available for direct election by vocational groups. Alternatively, if there was the political will to do it, you could extend the membership of the Seanad from 60 to 64, 65 or 66 to bring in direct vocational representation.
What I am suggesting is that without interfering with the present method of election for about three-quarters of the Seanad you could certainly probably reduce the number of nominees directly nominated by a Taoiseach without affecting the control the newly elected Government would have over the Seanad. You could have a system of direct election by certain vocational groups as we have in the university system; or, if you did not want to touch the numbers the Taoiseach may nominate, you could extend the numbers of the Seanad to incorporate this. If the universities can elect four Senators directly to this House on the votes of their graduates scattered all over the world, it is not unreasonable for farmers who are members of a group such as the Irish Farmers Association, or business people around the country who have links with the chambers of commerce, or industrialists within the Confederation of Irish Industry, to say: "What type of system do we have in this Seanad under which a university graduate has a direct vote to have Senators in there but I am an honest-to-God farmer, on 30 acres in Mayo and I do not have that right;" or "I have a shop in Naas and why can I not work through my local chamber of commerce and build up the same kind of rights?" There is a very strong case for that, because I think that was the original concept of de Valera in 1937 which did not work itself through because of the system we have devised.
Obviously, there has to be reform with regard to the university representation. Of course it is reasonable, if you want vocational representation, that the universities should have it. But there is a huge change in the structure of the universities in the country since 1937. Today, rather than having a situation where you simply have National University and Trinity College, you are dealing with Dublin City University, the University of Limerick and many other institutes of higher learning who want to have their place in the sun as much as other universities.
If you read the Constitution there is provision for such direct representation under Article 19 of the Constitution, under which there can be direct vocational representation but only if it is in substitution of the relevant number of members from the present panel system that obtains, and in reality it is difficult to arrange that. There is equal provision under the same Article where the universities are concerned for the representation of new seats of learning provided there is a corresponding reduction in the numbers to be elected by the two colleges of university at present represented in this House, namely, National University and Trinity College.
Article 19 states:
Provision may be made by law to the direct election by any functional or vocational group or association or council of so many members of Seanad Éireann as may be fixed by such law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected from the corresponding panels of candidates constituted under Article 18 of this Constitution.
There is a scope, while reducing possibly the numbers of nominees of the Taoiseach, to allow these things to happen. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Senator Hederman that there is need for a radical streak in Irish politics. I admire her activity in this House and as Lord Mayor of Dublin she was an outstanding success but I disagree with the sentiments she expressed this evening in describing the whip system as hypocrisy, saying there is no need to have a mind anymore and that this is not Government by the people for the people. One cannot run an executive or a Parliament with 150 independent voices. That would lead to utter chaos.
I did not say that.
The Senator said that the whip system was hypocrisy, that if you are under a Whip there was no need to have a mind.
The method of operation.
By definition it has to operate in a certain manner. This is not unique to Ireland.
Obliging people to vote against their consciences——
In other Parliaments there are many more instances of rebellion. There are a significant number of people who are members of political parties and take the whip who have the right, and exercise that right much more frequently than obtains here, to leave their party and reject the whip on points of principle. There is such scope for conscience within the system.
With the comfort of a large majority.
I make no apology for being part of such a system and it has not caused me any conflict of conscience so far.
I am amused when people tend to denigrate the Seanad and say it is a joke and a talking shop. I do not know what people want in a legislature. Do we want a place where, instead of talking, people pull out guns or do we want the Legislature to behave like an executive and give orders to people who will not take them? A parliament, in fairly crude terms, is a talking shop. They denigrate the Seanad as a talking shop and hold the Dáil in much higher regard.
I have had experience in both Houses of the Oireachtas. A Senator, with the exception of not being able to put down a parliamentary question for answer by a Minister, has all the powers of a Deputy. As a Senator, I am a Member of the Legislature, I am a member of my parliamentary party. I am eligible for inclusion on parliamentary committees; I am eligible for inclusion on parliamentary bodies or quasi-parliamentary bodies that are active outside this country. I have the right as a legislator to question and take up issues with civil servants and with executives in semi-State bodies and local authorities.
If the Seanad is a talking shop so is the Dáil, and so are county councils. I do not think the Seanad is unique in that regard. In the Seanad, if one has not an overwhelming ambition to be in the Dáil, given that to a degree, one is away from the localised activity in which every Deputy is largely involved, there is more time to reflect on issues. One or two of my colleagues across the House made some very valid points. As a result of the system of election which bring Senators to the high ways and by ways of every townland and village, they build up an encyclopaedic knowledge of this country and whereas one's background might be in farming, industry or whatever, one tends to acquire a well rounded view of the country, economy and the people and their problems. I do not see us either singly or as a body being in any sense irrelevant.
We have a bicameral system. The bicameral model is a fundamental parliamentary model which obtains in many European countries. Democracy has faults but this system must be made to work. One delaying power in relation to Bills is a useful tool for public opinon. In the case of a strong Government forcing legislation through the Dáil before public opinion has had time to vent its range against it, if it so decides, our delaying powers, the fact that time must pass before it goes through this House and the blocking powers we have in certain emergencies, are very healthy provisions.
I read the Constitution to see what was relevant to the Seanad in 1937 and know it differs today. Article 25 deals with the promulgation of laws and presentation to the President for signature. Article 22.2.3º states:
If the President after consultation with the Council of State decides to accede to the request he shall appoint a Committee of Privileges....
The President of Ireland is a lady. Article 22.2.3º speaks about the President being a male. Article 25 states that the Bill is to go to the President "for his signature and for promulgation by him" and Article 25.3 states that the Bill is to be presented to him for signature. Article 25.4.2º states: "Every Bill signed by the President shall be promulgated by him as a law by the publication by his direction..." Article 25.2.1º states: "... presented to the President for his signature and for promulgation by him as a law...." Does this mean that we have a constitutional crisis at present in that our Constitution states legislation can only become law if it is signed by a male President? Do we need to have a referendum to sort this out?
In Article 26.1.2º there is reference to "the President for his signature". Article 27.4.1º states that the President shall "pronounce his decision". Article 27.4.2º states that "it shall not be obligatory on the President to pronounce his decision". Article 27.5.1º states: "... he shall inform the Taoiseach...." Article 27.5.2º states: "... presented to the President for his signature and promulgation by him ..." The Constitution constantly refers to "he" and "him". I am saying this in a slightly facetious manner but only slightly, because it seems an enormous discourtesy to the President if the Constitution only allows for a male President. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges should give some thought as to how this might be amended without a referendum. There is a matter of courtesy at stake.
So far as the workings of the Seanad are concerned, there is scope for reform. Senator Finneran mentioned the Order of Business. The system unfortunately lends itself to us all seeking to get notice on the Order of Business because we are forced a lot of the time to deal only with very dull legislation. Unless we have a system under which there is scope for us to debate the burning issues of the day such as, for example, the issues in Yugoslavia, instead of debating issues retrospectively and lots of dull, and some very localised ones, then Senators will dive in when there is scope to do so and the only time there is scope on the Order of Business.
We give ourselves a little too much latitude on Private Members' motions on some very localised issues. There is scope in politics for consideration of the most humble issues at the parish pump. We are talking about a national legislative assembly designed to look at national issues and while we should look at local government and educational issues, we are unduly tolerant in allowing specal debates on very localised issues that are relevant to certain villages and townlands but have no national implications whatever. There is room to tighten up on that with tougher handling.
It is patently obvious that there is need for a foreign affairs committee. We are a member of the European Community. We know that European Community membership has huge implications for our people and for both Houses of the Oireachtas. We know that the Houses do not have a fraction of the clout they had in the past because so much power has shifted to Brussels, but we are not paying any attention to the links that are necessary to weld both the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament and Commission together. There is immense scope for developing links between our elected Members of the European Parliament and the elected Members of the Seanad and Dáil, but we are doing nothing about furthering that very necessary issue.
Our country is one of 12 members of the European Community. The Taoiseach sits as one Head of State and our Minister for Foreign Affairs is one of the Council of Ministers. Our politics today are much broader than they were in the past. We are concerned on a daily basis with many foreign policy issues in which the Government are deeply involved. If the Government are deeply involved, the Legislature should be deeply involved. It is a fact of life and I do not like to repeat it ad infinitum, but if there is a stark necessity for reform, we have no choice other than to highlight it as often as possible. Apparently this is the only Parliament in any European Community country which does not have a foreign affairs committee. We have other committees but if we had such a committee the talents of our Members would be used and it would take pressure off the House. It is unique, it is regrettable, that such a committee does not exist given all the circumstances.
We were very pleased some months ago when the Taoiseach apparently committed his support for the establishment of such a committee but it fizzled out because he was no longer going to make Deputy Brian Lenihan chairman of the committee. I want to see that committee established. We could do it ourselves, independent of the Executive. We do not necessarily need the goodwill of the Taoiseach for such a committee to be established. We are having this debate without any presence from the Executive. Unlike other speakers I do not regret that there is no Minister present. It shows we can operate as a forum entirely independent of the Executive. If the Government do not do something soon about establishing such a committee, we should seek with the Dáil to establish a parliamentary foreign affairs committee. If the Dáil do not want to join with us there is nothing to stop us from establishing such a committee. If we do that we will show this House has power and independence of thought.
There is scope here also to do something as far as emigrant representation is concerned. We had many debates on this issue recently. There are serious problems in Dáil Éireann. There are all kinds of logistical problems about who should vote, how you would monitor and police this voting and ensure it is not abused. Given that we are not in competition with the Dáil and that, whatever Government are in power they have a built-in majority here, any minor abuses should not cost this House too much thought if we establish the basic principle to do something about emigrant representation. If we are looking at the extension of vocational representation to other groups, we should look at emigrants. In my part of the country this is a crucial issue. To people in parts of west Mayo, London is relevant and Dublin is becoming irrelevant. I would welcome a move in this direction because these people would bring a freshness of thought, maybe a certain cynicism. They would probably tell us some home truths we might not like to hear, but it would be a fresh and stimulating approach.
I welcome reform but not of a very radical nature. I have been pleased and I am pleased to be a Member of this House and I say that without apology to anybody.
Mr. Farrell
Over the last number of years one of the words bandied about in local authorities, the Seanad and Dáil was "reform". I sometimes wonder if we realise the good job the people who set up these Houses did. They just did not pull words out of a hat. There was a lot of work put into them and I think they work very well. We heard a lot of talk about reform in education. We did away with A, B, C, one, two, three and the three Rs, as they were known, and today we have more illiterate people in our society than we had 30 years ago. We threw out what we had too quickly. If we are to have reform, an all-party committee should be set up to discuss it in detail. Some people seem to think that reform means implementing their pet ideas and nothing else.
Some speakers think there should be no politicians in this House. This is a political Chamber and that is what it was intended to be. I saw in this House recently that some Independents who had been very critical of political parties and said people should declare for this House or for the Dáil but should not have a choice, have changed their minds. I do not blame them for that. They are entitled to change their minds. It reminds me of a little poem that was in my schoolbook. People who are fairly well acquainted with nature realise that a fox at this time of the year likes red berries. In the poem he saw red berries on a cherry tree and, "He tried and tried and tried in vain then he tried and tried again". Then turning away, "They are sour" says he, "such food is only thrash to me". The punchline is very important: "How many like the fox despise the heights to which they cannot rise". When I hear people criticising things I always think of that little poem. It is a pity so much good reading was taken out of our educational system because in the Fourth Reader there was a story, good English and a poem with a moral.
Is the moral that I would have to jump too far to join a political party?
(Interruptions.)
Mr. Farrell
The trouble with Independents is they like to be dictators. They like to interrupt others. I sat and listened to the Independent Senators. If they are so good they should be in a political party. They are so dictatorial in their behaviour and manner that they cannot listen to any other views. They are so obsessed with their own views that they will not listen to anybody else speak. However that does not worry me. What saddens me about this House is that the Independents and those from universities cause more disruption in the House, then all political parties put together.
Not me.
Mr. Farrell
Unfortunately they do not want to abide by the rules and regulations, only what suits them. That is the reason they are Independent. There are many people from other professions who fit very comfortably into the political system and make very good contributions.
In this House we have a panel system which is very good. It was set up in 1937. We have experts from the agricultural area. People might think that because they do not have university degrees they are not experts in their own field but I can confirm they are. They deal with the problems and they know about agriculture and farming. Those on the commercial and industrial panel know what they are talking about as do those on the administrative and labour panel. We also have the university panel. We have a cross-section of views and experts in all fields. They are experts not just in theory but from a practical point of view. Politicians who are elected here represent a very broad spectrum of society. Other Senators represent a very small group of people so this House is representative of all sectors. Small minority groups would have no voice if they depended on the votes of politicians. The system is very good because it gives those people a platform and an opportunity to have their point of view heard.
We have initiated quite a number of Bills in this House, I mention in particular the Companies Bill. We do not have as rough or troubled waters in this House as they have in the Dáil and we can discuss matters in more detail and get the views of all Senators. Many amendmens made in this House are accepted and Ministers give great consideration to what Senators say so we have a real input into legislation and in that way we do a very important job.
We want reform but we should not be talking about reform for the sake of reform. I have not heard many good ideas put forward in this debate so far. There was nothing positive. It is very easy to break an egg but nobody has come up with a solution to put it back together again. It is very easy to break everything we have and say this and that are wrong but very few have positive ideas about what we should do and why we should do it, which is most important.
What about having the two elections on the same day?
Senator Farrell, without interruption.
Mr. Farrell
I am aware the Senator regrets she is not a member of a political party. She might even be in Aras An Uachtaráin if she were. Maybe that is what is annoying her. She should think of being a candidate for both Houses and see how she gets on. It would be a challenge. The Senator is saying there should be two elections on the same day——
It is a good idea.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Senator should not engage in comments across the floor.
Mr. Farrell
Other countries did that but it did not work. We see the result of that type of dictatorship. How could we run two elections on the same day? This is a political Chamber, a Chamber for politicians whether the Senator likes it or not. That is what it is here for.
Politicians must do their job and work at the grassroots. It is great for those who have an elite group to elect them. They can post a ballot paper across the sea and get them back with God knows whose vote. Sometimes they call to the houses and say, "Johnny or Maggie is in America but you have their ballot paper and we know how to mark it." It is grand to have that little elite society but politicians cannot do that type of thing. People must come and vote in person for us. We must go out and talk to them. I am proud to be a member of a political party and I am sure Senator Howard is equally proud to be a member of a political party. There is no way in which two elections could take place on the same day. It would be ludicrous. It is not on. I heard another Senator on that side who is now running for the Dáil in the next election speaking just as Senator Hederman is speaking now. I thought I answered that when I quoted the little poem but apparently the moral of my story was not interpreted as I intended it to be.
I got it.
Mr. Farrell
Those of us who are in the political arena realise we have decisions to make and that when we make them we must honour them and provide money to implement them. It is easy for people who do not have that obligation to say what should be done. We are answerable to the people at the grassroots and we must see exactly what they need. Our strength is in this House in that we know what is needed and we make our views known clearly. We are in a position to put forward amendments and our points of view. Even when our party in Government put forward a Bill we can make the point that even though we support it, we would like the Minister to amend it.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.