Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1991

Vol. 130 No. 7

Role of Seanad Éireann: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. B. Ryan

This is the sixth time we have discussed the role of the Seanad and it would be worth our while instead of saying what we should be doing to reflect a little on why this institution of the Oireachtas is the way it is. Quite truthfully, the problem is not Seanad Éireann but first, the Oireachtas and then the entirety of State institutions. The problem centres on lack of accountability and of participation. All through the institutions of this State, in Dáil, Seanad or local authority and in the various semi-devolved institutions like health boards we have developed a resistance to public accountability, to public participation and to the idea of openness. A cult of secrecy, of exclusion and of suppression has taken over this country so that it has become a bad thing to discuss anything in public or to demand public accountability. The result is that Governments do not regard themselves as accountable to Parliament other than in a formal, rubber stamp fashion.

It is particularly ironic, for instance, that President Gorbachev in the Soviet Union has greater difficulty enacting legislation in the allegedly undemocratic Soviet Union than our Government ever had because President Gorbachev actually has to persuade people to do things; the Irish Government do not. I am not criticising any one political party or, indeed, any Government; I criticise the way our institutions have been made to work. But institutions are non-participative and no more than minimally democratic. We do not believe in democracy in the way our institutions work. We have created layer upon layer of bureaucratic restraint and of secrecy to suppress discussion and this House is the most blatant symbol of that pervasive secrecy.

I remind the House that the greatest power in the land outside of Government lies not with the Dáil, most assuredly not with the Seanad and not with any local authority; the greatest national power lies with the Department of Finance who exercise massive influence and patronage, who supervise large scale expenditure and hold power of veto, effectively, over the operations of virtually every other Government Department. The Department of Finance do not see themselves in this light — a cursory look at the history written on their behalf and some recent historic analysis will show that the Department of Finance claim powers and wisdom to themselves that is out of touch with reality.

It is important to elaborate on this issue. It is not necessary to have a Parliament made up of experts or of people with formal qualifications. There is no particular reason why the occupants of these benches should be assumed to be better qualified, more expert or more knowledgeable than the occupants of other benches whether back or front. Parliament has nothing to do with formal qualifications. The dynamism of democracy can generate the kind of people capable of dealing with issues as they arise and we have suppressed the dynamic dimension of democracy in this country. It has been suppressed by the increasingly irrelevant practices of institutions supposedly running this country. No Government seriously believe they have to persuade either House of the Oireachtas of anything; they only have to ask people to support them.

Individual Ministers will occasionally condescend to get involved in serious discussion on certain issues. I am aware of two instances in recent times — there may have been more. The Minister of State at the Department of the Environemnt when the Environmental Protection Agency Bill was in this House was actually prepared to discuss the arguments. More recently, the Minister of State — the almost former Minister of State — at the Department of Justice, Deputy Noel Treacy, discussed the Children Bill. With a sense of participation and of accountability Parliament works as intended, but when an attitude prevails that Parliament is a nuisance ritual that Ministers have to go through in order to get legislation passed, then there is no incentive to participate.

I do not sing this tune simply because it would be nicer for Independents like myself if Parliament had greater power and by Parliament I do not mean the Seanad only but both Houses of the Oireachtas. I sing it because this country is afflicted by a sense of exclusion among its citizens. They believe they are on the outside, that they have no say, influence or power and that nobody in Parliament takes them seriously other than in the ritual election every five years. The electorate are entitled to vote in elections, but there is a general feeling among elected representatives that beyond that they lack the capacity to understand issues that concern them and are not qualified to participate in decisions which affect their futures.

This House is a microcosm of that. During the past hour we have explained to ourselves why we will not debate Northern Ireland. I do not know why we should not debate Northern Ireland and I would like to hear the reasons given. I suspect it is because the first instinct of all Governments and of all those in power at various Government levels is to decide that difficult and sensitive issues must be discussed in private and in secret with no external involvement. The consequence is that issues of difficulty and sensitivity are discussed everywhere except in the Houses of the Oireachtas; we will have learned seminars on Maastricht and on Northern Ireland on "The Gay Byrne Show," on "The Late Late Show," on Gerry Ryan's programme and so on where every topical issue may be discussed but debate will be restricted, or late or inhibited on difficult issues inside the Houses of Parliament.

That lamentable situation does not apply in this House only; we just happen to be down the line regarding access to power but if you emasculate the primary House of the Oireachtas, the Dáil, the result is an even more severe emasculation of the secondary House of the Oireachtas. At this stage, I have had it with what I can only describe as the Seanad's insular navel-gazing introspective obsession with itself because the State rather than the Seanad is the issue. In our lack of authority and accountability we are no more than a symptom of that irrelevance which is why I disagree with many who have spoken in this debate, including most of my Independent colleagues.

The political parties are not the cause of the problems of this House; political parties — whatever my views on them — are no more than a reflection of institutional decay and have got used to non-accountability and to non-participation. All our political parties accept to an appalling extent the idea of centralised authority and the necessity for a boss to dictate what you do and say and how you do it. Disagreement with the boss is taken as a reflection on your loyalty and can also jeopardise — as we have recently discovered — one's hopes of promotion; this is a consequence of the centralised hierarchical model and structure of all institutions in this State.

The Seanad, like our trade union movement, our largest Church, and every State institution, is characteristically centralised, hierarchical, authoritarian and secretive. There are rituals of participation in most of these institutions with the exception of the Church, but real power in all of them rests behind closed doors and in private with people whose accountability is limited.

The source of our national problems is that no one believes anymore that people are capable of taking control of their own lives. Legislators do not encourage it and resist it themselves in the Houses of the Oireachtas which is why we get squeezed out and not because political parties dominate this House. Many second Chambers are elected in a similar fashion to this one; the form of local or regional government determines the composition of the Upper House. The composition of government in the German states determines the composition of its national Senate. There is nothing unusual about this. I would prefer if local authority electors did not elect as many members of Fianna Fáil as they do but because I do not like the election result does not entitle me to object to the election.

Mr. McKenna

Join Fine Gael.

Mr. B. Ryan

Senator McKenna knows my views on that. I do not feel that Fine Gael are of sufficient significance at present in my political spectrum to merit a mention. Fianna Fáil Senators at least have power of sorts.

I agree with changing the process of election but, for instance, if we allow farmers to elect representatives directly that process will become politicised also. There is nothing wrong with that and no way of avoiding it. Wherever elections take place for positions of influence there will be politics.

Politics is not a bad word, nor is politicisation a bad thing; these words are not pejorative terms although it is often suggested that politics and politicisation are undesirable. As a member of a minority in this House, which differs on most issues from the majority Members, I do not have any problem with the notion of politics. I have a problem with State institutions which impede political action; we do not have real politics either in this House or the other House. We have a ritual not based on accountability; major upheavals and debates occur outside Parliament and Parliament is no more than a ritual of rubber stamping with limited and controlled debates.

It seems no one believes that either House of the Oireachtas can contribute anything to the formulation of policy on future economic and monetary union or on European political union. We will have a debate on what our betters have negotiated for us, in which they will defend what they have got. There is no Oireachtas belief in a need for participation in the formulation of a national view because this country no longer believes in democracy or in public participation in debates. The list of exclusions from participation is endless.

Large numbers of people have no control over their lives and are unrepresented in this House. If the Oireachtas were to be properly representative, one-fifth of its Members should have experience of long term unemployment. How many Members of either House have ever experienced unemployment for any length of time? A few have for very short periods of time when, like myself, in student days they passed through a labour exchange once on the way to a Christmas job with An Post; such jobs were plentiful then. The experience of a labour exchange is something that most Oireachtas Members read or hear about, but do not experience personally. Certain groups of people are not represented in the Oireachtas because we are an excluding society. Our institutions exclude, decision-making processes. Our system of Government is based on exclusion and on the presumption that experts outside the Oireachtas know what is good for us, can give Government better advice than ordinary people and that there is a better way of dealing with problems than the democratic way. I do not believe there is any better way.

Democracy is not an easy system to operate. I said at a public meeting recently that democracy is a scourge for anybody who wants to get anything done but it is preferable to other ways of doing things. Politics is being undermined to a considerable extent by our own actions but also by the increasingly trivialising nature of much of what passes for political comment. That is not casting aspersions on politicians but on democracy, on the idea that we can govern ourselves. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from the degree to which we exclude ourselves from participation.

There is a series of issues that could be addressed in terms of institutional reform. The first would be to ensure that issues are debated as they arise. Both Houses of the Oireachtas spend much of their time on business that should not be central to the Oireachtas. From April until June the other House devotes itself largely to the Finance Bill and nothing else. This House devoted huge chunks of its time before the summer to the Environmental Protection Agency Bill and nothing else could be done. There is now a backlog of legislation in the other House while business in this House is liable to come to an end shortly for want of legislation to debate. The solution is not to encourage long debates here on Second Stage but to set up select committees in both Houses to deal with issues.

I am not interested anymore in talking about the Seanad in isolation; Seanad reform cannot be separated from Oireachtas and institutional reform. It is not separate from everything else. We are symptoms of the fundamental national structural problem of exclusion. If citizens felt they had some way of influencing decisions, 20 per cent of our adult working population would not tolerate the scourge of unemployment; but the experience of exclusion and the consequent helplessness encourages them to tolerate it.

The second and more difficult issue in reforming the Oireachtas is to restore the proper order of accountability. Governments do not run the Oireachtas; that is not the way parliamentary democracy works. On the contrary, the Oireachtas runs the Government, and ultimately Government has to persuade the Oireachtas to allow it to act. It might be naive to suggest a return to that model but we have, in Ireland, developed a creaking institution of parliament, based on structures and perceptions of the role of Government which are close to 50 years out of date.

Fifty years ago State involvement in many areas was minimal and the Oireachtas met two or three days a week to discuss that minimal involvement. The same structures are burdened now with a huge complex State apparatus and an equally complex apparatus of devolved central Government — I use that phrase advisedly because regional health boards and vocational education committees are simply local incarnations of centralisation; they are not local in any real sense because they have no local authority or decision-making power. The greater part of Government decision-making, patronage, expenditure and much of the legislative programme cannot be accommodated by our creaking, groaning, overloaded State institutions. The frustration Members of Seanad Éireann experience is directly related to that and not to some mysterious development taking place here and nowhere else.

One discovers after a few years in the Oireachtas that any backbench Member of the Dáil not in line for promotion — and the line for promotion should be revised by all in the light of recent events, because it obviously extends further than we thought — finds any House of the Oireachtas frustrating because there is no serious role available to them other than roaring at Members on the other side unless a Minister is prepared to take an issue reasonably. Beyond that there is no sense of the ideal order of things in the Oireachtas, and the ideal and proper order is the dominance not of Government but of Parliament to which Government is accountable. Real power and decision-making lie with Parliament and not with Government under parliamentary democracy. The Seanad constitutes one House of Parliament and one reason for the degree of exclusion of this House is that Parliament is essentially a minor player in the political process and Government is the dominant player. What we effectively have in this country is not parliamentary democracy but elective dictatorship. We have a Government who, in the eyes of the general public, need to get themselves one vote more than 83 votes in the Dáil to enable them to do what they like for five years. Only under very rare circumstances would they be inhibited from doing what they want by Parliament.

This reflects a change in the perception of Parliament's role which would not have been of such consequence when Government was not such a major spender or developer of policy. At present, an enormous Department of Education operate without an Act in most areas and a similarly large Department of Social Welfare operate with minimal accountability; there is one annual Estimate and one Social Welfare Act and for the rest of the year £2.5 billion is spent with virtually no accountability. One debate in one House of the Oireachtas once a year on an Estimate is not accountability.

It would be a good thing to have an Oireachtas committee to deal with each of the major spending Departments, not a Seanad or Dáil committee but an Oireachtas committee which would monitor the way each Department did their business. But we will not have that because we do not accept the principle of accountability anymore. It would be good to have an Oireachtas committee on Foreign Affairs to monitor foreign policy attitudes of the Government and foreign policy issues which would have power to summon anybody to explain what is being done in our name.

I can illustrate my points by reminding the Seanad that the committees that already exist and in which Members of this House participate have virtually no powers over members of Government. They cannot insist that a Minister appear before them and the degree to which they can force people to disclose papers is limited in many cases. The degree to which they can make the instruments of Government, the Government Departments, accountable to Parliament is limited to a considerable extent. The very committees that are supposed to represent a step forward are a clear illustration of the degree to which there is no such thing as parliamentary accountability. Present committees have no power and we do not set up the sort of committees that could function perfectly well outside of the political arena which would be select committees to deal with legislation.

If Dáil Éireann will not give itself the right not to be bored to death while four people spend four weeks debating the Finance Bill, then perhaps we could start in this House by deciding that the Committee Stage of legislation as it passes through this House would be taken by a select committee. It is, in fact, usually taken by a self-selected committee of four or five people but that committee hold up all other business for weeks instead of carrying on their business in a less heated atmosphere and in a way which would not retard the business of the House.

If people want to talk in this House about the role of the Seanad, they must talk — and that is why I have deliberately chosen to do so — about the role of the Oireachtas and regarding that role I reiterate the principles of accountability and participation, two fundamental principles in which this country is lacking and which are symptomatic of, and indeed the cause of, most of our problems. Lack of participation creates grand scale alienation from the system, from Government and from politics. Lack of accountability results in inept incompetent management of health services, in some cases of education services and of other services too. People and management systems are not perfect and the only alternative accountability system I know of, apart from the market, which cannot be applied to education, health and social security, is openness and questioning by parliament. Since one cannot have marketplace accountability for education, health services, social security or many other areas, the inevitable consequence of secrecy and centralisation is not efficiency or control but inertia, bureaucracy and a lack of imagination.

We encourage inertia and bureaucracy by opting for the worst of both worlds, bureaucracy without accountability, which generates so much frustration in both Houses of the Oireachtas and so much public contempt for the Oireachtas. It is true, and the public are right to believe that as the Oireachtas now operates, the last place one would expect to find an issue dealt with intelligently, immediately and to completion would be within the walls of the Oireachtas; there would not be time nor the expertise to do so. I remember an incident at the committee on which I serve, Comhchoiste na Gaeilge. I was anxious that we should ask the people of the Gaeltachtaí to communicate their problems with the committee. The first suggestion was that we should place an advertisement in the local papers. It emerged that the permission of the Department of Finance would be needed for a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas to obtain the money required to place an advertisement in the newspapers. That is a fine illustration of the absence of any real power the committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas have: a joint committee set up by resolution of both Houses could not place an advertisement in the papers. I then, innocently, suggested that we should write a letter to the papers since we could not place an advertisement. I was told that an Oireachtas Joint Committee could not write a letter to the papers without permission. This illustrates the dominant ethos. I inquired from whom we would need to get permission and the reply was a bit vague but, ultimately, we took that course. The philosophy is quite clear; contrary to the constitutional theory, the Houses of the Oireachtas are under the control of Government Departments and therefore under the control of Government, whereas, the opposite is the case: Government is under the control of the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is the larger picture.

If we were to have a revolution in terms of perceptions of parliament, what would this House need? This House does not need extra powers. As a secondary House of our Oireachtas, the Seanad has sufficient powers as it stands. It can initiate or amend legislation and refuse to allow legislation through. It cannot stop legislation, and I would not favour a secondary House of the Oireachtas having power to prevent legislation being passed. I would regard that as undemocratic. Only the Chamber elected by the people should have such power.

The Seanad can also, quite astonishingly, overrule any statutory instrument, although I suspect it has never done so. There are hundreds if not thousands of such instruments issued every year. If the Seanad overturns one, it cannot be overruled by the Dáil. Any statutory instrument which is overturned by either House of the Oireachtas lapses and there is no way, short of legislation, to reverse that. This is an extraordinary power if this House chose to exercise it.

If this House chose to have an open debate, with a free vote, on secondary legislation we would have a very interesting secondary House. This would require no extra power. It might be much more useful for us to spend our time dealing with controversial items of secondary legislation, in serious debate, rather than spending long hours going through amendments to a Finance Bill which have no chance of being taken seriously. There is no problem about the powers of the Seanad.

Some people are unhappy about the composition of this House. Many criticisms of the structure, composition and democratic credentials of this House come from my colleagues in Dublin University. I am one of three Senators representing a constituency of 75,000 voters. My colleagues in Dublin University have three representatives for a constituency of 17,000 voters. If we wish to exchange pleasantries about democratic credentials, there is a very good case for restoring some degree of parity in terms of the number of voters per Senator from the universities. The number of excluded graduates, not of the National University and Dublin University, is also increasing.

I would be much happier if the composition of this House were different, if there were less likelihood of a Government majority. I do not, however, suggest that simply because I do not like the result of an election we should change the rules. I would like a number of the representatives of the various vocational interests to be elected by the vocational interests themselves. I do not believe, however, that that would produce a much different result. The political parties, quite understandably and reasonably, would then become involved in those elections, and ultimately, although not necessarily in all cases, the difference would not be nearly as significant as we imagine. I very often regret the choices political parties make on their own voting papers about who they select. They often have a better choice available to them than the people they select. However, I do not think that we should allow ourselves to be diverted by that.

I have had enough of talking about the Seanad. The real problem for this country is not Seanad Éireann but the increasing irrelevance of the Oireachtas. The real problem is not what we do here, though one would always like to do more, but that we have completely lost the proper order of things in a parliamentary democracy. Major announcements and major statements of Government policy are made outside the Oireachtas. This was evidenced by the recent speech made by the Taoiseach to the Irish Council of the European Movement, in which he apparently announced views different from those of the Government on a number of issues relevant to Europe. Announcements are now as likely to be made outside as inside the Oireachtas. That is the problem. Because this is the secondary House of the Oireachtas, we are in the backwash of that institutional failure. The fashionable phrase in Europe is the "democratic deficit"— those who are theoretically in control, the people, are in practical terms, increasingly outside the system of control. This democratic deficit exists not only in Brussels but in this country too.

Elections which occur every two, three or four years, are only one part of democracy. The other part is the interaction between people, their representatives and the Government. In my view, that interaction has, effectively, ceased to work. Regardless of who is in Government, parties are so constrained in terms of their freedom to debate and Ministers are increasingly impatient with the problem of debate, that all Members can do is whisper in the Minister's ear, or have a quiet chat at a parliamentary party meeting and then come in to the House to rubber stamp legislation. We will not change that without major institutional changes.

In my view what is needed is for Members of both Houses to insist on a system of committees to scrutinise the activities of an awesomely large Government apparatus. It would be helpful if we had real decentralisation so that we would only have to scrutinise genuinely national issues. Members of the Oireachtas spend much of their time in the Oireachtas worrying about their local health board, local education and the application of the social welfare system at local level. They must raise these issues nationally because they cannot get answers locally.

The underlying problem is the underutilization by the Oireachtas of its existing power. That power would be best used if we took seriously the right of the Oireachtas to the final decision on everything. That is ultimately the position we occupy. Until we recreate the atmosphere in which governments realise they are accountable to Parliament and parliamentarians assert their right to hold governments accountable, there is no point discussing an isolated way, the reform of the Seanad.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome this opportunity to restate the Progressive Democrats position in relation to the Seanad. From some of the contributions I have heard and read over the past two weeks, in spite of the fact that we have stated our position on several occasions, there is still a misunderstanding about it. It was misrepresented quite seriously by at least two speakers in the past fortnight. The Progressive Democrats position has been, and is, that there is no need for an Upper House of Parliament, that there are democracies in the EC that operate quite well, efficiently and in a totally democratic way without the need for an Upper House. The conduct of some of the Members of this House, since I have come into it, would confirm us in our view.

Having said that, we must also recognise that there is no political will among the other parties in either House to abolish Seanad Éireann. We are a political party, we are democrats and we abide by that political will. While Seanad Éireann exists as an institution of the State, we will participate fully in its workings and committees and we will defer to it as we should defer to a House of the Oireachtas. I do not see any inconsistency between holding the view that the Seanad should be abolished and participating in it as a political party. We are a political party and we will participate in the institutions of the State. We will attempt, by every democratic means at our disposal, to change the things we wish to see changed but we will do so in the context of the democratic institutions which the State provides us with, and we will participate fully.

On the first day this Seanad met, my colleague, Senator Cullen, said we would participate fully in the workings of the House, in its committees and in its reform. That commitment still stands. Our record in this Chamber bears examination as to that commitment which we have fulfilled to the best of our ability. We have participated in the day-to-day workings of the Seanad, and in its votes. Some of those who pointed the finger at us a fortnight ago as not being present in the Chamber, might very well examine their own consciences as to how they participate here. It is an irony that those who defend this House most vigorously are sometimes the people who do most to discredit and disregard it.

We see no inconsistency between wishing to see the Seanad abolished and being here. We will continue to contribute to this and to all the democratic institutions of the State for as long as we are here and are a political party. We will use the democratic structures as provided as long as they are relevant to the wishes of the people.

Given my party's position, it is somewhat ironic that I find myself disagreeing fundamentally with the negative tone of some of Senator Ryan's remarks. It is quite difficult to argue about matters like the democratic deficit about the unrepresentative nature of Parliament and its accountability, given the elite constituency from which the Senator comes.

Mr. B. Ryan

At least I was elected.

Mr. Dardis

He said the Government can do what they like. That is simply not the case, and the Senator knows it. The Government can only do what they like as long as they have a majority of Dáil Éireann to support and vote for them. Even if a single party were to hold a majority in the Lower House, if a Government were to treat the country and their party with contempt, I am quite confident that the democratic process would work effectively to remove that Government from office.

Mr. B. Ryan

The Senator saw the Broadcasting Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Dardis without interruption.

Mr. Dardis

On the question of accountability, the Senator is right in saying that the Government are and should be accountable to Parliament. The individual Members who compose the Parliament are also accountable to the electorate who put them there in the first place. In our democratic system the electorate is perfectly free to remove those it considers inadequate. That is the ultimate in sovereignty and democracy.

In relation to the Senator's concern about disadvantaged people and the unemployed, there are quite a few unemployed graduates. I am sure it would be possible to put forward an unemployed graduate for membership of this House, within the electoral framework of the universities.

In this debate we need to ask ourselves if Seanad Éireann is an essential and necessary part of our democratic system. It is an essential part as long as the Constitution remains as it is. About 80 amendments to the Constitution would be required before Seanad Éireann could be abolished. I do not think we will have a referendum on 80 amendments to the Constitution even if people might like to have such referendum. In his contribution two weeks ago Senator Murphy referred to that when he said that perhaps the Progressive Democrats recognised something he had pointed out a long time ago: the constitutional difficulty of abolishing this House. We do recognise that difficulty but whether this House is a necessary part of the democratic system is a separate question. It may be essential, in the constitutional sense, but it is not necessary. Its relevance must be questioned.

The Dáil elects the Taoiseach, which means there is an influence on Government in the Dáil. This House has demonstrated that it, too, has an influence of how the Government behave in terms of policy and legislation. The degree to which Senators on all sides of the House contribute towards the legislative process in our democracy is encouraging. In many instances, we have improved legislation. The example that comes most readily to mind is the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 1990, which was introduced in this House. It was modified quite significantly and improved by the contributions made during the course of that debate. Seanad Éireann has added and does add to the quality of the legislation which it is our responsibility to enact for the good of the country.

There is widespread agreement from all sides of the House that the House needs to be reformed. Why then do we not proceed to reform the House? Some minor recommendations have been made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in relation to the election of Cathaoirleach, the raising of topical issues and the attendance of distinguished visitors. I am gratified that, in the agreed Programme for Government, it states that:

"The Government consider that reform of the Oireachtas is an essential prerequisite to carrying through a legislative programme of reform and to make its work relevant and effective for the people of Ireland. The parties in Government will present proposals to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in 1991 for implementation during 1992.

The Oireachtas, as we know, includes the Seanad.

The agreed Programme for Government also proposes that Committee Stages be dealt with by select committees and refers to a European affairs committee and the extension of sitting hours. There is deep public concern at the fact that the House rises in mid-July and does not come back until late October. There is, therefore, a commitment in the Programme for Government that the Dáil will rise on or around mid-July and recommence in late September. That is to be welcomed.

As part of the reform process, one of the more sensible decisions made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and adopted by the House, was the installation of the television cameras. People in the country can now see how Parliament works, and judge for themselves whether we are making any contribution of value. That is to be welcomed. As I mentioned here previously, I found it extremely curious to go to Hungary almost two years ago and to find the proceedings of the Hungarian Parliament being broadcast every evening on the television news bulletins. We were not even being seen on television here at the time. I know there were fears about the misuse of television. It was said that people might, as they did today, speak indefinitely on the Order of Business about a pothole in Cavan, a harbour in west Cork or a national park for the Curragh. Thankfully, that temptation seems to have receded and people are less attracted by the magic eye of the camera.

Whether we like it or not, both Houses of the Oireachtas must change fundamentally over the coming years, because of the developments taking place within the EC. Many Senators earlier today spoke of the need for a debate on the Maastricht Summit. We need that debate. As we move towards greater economic, and particularly greater political union, the procedures of the Houses of the Oireachtas must change very fundamentally. It is an unfortunate accident of history that we derive so much of our parliamentary procedure and our parliamentary institutions from the model which is closest to us across the water. It is an irony that those who most profess to be nationalists and republican should have adopted a direct copy of a parliamentary system which is now shown to be archaic. It is my hope that our greater involvement in European affairs will require us to look beyond our nearest neighbour to the alternative parliamentary systems available in Europe on which we might model our system.

The nation state is becoming less and less relevant. A colonial background has led us to imagine that the only legitimate form of government is a very highly centralised one based on the nation state. That is something of comparatively recent origin in history. In a more all-embracing Europe the nation state is less and less intrusive and the temptation to keep a close centralised grip on power will be diluted. In this House and in the other House we must ask ourselves if we are to remain immune from the developments taking place in the world around us. Will we remain immutable while the world around us changes and while society here changes so dramatically? The answer must be "no". We must be responsive and be seen to be relevant to the needs of a modern, high-tech society, one geared towards communications. Our sovereignty need not be diminished; in fact, it can be enhanced. A Senator referred earlier today to the democratic deficit where, for instance, the European Parliament did not have a very significant input into the workings of the EC. It is quite clear we are moving in a direction where the Parliament of the European Community will have a more direct input into the policy and the workings of the Community. We can complement that.

The onus on us here is to retain the confidence of the electorate. I can imagine, given the events of the past few months, that there are sections of the electorate who need their confidence restored in politicians and in the political process. There is a widespread cynicism in parts of the country regarding politicians and how we behave and also regarding our institutions. We hope we may not have to go on the canvass trail too soon, but it is regrettable that when we do we will meet so many people who will say, "I will not vote for any of you, you are all the same". It is a very short step from saying "I will not vote for any of you", to saying that democracy is not the system of government we desire. We must be very conscious of the need to preserve the democracy which we gained at such cost and ensure that it survives and thrives.

I found some of the nature of the debate in the other House during the motion of confidence in the Government quite unhelpful in that respect containing, as it did, a degree of personal vindictiveness and invective. We can be grateful that that type of vindictiveness has not spilled over into this House. The onus is on us as parliamentarians, as politicians, to gain the confidence of the people, that the democratic systems to which we adhere will work and to the advantage of the people in the country as a whole. I do not for one moment doubt the motives of anybody in this House, of whatever political persuasion, in wishing to preserve those democratic systems and to ensure that democracy is protected.

I do not doubt anybody's motives for becoming involved in politics in the first place. I am sure that all Members of this House became involved in politics out of a genuine desire to serve their country, their community, and to improve the people's lot as far as possible. That applies right across the political spectrum. It is worth stating because there are many people who think that if you say you are a politician, you have your hand in someone else's pocket or that some businessman has his hand in your pocket. We need to reaffirm our need to be here and what we are attempting to do is to remove some of that cynicism which exists in some areas. We need to restate those things lest they be forgotten, and lest that cynicism becomes so pervasive as to challenge our fundamental democracy. If we are discredited it is not the fault of the electorate; it is our own fault because of the way we conduct ourselves. For that reason, and because of what is happening within the European Community, reform is needed. We must change our system to reflect more fully the needs of a modern society so that we are at least more accountable and more relevant.

The question then arises as to what needs to be done to reform Seanad Éireann. First, we must look to the university benches which are now empty. I have no objection to third level participation in Seanad Éireann. Many of the Senators on the Independent benches add to the House and work very hard within it but I resent any inference that those with a third level qualification — of which I am one — are in some way more deserving of being listened to or more deserving of representation than those who have not. Senator Ryan made some points relating to that but I believe it is just as valid for a person from another vocational background who does not have the advantage of a third level degree to be represented here. However, I will say in defence of this House that, given all the deficiencies of the electoral system, its composition accurately reflects Irish society. We have people with third level education, we have people who have not; we have people who are wealthy and people who are not so wealthy; we have people from diverse backgrounds and from different parts of the country. In that sense this House accurately represents Irish society.

In relation to accountability, it must be very comfortable to be in a position, as some Independent Senators are, to participate fully within a House of the Oireachtas without any apparent responsibility; in fact, they are not really responsible for their actions at all because they will never be in the position — I will not say of legislating because I acknowledge that Senators have contributed to legislation — of being responsible for the outcome of their actions. That is a very comfortable position to be in.

In relation to third level representation we must realise that knowledge does not equate with wisdom and it is unfair to presume that because somebody is highly educated they have any more wisdom or input to make than someone who is less well educated. There are many examples of that here, people who may not be very well educated but who contribute fully and effectively to the working of the House. At a minimum, the franchise in relation to university representation should be extended to all third level institutions. It is wrong that people from the National University and Trinity College can be part of the electorate while those from the more recently established third level institutions are denied that franchise. That is a relic from the past and should be amended.

Last year I met some people from Toronto who as members of the Toronto constituency of Trinity College, were very interested in the outcome of the election of Senators from Trinity College or Dublin University. People living abroad should not be disenfranchised and I am glad the Programme for Government refers to votes for emigrants to the other House. I have no objection to people from Toronto, Quebec, Brussels or elsewhere having an input into elections but in the university context it should apply globally.

I do not find the system of electing people nominated by the various panels undemocratic. There is a suggestion that if county councillors are part of the electorate there is a non-democratic implication. I reject that. It is quite democratic, after all councillors are elected and represent the views of their electorate. This is a political House, a political institution, and there are plenty of precedents which show that electoral colleges elect people to other Houses. Therefore, it is not particularly unusual to have a system like ours and I do not have any particular objection to it. However, as in the case of the universities, we should also extend the franchise to the nominating bodies. Again, we are back to relic of "auld decency" if I may use the term. For example, women's groups are not particularly well represented on those panels. Obviously, 30 years ago that was not as big an issue as it is today. Women's groups should be part of the nominating system. There are other large national representative bodies which did not exist several years ago and which should now have nominating rights.

I am aware that the desire originally was that the Seanad would be a vocational chamber. In many ways it is; we have people from very diverse backgrounds here. However, one should be required to demonstrate competence and expertise to the nominating bodies of having some relevance at least to the panel one represents but that is not to say it has to be in the area of third level or higher education. There are many famers with a great deal of expertise who would have plenty to say here. In fact, farmers are represented here. I see Senator Byrne here.

Mr. Norris

Without wishing to interrupt Senator Dardis's sequence of ideas I would like to make a point of order.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Foley)

A point of order.

Mr. Norris

I was listening to Senator Dardis on my monitor and I hope to have an opportunity to reply to him. He referred to the absence of Members on the University benches——

Acting Chairman

Sorry; the Senator must make a point of order.

Mr. Norris

The point of order is that I understand, it is the tradition of the House that the absence of any individual groups is not referred to. I make this point because it could bring this House into further disrepute as the public are not aware of the fact that we are actually working in our offices on constituency matters——

Acting Chairman

The Senator has made his point. Senator Dardis, without interruption.

Mr. Dardis

If accusations of that nature are made from that side of the House it is quite appropriate for this side to reply in kind.

Mr. Norris

I am unaware of what the Senator is speaking about. I have not made such an accusation.

Mr. H. Byrne

The Senator should spend more time here.

Mr. Norris

I spend more time here than Senator Byrne.

Mr. H. Byrne

The Senator needs to.

Mr. Dardis

I was speaking about the system of election for those who are elected by members of county councils and so on. I reject, therefore, the suggestion that there should be a universal franchise for Seanad elections. That would not be appropriate as it would not contribute to the Seanad. In those circumstances it would be quite conceivable that we would have a different result in the Seanad compared to the Dáil and it is appropriate that the Government of the day should have a majority in Seanad Éireann as they do in the Dáil, otherwise it could lead to very serious difficulties.

Regarding the Taoiseach's nominees, I could not reasonably be expected to say that the Taoiseach should not nominate people to Seanad Éireann given that I am one of the Taoiseach's nominees. It is important that there should be an inbuilt majority for the Government of the day. In fact, looking at local election results it is conceivable that with the present system one or more parties in the Dáil might form a Government while that party or parties might not be able to have a majority in the Upper House. This is quite conceivable and it could lead to chaos. I accept, therefore, the need to have some degree of control over the composition of the Upper House so that, at least, it reflects in broad terms the outcome of a general election.

In relation to reform, there should be a review of Standing Orders and this is already being done to a limited degree through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The way in which the Order of Business I conducted and some of the procedures adopted are not entirely appropriate to the needs of the House. They often lead to repetition as witnessed today during the Order of Business. Obviously, improvements can be made in that area. It would be much more effective if a vehicle were found where topical issues could be raised other than on the Order of Business. The Order of Business would then be more efficient. The public cannot comprehend why a House of the Oireachtas cannot debate and discuss matters which are being talked about in every pub and household. It can take several weeks before matters of general public interest are discussed here by which time they are probably irrelevant. Therefore, it is important that we address that problem.

In their January 1990 report the sub-committee on the revision of Standing Orders made some very valid points regarding raising topical issues, the extension of time for statements and so on. Senator Naughten was chairman of that sub-committee. As a start, it would be helpful, if we were to implement some of their recommendations.

Another matter is the allocation of time for Second Stage debates. I come from a background where I produced three minute radio scripts in an hour and a half. Now the opposite applies; one need only think for three minutes about giving a one and a half hour address to Seanad Éireann. This illustrates how one can expand one's words to fill the time available. Members should have an opportunity to air matters fully but if their time was restricted it would lead to a more efficient way of conducting business.

There was a reference made earlier to the Adjournment debates. I believe more than one topic should be taken on the Adjournment. On three separate occasions during the past fortnight I tried to raise a very important matter in relation to the water supply in Naas. I finally succeeded last week but, again, public concern had diminished somewhat. Therefore, more than one matter should be taken on the Adjournment. I agree with Senator Ryan that it is fundamental to parliamentary democracy that Ministers attend both Houses, listen to the contributions of Senators and Deputies and reply to them. The fundamental principle of accountability of the Executive to Parliament is involved here and for that reason I make no apologies about suggesting that more than one matter should be taken on the Adjournment and that Ministers should attend. Select committees could be used more extensively to deal with some matters and that would expedite the workings of the House.

The status of the Leader is another matter to which some attention should be given. The Programme for Government states that the Government will examine the feasibility of giving a special allowance to chairmen of Oireachtas Joint Committees in recognition of their additional responsibilities and workload. That could also apply to the Leader of the House. He has additional responsibilities and that should also be taken into account.

There would be a distinct improvement in our public relations, if nothing else, if we allowed distinguished persons to address this House. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges made some proposals in that area which were widely accepted and should be implemented. It is appropriate that a Commissioner from the European Community, for example Ray MacSharry, should address this House. It need not necessarily be in the form of a debate. However, if more access was given to distinguished persons and to our European Parliament colleagues, to come and address this House, we would be more informed. From that point of view the proposed establishment of a European affairs committee is to be welcomed and particularly the fact that in future MEPs will have a right of audience at the meetings of this committee. The structures in Europe are changing and our parliamentary system will have to respond to those changes. There will have to be much closer liaison between Members of the Oireachtas and members of the European Parliament.

Our voting procedures are archaic and date back to another century. I have seen parliamentary systems where the voting procedures are much more efficient than ours. I know from the Programme for Government that the Government will support the examination by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the efficiency of Dáil practices, including the feasibility of an electronic voting system, and I am sure that could apply here also.

There are positive aspects to this House and I hope I have mentioned some of them. One is the way Members have contributed to Bills. For example the Environmental Protection Agency Bill was definitely improved by the debate in this House. The Minister accepted some amendments and, as a result, a better Bill was presented to the Dáil. Our deficiencies are underlined by the fact that we rely heavily on our own resources for research and expertise. While we have a very comprehensive Library, the degree of backup information which would improve our contributions to matters of a technical legislative nature is not always available. One of the side-effects is that it gives disproportionate power to lobby groups. I have seen several instances of Senators contributing to a debate and actually reading from a lobby document provided by a certain interest group. While it is important to represent diverse interests, nevertheless, it is undesirable to accept a document from a lobby group as a backup for a matter of a technical nature.

I agree with some of the points made by Members on the opposite side about using the guillotine in a debate and the fact that debates should proceed until they logically end. I appreciate that if an amendment is made after the Dáil rises, the Dáil would have to be recalled and that would lead to all sorts of problems. Nevertheless, with proper ordering it should be possible to avoid those confrontations. This would be to our advantage and would benefit legislation going through the House.

Another aspect which concerns me is our relationship with the media. I have already mentioned the electronic eye on the wall and what it sees. An unfortunate aspect of this is that we are getting "sound bite" politics — if there is a succinct sexy phrase that is what gets attention. I have met people in prominent public positions — not Members of either House — who will quite cynically say that if you want to get on air you must have a sexy phrase, and that is very unfortunate.

The reporting of proceedings of both Houses of the Oireachtas should reflect the tone and content of debate and should not abstract a single, unrepresentative sentence. To be fair, "Oireachtas Report" has accurately reflected a representative cross section of what takes place in this House. In other respects some media are very much into "sound bite" politics. This is disturbing because in recent weeks there has been very little evidence of moderation in the media. Somebody can say something very sensible and moderate but if it is not extreme it does not get reported. That is not very healthy from a democratic point of view. We probably do not have a great deal of control over this but we should be concerned that, frequently, it is only by being extreme that one attracts attention. This has led to some unfortunate incidents on the Floor of this House in the past where people have indulged in opportunism just to get a few lines in a paper which is not read by many people anyway.

We are moving towards a more European and liberal society and we will have to reform our procedures and the way we conduct our business. This House needs to be fundamentally reformed in order to respond to the needs of a modern society, a society which has technology and communications systems instantly available to it. We will have to come out of the 19th century and start to live in the 20th century, since, undoubtedly many of our procedures are more appropriate to 19th century politics.

As I said at the outset my party's views are well known. They have been repeated on several occasions in this House. It is quite clear that not everybody has been listening to what we say but we are determined and will give an absolute commitment that as long as this House is here, and as long as we are here, we will contribute fully to its workings, to maintaining its dignity and we will participate fully in its reform. At the end of our participation here our record will be the subject of favourable scrutiny.

My party believe we could get along quite effectively without an Upper House of the Oireachtas. We recognise that many people share that view but we also recognise that the other political parties do not share it. While we are a political party we will participate in the democratic institutions of the State to the extent that is available to us and we will try by democratic argument to change those institutions. We are content to operate fully within the democratic process.

Mr. Harte

Making statements on the role of the Seanad enables us to take a cold, hard look at ourselves having regard to the Seanad's present day requirements as a legislative body. We must also take into account the public perception of the Seanad as expressed by some journalists through the media.

First, we must admit that there are difficulties with the way the Seanad performs. Inevitably, these statements will be viewed as a speculative investigation of the potential of the second Chamber. That is the idea behind this and I trust our statements will give an insight into how we perform, having regard to the restrictions we experience through no fault of our own and the limits we impose on ourselves, possibly through lack of change. The purpose of our statements should be to understand better the nature of impediments, delays, obstructions and obstacles that have penetrated the functions of the Seanad and which have had a harmful effect on its main purposes of scrutiny and control of legislation. It is important that Members of this House conscientiously use these powers and do not rubber stamp legislation. The Seanad could make its contribution more meaningful by having its own approach to procedures which highlight its constitutional intention. There is no reason a committee could not examine the constitutional parameters within which this House operates.

Second, we must clearly and openly state what the difficulties are, where they lie, how they arose and where the blame lies for the diminution of our purpose and role. It is incumbent on us to ensure that our collective statements show the public that we are conscious of the need for vast improvements and experimentation and that there is a sincere desire to pursue courses of action which will bring about an improved performance having regard to the present day requirements of any legislative body. We should also be seen to offer, in a willing and united manner, our view on the value we place on such a review of the working of the Seanad for the 54 years of its existence so as to facilitate considering the type of reform that might be most effective and which would allow the Seanad to function in accordance with its present day requirements. Obviously, to obtain the best results such a review should not be undertaken by parliamentarians. One of its main questions would be, has Seanad Éireann matched up to its constitutional parameters? The latter, in my view, cries out for attention.

Having stated the idea I would like to accentuate the concept of being true to ourselves. Of the statements so far delivered, some have expressed mixed feelings, some have been very direct and some have been on the defensive. Our purpose was not to go on the defensive but to own up to our deficiencies, because as far as I am concerned going on the defensive will not contribute to improving the role or function of the Seanad and certainly will not help to satisfy the public perception of the Seanad. Going on the defensive we will certainly not demonstrate that we are interested in showing political will, or showing that there is among Senators a serious thought about moving in the direction of pressing the Government to deal with the question of making the Seanad measure up to its present day requirements.

Dealing in the first instance with this question and without attempting in any way to avoid taking some responsibility for some of the circumstances we find ourselves in, I admit that Seanad Éireann is not functioning as an effective legislative body in accordance with what the Constitution intended and has not been doing so for some considerable time. I referred earlier to the need to be honest with ourselves. In an effort to do so, I submit that the following points constitute obstructions, impediments, delays and obstacles that have had an ongoing effect in making Seanad Éireann subject to the scorn of some of the media and public — and I emphasise the word "some". Obviously, the intention of the Constitution was not that Seanad Éireann would be compelled, as is the case, to approach legislation in the same dull, mechanical way as in the Dáil but that there would be additional expertise in Seanad Éireann with emphasis on parliamentary scrutiny and control.

I quote Article 18.7.1 of the Constitution in support of that point:

Before each general election of the members of Seanad Éireann to be elected from panels of candidates, five panels of candidates shall be formed in the manner provided by law containing respectively the names of persons having knowledge and practical experience of the following interests and services, namely:

(i) National Language and Culture, Literature, Art, Education and such professional interests as may be defined by law for the purpose of this panel;

(ii) Agriculture and allied interests, and Fisheries;

(iii) Labour, whether organised or unorganised;

(iv) Industry and Commerce, including banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture;

(v) Public Administration and social services, including voluntary social activities.

That Article of the Constitution is clear in its intent to get expertise working in the Seanad. Obviously, the support is there for the argument I made: that the Constitution intended that the purpose of bringing people into the Seanad with expert knowledge and practical experience was to ensure that legislation brought before the House would be subject to the application of that expert knowledge and practical experience for the purpose of improving the legislation through greater scrutiny and control — in other words, greater scrutiny and control would be the end result in the Seanad by virtue of that special knowledge and practical experience. Obviously, it was also intended that the knowledge and experience would be applied to matters of an urgent, public nature. If not for those reasons, why does the Seanad exist?

It is clear from the Constitution what was intended, why the expertise was brought here and what its purpose was. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: has the question of scrutiny and control been applied in a proper way or have the impediments, obstructions, delays and obstacles that we have encountered diminished in some way the actual function and role of the Seanad or its overall general effectiveness? It was never intended in the law or the Constitution that the Seanad would be repetitive when a Bill comes before it, or that it would proceed in the same mechanical way as in the Dáil. For instance, why is it that we cannot or do not refer some Stage of some Bills to a special committee on a particular area where it could be processed in greater detail with the right of this committee to call in departmental officials, etc., and report back? The Constitution does not say we cannot do this. Perhaps the fault lies with our own lack of use of Standing Orders or our failure to change Standing Orders. Here I would like to quote Standing Order No. 84 (1):

When a Bill has been read a second time, it may be ordered to be considered in Committee of the whole Seanad on a day then named, or be referred to some other Committee.

The most relevant part is paragraph (2), which says:

The Seanad may on motion made without notice commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole Seanad in respect of some of its provisions and to a Special Committee in respect of other provisions. If such a motion be opposed the Cathaoirleach, after permitting an explanatory statement from the mover of the motion and from a Senator who opposes the motion, may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon.

That does not exclude the idea at some stage when a Bill is brought into the Seanad, of some part of it being referred without debate to this select committee, or portion of some particular Stage of it. That is my reading of it; but I am open to argument on it. I believe that was the intention. If it was not, why then go to the bother of making sure there is this specialist knowledge and expertise available to the Seanad through the panel system? Yet we do not make use of this facility of referring legislation to a special committee to have a look at a certain aspect of a Bill that would require teasing out and would need to be looked at in detail.

The second point I would consider to be in the category of obstacles, delays, obstructions, etc, concerns the Seanad's right to reject Bills. The history of Bills rejected in the Seanad, and delayed even for a limited time of 90 days, is deplorable. In its 54 year history only about four Bills have been rejected. They were rejected only for a time; obviously they went to the Dáil and were passed. I could only find Bills being rejected twice, but I believe about four were rejected. The two I found were the Third Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 1958, and the Pawnbrokers Bill, 1963. This denies the intention of the Constitution on the matter of scrutiny and control.

The history of Private Members' Bills getting to the Statute Book is limited to about one in the lifetime of a Seanad. I do not know if there are any more. If there are, I would like somebody to tell me about them. That one Bill I discovered had to do with animals. I am not suggesting for a moment that animal legislation is not good legislation or that anything to do with the protection of animals is not good legislation. What I am suggesting is that the idea of a Private Members' Bill not getting on the Statute Book is not in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution as it was intended for the Seanad. The tabling of a Private Members' Bill is a very constructive process. The reason I would describe it as a constructive process is that it draws more attention to an issue than a general motion. A Private Members' Bill does not lend itself to inconsequential debate. On the other hand, general motions can become just a lot of talking for the sake of the record with no real decision resulting.

The third issue that falls into the category of impeding, obstructing or delaying is, for example, Seanad Standing Order 29 which deals with emergency motions. These are not encouraged because of the limitation in that order on what constitutes a matter of urgent national importance. The very limited way in which the Seanad can act with immediacy on matters of public interest requiring urgent consideration can therefore be included in this category of the Seanad being impeded, obstructed or delayed because of the inflexibility of Standing Orders. I am not referring in particular to the Government; we may all be guilty in some way, and I will deal with that later.

In regard to Standing Order 29, dealing with a matter of urgent national importance, the inflexibility extends to the Cathaoirleach, because he is bound by the Standing Order. No matter how sympathetic the Cathaoirleach would wish to be, he cannot do anything about it because the Standing Order has to be interpreted in a certain way. We must ask if we have looked at the Standing Order sufficiently. Is it not a fact that the Seanad is a more appropriate place, and has more time on its hands than the Dáil, to deal with a matter of urgent national importance? In regard to some of the rulings that have been made during the years on what was or was not a matter of urgent national importance, is it not true that matters subsequently came to this House, even though they did not originally get on to the floor for debate? Standing Order needs to be looked at. Its purpose is not being served if this House cannot utilise the expertise and special knowledge brought to it from vocational bodies.

I come now to the fourth point. In my view Seanad amendments to Government legislation have not stood up to the test of political substance down the years in either the volume of amendments accepted or the type of amendment. I was referring in particular to the quality of amendments accepted. More often than not, if an amendment is accepted it is of very minor importance in the overall legislation. I recall that we did see amendments accepted to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Bill. I recall that the late Senator Alexis FitzGerald got ten amendments accepted to that Bill and then went on to be successful in having the Title of the Companies Bill, 1977, changed but these are the exceptions. The overall acceptance in respect of quality and volume of amendments does not stand up to the test of political substance.

Another difficulty I see, which in itself is an impediment and obstruction and draws fire on the Seanad as being a weak body, is weak Ministers. A weak Minister does not help because he does not comprehend what he is introducing and he does not have the strength to say no to the civil servants advising him. We all have seen this here from time to time and on such occasions one does not know whether one is addressing the Minister or the civil servant. On the other hand, we must give credit to the good Ministers. When somebody like the late Senator Alexis FitzGerald is able to get ten amendments through, it means the Minister concerned is a strong person. He knew what it was all about and what the final consequences for the Bill would be if he did not agree to the amendments.

I come now to the fifth point. There is some justification for the view held by the public and some Senators that the Seanad is a playground for political parties. Let us be honest with ourselves. The fact is it is used to enhance the chances of former budding TDs. We should not be afraid to admit this to ourselves and to the public at large. What we should not do is to play down these facts or go on the defensive. When all the debate is over and we are having an impartial examination, this may be one of the things we will have to look at and decide whether it has been a contributory factor to the impediments, obstructions, delays, or obstacles I have mentioned.

Nothing can be left out. It is all there for examination. It would be naïve to think that the architect of the system did not want it any other way. Who would? The architect of the system was not going to risk Bills being held up for 365 days when he could get away with 90 days and ensure that his Bills would get through anyway. This point merits some future scrutiny together with the other points made, and those about to be made. The reality is that the panels have been taken over by political parties. That does not make the whole case; there are many other points for examination. I have set out about five of them now and I go on to point six.

Party politics have entered the University panel by virtue of some University Senators taking the party whip. This, of course, has some bearing on the argument whether the Seanad should be strictly vocational. A point of interest here is that no Senator is elected on the basis of being an executive director, a general secretary or a branch secretary of a trade union; nor is he elected on the basis of being a University lecturer or the head of a faculty. I am suggesting that election takes place on a political basis. It will be argued that perhaps they are not political in the sense of not been completely synonymous with party politics, but the argument still holds that people are not elected because they are professors, lecturers, etc; they are elected because their constituents are convinced about them as people.

The constituents want people who can articulate their, the constituents', views. They want people capable of processing the issues that are peculiar to the University people. Also they look to the national appeal the candidate can generate. We must acknowledge and appreciate that the Univesities down the years have brought a high calibre of person into the Seanad. There is no doubt about that. We have had wonderful contributions from many of them, but the fact is that some of them come into the Seanad with a political bias. If they do not actually transfer into the political system, there is nevertheless some political bias in some of their expressions. There is political bias in the way they get elected in the sense that people want them to be able to express their constituency interest.

I make my observations on this point in the hope that this question will not be excluded from any review we undertake in the future. The fact that the party whip has been taken by Senators over the years cannot escape some scrutiny as to whether it is a contributory factor to the impediments, obstructions or delays that have helped to keep the Seanad role less than adequate for its present day requirements. In my view it is in the same category as the points we have gone through. Therefore, I think it should be open to examination, depending, of course, on the type of examination we finally agree.

Another area of our behavioural patterns that can be considered to come within the category of obstructions, etc. is the amount of tiresome technicality and trivia we experience in the House. We probably do not feel it is our fault that this happens, but it is noticed by the media and therefore must be considered as aggravating the weaknesses of the Seanad and its functions, particularly when we have regard to the other points raised. I would describe that as point number seven.

Making the eighth point, another difficulty experienced is that Standing Orders are so designed that we must follow the same dull mechanical procedure as the Dáil. I make this point because Standing Orders have had the effect of silencing very brilliant people. That is a problem. Obviously, Standing Orders need to be looked at, if not by us then by some detached or non-parliamentary body.

The ninth point is the difficulty we experience by reason of the insecurity of tenure. For example, when the Seanad adjourns sine die nobody is sure when it will be called back. This is largely because Governments have made it dependent on how they proceed, or what they decide is happening in the Dáil. If this was not the situation, it would facilitate the processing of more Bills through this House, or more Bills could be initiated here. In this way the Seanad would play a bigger part in the legislative process. What adds to the insecurity is that, by and large, we are confined to assembling just for Government business. That also is an impediment to our giving the best possible performance. The low proportion of non-Government business dealt with obviously follows on from that.

The tenth point that fits into the category for examination is this and in saying this I do not want the Senators on the Government benches to get the wrong slant on this. I am not going out for an attack or anything like that, but I am seriously concerned that there is a need for change, that we need to have a look at ourselves and openly admit to ourselves where we see the deficiencies. That does not necessarily say that everything is wrong, and I will be covering that point before I conclude.

Over the years I have seen many Senators on the Government Benches — and it did not matter which Government were in — who showed very substantial opposition to some of the legislation brought before the House. I have listened for hours on end to exchanges between people on the Government benches and Ministers going through the pros and cons of a Bill sometimes in a lighthearted manner and sometimes with heated exchanges. It is not a question of saying that some were sacked; at the end of the day they walked into the voting lobby. It is very important that Government Senators are not silenced because many of them have very good contributions to make in relation to legislation. There is possibly an underlying fear there that this is not the right thing to do but any strong Minister would understand that he or she was getting the best deal possible out of that type of exchange, provided they did not have the crippling experience of some walking through the wrong lobby. That is a legitimate way of contributing.

I mentioned the late Alexis FitzGerald earlier, and former Senator Eoin Ryan, Senior, was another example of people of high calibre. When he was Leader of the House he had no problem about telling a Minister where difficulties lay and having an exchange with him. The situation was the same when John Horgan was Leader of the Labour Party here and also Ken Whitaker, the late Senator Fintan Kennedy and, not least, President Mary Robinson when she was a Senator.

There were incidents where people lost the Whip but it was for different reasons. We had examples such as Michael Mullins and Christy Kirwan who were seriously opposed to many things. They lost the Whip but it was because they voted against legislation, not because they spoke against it. That is the difference. There are very able Senators in the Government party. They can make a substantial contribution and they should think seriously about this. We are open to criticism. We are having a good, hard look at ourselves in an honest and open way and we should not be afraid to face certain facts. The saddest thing of all is to see brilliant people silenced not by Ministers but by Standing Orders.

I have made ten points about why I feel the Seanad has lost some of its effectiveness. In doing so I do not think I have shirked the blame or let my colleagues do so. However, we cannot just accept the criticism and blame; we must move on and do more to show how effective Senators and the Seanad can be. We must examine the impediments, delays, obstructions and obstacles that hinder the Seanad.

We should recognise that we are no different to those in Government. It appears to a large proportion of the public that a few dominate the many. We have all heard the accusation: "You are all in it for yourselves". We are talking about the public perception of the function and role of the Seanad. We must not allow this to continue. It is well within our capacity to reform and it is incumbent on us to be honest and to recognise our difficulties.

It is one thing to say we should go ahead and take action to try to bring about substantial improvements in how we operate and in how we might change our attitude but it is another thing to implement what you think will work. For example, we do not know at this stage whether we can change Standing Orders in such a way as to make the Seanad more lively and relevant. Since all five Stages of a Bill have a definite purpose it is not possible to say whether the mechanisms we use to deal with Bills in this House and in the other House can be changed.

It is difficult to talk about reform. One must weigh up the concept of this House being very strongly vocational as against the political necessity to proceed in a certain way. It is not for us to suggest at this time that we are sure the best thing to do would be to reinforce the vocational element. As I said earlier, this debate is a kind of speculative investigation which needs deeper consideration. I do not believe that politicians collectively will be willing to change too much. Would it be possible at this stage of the debate to say that there is a collective agreement that after 54 years of operation of the Seanad there should be a review of our workings? We cannot say that with any authority at this stage. Can we say that a wide-ranging examination will be undertaken based on what has been stated? Can we say to any great effect that we will examine one House having regard to the fact that a relationship exists between the two Houses? We can say that with our approach to procedures we can make some improvements. Can we assess whether we have matched up to constitutional procedures? That may be a little more difficult to do. Can we allow the Seanad to contribute to contemporary Ireland by changing Standing Orders? Will that work? We want a greater opportunity to contribute to contemporary Ireland. It can and should be done.

I am satisfied that the Seanad can be reformed without endangering the Government's mandate to legislate but there must be the political will to do so. Senator Norris believes it is not there. I am not sure it is that simple. Substantial statements have been made and there is a lot of material to be digested. I reserve judgment on the question of political will. We can argue both ways; we can talk about the political will to do it the way we think or we can talk about the political will to make sufficient change to enable us to progress to the point where we measure up to the present day requirements of a legislative body.

Are Standing Orders the real culprit? Do we share the blame or are the Government at fault? No matter what way we look at it, we have obstacles to overcome. We must begin even if it is only on an experimental basis. The question of whether Seanad Éireann has lived up to the role envisaged for it in the Constitution cries out for consideration. I am not suggesting that, arising from this debate, that will happen but it is a serious point for consideration.

We all know that, in the minds of some people, Seanad Éireann is irrelevant to Irish life but that view also existed 54 years ago when the Seanad was established. The Seanad can and does make a very substantial contribution to legislation. I have criticised the workings of the Seanad as have other Senators, but as a result of this debate we have a very substantial pool of information and a lot of advice available to us.

I hope the Seanad will proceed with this debate and when it has concluded that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will examine the points made. A lot of thought will have to go into how to bring about change having regard to the complexities of the two Houses and the difficulties of the political parties, the universities and the different panels blending together. There is no reason it should not be done because we have the ability to do it. Senators can make a substantial contribution to the nation, particularly by scrutinising legislation that comes before us, as was intended by the Constitution.

Mr. S. Haughey

I am very proud and honoured to be a Member of this House. It is a matter of public record that I contested Dáil elections as did many other Senators. Be that as it may, I fully respect and have a great regard for this House. I believe in this country and in the insitutions of democracy. Ireland is a great nation and I am proud to support its political institutions.

Seanad Éireann went into recess on 17 July, 1991. We returned to business in late October. Many things happened during the summer recess both at home and abroad. Problems arose in relation to the public finances, the employment situation became particularly difficult and sectarian killings in Northern Ireland continued. Abroad, there was the revolution in the USSR; civil war was threatened in Yugoslavia and, of course, we had the alleged business scandals here at home. Since our return in October we have spent three weeks debating the role and usefulness or otherwise of Seanad Éireann. It seems that we will discuss this issue next week also. In fact, we have spent three weeks justifying our existence. This is hugely ironic. That is the background to this debate.

The Seanad is now faced with major challenges. We need to establish if we are to operate on a similar basis to the Dáil or if we are to be a carbon copy of the Lower House. This debate is about creating for ourselves a definite, separate and distinctive role. The justification for our existence depends on the successful outcome of the debate and on appropriate Government action following this debate.

Mention was made earlier about the renewed Programme for Government lasting from 1989 to 1993. The section dealing with Oireachtas reform states that the Government consider that reform of the Oireachtas is an essential prerequisite to carrying through a legislative programme of reform and to make it work relevant and effective for the people of Ireland. Some Senators have regretted that no specific mention was made to Seanad Éireann in his programme. I do not take this view and I believe many other Senators do not take this view either. Were the Seanad specifically mentioned it would be in the context of its abolition given the presence of the Progressive Democrats in Government, and that is something of which we should be very conscious.

Many people are calling for Seanad reform. Any proposed reform should not involve a referendum because I am not sure the people fully realise what we are about in Seanad Éireann and we should think long and hard before initiating a public debate in the context of a referendum in relation to Seanad Éireann. We have to change the public perception. I spoke on this issue in the Seanad on 4 June 1987. In that debate I pointed out that people were calling for the abolition of the Presidency. That has now changed. The media and the people in general have found a new interest in the Presidency and we need to ask why. Of course, there is a new incumbent in that office.

We must find out why the media do not take the Seanad seriously and rectify the matter. Like the Presidency, this need not involve constitutional change. What is the traditional role of a secondary Chamber. Most legislations have secondary Houses. They act as a further check on Government. They set out to improve Bills and amend them. They act as a revising body. In this Seanad Éireann is no exception. The Seanad plays a smaller part than the Dáil and has a subordinate position. That is beyond question. However, the relatively inferior position of Seanad Éireann is common enough throughout the world.

There are many good things one could say about this House. Important issues have been raised exclusively in this House, during my experience here at any rate. Time and time again Ministers have come into this House to deal wih urgent matters raised particularly in Private Members' time. These issues were not raised in the Dáil. In addition, individual Senators have brought particular issues here. Again, these issues have not been brought to the attention of the Dáil. Senator Norris has done a lot in that regard.

It is generally accepted that the standard of debate in Seanad Éireann is better than in the Dáil; party political considerations are less dominant here than in the other House, the style is less combative. That is an important feature of this House.

It is also important to examine the history of the Seanad and the history of a secondary chamber in this country. Under the Irish Free State Constitution a provision was made for an Upper House. This was largely to accommodate the Unionist minority. That was a noble objective at the time. Then came the 1937 Constitution. There is no doubt that Eamon de Valera was particularly interested in the issue of vocationalism. It is suggested that the ideas of Pope Pius XI influenced him in that regard.

Basil Chubb in his book The Government and Politics of Ireland, on page 212, states: “de Valera recognised that the country was not, in fact, sufficiently organised on vocational lines to allow direct choice by vocational bodies”. In addition, de Valera did not want a body that would be likely to oppose the Government of the day. That was the dilemma he was faced with and so, for better or worse, we got the current Seanad and the current electoral college.

The Seanad electoral college has been criticised in the past. As everybody here knows, 43 Senators are chosen from panels of candidates having knowledge and practical experience in certain interests and services. Nominations are allowed from appropriate voluntary associations but because the electoral college is itself composed of elected representatives chosen on a party basis, party political rather than vocational considerations predominate.

Basil Chubb goes on to suggest that the prestige of the Seanad suffers from the fact that, by and large, it is merely another selection of party politicians chosen in an unnecessary complicated and not particularly democratic manner. I would take issue with him on that. What are the alternatives to the electoral college we have at present? At the moment, I would be very slow to change the electoral system. Direct power, for example, could be given to vocational groups. I suggest that could be open to abuse. Under the current system, democratically elected people elect the Senators by secret ballot using proportional representation with the single transferable vote. Any alternative system would need to be looked at very carefully.

Many Senators have criticised the fact that the Seanad is dominated by party politicians. Party politics is essential to democracy. Political parties mobilise the electorate at election time. They put up posters and supply personation agents. That should not be lost sight of. Senator Hederman went to great lengths to criticise party politics and party politicians but what is the alternative? Independents could not mobilise the electorate in the same way as political parties. I do not think there is anything wrong with the Seanad being dominated by party politics. It is essential to democracy and to the operation of politics in this country. I say that to redress the balance in relation to Senator Hederman's contribution.

There are many ways we could improve the workings of this Seanad. We need more Government commitment to this House. I refer to the present Government and, indeed, previous Governments. We need the Government to recognise the importance of this House. We need to have more Bills initiated here. That would generate greater public interest in our proceedings and, in particular, would generate more media interest. That is a simple matter. It would not take much to implement and yet it would increase the prestige of this House substantially.

Time and time again we have raised the affairs of the EC in this House and we need to carve for ourselves a special role in relation to EC affairs. Perhaps, thought could be given to structuring the proceedings of this House so that everyone would know that Seanad Éireann has a particular expertise in EC affairs. That is something we could set about doing.

Another issue is the Order of Business. At the moment, Senators feel compelled to raise all sorts of issues on the Order of Business because there does not seem to be any other mechanism with sufficient flexibility to allow them raise important issues. Perhaps the possibility of a Question Time could be looked at or allowing more flexibility in relation to matters being discussed on the Adjournment. We need to allow Senators to raise important issues and issues of local concern quickly and efficiently. I do not think that would be difficult to bring about.

The Seanad should pay particular attention to cultural affairs and, as I mentioned in relation to EC affairs, we need to carve out a role for ourselves in that regard.

Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.