Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Nov 1991

Vol. 130 No. 12

Role of Seanad Éireann: Statements (Resumed).

Acting Chairman

Senator Haughey is in possession. There is no time limit, but Statements are due to conclude at 4 p.m.

In my contribution of 13 November 1991 I was beginning to outline some specific ways of improving the Seanad. I was saying that the main thing we need is a Government commitment to this House. I am now suggesting that the initiation of Bills in this House is extremely important. It is a simple matter but it is something that has not been tackled by any Government and not just the current Government. That specific commitment on the part of the Government to Seanad Éireann is what we need to increase the status and the role of this House in general.

I also suggested on the previous occasion that the House should always pay particular attention to EC affairs and that perhaps some structure could be devised to enable us to do so. That is something which we should look at very carefully. I also suggested that we need to examine the role of the Order of Business in this House. It has developed into a very long, arduous question and answer session and I do not think that was ever envisaged for the Order of Business. We need to find some way to have a type of Question Time in Seanad Éireann. That would help in the matter.

I was just beginning to outline also how I believe cultural affairs should be given special attention by this House. The general public should be aware that this House pays particular attention to cultural affairs and EC affairs, as I mentioned earlier. We should carve out a role for ourselves in that area and the appropriate structures should be devised.

An undesirable trend time and time again in this House has been the unseemly rush at the end of a session to pass a considerable number of Bills through the House. Again, central government needs to look at that. It is not right that we should have very little legislation throughout a session and then towards the end six or seven Bills suddenly emerge in this House and must be passed within a day or two. Some method must be found to ensure that this does not continue. It is not giving the legislation the recognition it deserves and it is something which should be looked at very carefully. It has happened time and time again in this House since its establishment. It is not a reflection on the current Senators or the current Government but it is a well-known fact that there is this unseemly rush at the end of every session to pass Bills.

There is one other small issue and that is the question of Senator Ministers. There have been very few Senator Ministers in the history of the State. Obviously, the Constitution does provide for Senator Ministers. I know it is a question for the Taoiseach entirely, but a Senator or two in the Cabinet would also give prestige and status to this House. There is one vacancy at present in the junior ministerial ranks. I do not know, Sir, whether you would have any suggestions in that regard. It is something which I am sure the Taoiseach would take on board. May I say that I am not interested in the position myself. I do not think the Taoiseach would get away with it in any event.

There is also the question of the role of a Senator. What is a Senator supposed to do? Obviously, the Constitution says a Senator is there to pass legislation, to debate legislation, to delay legislation and to make recommendations in relation to legislation but I suggest Senators are hindered in doing that because of lack of facilities. One secretary is assigned to work for every three Senators but that is not enough. In order to deal adequately and effectively with legislation, every Senator should have a full-time researcher who would delve into all aspects of legislation, undertake research in relation to all aspects of Bills and so on. It is not too much to ask. I wonder why Senators and, indeed, Deputies do not have researchers and in whose interest is that? The Department of Finance would have to pay the salaries of extra staff and no doubt they would not be happy with that. In some ways it obviously helps the Executive that the Members of Parliament are not fully briefed on all aspects of legislation.

It is important that Senators are given adequate facilities to enable them to carry out their work. They need a fulltime secretary, they need a researcher, they need basic facilities such as telephones, faxes, computers and so on. We are making some progress in that regard but further progress is needed. It is a crucial question and something which we should look at very seriously. We have the capacity to improve our situation, the general public do not. Therefore, we should do something about it and improve our position and our status.

In relation to the role of Senators as regards constituency work, you could justify the existence of 60 additional Senators, in addition to the Members of Dáil Éireann, by the fact that they become involved in their local communities, they get involved in local and national issues, constituency work, and so on. Senators bring their expertise and their knowledge to their local areas and that is important. It extends the network of parliamentarians throughout the country. There are areas that are not necessarily fully catered for by their local TD for geographical reasons and Senators could fill that vacuum. It is just something of which we should be aware.

The role of university Senators has been questioned in this House. As far as I am concerned, university Senators, are a good idea. It brings minority representation into the House, it brings representation for students into the House. However, I would question the existing structures in relation to the six university seats. Not all third level students are represented in this House and that needs to be carefully looked at. For my own part I have a special interest in Dublin City University, the new university on the north side of Dublin. The graduates of that college must surely be entitled to representation in Seanad Éireann, the same as the NUI and TCD. That should be looked at very carefully and new measures brought in in that regard.

We live in challenging times — the age of modern technology and the improvements that are taking place in the infrastructure of the country, in political institutions and so on. There are all sorts of imputs now into central Government. Previously the Dáil, the Seanad, the media, pressure groups of various kinds have all had their input into central Government, but that has now been extended and there are all sorts of interest groups and new ideas emerging. For example, there is the whole question of centralised bargaining and national pay deals. We have had the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. Senators would need to be aware of the current situation. One could ask the question if the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is more powerful than Seanad Éireann and in some cases one could answer yes to that. It is important that we have this debate on the role of Seanad Éireann in the context of changes in modern Ireland and the changes that are taking place in the political world. We need to define our role and we need to fit into modern Ireland.

One last thought on this debate — it is a rhetorical question — are we talking to ourselves in this debate. I hope somebody is listening out there. I hope we proceed from here and take on board the good ideas that have been put forward to develop and establish a role for ourselves in the Oireachtas, and indeed in Ireland in general.

Chuir an Seanadóir Haughey ceist an-díreach, an-tábhachtach, agus é ag críochnú a chuid cainte: an bhfuilimid ag caint linn féin, an bhfuil duine ar bith ag éisteacht linn nó an mbeidh duine ar bith ann le gníomhú maidir leis na rudaí atá á rá againn anseo. Ar ndóigh, nuair a deirim nach bhfuil duine ar bith ag éisteacht linn os rud é nach bhfuil ach duine nó beirt againn sa Seanad ag an nóiméad seo, is i gciall i bhfad níos leithne ná sin atáim ag caint. Go hiondúil, bím ag breathnú ar chathaoir ata folamh ansin, ach is é an duine, dar liomsa, gur chóir a bheith sa chaithaoir sin — dá bhféadfadh sé teacht ar ais ar an saol — ná Éamon de Valera. Mura bhfuil sé ann i bpearsan tá chuile sheans ann go bhfuil sé ann i spiorad. Tá sé réasúnta, tar éis an achair fhada: ó 1937, breis agus leathchéad bliain ó shin, go ndéanfaimis cur agus cúiteamh faoi Sheanad Éireann, faoi ról an tSeanaid: cad é atá curtha i gcrích, cad é atá ar siúl againn agus cá bhfuil ár dtriall?

Caithfimid súil siar a chaitheamh ar an meon a bhí ag Éamon de Valera nuair a bhunaigh sé an Teach uachtarach, Seanad Éireann, agus é ag leagan amach Bunreachta 1937. O mo thaobhsa féin de, cibé ar bith, agus, dar liomsa, ó thaobh fhormhór mhuintir na hÉireann de, is beag réalaíochas atá ag baint le imeachtaí an tSeanaid i gcomhthéacs fheidhmiú bunreachtúil na tíre seo. Tá mé den tuairim go raibh beartas éigin ar intinn ag Éamon de Valera nuair a bhunaigh sé Seanad Éireann, go raibh fealsúnacht dhomhain taobh thiar den chaint agus na smaointe a bhí aige. Ba é an prionsabal a bhí i gceist aige ná go mbeadh daoine i Seanad Éireann a mbeadh scileanna áirithe acu, scileanna ar leith a bhí soaitheanta agus go bhféadfadh siad na scileanna sin a chur ag obair sa Teach seo ar bhonn leanúnach. Aisteach go leor, is í an chéad aidhm a bhí sa Bhunreacht, ó thaobh scileanna agus dreamanna éagsúla, de réir mheon an Taoisigh ag an am sin, go mbeadh painéal sa Teach seo a mbeadh de chúram orthu breathnú go báúil agus labhairt go fuinniúil ar rudaí a bhaineann le cultúr na tíre seo, cultúr sa chiall is leithne — labhairt na Gaeilge, saoithiúlacht na Gaeilge, drámaíocht, na healaíona agus chuile shórt mar sin.

Chuir sé painéil eile ar bun maidir le lucht saothair, maidir le tráchtáil, cúrsaí eacnamúla, rialtas áitiúil agus riarachán poiblí, talmhaíocht agus feirmeoireacht. Sin iad na coincheapa a bhí ag an dTaoiseach ag an am sin nuair a thoiligh sé bunreacht a scríobh le haghaidh Sheanad Éireann. Tá sé suimiúil gurbh é an chéad cheann a bhí aige, an ceann a ba ghiorra dá chroí, ná an teanga agus an cultúr agus gach dar bhain leo. Nach aisteach an rud é, bíodh go raibh sé sin mar choincheap nó mar aidhm, nár cuireadh i bhfeidhm go forleathan é. Breathnaigh ar an Seanad ó bunaíodh é agus ar an bpearsanra a bhí sa rannóg sin amháin, feicfidh tú sa mhóriomlán nach raibh na daoine a bhí ar an bpainéal sin feiliúnach, cé is moite d'eisceachtaí ar nós an tSeabhaic, Éamon de Buitléar agus daoine mar iad, daoine a raibh an-ómós ag dul dóibh.

Nach aisteach an run é in imeacht an ama sin uilig, aon duine ar nós an tSeabhaic agus daoine mar mé féin, nuair a bhíomar ag labhairt as Gaeilge anseo, níor tugadh an t-aitheantas cuí don teanga, bíodh go raibh an Ghaeilge ar chomhchéim leis an Bhéarla ó thaobh úsáide agus cirt de in imeachtaí bunreachtúla Thithe an Oireachtais. Níor tugadh an t-aitheantas sin go dtí le fíordheireanas dúinn ó thaobh ar chórais aistriúcháin atá in úsáid anois anseo, agus sa Dáil le tamall de bhlianta anuas. Tá go leor easpaí agus rudaí mícheart maidir leis an gcoincheap a bhí ann ag an tús. Tá faitíos orm go bhfuil go leor de na haidhmeanna agus den inspiorad a bhí taobh thiar de na haidhmeanna sin imithe ar gcúl agus nach bhfuil glactha fós leo tar éis leathchéad bliain ó bunaíodh an Teach seo.

Níl aon fáth nach bhféadfaí an scéal sin a leigheas. Táimid ar ais go dtí an pointe a bhí ag an Seanadóir Haughey ar ball agus a d'ardaigh an Seanadóir Hederman ar maidin agus atá á ardú agam féin anois i gcomhthéacs cé leis a bhfuilimid ag caint. Ba thrua liomsa tar éis na cainte seo ar leasú an tSeanaid nach mbeadh ann ag deireadh an lae ach tuarascáil ina mbeadh tuairimí na Seanadóirí ar fáil ann agus nach mbeadh aon toradh eile ar an díospóireacht ná freagracht ar dhuine ar bith. Sin an fáth go bhfuil amhras ormsa mar go bhfeicim cathaoir ansin os mo chomhair agus é folamh. Níl a fhios agam cé ba cheart a bheith istigh ann.

Acting Chairman

Ná deir é sin, más é do thoil é.

Níl mé ag caint faoin taobh sin den Teach. Tá mé ag caint faoin gcathaoir thuas ansin, áit a bhfuil an tAire. Tá mé ag caint faoi aon duine a bhéas freagrach as na moltaí a thiocfaidh ón díospóireacht seo. Cá bhfuil siad ag dul as seo? Cén toradh a bheidh orthu? Cén duine nó grúpa a bhéas freagrach as rud éigin a dhéanamh leo? Sin é mo thuiscint air sin agus bhí mí-thuiscint ar an gCathaoir nuair a dúirt mé go raibh mé ag tagairt do dhaoine nach raibh sa Teach. Ní raibh mé ag tagairt dó sin beag nó mór. Nuair a bhíonn rud á phlé anseo bíonn an tAire a bhaineann le gnéithe áirithe i láthair. Níl duine ar bith fágtha le bheith i láthair anois nuair atáimid ag caint faoin Seanad mar níl aon cheann orainn. Níl aon bhun nó barr orainn. Dá mbeadh daoine i ndáiríre faoin Seanad, agus dá mbeadh Airí agus Airí Stáit i ndáiríre faoi, bheadh siad anseo. Tagann siad isteach agus éisteann siad linn nuair a bhíonn Billí a bhaineann lena Roinn fein á phlé. Tá mé féin dhá bhliain go leith anseo anois agus is iomaí uair a phlé muid gnótha a bhain leis an Seanad agus a bhain leis an nGaeltacht, mar shampla, agus fós féin ní fhacamar Aire na Gaeltachta istigh anseo agus muid ag cur gnótha na Gaeltachta trí chéile. Tá laige éigin sa chóras go mbíonn caint faoi Aireacht éigin sa Teach seo agus nach bhféadfadh an tAire atá freagrach as an Aireacht sin é féin a thaispeáint uair amháin ar a laghad i rith a théarma oifige.

Bhí chuile Aire eile istigh anseo ach amháin an Taoiseach atá mar Aire na Gaeltachta. Níor sheas sé riamh sa Teach seo. Feictear domsa mar fhear ón Gaeltacht agus mar duine a bhíonn ag caint ar rudaí a bhaineann leis an nGaeltacht agus le hiarthar na hÉireann go bhfuil laige mór ann nach féidir linn a bheith ag súil go mbeadh an tAire i láthair. Is dísbeagadh agus brú síos ar imeachtaí, cumhacht agus stádas na teanga nuair atá rudaí mar sin ag tarlú.

Bím ag éisteacht leis na Seanadóirí ag caint anseo faoi nithe éagsúla, agus ag cur síos ar go leor Billí anseo. Bíonn ardchaighdeán díospóireachta anseo. Bíonn tuairimí an-láidir agus an-mhaith á gcur i láthair ag go leor de na Seanadóirí, is cuma cén ábhar a bhíonn á phlé sa Teach seo. Is é an trua, dar liomsa, nach mbíonn deis againn níos mó díospóireachta a dhéanamh ar rudaí a bhaineann go dlúth linn-ne mar Sheanadóirí agus leis an tír i gcoitinne. Ní gá ach a bheith anseo maidin ar bith nuair a bhíonn Riar na hOibre á phlée lena fheiceáil cad é an deacracht a bhíonn againn labhairt faoi ábhair fíor-thábhachtacha a bhaineann linn. Tóg Maastricht mar shampla. Ardaítear an cheist sin seachtain i ndiaidh seachtaine ar Riar na hOibre ach ní thugtar aon aird orainn. Táimid anseo chuile sheachtain ag iarraidh díospóireacht a bheith againn ar Thuaisceart na hÉireann agus ní thugtar air orainn go dtí go mbíonn an rud sean-chaite agus imithe ó mhaith.

Bheadh sé uafásach tábhachtach go mbeadh deis againn labhairt ar Maastricht, Common Agricultural Policy, GATT, an Tuaisceart agus chuile shórt a bhaineann le riaradh na tíre. Ábhair iad seo a bhfuil suim bhunúsach ag muintir na hÉireann iontu ach bíonn cosc orainn sa Teach seo labhairt orthu. Ní thagann siad chugainn i gceart nó in am cé go bhfuil cainteoirí ar an dá thaobh den Teach seo atá oilte agus eolasach faoi na rudaí a bhíonn á bplé acu.

Bímid ag caint faoi cé chomh feiliúnach is atá an Seanad nó an bhfuilimid ag déanamh aon mhaith nó an mbraithnítear orainn mar Theach a bhfuil éifeacht ag baint linn. Bhí sampla an-mhaith againn an bhliain seo caite nuair a bhí an tAcht Craolacháin ag dul tríd an Seanad. Cuireadh an guillotine i bhfeidhm ansin agus ní raibh deis cheart againn é a phlé. Fiú amháin dá mbeadh aon leasú againn ní raibh aon bhealach le go bhféadfaí é a chur ar ais go dtí an Teach eile mar bhí an Teach eile ar scor. Déarfadh daoine mar fhreagra, dá mbeadh sé sách dona d'fhéadfaí an Teach eile a ghlaoch ar ais leis an cheist a phlé.

Tá a fhios ag an saol mór Fodhla nach shin é an freagra. Léiríonn an t-eachtra sin go bhfuil easpa orainn-ne agus go bhfuil cumas éigin nach dtugtar aird air sa chomhthéacs sin. Tá moltaí agus comhpháirtíocht ann agus ní thuigim nach bhféadfaimisne coistí comhpháirtíochta a chur ar bun. Má bhí sé ceart nuair a bunaíodh an Seanad agus má bhí sé roinnte amach i gcúig rannióg, ní thuigim cén fáth nach bhféadfaimís coistí bunaithe ar na rannóga sin a cheapadh. D'fhéadfaí go leor de na ceisteanna seo a phlé ar bhonn coisteora agus go dtiocfadh siad ar aghaidh ansin go dtí an Teach. D'fhéadfaí é sin a dhéanamh faoi leasú ar Bhuan-Orduithe an tSeanaid.

Maidir le ballraáocht, tá sé molta gur chóir go mbeadh Comhaltaí Pharlaimint na hEorpa ag freastal ar an Seanad. Níl lochtóinn iad a bheith i láthair agus ag caint — ag cur a gcuid tuairimí in iúl dúinn agus ag insint dúinn cén chaoi a bhfuil cúrsaí i bParlaimint na hEorpa agus san Eoraip. Ba chéim chun tosaigh é sin. Go deimhin féin tá an páirtí againne ag moladh fiú amháin go mbeadh deis acu a bheith sa Seanad sa chaoi go mbeadh sé iomlán mar Sheanad agus go mbeadh sé ag freastal ar chuile ghné den phobal taobh amuigh de na cúig ghné éagsúla atá sa Bhunreacht. Chuirfinn fáilte roimh leasú den chineál sin.

Locht eile atá orainn, mar shampla, ná nuair a dhéantar Bille a thionscnamh sa Teach seo. Is ceist í seo, dar liomsa, a léiríonn laige uafásach. Is é sin nach dtugtar cead dúinn ar an mór-iomlán Bille a thionscnamh sa Teach seo. Déanann an Rialtas cúpla ceann a thionscnamh anseo, b'fhéidir, i rith na bliana. Ach má chuireann an Freasúra Bille os comhair an Tí seo, táimid ionann is a bheith cinnte dearfa glan nach nglacfar leis ar aon bhealach.

Leis an bpointe seo a léiriú — bhí Bille os comhair an Tí seo aréir faoí féinmharú. Bhí sé dá thionscnamh ón taobh seo den Teach ag an Seanadóir Neville. Dúirt an tAire go raibh sé lán taobh thiar den Bhille. Dúirt sé go raibh an Bille tráthúil agus gur aontaigh sé leis an bprionsabal atá ann. Dá mbeadh an tAire agus an Rialtas i ndáiríre faoin mBille sin faoi mar a leagadh os comhair an Tí seo é, bhí deis acu a thaispeáint don saol go raibh éifeacht agus brí agus meanma ag baint le Seanad Éireann. Cén fáth mar sin nár lig sé ar aghaidh é? Ceithre bliana is fiche ó shin — i 1967 — a bhí siad ag caint faoi seo agus ag déanamh iarrachta rud éigin a dhéanamh faoin gceist seo, ach níor deineadh tada faoi. Chuir Seanadóir Bille os comhair an Tí aréir ach séard a dúirt an tAire ná gur aontaigh sé i bprionsabal leis an mBille agus go raibh an Rialtas anois sásta Bille a thabhairt isteach.

Thóg sé ceithre bliana is fiche ar an Rialtas ó deineadh iarracht cheana go dtí gur dúisíodh sa Teach seo arís é. Cuireadh Bille réasúnach, simplí os comhair an Tí seo inné, agus léirigh an tAire domsa ar chaoi ar bith inné nach raibh aon éifeacht, nó seasamh ag an Teach seo i gcomhthéacs Tithe an Oireachtais. Dá mbeadh, thabharfadh sé éisteacht agus cead don Bhille. Dá mbeadh gá leasuithe a thabhairt isteach, d'fhéadfadh an Roinn nó an Rialtas na leasuithe sin a thabhairt ar bhord de réir mar a bheadh an Bille ag dul ar aghaidh. Ach níor tharla sé sin, agus ar an mór-iomlán tá faitíos orm nach dtarlóidh mórán sa Teach seo mura bhfuil an toil léirithe go han-soiléir gur gá agus go bhfuil seans ann é a dhéanamh.

Tá cumhachtaí againn Billí a thionscnamh. Rinneamar aréir é. Ach níl aon mhaith ann. Ní ghlacaim leis an gcoincheap go bhféadfadh Bille teacht ón bhFreasúra, go bhféadfadh an tAire glacadh leis i bprionsabal agus ag an am céanna nach bhféadfaí é a fheidhmiú. Tá cumhachtaí an tSeanaid an-lag go deo nuair atá a leithéid sin de phrionsabal i réim sa Teach.

Is féidir leis an Seanad Billí a thionscnamh agus a leasú agus ionstraimintí reachtúla a thionscnamh freisin. Ach níl an chumhacht againn iad a chur tríd agus is fíor-bheagán a théann tríd an Teach seo riamh a léiríonn cumhacht an Tí seo. Dúirt an Seanadóir Haughey gur chóir go mbeadh chuile dheis ag Seanadóirí, go mbeadh rúnaí príobháideach ag gach Comhalta agus go mbeadh deiseanna acu staidéar agus taighde a dhéanamh ionas go bhféadfaí teacht isteach anseo agus gach rud a chur faoi micreascóp. Ach cén mhaith don Seanad nó dón tír é sin nuair nach nglactar le Bille beag simplí a cuireadh ar aghaidh anseo aréir agus nach raibh an tAire sásta é a cheadú nó ligean dó dul ar aghaidh níos faide, bíodh is gur aontaigh sé leis go hiomlán. Tá sin ráite aige sa chaint a rinne sé: "We fully agree with the principle of Senator Neville's Private Members' Bill".

Go polaitiúil ní ligfeadh an Rialtas don bhFreasúra a mBille féin a chur chun cinn. Tá an cead againn, ach níl an chumhacht againn. Is laige bunúsach é sin. Tá sé allright ag na Progressive Democrats a bheith ag caint faoi dheireadh a chur leis an Seanad. Ach an é sin tús agus deireadh nó leigheas ar an scéal? An bhfuil duine ar bith amuigh ansin le smacht a choinneáil ar imeachtaí na Dála ar aon bhealach? De réir mar a thuigim, le go bhféadfaí deireadh a chur leis an Seanad ní mór ceithre scór leasú a dhéanamh sa mBunreacht. Dá n-imeofá síos an bóthar seo thógfadh sé roinnt mhaith de bhlianta sula mbeadh deireadh le Seanad Éireann. Níl mé ar son díspeagadh a dhéanamh ar an Seanad nó go laghdófaí éifeacht an tSeanaid. Cé nach bhfuil an chumhacht againn, dá dtiocfadh rud éigin praiticiúil as an chaint seo uilig sa deireadh, sa chaoi go bhféadfaimis a rá linn féin go rabhamar ag dul ar aghaidh i gceart agus ag déanamh obair fhiúntach dúinn féin agus don tír, bheinn sásta leis sin. Táimid in ann rudaí áirithe a dhéanamh. Bhí cruthúnas de sin againn leis an Bille IPA a scrúdaíodh sa Teach seo.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go mbeadh brí agus éifeacht le hobair ar bith a dhéanfadh Seanadóirí sa Teach seo. Baineann sé ó n-ár n-éifeacht nuair nach bhfuil cead againn Billí a thionscnamh sa Seanad.

Ba mhaith liom labhairt faoi chomhdhéanamh na dtoghthóirí i gcás an tSeanaid. Bítear ag casaoid uaireanta nach mbíonn deis ag dóthain daoine vóta a chaitheamh nuair a bhíonn toghchán ann don Seanad. Measaim gur chóir an córas atá ann faoi láthair a choimeád ach fós féin ní miste athruithe a chur ar an structúr chun an córas a leathnú amach agus líon na dtoghthóirí a mhéadú.

Faoi láthair, tá cead votála ag breis is 1,000 comhairleoirí contae, ag Seanadóirí agus ag Teachtaí Dála. Usáidtear na painéil agus usáideann lucht ollscoile painéil dá gcuid féin le iarrthóirí a thoghadh. Ní hionann an dá chineál toghcháin cé go dtagann Seanadoirí ón dá dhream go dtí an ionad céanna ag deireadh an lae. Thairis sin, tá cead ag an Rialtas Seanadóirí áirithe a ainmniú. Glacaim leis an bprionsabal seo mar go bhfuil sé tábhachtach go mbeadh móramh sa Seanad ag an bpáirtí atá i gcumhacht.

Aontaím mar sin go mbeadh trí ghrúpa sa Seanad: na Seanadóirí a ainmníonn an Taoiseach; na Seanadóirí a thoghann na hollscoileanna; agus na Seanadóirí a thoghann ionadaithe an phobail, cé go ndeirtear uaireanta nach dtoghtar Seanadóirí go daonlathach. Ní ghlacaim leis an gcasaoid seo mar is iad baill na n-údarás áitiúla, Seanadóirí agus Teachtaí Dála, atá i dteideal vótála agus gach duine acu i dteideal vóta amháin. Reachtáiltear an toghchán i measc ionadaithe poiblí a toghadh i gcóras daonlathach sa chéad áit. Guth pobal na hÉireann is ea na hionadaithe áitiúla agus tá an módh toghcháin sin don Seanad inghlactha agamsa.

Chaithfinn a rá nach nglacaim leis nach bhfuil an deis chéanna vótála ag comhairleoirí baile agus coimisinéirí baile. Tá an dá aicme ionadaithe sin fágtha lasmuigh den chóras vótála cé gur toghadh na hionadaithe sin go daonlathach freisin i dtoghcháin phoiblí. Molaim mar leasú ar an gcóras go leathnófaí cead vótála don Seanad chuig baill na gcomhairlí agus na gcoimisinéirí baile.

Dúradh go dtiocfadh athrú ar an dlí i mbliana ionas go roinnfí an tír ina réigiúin agus go mbeadh comhairleoirí réigiúnacha ann in ionad comhairleoirí agus coimisinéirí baile. Tá sé sin sásúil, ach tá súil agam nuair a dhéantar an t-athrú seo go dtabharfar cead vótála i dtoghcháin don Seanad do na comhairleoirí réigiúnacha nua seo a thoghfar i 1992. Sa chaoi seo bheadh páirt ag gach ionadaí poiblí i dtoghcháin an tSeanaid.

Tá dhá aicme ionadaithe eile fágtha ar lár fós, comhaltaí chuig Parlaimint na hEorpa agus baill Údarás na Gaeltachta. Má táimid chun leasú ciallmhar cothromúil a dhéanamh ar an Seanad, ní mór an dá aicme tofa seo a chuimsiú sa chóras vótála don Teach seo.

Údarás ar leithligh is ea Údarás na Gaeltachta agus tá sé daonlathach sa mhéid is gur ritheadh Acht i 1979 a cheadaigh toghcháin don Údarás sin ar an mbonn poiblí céanna le toghcháin Dála nó toghcháin áitiúla. Molaim go mbeadh ceart vótála don Seanad ag gach ionadaí poiblí, idir chomhairleoirí contae, chomhaltaí don Eoraip, bhaill Údarás na Gaeltachta, chomhairleoirí agus choimisinéirí bailte. Thar aon dream eile ba chóir an ceart sin a thabhairt do bhaill tofa Údarás na Gaeltachta chun go mbeadh an córas daonlathach ó thús deiridh.

Ní aontaím leis an modh ainmniúcháin a mhaireann faoi láthair. Tá an ceart sin ag daoine agus ag gluaiseachtaí faoi leith toisc an réimse áirithe gnó lena mbaineann siad. Maidir le toghcháin don Phainéal Cultúrtha agus Oideachais, tugadh cead do eagraíocht ar a dtugtar Muintir na Gaeltachta duine a ainmniú don choiste seo. Bhí sé sin oiriúnach ag an am ach cé go bhfuil an eagraíocht sin imithe in éag le blianta, tá an chumhacht ainmniúcháin fós ag dul dóibh agus is ag fear amháin a bhí an chumhacht sin ar feadh scaithimh. Ní mór go gcinnteofaí go mbeadh stádas bona fide ag eagraíocht atá i dteideal baill a ainmniú don Seanad. Ní cóir go mbeadh cumhacht ainmniúcháin ag eagraíocht ar bith nach bhfuil gníomhach.

Cén toradh a bhéas ar an gcaint seo inniu? Níl éinne sa chathaoir os mo chomhair amach ag éisteacht linn. An mbeidh tuairisc ár gcainte ar na seilfeanna istigh san oifig ag bailiú deannaigh? Is trua sin mar go bhfuil uimhir mhór daoine ar dhá thaobh an Tí agus iad an-chumasach agus an-chuid le tairiscint acu don Oireachtas ach níl an toil polaitiúil ann leis an deis sin a thapú.

Táim den bharúil gur ceist arís é, mair, a chapaill, agus gheobhair féar. Tá an deamhéin ann i measc Baill an Tí seo ach níl an dea-thoil polaitiúil ann atá ag teastáil chun athruithe a thabhairt chun críche.

Tá súil agam nuair a bhéas an díospóireacht seo thart agus na fíricí ar fáil go mbeidh deis againn suí síos ar choiste éigin agus go dtiocfaidh moladh dearfa ar ais le go bhféadfaimís breathnú a dhéanamh orainn féin agus leasuithe a thionscnú a fhágfaidh an Teach seo níos láidre, níos sláintiúla agus níos éifeachtaí.

I wish to compliment the Leader of the House for providing time for this debate on the role of Seanad Éireann. I have been very impressed with the contributions to date from all sides of the House on the proposed reform. Many speakers say they have waited a long time for this debate as Seanad reform has been talked about for some considerable time. Only good can come out of this debate which should give Members from all sides an opportunity to put forward their ideas for reform.

The powers and functions of the Seanad are enshrined in the Constitution enacted by the people in July 1937 and in operation since December 1937. The duties and responsibilties attaching to Members of the Oireachtas are well defined. The Oireachtas is accepted as a fundamental part of our democratic system. As one who had the privilege of serving in the other House for a number of years, I have been very impressed with this House. Many Members here have specialised knowledge and expertise. The system of election to the Seanad provides for 43 Members, elected from five panels. At least 16 Members must be elected from candidates nominated by particular nominating bodies. The legislation stipulates that each must have knowledge and practical experience of his or her particular panel.

Six Members of the Seanad are elected by the universities and 11 are nominated by the Taoiseach. I support the right of the Taoiseach of the day to nominate 11 Members, and not only to give the Government the majority they should have in the House. Over the years many talented and gifted people sat in this Chamber as a result of a Taoiseach's nomination. Senators have already referred to them and each in their own right made a very valuable contribution. It is a plus for the Seanad that there should be an entrance facility for gifted people who may not be elected through the present system or may not attempt to avail of that method of entering the House.

Senator Conroy referred to Professor Dooge who was an outstanding Minister for Foreign Affairs. The same can be said for the late Seán Moylan, another outstanding Minister. It would not have been possible to have had Ministers nominated from the Seanad but for the benefit of a Taoiseach's nomination. The Taoiseach of the day should nominate a senior Minister and at least two junior Ministers to his Government from the Seanad. This would greatly enhance the role of the Seanad. Over the years other outstanding people were nominated such as Steve McGonagle, Séamus Mallon, John Robb, Bríd Rodgers, Ken Whitaker and many more.

Senators represent trade union movements, industry, agriculture, education and a wide spectrum of other interests. This diversity has led to interesting and useful debates. One has only to go back to the Environmental Protection Agency Bill which was initiated in the Seanad. This Bill was fully debated and many Senators went into great detail on the matter. The Minister duly acknowledged the excellent contributions and as a result accepted many amendments.

Much legislation could be initiated in the Seanad and debated excellently across the board. One disappointing aspect of the role of the Seanad at the moment is the Order of Business. At times it gets out of hand and consequently serves no useful purpose. Many Senators have indicated they would like to see it changed and I endorse this. If we need an Order of Business it should be limited to 15 minutes. A Question Time similar to that in the Dáil should be contemplated and limited to one question per Member per week.

With regard to the Adjournment motion, at least three questions could be taken daily. It is necessary to redress the situation where issues of topical interest may not be discussed in this House. People outside the Seanad cannot believe that this is so and on the Order of Business we have witnessed Members from all sides trying to raise various issues and being forbidden to do so.

Third level institutions should be included in the University panels and I support the proposal that women's groups should form part of the nominating bodies. I would like to see many more Bills coming into the Seanad as the Seanad has tremendous opportunities to improve legislation. Bills may be examined here in depth and subjected to a thorough analysis.

One has to be greatly impressed by the quality of debate and contribution to date. The question is how best we can reform the Seanad and ensure that it carries out its proper functions. Some Senators have already expressed the view that this House must give the public value for money and we must try to change the poor public perception of this House. It must be seen that the Seanad has a realistic role to play, ensuring better legislation, that we safeguard the public interest and that matters of major importance can be debated here.

Many excellent contributions have already been made with regard to reform. Excellent ideas and analyses have been put forward. I support the suggestion that the Seanad should set up a small representative committee to process ideas and look at specific proposals. In this way, real progress would be made in improving the role of the Seanad. There is widespread agreement from all sides of the House that reform is imperative. I am also pleased that in the agreed Programme for Government it states:

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.

May I congratulate the Senator on his promotion. This is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in the House with the Senator in the Chair.

It is the first time I have been here.

I am glad that I spotted this historic occurrence and took the opportunity to congratulate you.

I cannot really congratulate the House on having this debate. It is empty, meaningless and facile. The principle reason we are discussing the reform of the Seanad, at the moment, is simply to conceal the fact that there is no business before the House. There is no Government legislation and this is simply filler. Everybody knows what is wrong with the Seanad and how this could be rectified, yet nobody is prepared to do anything about it other than make very modest proposals to tinker at the edges, with some of the housekeeping. I will not speak at any great length here this afternoon because I spoke in the two previous debates, which produced no results.

My colleague, Senator Hederman, has put down some proposals on the Order Paper arising from previous debates on this subject; in fact, one of them, the proposal for the dates for nomination to both Seanad and Dáil Éireann to coincide has been a part of my political manifesto at every election since 1977. However, there is not the faintest hope of this occurring.

I would like to address the whole question of the Seanad, the areas where there ought to be reform, why there should be reform and how it could be achieved. This is a purely academic exercise. In Dublin, when you use the phrase "academic," you mean largely irrelevant. It will not be acted upon. It is not in the interests of the parties who control the Seanad, which is not the manner intended by the framers of the Constitution. We are lucky to have a bicameral system. Mr. de Valera was so irritated at the beginning of the 1930s by the independent role taken for itself by the Seanad that he abolished it. He then discovered it was a useful part of the political machinery and in the 1937 Constitution it was reintroduced with, as Senator Foley indicated, a certain apportionment of seats to different interests. Mr. de Valera also built in a mathematical mechanism which, understandably enough, appeared to guarantee the Government immunity from defeat in the Seanad.

I am glad to be able to say that I have one little notch in my bow which marks what I think was the first time the Government were defeated in the Seanad. That was in the last couple of years and it resulted in the dismissal of the front bench. While I regret the personal humiliation that may have resulted from that, I am very pleased I was able to demonstrate that the antiquated old machine, the Seanad, could actually work.

I agree with Senator Foley that it is appropriate for the Taoiseach to have the power to nominate 11 people for this very purpose — to ensure that the Government normally hold sway in the Seanad. This should not be as confrontational an arena as Dáil Éireann and, in particular, it should not, except under the most serious circumstances, come into conflict with the lower House. If there were hostile opposition between the two Chambers, then the limited democracy in this country would be placed in jeopardy.

Previous speakers have looked at the distribution of the seats; 43 seats are filled by the panel system and 11 Senators are nominated by the Taoiseach. In previous Seanaid, the Taoiseach demonstrated an unusual and interesting flexibility in his choice, bringing in for example, Senator Bríd Rodgers from the SDLP, reflecting the 32 County pretensions of the State, distinguished playwright Brian Friel and naturalist Éamon de Buitléar. I am quite happy with those 11 seats. I am reasonably happy with the university seats, although I will direct some small attention to them. However, where I am not so happy is with the 43 seats elected by outgoing Members of the Oireachtas and members of the county councils at the time of dissolution. Perhaps I could explain why. I am not happy with it because, in a democracy, the right to reject a candidate is as important as the right to elect one. When somebody who puts himself or herself forward for election is rejected, defeated at an election, the graceful thing to do is to accept the result. If one looks at the officers of the Seanad immediately following the last election, something rather interesting emerges. The Cathaoirleach ran for a seat in Roscommon and was rejected, ran for the European election and was rejected, and then came in here and became Cathoirleach. I do not attack him on a personal basis.

I am always loth to interrupt the Senator in full flow but I remind him that it is the convention that the Cathoirleach should not be referred to in debate. I understand the Senator's intention but I must point out, as a matter of procedure, that the Cathaoirleach should not be referred to in the debate.

I appreciate the Chair's guidance. "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on", so it cannot be recalled, even though I might deplore the fact it is actually on the record now. The leader of the Government failed to be elected to the Seanad and was nominated by the Taoiseach to one of his 11 seats. It was perfectly legitimate, but it makes you wonder how democratic is the process.

The Leader of the Fine Gael group failed in the Dáil general election. Each of the named principal office holders of this august institution was rejected by the people of Ireland. There are some people who preach to the university Senators and say we are not democratically elected. I want to scotch that. These people have produced and engineered this system.

Let us look at the panels. They are related to wonderful things like arts, business, public life and so on but there is a fatal flaw in the system because, while there are appropriate nominating bodies, they have the power of nomination alone and are not permitted any participation in the democratic system of election. If you have the power to nominate you should include people with a special area of expertise in, for example, the motor industry and in medicine. On Sunday next we have International World AIDS Day. This has not been mentioned in either House of the Oireachtas. The last time it was discussed was when a group of us got together and held a briefing session in Buswell's Hotel, because we were denied access to a room in which to hold the meeting. In any case we had the briefing session and a debate on AIDS. That was, in its own way, a small vindication of the role of the Seanad. The people in the Lower House were a little bit nervous of dealing with so controversial an issue. Perhaps I malign them, perhaps I impute motives to them which do not exist, but at least I can say they did not ever discuss it. This House took on that issue and dealt with it. The contributions from all sides of the House were dignified, balanced, well informed and a credit to the Seanad. I had to bring in people, authorities on this subject, doctors, social workers and so on. It would be a very healthy thing, if for example, the General Medical Council, the Irish Medical Organisation or the nursing organisations who are, I believe, nominating bodies, not only had the power to nominate, but also to vote. Then you would get people with real expertise.

I intend no disrespect to the people who have been elected through the county council system. I attack the system, not the people who have been elected because, by some miracle, many people of excellent worth have been elected by this extraordinary corkscrew system. I have given the example which occurred soon after I was elected to the Seanad. I was listening to the debates in order to inform myself of procedures and so on, I heard an excellent speech on fishing from Senator Fitzgerald of Fianna Fáil. Here was somebody who had practical experience in this area. There would be more such expertise in the Seanad if the nominating bodies were enfranchised.

University seats are much more democratic. We are nominated by ten good folk and true who have to be graduates of the University of Dublin, Trinity College, and citizens of Ireland. The person nominated, however, does not have to be a graduate of any college. Any citizen of Ireland can stand for the university seats. I then have to go out and convince an electorate of, nearly 22,000 graduates, each of whom makes his or her mind up, that I am a worthy representative of them. In the National University of Ireland the electorate is about 75,000. Let no one think that these constituencies are not democratic or that they do not represent a substantial proportion of the vote.

This is in contrast with the county councils, where there are less than 1,000 votes. I wonder if the public realise that when a Senator receives 27,000 or 64,000 votes, the reason he appears to have achieved this magnificent total is, in order to give this farce the appearance of credibility, each vote has to be multiplied by 1,000. When he, or she gets 64 votes they are multiplied by 1,000 in order to make it realistic. The system is corrupt. The people elected are often very good but the system itself is corrupt and defective. When you add to that the fact that the Seanad has become, and is openly acknowledged to be, a kind of political convalescent home or recovery ward for people who are kicked out at the general election and who simply wait here in a kind of suspended political animation to retake what they see as their rightful role in the Dáil, you have a situation where the Seanad is enervated, weakened and corrupted in the interests of party politics.

It is natural for the parties to be interested in this. Wherever there is power they will seek it out, it is part of the nature of politics. In the Seanad, that should be resisted. I listened with respect, but without agreeing, to the argument that excellent people come into the Seanad who have ministerial experience. It certainly adds to the expertise at certain levels of debate. I would be prepared to examine continuance of party interest but the principle of yielding, at least partially, on this panel system and enfranchising the nominating bodies is, I think, one that carried its own irrefutable logic. I imagine my friends and colleagues who are elected by this system would probably be quite happy if there was a reduction in the geographic size of their constituency because it cannot be very entertaining to be travelling around the country, up and down boreens, and being smarmy to ancient county councillors in pursuit of a vote. There is something a little undignified about this. Everybody knows stories of people coming——

Acting Chairman

I hope you never have to visit them after that remark.

I do not mind visiting them; I would be very happy to do so. I feel it is undignified to have people going around the country with their little trailer loads of bottles of whiskey, pens or cassettes of themselves singing country and western music. Perhaps the Acting Chairman——

Acting Chairman

I must intervene. If the Senator is implying that I am associated with the content of his last remarks——

Not at all. I just thought the Acting Chairman might appreciate the particular music——

Acting Chairman

I appreciate the music but not the Senator's remarks.

I was not imputing the particular practice to you, although I am aware that in certain cases such occurrences are not infrequent. May I share with you something that also rather amuses me, that is, the friendship that develops around election time between members of opposing parties and the extraordinary and malevolent hostility that frequently develops within parties, because candidates in this kind of election are watching their backs, from their own party colleague; they know they are in no real danger from the person on the other side of the party political divide.

I believe you should not just be theoretical; you should look for empirical evidence. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would like to know of any independent Member who ran as an Independent without party endorsement or party membership and who made it to Seanad Éireann through the panel system. I am unaware of any, although there may be one or two. It is certainly very infrequent. This throws into contradiction the use of the panel system in order to obtain representation of various interest groups, which is precisely what the Seanad is for. The Seanad was intended to examine, to scrutinise, to refine and to amend Government legislation and in certain areas it was intended also for the initiation of legislation.

I would like to speak about the role of the Seanad in terms of refining and amending legislation. From my own involvement in this area, I would have to say that, far from the despairing tone that emanated from one or two of my colleagues on the Independent benches, I believe with a little ingenuity, you can actually get the Seanad — which is an antiquated machine — to do far more than could be imagined. I will give some examples. The Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988, was a classic piece of minimalist Government legislation, which the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Collins, indicated, with disarming candour, did the bare minimum to allow Ireland to sign a series of international protocols and conventions. From this side of the House we attacked this parsimonious attitude and attempted to make it do something interesting. For example, we put in additional clauses extending the provisions of the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill to the principal minorities who might be subject to incitement to hatred — the travellers and the gay community. In other words, we started bringing in sexual orientation clauses and clauses outlawing specific types of ethnic discrimination. This was resisted very strongly by the Minister, even though we presented evidence to the Seanad from other European jurisdictions and also from Canada and North America. The Bill had not completed its passage through both Houses when a general election was called and when it came up again the new Minister, Deputy Burke, introduced our amendments in the Dáil and they then came back to the Seanad. The Seanad played an important role and when the Minister goes to human rights conferences in Europe he receives the plaudits of his fellow parliamentarians in Europe for having produced one of the most advanced forms of prohibition of incitement to hatred legislation in Europe. That was thanks to Seanad Éireann. That is the role it should play.

Some years ago when Mr. MacSharry was Minister for Finance I discussed the problems of the north inner city with him, in particular, attempts to get funding into the area through income tax reliefs which would encourage people to live in the inner city. Mr. MacSharry was not entirely convinced but I asked for an opportunity to meet some representatives of his Department. I met senior civil servants. I came in with my facts and figures and they made mincemeat of me, in the most polite and professional way because I am not particularly mathematically gifted. My instinct was that my case was correct, even though I could not argue it properly. I said I knew they were right but I was also right. I obtained the services of a very helpful economist; we went back and demonstrated our case and Deputy Reynolds subsequently introduced three and a half pages of our proposals into the budget.

The final example is something we joined in from this side of the House, being briefed by a number of caring agencies. A number of women who were associated with the care of children came in and discussed the matter with us and I put down amendments to the Child Care Bill.

I mention this because often when a Bill has already gone through the Dáil and comes to the Seanad, apparently for revision, so that we can operate as we were instructed to do under the Constitution by refining and amending the legislation, we find that is not practical for one very good reason, namely, it has already gone through the Dáil and they do not want to be bothered with it again. They do not want to be pestered. They feel they have got it out of their system and you almost need Cabinet permission on some occasions, I gather, to get a Bill back to the Dáil. I do not think there should be that impediment but we are all aware that this impediment exists.

I will not mention any names but I recall an occasion on which a group of us stayed up very late at night arguing an amendment and resisting any attempt to introduce a guillotine because we felt it was of such substantial importance. Eventually, the Minister, almost in a state of collapse, went outside and made some telephone calls and he explained to us with disarming candour that he had to get agreement from the senior Minister and make sure the Government were prepared to accept it being returned to the Dáil.

On the Child Care Bill, 1988. We argued very strongly on the question of a guardian ad litem so that somebody could be introduced into the system of support to represent the rights of a child — not the State, not the parents, not the social services. This was introduced in England in the aftermath of the Maria Calwell case. It has saved the lives of children there and will also save the lives of children in this country when it is properly introduced and given the appropriate finance. When I put down that series of amendments they were ruled out of order because they would create a charge on the Exchequer. This area-could be reformed, or at least looked at. I know we cannot create a budget in this House. That would be nonsensical, but there are marginal errors where some small cost is incurred and it is appropriate that we should have the right to introduce such amendments.

On the occasion the amendment was ruled out of order but were allowed to address the general theory. We put down amendments and continued to argue and meet with representatives of the Department until at the last moment the Minister came into the House and said he had listened with increasing interest to what was being said in the Seanad. He was now fully convinced by our arguments and he was introducing our amendments as Government amendments.

That was a fine day for Seanad Éireann because, by virtue of hard work and consistently argued debate, we had convinced the Government to take the troublesome task of returning a Bill to Dáil Éireann. That Bill, in the view of the professional people operating in the area of child care, will save the lives of young people. That is the kind of thing the Seanad should do and upon which it can congratulate itself when it does it.

I have attacked certain aspects of the machinery of the Seanad. I make no apology for doing that, but I have always tried to underline that I am attacking a system and not the representatives. I think the people representing the various parties in this House are of a high calibre generally and I wish they would be so perceived outside. There is considerable confusion among the public about the precise role of the Seanad and if this debate can clarify our role then it will be doing a good day's work. In the light of the circumstances that surround elections and manipulation by the political parties, it is not entirely surprising the public is confused. Nor is it surprising, although it is regrettable that, for example, when RTE publish their account of the general election, with the breakdown of all the constitutencies, they call it "General Election Report". It is not a report of the general election: it is a report of only one element, because they only deal with the Dáil. This is because of the time lapse between the Dáil election and the Seanad election. It is interesting that RTE indicate by this kind of carelessness the lack of profile they feel appropriate to the Seanad.

Before I conclude I will make a few observations about what I might describe as some housekeeping matters because they are all that is going to be changed. Political parties are not at all serious about reform of the Seanad. Why should they be? It is not in their interest. In a celebrated phrase that predates its belated discovery by a former Fine Gael Member of the Lower House, it would be "like turkeys voting for Christmas". Why should they bother? They would really be voting themselves out of power. We cannot really expect any realistic reform of the major elements.

Two things need to be done. The first is coinciding the dates of nomination for both Houses to ensure that people who want to be in the Seanad are in the Seanad and people who want to be in the Dáil are in the Dáil. The second is enfranchising the nominating bodies. We are not going to get those reforms but we might get some other things, for example, the development of a proper Question Time.

People often complain that Senators like myself, apparently unscrupulously, use the Order of Business to paddle our own canoes, to ask questions that are sometimes deemed irrelevant by the Chair and to raise contentious matters. Why do we persist? We do so because it is one of the very few ways in which the Seanad can be made relevant to the immediate concerns of the nation. It is one way in which you can draw to the attention of the Seanad and, through the Press Gallery if you are lucky enough to catch the attention of one of the writers, the attention of the public to something you consider important. The fact that we have these lengthy sessions on the Order of Business is not a reflection of irresponsibility or frivolity on the part of Senators; rather it indicates the absence of a proper machinery to deal with matters of immediate moment.

I raise another matter that perhaps could be looked at by the Committee on Procedures and Privileges, that is, Standing Order 29. I would like to know if there is any rule book, for example, in existence, is there a Cathaoirleach's rule book which actually tells you the criteria by which decisions are made regarding raising a matter under Standing Order 29 and placing it before the House for consideration because it is a matter requiring urgent national consideration? I forget the exact phraseology.

I recall a situation, I think it was an ESB strike. I remember getting a ruling on this matter and the Cathaoirleach said he ruled it out of order because it was not a matter of urgent national priority. Yet, while he was saying that, the Taoiseach was actually on the radio proclaiming to the nation that it was a national emergency. That is quite absurd. Perhaps we should look at that matter and perhaps it would be helpful if we were able to have access to whatever guidelines exist, if they exist, and if they are not just simply improvised by whoever happens to be in the Chair at the time. It is dangerous because it then might lead to the imputation that there were political or even party political considerations in some of the judgments of the Cathaoirleach. I am speaking theoretically and I am not maligning anybody; that would be far from my nature.

I would like to leave the rulings of the Chair to the Chair. Standing Orders provide that the rulings of the Chair remain with the Chair so I would not like you to comment on them.

This is a kind of papal infallability you are declaring?

Acting Chairman

No, but I would like that you would adhere to Standing Orders.

I will certainly do so, but I have to say that in a democratic forum if we cannot analyse the machinery by which decisions are made then that itself is quite absurd. Of course, I bow, to your ruling but you are yourself, Sir, reflecting the absolutely nonsensical situation. I assume I am entitled to ask if there is in existence some kind of guidelines for these decisions?

Acting Chairman

The Standing Orders are always open for discussion, but as the Standing Orders are there I would like you to adhere to them.

I am doing my best with your very kind guidance, Sir. I would like to return to this question as to whether there is in existence clear and concrete guidelines with regard to these rulings. If there is, it will be useful for us all to have access to them. I am not laying any blame, because I remember, for example, that when the Altamont Bill was introduced — I am sure you will remember it, Sir — we had to go looking for all kinds of special regulations governing the introduction of this kind of legislation and people had to go and find these antique items in order to consult them. Perhaps all of this stuff — the Standing Orders, the decisions, the methods whereby decisions are reached and the criteria — could also be looked at. I regard that as a kind of a housekeeping matter.

Another thing I suggested quite a long time ago — I am not sure that it was not even in the previous Seanad — is this sometimes vexed question of the length of time allotted to Ministers in debates. I quite accept that constitutionality Ministers are perfectly entitled to speak for as long as they like. Some people are windbags and uncharitable people might even describe me as one. I feel strongly that when we have three hours allocated, for example, for Seanad debate it is inappropriate for any Minister to speak for an hour out of that time. I propose that perhaps the committee, if it ever really does meet and considers these situations, could consider exempting the Minister's time from the time allocated to Members of the Seanad — in other words, if it is a three hour debate all of that three hours should be allocated to Senators. If the Minister then wants to speak for 19 hours he can do so provided it does not trespass in any way on the time allocated to Senators.

It is sad and is also a reflection upon the way in which Government regards the Seanad that there has only been one Private Members' Bill successfully initiated and brought to its conclusion in this House in the past 35 years and that dealt with humane conditions for pigs and abattoirs. It was introduced by my late colleague and friend, Professor W. B. Stanford. Again, it is not a nonsense — one Bill initiated as a Private Members' Bill and brought to a conclusion?

We have a situation where we are openly, clearly and flagrantly using this debate in order to exhaust time, using it as a kind of filler. I believe that is what is happening. There is no legislation coming from the Government of any real significance but we have a number of matters on the Order Paper placed by Independents. There is the Suicide Bill — that is being dealt with but it will not get anywhere, of course, naturally enough. There was an Education Bill put down by Senator O'Toole, myself and Senator Ross when he was an Independent and before he got involved in the sewage problems of Greystones. I congratulate the seductions, the siren blandishments of the party system, which were able to lure Senator Ross into the problems of sewage of Wicklow County Council. I may say I resisted these blandishments myself with some success.

There is the Intermediate Education Bill. There is a "Bill entitled on Act to amend and extend the Irish Nationality and the Citizenship 1956 "in the names of myself, Senator Ross and Senator Joe O'Toole. That Bill was prepared by myself with the assistance of the parliamentary draftsman in response to pressure from a constitutent who in his own family had experienced this difficulty of adopting children abroad and establishing their Irish citizenship for passport reasons and so on. There is a small technical matter that needs to be cleared up. I went to the trouble of getting the Bill drafted, which is not easy for somebody who is an ignoramus in these matters like myself, but I did it. There is no real conflict between the Government and the Opposition and the Independents on this, but it has never been brought in. They will not give time. Why? Because they are so obsessed with power — and I think this is true of every Government; I am not attacking Fianna Fáil on a party basis — that they have become a dog in the manager. They do not want participatory democracy. They feel it would be an erosion of their power and some kind of negative comment upon their capacity if they were to accept that a good legislative proposal that was not theirs had the impertinence, the impudence, to originate from a side of the House that was not controlled by the Government.

There is also, for example, item No. 7 on today's Order Paper, the Interpretation Bill. Again, it is small, simple piece of legislation that removes sexism from the language of parliamentary draft-personship — and I have to be careful with that one — and something that the Taoiseach indicated in the Dáil he regarded as necessary. Here we have a situation where nothing is happening very much in the Seanad. There seems to be very little legislation coming; we are dealing with filler material all the time and we have a queue of Bills that would not cause the sky to fall in if they are brought through to completion. Yet, the Government resolutely refuse to allow this to happen.

May I make another suggestion? Again I doubt if it will happen, but let us see. I understand that it is possible that the machinery already exists — perhaps I am incorrect — to allow distinguished persons to address the Seanad — particularly, for example, Members of the European Parliament. Next week we are going to have a debate on Maastricht. It is overdue; it should have happened some time ago, but at last we have got it. Would that not be the ideal opportunity to have some of our MEPs share with us their experience of the European Parliament in order to illuminate and fill out our debate? I believe this is vital. It should happen. I will wait with interest to see if the Government have the initiative and this afternoon I challenge the Government. If they are serious in all this bleating about reform of the Seanad, let them do something. Let them demonstrate it by this one practical measure. Let us have some of our MEPs in here next week to participate in the discussions and to report directly to us. We are always talking nowadays with these buzz words and buzz phrases; one of them is the democratic deficit in Europe. Here we have a simple means of making up the democratic deficit.

I would like to end with a couple of matters. One of them is returning — and I do not want to be too antagonistic on the subject — to the question of county councils and so on. Again, this is a mixed issue. I have to be honest and say that at the time of the last local election I was approached by a group who suggested that I might run in Dublin for the local authority. I seriously considered it, but a number of things militated against it. One was that, after looking at the constituencies, they suggested I should not run in the area in which I live; I believe in local politics you should have direct hands-on experience of the area you propose to represent. They suggested that I should move back to my origins in the hated and feared Dublin 4, and I was reluctant to do that. The other thing was that they then said "After that we will look around for a Dáil seat". I do not imagine I would have taken a seat, but I certainly had no ambitions to do that.

The third reason I was reluctant to get involved was I recalled placing on the Order Paper of this House with persons who shall be unnamed — anybody who likes can look up the record; I will not embarrass them by rubbing their noses in it — a motion condemning the practice of double jobbing politically by being both councillors and Members of the Seanad. I remember the arguments that were produced at that time by my colleagues. They asked if this was the reason we never met on Mondays. I wonder if one of those persons is eating his or her own words on that particular issue. I think the demands on somebody in a local authority, particularly if they are based outside the main urban environments are pretty heavy.

I would like to end by saying a little about the work we do here. I think we all work hard but I do not think the environment is always as good as it should be because I do not think the services are provided to the extent that they should be. Perhaps this could be looked into. This is a housekeeping matter. Perhaps I could give a couple of instances. I come to my office five days a week because I enjoy it, because there is work to do. Nobody need think that Senators do not work hard. I know they do because I am in my office and I meet people going around their offices. The fact that the Chamber is empty, which is often used in a facile way by the media to attack the Seanad, does not mean people are not working. We all have our offices with monitors and so on. The equipment is improving. We now have shared computers and so on.

There are six Independent Senators. There are three small offices for six Senators, two secretaries and three political assistants, that is, ten or 12 people in three tiny rooms, four people to a room, filing cabinets, monitors, telephones — all this jumble around the place. The conditions are cramped; they probably do not comply with the factories Act. The division of responsibility between the secretaries — and I would like to say that the secretaries are extremely capable, efficient, hard working and decent people — means one secretary is working for three Senators. If we really take this place seriously, we should have a room and a secretary each. That, of course, might embarrass a few people around here, people who never do any work, and there are some people who do very little. Of course, it would be a dreadful embarrassment to have a whole office to yourself with a little secretary rattling around in it with nothing to do, but maybe that would force them into doing something. I think the facilities need to be looked at.

I have already referred to the fact that on occasions what I would consider properly constituted meetings, which were part of my responsibility as a Senator and the responsibility of other Senators, were not permitted to be held within the confines of Leinster House or of our offices because of the judgment of personnel in this House outside the democratically elected sphere. I wonder about that. I am very lucky that in teaching in Trinity and working in Leinster House I had a little bolt hole, a little throughway. I could skip from the Arts block past the Kilkenny Design Centre and in through the back entrance to Kildare House. That has now been closed up. Why? It seems absolutely idiotic to me that that is closed, because it means I now have to go right around the building, down the stairs into my office, along a passageway and all the way back again. It is really infuriating to have to do that. It is a kind of imbecile conception of whoever thought it up because there is a security person now employed full time on that entrance. In a kind of little, parsimonious, meanspirited way that facility has been denied to those who work in that office building.

I hope some of these matters will be noted because the principle really must be established that we, the elected Members of Seanad Éireann, are here doing our work to the best of our ability and we should be facilitated rather than hindered in the exercise of our function.

I am afraid I told a lie — if that is not unparliamentary language and I may perhaps be permitted to use it about myself — but I told a lie, not a deliberate lie, because I said I was not going to talk for very long; but I also acknowledged that I was a bit of a windbag and I hope I have not taxed the patience of the House too much by what I said today. Like every person who has taken the trouble to contribute to this debate, I feel passionately that it is an honour to have been elected by whatever method to this House. It is a privilege to represent your country in a national parliament. It is something which I value very highly; I believe we all do. It is perhaps for this reason that a number of us have taken the opportunity to speak at length even if, as I do myself, they acknowledge that it may be just so much sweetness wafting on the desert air and that very little of a practical nature will come from it.

I hope that my few suggestions — and I acknowledge and accept that the major ones about disinfecting the system by removing the grosser aspects of party political control have no chance whatever of success — in relation to what I have described as small housekeeping exercises may be considered by the appropriate body, which, I understand, is the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which we know from the sometimes tragic history of this House has not always given satisfaction to lowly forms of life such as myself. I might even say that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges might be given a wry glance from time to time. Be that as it may, I hope that some of the suggestions I have made here in good faith may be considered worthy of consideration.

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on the role of the Seanad. I hope during the course of my contribution to show why I disagree with some of the points made by Senator Norris, although I would like to agree with the points he made in relation to the lack of facilities for Senators in the House.

So far this has been a very positive and constructive debate. I have not been in the Chamber for all of it, but I have read all the contributions which have been published to date in the Official Report and I have listened to many of the contributions on the monitor. Many interesting views and ideas have been put forward and some very practical suggestions for change and innovation have been made.

The Leader of the House set the tone of the debate when he suggested to Members that the role of the Seanad should be considered within the parameters set down by the Constitution. The first fact we have to recognise is that the Constitution gives to Seanad Éireann a role which is in many ways distinct and separate from that which it gives to Dáil Éireann. The Dáil, as the directly elected House of the Oireachtas, has, as Senator Fallon pointed out, superior constitutional powers in regard to non money Bills and superior parliamentary authority in regard to the finances of the State. This reality, however, must not be seen as implying that the Seanad has not a major and extremely valuable role to play as part of the Legislature of this State. What Éamon de Valera was intent on avoiding and what he succeeded in avoiding in the 1937 Constitution was a situation where Seanad Éireann would be a carbon copy or a mirror image of Dáil Éireann.

It was also his objective to ensure that as far as possible those elected to Seanad Éireann would all have specialist knowledge and experience in at least one of a range of vocational areas. In order to achieve this objective an extremely complex electoral system, involving panels, sub-panels and nominating bodies, had to be devised. To complicate matters further, the franchise for Seanad elections in the case of the five vocational panels is restricted to an electoral college comprised of persons who are themselves elected public representatives. In the case of the university panels the franchise is restricted to graduates of the National University of Ireland and graduates of Trinity College.

It is little wonder, therefore, that as far as the general public is concerned there is some degree of mystique attaching to Seanad elections and to the system by which Members are elected. There is also the factor that Seanad debates and Seanad business do not receive anything like the degree of media attention received by the other House. However, almost invariably, when the role of the Seanad is being assessed or evaluated there is a tendency to compare it directly with that of the Dáil as if the role and functions of both Houses were identical in every respect. That is not a valid basis on which to carry out such an assessment or evaluation and that is why this debate is important. That is why it is important for the Seanad to look at itself from time to time with a view to bringing forward proposals for reform or suggestions for change which are seen to be desirable and which Members consider will enhance the image of the House, improve its efficiency or make it more relevant and more responsive to a rapidly changing world outside.

I have already touched on the previous speakers, including Senator Norris, have also referred to the Seanad electoral system. The fact that 43 of the 60 Members are elected on five vocational panels by an electoral college of approximately 1,000 electors who are themselves elected public representatives does not tell the full story. In fact, it does not even tell half the story. First, as a general rule there are at least three candidates for each of the 43 seats. Secondly, before each candidate is nominated he or she must go through a selection or election process to secure nomination. In the case of some candidates there may be a two-tier selection or election process involved. Having been nominated, if he or she is to have any chance of being elected a candidate must make personal contact with as many members or the electorate as possible. This involves travelling anything from 10,000 to 12,000 miles throughout the length and breadth of the country trying to convince a very sophisticated and experienced electorate that one is worthy of being elected to what Senator Norris described as this august institution. I cannot imagine any process that could be more democratic. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to devise an alternative system of electing the 43 Members on the vocational panels which would be an improvement on the system I have described and which is now in operation.

Other Members have dealt with the historical background and reasons for the fact that six of the 60 Senators are elected on the university panels by the graduates of the NUI and Trinity College. The contribution made to the Seanad by university Senators over the years and which they continue to make has been acknowledged by all sides, but I would have to support the case that was made for the extension of the franchise on the university panels to those categories of third level graduates who currently do not have the right to vote on these panels.

Mention has been made during this debate of the very many distinguished individuals nominated to this House by successive Taoisigh. It was an honour and privilege for me to have served in this Chamber with people such as former Senators Éamon de Buitléar, George Eogan, Séamus Mallon, John Robb, Bríd Rodgers, Stephen McGonagle, Christy Kirwan, Brian Friel and Dr. Ken Whitaker.

It has been suggested that elections to the Dáil and Seanad would be held on the same day. The argument that has been advanced in support of this suggestion is that it would force people to opt for either one House or the other and that it would preclude unsuccessful Dáil candidates from proceeding to seek election to the Seanad. If this proposal were to be implemented it would probably favour sitting Senators like myself or, indeed, the Acting Chairman by reducing competition on the various panels. Defeated TDs and people who have unsuccessfully contested a general election are usually fairly strong candidates in the ensuing Seanad election as they invariably have a certain amount of sympathy from the Seanad electorate. However, I could not go along with the idea of both elections being held on the same day as I do not believe that people should have to opt exclusively for one House or the other. I believe this House has benefited from the presence here of people who have served in the other House either as Deputies or, in some cases, as Ministers. Likewise, I submit that some of the most distinguished Members of the other House are people who served their apprenticeship in this Chamber.

Neither do I think that the preponderance of party politicians in this Chamber should be put forward as an indictment of this House or of the way in which its Members are elected. The existence of political parties is essential to the system of parliamentary democracy which we have in this State. I will never accept that the TD or Senator who belongs to political party is in some way inferior to the species who purports to be an Independent. It has always been generally accepted that the debate in the Seanad is of a very high standard and this is as true of the present Seanad as it was of any of its predecessors.

Legislation coming to this House is scrutinised in great detail. A variety of extremely relevant public issues are debated during each session in Private Members' time. Some of the most important legislation to be enacted in recent times was initiated in the Seanad and was greatly improved during its passage through the House. I am thinking, in particular, of such legislative measures as the Companies Act, the Insurance Act, the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, the Control of Clinical Trials Act, the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act and the Video Recordings Act. At the moment the very important Environmental Protection Agency Bill which was initiated in this House is being debated in the Dáil. I know that the Leader of the House is making every effort to ensure that it will continue to be Government practice to initiate legislation on a regular basis in the Seanad.

A study of the Seanad Official Report will show that developments in the European Community and Oireachtas joint committees reports receive more detailed debate in the Seanad than they do in the Dáil. Furthermore, Members have the opportunity on each sitting day to seek permission to raise important matters on dealt with each day. It has been suggested during this debate that two matters should be allowed on the Adjournment, a practical and worthwhile suggestion. I also believe that Standing Order 29 — Senator Norris referred to this order — should be amended to provide for the Adjournment of the House for a specified period only to deal with the type of matter contemplated by that Standing Order and that at the end of this specified period, the House would resume its normal business.

I welcome the new departures for which the present Leader of the House has been responsible, in particular the regular allocation of time for statements on issues of major importance. For example, the opportunity which the Seanad will have next week over two days to debate the Maastricht Summit is welcome.

I support the suggestion made by Senator Manning that the Leader of the House should have the status and recognition of an office holder and that the office should carry an appropriate allowance. This is a matter which the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should pursue as a separate issue in view of the fact that county council chair-people throughout the country are paid allowances, in some cases as high as £20,000, and the Leader of the Seanad does not receive a single penny in respect of the office he holds. This situation should be redressed as a matter of urgency. Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

I was under the impression I was next.

Acting Chairman

An Independent Senator spoke on the last occasion so I thought it would be Senator Jackman's turn to speak.

Senator Ó Foighil spoke before the Independent Senator on this side of the House.

Acting Chairman

I am trying to be fair, Senator.

Thank you. I welcome this debate. The Seanad has always been an easy target for criticism, some of it valid, more of it simply an indication of political immaturity. The Seanad is part of the constitutional process; it provides a reflective second opinion on legislation and on matters of national importance. If there is a cost associated with it, in many ways that cost is well worth paying.

The Seanad also provides a platform for people who would not be elected through the political mainstream. Many of these people have made very significant contributions to Irish political life. The Seanad — as a number of other Senators have said — also provided an introduction to national politics for many major political figures in this country. Former Taoisigh served their apprenticeship in the Seanad; Ministers on all sides and of all political persuasions commenced their national political life here and the Seanad gave them an important and useful grounding in the political process. That should not be overlooked.

There is now a clear need for Seanad reform. Many present functions of the Seanad should be abolished and some new functions introduced. Much of the present business — it seems to me — is conducted on an ad hoc basis and is heavily dependent on the availability of Ministers. A clear programme of work should be drawn up and adhered to for each session of the Seanad. Ministers should be paired to allow them to deal easily with the business of the Seanad; it is quite unacceptable that Ministers should dash off to the other House and that this House should be adjourned to allow them to fulfil their functions there. It should be possible to arrange pairs for Ministers in those positions and in all situations; except in cases of dire political conflict, this procedure should be adhered to. Ministers should give commitments to participate in legislative programmes and the Seanad should, for many of them, be of considerably greater priority than it appears to be at present.

I have long held the view that speeches made in this House are too long. I am in favour of a time limit on speeches in normal circumstances. Many speeches would benefit greatly from being edited. I cannot see why, for the most part, people cannot express their thoughts and ideas in a 20 minute spell or in a shorter period. If effort was put in to considering what was about to be said, it should be possible to attain that objective.

Having said that, I am not in favour of a complete abolition of the right towards the filibuster, or of the option for Senators in certain circumstances to engage in a filibuster. It can fill a useful and important political role, but it should only be done for good reason and I cannot understand what anxiety drives Senators to continue speaking for one or two hours. It is beyond me to understand why they behave like that. I sometimes wonder if they ever read those speeches. Perhaps it would be a good antedote for that type of behaviour if they were obliged to read those speeches or to have them read back to them.

The Order of Business is a sort of Byzantine ritual where Senators try to make political points by asking the Leader a question. That, to me, is daft behaviour and I cannot see any justification for it in the latter days of the 20th century. It would be much better if the Order of Business was a routine occasion for Senators to agree on the Order of Business for that day. The present ritual should be abandoned and that time made available to Senators to make brief statements on topical matters. That would be preferable to the present situation where Senators depend on the indulgence of the Cathaoirleach to raise topical matters and it is quite inappropriate that topical matters cannot be discussed in this House except with the indulgence of the Cathaoirleach. That practice is wrong and unacceptable and should be reformed.

I agree with much of the criticism which has been made about the Adjournment debates. There is considerable opportunity to expand on the Adjournment debate. Two, three or four, ideally four, times should be taken on the Adjournment and the time available to Senators for the Adjournment should be confined to five minutes. It might be a good idea if items on the Adjournment were listed into broad categories so that the Minister, let us say, for Finance or for Health could take four relevant items on a rotational basis rather than the present system where, on a typical day, five or six Senators try to raise matters on the Adjournment and only one can be accommodated.

Much criticism has been made of the method of election of Senators. I agree with most of the points made by Senator Muloolly in relation to this matter. The first thing we have to remember is that the Seanad is a different sort of Chamber to the Dáil; it fills a different function and I see no purpose in the Seanad becoming, as it were, a sort of a second division replica of the Dáil with an election system similar to that in the Dáil.

The people who elect most of the Senators on the panels are themselves elected people. They are widely representative of the Irish public, they come from all parts of the country and they represent all walks of life and shades of opinion. These people are well informed and have more political sense and judgment than most people give them credit for. I am not sure that the criticisms made of the system are all valid. Seanad elections are an item of influence and of importance for councillors, most of whom have very restrictive powers at present. I would not be in favour of diminishing the role of county councils in the process by which Senators are elected.

In relation to the University Senators, I share the view that they have made a significant and worth-while contribution to the Seanad over the years. At the same time, it is difficult to justify university graduates having a vote which those who are not graduates of either Trinity College or the National University of Ireland do not. I find it very difficult to accept that people such as myself who happen to have an NUI degree should have an extra vote in Seanad elections.

While the system of electing University Senators gives rise to grave reservations, it produces excellent Senators. I have, however, long held the view that the process by which University Senators are elected provides certain Members of the public with a sort of conscience washing facility. Certain members of the public would like to think that they agree with ideas held by Senator Norris or Senator Ryan or by the various other University Senators. Yet I think many of these people would be deeply worried if Senator Norris, Senator Ryan or one of their colleagues became Minister for Finance. The university electorate can justify themselves and solve their consciences by voting for people who hold views they would like to hold as long as these views did not cost them anything. It provides a certain type of university graduate with an opportunity to indulge in a spot of double thinking. Many of these people are the kind of folk who approach one in saloon bars late at night and say solemnly that they too are people of the left but one knows too well that, over the years, they have voted consistently and irreconcilably for parties of the right. The opportunity to indulge themselves at election time by casting their NUI or TCD Seanad vote allows them, as it were, to wash their consciences and to reconcile all the delightful inconsistencies that characterise them.

I would like to see some type of Question Time introduced into the Seanad. Perhaps it should be restricted to certain policy matters and for the most part restricted to written replies with a limited capacity to ask oral questions and to have the Minister answer them. Much greater use should be made of the Seanad's power to introduce legislation and of present facilities to introduce private Members' Bills.

Research facilities for Senators are very limited and uneven battles tend to develop between Ministers who come into the House with the support of civil servant experts on the Bill being dealt with and Senators who have to depend on whatever limited help they can obtain. I would like to see greater use made of the committee system and the Seanad having the capacity to call expert witnesses so that it can be fully informed on various matters of political importance.

There may also be a role for the Seanad confirming certain appointments made by Government. Many major appointments are made by the Government and nobody seems fully aware of how these appointments are made. In the case of a number of key appointments, people do not apply for them but are offered them and there is very little review or criticism in the political process of how those appointments are made. The Seanad could fill that function perhaps. I would not like the whole shenanigans which went on in the USA in the case of the Judge Thomas appointment to be repeated here.

I would like finally to refer to one or two items mentioned by other Senators during their contributions to this debate. Senator Honan spoke about "King-makers" outside the Oireachtas and the roles they can play in politics seem to be much more significant and important than those of the elected representatives. That role is a reflection of the amount of money these people have and of the way they use that money in elections, and there is no doubt that money talks at election time. Money is the basis of much of the influence of these people and until the funding of political parties is tackled such people will continue to exert undue influence in many cases.

In relation to the proposal that elections for the Dáil and Seanad should take place on the same day, I do not think that proposal will get anywhere. There is an implication in this type of suggestion that party politicians are in some way inferior to independent representatives. I reject that idea and I do not think that cold analysis of the facts would allow one to reach that conclusion.

The political process depends on political parties. There is no valid ground for claiming that people in political parties possess a disproportionate amount of the failings of the human condition. The inconsistencies which characterise much of the behaviour of members of political parties, including my own, are also to be seen clearly in the behaviour of people who are not part of the political process.

Where does this debate take us and where do we go from here? I would be interested to hear from the Leader of the House what proposals he has to implement the ideas introduced in this debate and where the whole process of Seanad reform will be taken after this debate has concluded. Thank you.

Like other Senators I welcome the opportunity of looking at the role of Seanad Éireann and debating constructively how we might improve the structures of the House, how basic reforms could make its operation more efficient and how a positive and constructively informative image could be presented to a negative and in many cases unenlightened public who view the second Chamber with cynicism. Since being elected to Seanad Éireann I have made it my business to speak on the role of Seanad Éireann and on reforms that I feel could be implemented not just at political party meetings but also to women's groups, farming organisations, teachers, students and trade union groups and the response has not been negative. People have openly admitted that they do not know what happens in Seanad Éireann. Television coverage has helped in the last few months, slim though it is.

I have also spoken here on many occasions of the need to include political studies in the school curriculum which could have been integrated with social and environmental studies as proposed by the former Minister for Education, Gemma Hussey. If the subject of political studies was included in the curriculum students could have impressed upon them the importance of democracy and democratic structures.

The Leader of the House, Senator Fallon, explained in detail the enshrining in the Constitution of the powers and functions of the Seanad founded 54 years ago. As a House of the Oireachtas, we are accountable to the people and all Senators are aware of their role. We realise that the Dáil is the major organ of the legislative process but the Seanad has responsibility, too, to provide legislation.

New Senators must be surprised at the languid, rather lethargic pace of Seanad life. The protracted and extended Order of Business which occurs regularly causes frustration as the repetition of motions continues, with regular questions to the Leader of the House. Perhaps the fact that little happens in response exacerbates that frustration. The Order of Business is a waste of valuable time. Matters of urgency must be raised, as they are by the leaders of the parliamentary groups, but there is no other body in Irish life whether in public or commercial life which could afford the luxury of such time wasting before getting the business underway.

The original aim in bringing together 60 people who would have knowledge and specialist expertise to oversee legislation can be seen through the varied professional expertise of present Members. A roll-call of former Senators would be impressive. Our President, Mary Robinson played a very important role in raising issues of vital importance to women during the seventies when she was a lone voice here. Senator Catherine McGuinness who is now chairperson of the Employment Equality Agency was an impressive Senator. That begs the question of equality. We have six women among 60 Members in Seanad Éireann, a poor reflection of equality.

The Taoiseach's 11 nominees are now political, but at a time when they were not we had Bríd Rodgers, Brian Friel, renowned and feted today for "Dancing at Lughnasa" acclaimed throughout Britain and the United States, John Robb, Séamus Mallon, Dr. Whitaker and other impressive and prominent people who had an opportunity then of making excellent and valuable contributions.

President Robinson sees our emigrants as our extended family and we could extend membership of the Seanad to Irish people abroad. I have had many requests from emigrants to have that matter raised and it would be an ideal opportunity for the Taoiseach of the day to include representatives of emigrant organisations among his nominees.

Looking at the panel system, I support Senator Manning who suggested that nominating bodies would have a certain number of votes in addition to those who already vote on panels. Women's groups in particular should have an opportunity to nominate candidates within the existing panels.

The historical reason for allocating university seats has been dealt with by many Senators. One of the reasons was, I suppose, our close links with the British system. I have spoken almost weekly in this House, on the discrimination against graduates of the two new universities — the University of Limerick, which now has two other colleges integrated with it, Thomond College and Mary Immaculate College of Education and Dublin City University. There is discrimination also in the case of regional technical colleges and other third level institutions. We will be debating the Colleges Bill soon in this House. That Bill gives enhanced status to the colleges and it is only reasonable that we would extend the Seanad franchise to all these third level bodies.

The forthcoming Maastricht Summit would have been an ideal opportunity to welcome our MEPs to this House and give them the opportunity of explaining to us the importance of this historic occasion. As we know, European issues encroach daily on our lives and as we do not have a committee on European legislation or a foreign affairs committee it is essential that we should have a forum for debating wider European issues.

The topic of regionalisation, for instance, has been dealt with at conferences throughout the country and motions passed by local authorities month by month have fallen on deaf ears on the part of the Government. The Seanad would be an opportunity for us to thrash out the importance of regional structures. We and the United Kingdom are the only countries in the EC who refuse to accept that people in regions should have a say in deciding the fate of European Structural Funds and of integrating with other regional bodies such as farming organisations and trade union groups. Agencies such as the Shannon Free Airport Development Company could be used as a model to create other similar regional structures. Regionalisation can be discussed on the airwaves but in the forum where it should be discussed an opportunity to do so does not exist.

I also look forward to major reports from chairpersons or directors of agencies such as the NESC and ESRI, particularly, who can map a course for us through the 1990s and into the next century. They should have the opportunity of coming in at timely intervals to discuss with us whatever they have worked through. State agencies and the Conference of Major Religious Superiors who analyse rural and urban problems and the Combat Poverty Agency should have an opportunity to come to Seanad Éireann and make proposals particularly at pre-budget time. While I realise the Seanad does not have a financial role we could use this forum for debate.

We have had few opportunities here to debate educational issues in the absence of an Education Act. Education is a long term undertaking; it cannot be treated as flavour of the month now and not later. We have had education debates for the past number of months on the "Gay Byrne Show" and on television programmes yet we had little or no opportunity here at any time to discuss the future of Irish education. It is all right to promise a Green Paper, a White Paper and an Education Act but we need to debate education in anticipation of these papers. Given the change in personnel since the then Minister for Education, Mrs. O'Rourke promised us a Green Paper before Christmas, I hope we will not have to wait until after Christmas for it.

Going back to the functions and the organisation of the House, limited opportunities to raise issues which cannot be raised on the Order of Business and which may be of local, regional or even national urgency are not adequate. It is important to have longer time for Adjournment debates. A Question Time perhaps could be incorporated into the proceedings of Seanad Éireann and Private Members' time is too limited. It is not a good idea to divide three hours of Private Members' time between two weeks because the impetus cannot be sustained and it would be possible to create a greater impact if we had an uninterrupted debate.

I will make a brief point which I can develop later because I believe we are getting an opportunity on another day to continue this debate. With the queue of legislation in the other House and the pressure on us prior to recess times to debate into all hours of the night which does not do much for our clarity of thought, I would like to see Private Members' Bill such as the Suicide Bill introduced last night, being accepted by the House instead of being told, to our dismay, that the Government will be initiating their own Bill before Christmas. I do not really believe this will happen before Christmas but I hope I am wrong. It would have made political common sense to accept the Suicide Bill in this House.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

It is proposed to sit at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 December 1991.

Top
Share