Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Apr 1992

Vol. 132 No. 6

Report of Committee on Procedure and Privileges: Motion.

Mr. Wright

I move:

That the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (T. 288) dated the 2nd April, 1992 be adopted.

The purpose of this motion is to adopt the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on changes in procedure and practices in the Seanad. This report, which has been circulated to Senators, is not a complicated one and is, to a large extent, self-explanatory.

The report centres on the reorganisation of business within the Seanad itself and recommends changes in the existing practices and procedures of the House. The recommendations can be implemented by adapting the way business is ordered and by amending the existing Standing Orders Relative to Public Business. The aim of the report is to ensure that the business of the House is ordered more effectively and efficiently and to make the House more responsive to the needs of Members. The proposals relate solely to the reorganisation of business within the House and are an endeavour to enhance its effectiveness within the existing parameters.

When the Members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges examined the statements made by Senators on the role of the Seanad, we found that there was a strong consensus of opinion on all sides of the House and that we needed to provide Members with a legitimate means of raising matters other than on the Order of Business. We all agreed that the primary role of the Seanad lies in the initiation and revision of legislation, but we must also accept that it should provide a forum for debate on important and topical matters. It was felt that topical issues were being discussed in every forum except on the Floor of this House.

One Senator summed up the frustration and resentment of most Members when he said: "It is very frustrating to come in here on occasions and find that while a debate is taking place on radio, on television and in newspapers on the street, yet because of the rules of the House, it is very seldom possible to get a debate going on an important topic on the day on which the topic arises." I hope we will get an opportunity to deal with that issue.

As the House is aware, as Chief Whip and Leader, I have endeavoured when ordering the business to facilitate Members by making arrangements to have statements made as quickly as possible on matters of urgent and public importance. However, in the absence of established procedures and proper machinery to deal with matters of concern to Members, it has become the practice for Members to use the Order of Business to raise all matters of local and national interest. This happened yet again today.

Any matter can be raised on the Order of Business by simply asking the Leader of the House if he would make time available for a debate on it or if he would convey the views of the Senator to the Minister concerned. This has led to an inordinate and disproportionate amount of time being spent daily on the Order of Business and to the same matters being raised by Members day after day and by Member after Member. This is what happens most days.

I genuinely believe, in relation to the reforms we are attempting to implement today, that unless there is goodwill on all sides in implementing them, they will be of no avail. While there is a time limit, we all hope that the reforms will be implemented in the best interests of the House to ensure it is run efficiently.

In this respect the committee are recommending that changes be made in procedures to facilitate Members raising topical matters and to provide better and increased opportunities to debate matters in a legitimate and structured manner.

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges considered a synopsis of all the recommendations put forward by Senators in the debate on the role of the Seanad. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the many Senators, — some of who have long experience in the House — who made responsibile contributions and expressed their views over many months on how the House could run more efficiently. The committee selected the key areas where we could introduce changes immediately and literally put our own House in order before any other major changes could be made.

Some of the changes proposed, such as a fixed time for the Adjournment of the House or the introduction of statements as part of Thursday's business, can be implemented with the agreement of the House on the Order of Business each day. Fixing a time for the Adjournment will not amount to a major change but it will facilitate both the Senator whose matter has been selected for discussion and the Minister concerned and eliminate the uncertainty which prevails at present, especially on a Thursday when a Senator can spend the afternoon waiting in the wings trying to estimate how long a debate will last and the office of the Minister concerned must stay in constant contact with the staff to monitor progress in the House. Adherence to the time fixed on the Order of Business would enable them to schedule their day properly with the minimum of disruption.

In relation to ordering statements on Thursday afternoons, I foresee no difficulty with this except on the days when we have a heavy legislative programme to fulfil and it is necessary to give priority to a debate on a Bill. However, the party Whips are aware of their responsibility in relation to the passage of legislation, so this is a matter which can be decided on a commonsense basis.

The report makes three recommendations which require an amendment to Standing Orders. First, it proposes that a Private Members' motion be taken in full each week. I welcome that proposal. In my first couple of weeks as Whip, I felt that a motion lost its impetus when carried forward a week. I think this will be of benefit to the House and should lead to a more concerted and effective debate and ensure that the impetus will not be lost as can happen under the present system. The overall time will be reduced to two hours and the debate will commence at 6 p.m. The time allowed for the proposer will be reduced to 15 minutes when moving the motion and a further ten minutes when replying. A maximum of ten minutes will be allowed to the seconder and any other Senator contributing. In view of the reduction in the overall time, the time allowed for the Minister's contribution is also being restricted to 15 minutes. The effect of this change in procedure is that it will double the number of motions discussed. On the adverse side, there will be a reduction in the time allowed to speakers but most people should be able to adequately express their views in ten minutes.

Motions will be selected on the basis of a six week rota in proportion of Government two, Opposition four. This rota is based on the numerical strength of the groups and the only group who will be adversely affected are the Independent Group who up to now enjoyed equal standing with other groups in the Opposition, in particular Fine Gael.

Second, the report recommends that the time allocated for debate on a matter on the Adjournment be reduced to 15 minutes, with ten minutes for the proposer and five minutes for the Minister to reply. The Chair will select two items for discussion each night which again, in effect doubles the number of matters which can be discussed. The only disadvantage is the reduction in time but most matters can be dealt with adequately in the time allocated.

Thirdly, and finally, the report also introduced a new concept in Standing Order No. 29a set out in the schedule to the report and deals with matters of concern to Members. The problem in regard to the structure of the Order of Business is dealt with in this half hour. If Members do not see this as an opportunity to raise matters of concern instead of raising issues with the Cathaoirleach and the Leader on the Order of Business each day, the Order of Business in the three months time will be as it has been up to now. It is vital that we get across to Members that this half hour is available to Members to raise matters that up to now were raised at the Order of Business. Most of them have nothing to do with the Order of Business or with legislation and, in most instances, have nothing to do with a national issue. This procedure will obviously have an effect and the Committee hope it will help improve the position at the Order of Business. We should be able to deal with legislation before 3 p.m. each day.

Under the new procedure on a Wednesday night, after the conclusion of the debate on the motion for the Adjournment, a Member may make a two minute statement about any matter of which prior notice has been given to the Cathaoirleach. There is an overall time limit of 30 minutes which means that up to 15 matters can be raised. The names of Members concerned will be announced in the House in conjunction with the motions on the Adjournment by the Cathaoirleach before the Order of Business.

It is hoped that the introduction of this procedure will channel away much of the peripheral debate from the Order of Business and, in this way, lead to a better and more efficient Seanad.

This report is merely a step forward. It does not contain any major change and does not purport in any way to meet all the wishes of Senators. I am aware that many Senators are calling for more fundamental and extensive changes including amendment to the electoral system and the electorate. Such changes would require amending legislation in some form and, as I said, the committee at this stage are concerned only with matters within their own control.

The recommendations will be implemented on a trial basis during the next session and their effectiveness will be monitored and reviewed after the summer recess. We agreed that we would review them before we break for the summer recess. There are other areas where changes can also be implemented and other Standing Orders which can be reviewed, in particular Standing Order 29 but these are matters for another day. As a start we have the proposals in this report and I recommend their acceptance to the House.

I should like to put on record my sincere thanks to the Members of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to the leaders of the groups, to the former Cathaoirleach and to yourself, both as the former Leader and now Cathaoirleach for help informulating the proposals before the House. I know it is the desire of all Members that we will be more efficient and more in tune with political life today. I hope that, in these changes, we will make one small step towards that.

Mr. Manning

In supporting what was said by the Leader of the House, I should like to say that the reforms suggested in this report are a modest but significant step forward in the way this House orders its business. I should like to take up where the Leader of the House left off and pay a tribute to the Cathaoirleach for the role he played when Leader in chairing the committee. I should like to pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to Members of the committee because the proceedings of the committee were conducted in a totally nonpartisan manner with one common objective, to try to make this House more effective. It is only right that we should put on record the part played by the former Cathaoirleach, Senator Doherty, because this process began in his time as Cathaoirleach.

The purpose of the proposals is to make this House more efficient and more relevant but, most of all, to ensure that the opportunities for participation by Members are enhanced. The proposal to double the number of statements on the Adjournment will give an opportunity to ordinary Members to raise relevant issues. The decision to permit more topical debates on a regular basis provides an opportunity for the Seanad to react in a speedy and positive way to what happens in our society or outside it. Also, the possibility of raising matters of concern gives Members an opportunity through the broadcasting facilities, to reach out from here to their communities. I welcome these proposals.

I echo the sentiment of the Leader of the House that these reforms are merely the start of a process which we believe will be ongoing. All of us who take this House seriously — that is most Members — know that at present this House is operating only at a fraction of its potential. We must look over the coming months at many of the ideas which surfaced during the long debate on Seanad reform. At this stage these ideas should include everything short of measures which would necessitate constitutional reform. When we have considered those which do not require constitutional reform, we can start looking at those which would. We should consider first what is possible by consensus.

I do not rule out the possibility of constitutional review. There are many aspects of our political system which could benefit from an all-party review. It is now 25 years since the last review of the Constitution. There are many aspects, including the electoral systems of both Houses, the role of the President and the powers of the Seanad and the Dáil which could be reviewed. That is for another day. We should not consider Seanad reform in isolation. Parliaments all over Europe, indeed all over the world, have lost out power in recent years for reasons which I and other Senators outlined in our contribution on the main debate such as the growth of bureaucracy and of a presidential style of Government, the presence of pressure groups, the powers given to the European Community and the role of the media. These have reduced the roles of parliaments compared to what they were 20 to 30 years ago. The reasons are the same in virtually all countries of the European Community. What is significant for us is that in many of these countries Parliament fought back to try to find a new role, to try to recover some of its lost powers and to try to enhance its position generally.

I suggest to the Leader of the House that through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges this House start talking in a structured way to the other seven countries of the European Community who have a second House. There may not be much we can learn; there is not much we have in common with the House of Lords, for example. However, there are countries where the second Chamber plays an important and significant role. In virtually all of those countries the second House has had to go through a process of self-examination. I suggest, whether through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or through the Inter-parliamentary Union, that over the coming months we begin this dialogue with other parliamentarians. All of us know that we have more in common with the members of other parliaments within the European Community than we have with any other single group. Their problems are similar to ours and their outlook across party lines are very similar to ours. Through that type of dialogue we identify our common problems and see how we can strengthen our own position.

My party will be pressing for further changes over the coming months. We want the committee to look seriously at the possibility of, in some way in the future, providing for representation for some of our emigrants within the Seanad, whether it means increasing the membership or granting the right of audience to their representations. We believe that idea should be looked at. We should consider in the Italian Parliament — this applies to former Presidents — making former Prime Ministers honorary members of the Seanad so that the wisdom and experience of such people would be available on an ongoing basis to the body politic.

We believe also that the Committee structure in both Houses should be greatly increased so that the Seanad can play its part. This House has a unique opportunity to become the European House within the Irish parliamentary system, the House which devotes much of its time to discussing, analysing and monitoring what is happening in Europe and, as such, acting for the public as a conduit on what is happening in the Community. We have a role, too, in discussing matters such as the reports of the Law Reform Commission which are published on a regular basis and contain many valuable ideas. They are rarely discussed in either House.

That is in the future. We have an opportunity now to look at the whole style of parliamentary government. For far too long we have modelled ourselves on the confrontational and sterile style of the British House of Commons. We should now raise our heads above the system operated in the House of Commons, with its wasteful divisiveness and its disproportionate system of election and look instead at the parliaments that actually work, the parliaments of Germany and the Scandinavian countries that try as far as possible to relate their activity to the way in which people behave in normal life through discussion, consultation and accommodation, and reaching a basis of consensus. In the German Parliament there is considerable scope for the Opposition and members on the Government side to introduce Bills as a right. The system also ensures that about 80 per cent of Bills are based upon a consensus in the House.

It is important that we use our imagination in this debate to get away from the accepted conventions and the accepted way of looking at parliament which, sadly, is largely the British way, one of the worst models we could adopt. It is one of the facts of our history that we have looked largely to Britain. That is a great irony in that our history was aimed at getting away from Britain. As part of our membership of the European Community, we should in a serious way look at those parliaments that work effectively and we should be imaginative in so doing.

When we talk about reform of the Seanad we should not put our trust in Government. We should not expect that Government will help us to bring about parliamentary reform in any serious way. If we want reform and renewal, the lead must come from ourselves. Government have no particular interest in a strong second House. Strong Houses irritate Governments; in their eyes they hold up Government activity and require the presence of Ministers. We know how impatient Ministers of all Governments become with both Houses, but especially with this House.

If we want reform we must rely on ourselves. Only if the ideas come from us, only if we can show there is genuine consensus across all parties and that we are determined to take ourselves seriously will we have the muscle to make the reforms happen. That is why I commend to this House the series of reforms. They are small and modest in scope but they will make a very real improvement. More than that, they will send out a signal that this House is intent on taking itself seriously and on trying within itself to improve the service it gives to the Irish body politic, and in that way to the Irish public. I join with the Leader of the House in commending these reforms.

Mr. O'Toole

It is important at the outset to reiterate what I have said every time we have discussed the operations of this House, that it is in the main undemocratic, unrepresentative, very often irrelevant and too often remote. The reason I welcome the proposition before us, which has come unanimously from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, is that it takes us a step down the road at least towards relevancy.

I wish to correct one or two minor points in the agreed document to which my name is appended. There is a reference to the other two groups in Opposition. I say on behalf of the Independent Senators that we remain independent. We do not embrace Opposition any more than we embrace Government. We are the voice of independence in this House and will continue to be so. We must look beyond the present to increasing the relevancy and the democracy of this House and ensuring that it becomes representative of all the bodies of all the people in Irish society. This is a progressive step forward. The Cathaoirleach and the Leader of the House have both been as good as their word when they said they were prepared to move in this direction.

I want to relate this in statistical terms to the opportunities created for Members. It means in effect that in a two-day sitting four Adjournment debates will be allowed and 15 items of concern may be raised on a two-minute basis. There is also provision for Private Members' time. In the course of a two-day sitting this will allow 20 Members, one-third of the total, to raise, discuss and debate matters of concern. If we include the seconder to the Private Members motion, the figure goes beyond that. That is a massive move forward. There is to be a trial run in order to see how it will work. In terms of Private Members' time, the Independent group are giving more than they will receive. It is important to do that and to allow us to establish our credibility. I cannot quibble with the demands of the main Opposition party that they deserve more of Private Members' time. There is no reply to that logic.

I have thought much about the proposals. It is probable that the two minutes allowed to raise a matter of concern will be increased to three minutes. The main problem is that it will be difficult for the Cathaoirleach to intervene in a two-minute contribution to inform a Member that he has 30 seconds left. Such an interruption would break the whole flow of the debate. Perhaps we should consider introducing a system of lights. There should be a light on the Cathaoirleach's desk to indicate that there are 30 seconds remaining and at the end of the two minute or three minute period a gong should be sounded to end the contribution. Asking me to conclude has never worked. There has to be a definite cut-off point. I suggest that the use of a light and a gong would enable the system to work. Turning off the microphone would not work.

I welcome the decision to fix the Adjournment time. Under the present system the Member who is to raise a matter on the Adjournment is forced to watch the monitor all day long in order to ascertain when debate may conclude and to re-arrange appointments and meetings accordingly.

We have a long way to go in creating a more democratic and more representative structure, especially in terms of access to people outside the House. We have discussed and considered this matter. Senator Manning suggested we should benefit from the experience of former Taoisigh. I would have some reservations about that but I would not object to it. There should be a right of audience for Euro-Commissioners, at our invitation. I propose that there be participation in this House by Members of the European Parliament who should be answerable and accountable to a forum in this country, and this is the ideal opportunity to provide for that in a structured way.

The whole system of election to this House must be addressed. I have said time and again, using my own position as an example, that the term University Senator is a misnomer. If we are to have such an exclusive panel — I have reservations as to whether we should — at the very least the graduates of every third level college in the country, whether they be RTCs, colleges of education, colleges of art or new universities, should have a right to vote. There is no reason in the nineties, as we approach the 21st century, that people from certain universities only should have a right to vote, with the exclusion of other university and third level graduates. That is an unacceptable position and one that will have to be changed sooner rather than later.

As I have said on many occasions, we must consider the system of panels that exists at present. I am involved at the most senior level in the education and the organised labour trade union areas. Some Senators are elected to this House on a labour panel and some on an education panel, but despite my wide experience in both these areas, because I am not a member of a party, I have no chance of being elected on either panel. The fact that this House is based on groups and panels rather than on parties is illogical. This matter should be considered, but not in a flippant way as has been suggested by this side of the House, including from my own benches, and not as a reason to have a go at duly elected county council and local representatives. I have no objection to those people having a vote in Seanad elections, but their vote should be confined to the inside panels, nominated by Oireachtas Members. The outside panels, whether it be labour, education, agriculture or fisheries, should be elected by people working in fisheries, agriculture, trade unions and education. In that way we would have a properly elected, fully representative second Chamber, allowing for a wider level of participation and thereby becoming——

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator but the motion relates to changes in Standing Orders, not to the election of Seanad Members.

Mr. O'Toole

I am glad the Chair raised that matter.

Acting Chairman

I trust the Deputy's ears will be as good as his eyes, and that he will observe the red light when it is lit.

Mr. O'Toole

I would agree with the Chair were it not for the first item in the report which I will read for the record. It states that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in their overall capacity, undertook a general examination of the procedures and practices in the Seanad. I take the widest possible interpretation of that. Nevertheless, I duly note the Chair's direction and I will continue in a slightly more introverted and circumscribed pattern, referring to the operation of this House. The proposals for changes in Standing Orders are to be welcomed. I take the points raised by the Leader in that these changes must be considered in conjunction with the operation of the Order of Business each day. The time for raising matters of concern should be limited and in the future, the Order of Business should be confined to references to items on the Order Paper.

One matter which I neglected to refer to earlier is the debate on Thursday afternoons. Over a two-day period 20 Members of the House may raise different items, and we have agreed that on Thursday afternoon motions or statements on topical matters will be taken. This report proposes a solution to the difficulties of people who wished to raise matters but could not do so heretofore. In future all these matters may be addressed, but on the Order of Business people will no longer be allowed to demand debates or raise various matters. This can be done in a professional way and Members who know in advance that they will have two minutes to make a speech will have time to prepare it and to issue a script to the papers. This will reflect well on the person making the speech and on the operation of the House and it will allow for an important response to the constituents who make representations to Members of the House. The system up to now has been lacking, with Members attempting to raise matters quickly on the Order of Business before anybody noticed they were out of order.

I welcome this report and I welcome the contributions of all concerned.

Dr. Upton

I welcome the proposals before us. Change is absolutely inevitable as far as this House is concerned. Otherwise the whole functioning and credibility of this House of the Oireachtas will become untenable. To some extent this House is on trial at present. Political parties, as part of their policy, believe this House should be abolished. To some degree, that is the tip of the iceberg. For that and other reasons it is essential that we are prepared to make changes. To the extent that these changes are proposed, albeit very modest and small changes, I very much welcome them. It is a first step in a long process.

I noticed from the Leader's speech that the existing parameters of the House will remain. However, once changes have been made we will have to consider how we can alter the existing parameters of the House. There are some areas where I would like to have seen the Leader go a little further. For example, the question was raised as to a limited Question Time, which is worth considering. There is also the matter of the involvement of outside agencies in the affairs of the House — for example Members of the European Parliament, the President, former Taoisigh, as suggested by Senator Manning, and others. That proposal is very desirable and is well worth further consideration.

In relation to some of the points of detail contained in the report, I very much welcome the proposal that a time limit be placed on speeches. That is highly desirable — Senator Cassidy is looking at me to see whether I will be as good as my word, and I propose to be. It is very important that people prepare their contributions rather than ramble on and on, at the end of day saying very little, or making a contribution that could have been made in perhaps 10 per cent of the time. The proposal that there be more Adjournment debates is also welcome. That will give Senators an opportunity to voice their concern in a relatively structured way. The idea that there be a fixed time for matters to be raised on the Adjournment is fair to the Senators who wish to prepare matters for the Adjournment and also to Ministers who have a very busy schedule and have to try to organise their time. It is unfair to Ministers to have to wait on tenderhooks for a full day wondering whether a debate on some obscure legislation or statements will fall if, for example, some country Members decide to go home early because of a change in the weather. Such a practice is quite unfair to Ministers and it would be only proper——

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Upton

I hasten to add that similar reasons might be found by urban Members. I made the point in relation to rural Members because urban Members, such as myself, do have the luxury of being able to go about our business in our constituencies and then come back to the House. That is more difficult for someone who has to drive to County Clare and back. I am pleased to note that progress will be monitored in June.

It is also sensible that the matters covered by Standing Order 29 and the functioning of that standing order be reviewed. It seems ridiculous to have a condition that has not been used for ten or 15 years.

There is one other aspect to which I wish to refer, and in this I was provoked by Senator O'Toole who talked about the way people are elected. I am unable to understand——

Acting Chairman

No, I am sorry, Senator Upton, but Senator O'Toole's comments were not relevant to today's motion.

Dr. Upton

I presume the Chair will allow me to be irrelevant as well.

Acting Chairman

I should prefer the Senator to refrain and that his remarks would have a direct relationship with the motion.

Dr. Upton

It seems that you will not.

Mr. Manning

It was successful for Senator O'Toole.

Dr. Upton

I was trying to say that I do not understand why graduates of the NUI or Trinity College should be afforded a say in relation to matters of this House or in the election of its Members beyond that of the average member of the public.

Acting Chairman

That is not relevant to the motion before us.

Dr. Upton

There is no reason that should be the case.

In conclusion, I accept that good will be needed to ensure the proper functioning of the proposed changes. On behalf of my party, I extend good will in this regard. I am anxious that the House work better. I believe its potential is considerably greater than that achieved at present. For that reason, I shall co-operate and I sincerely hope that the changes result in a worthwhile improvement.

Mr. Cassidy

I shall be very brief because there are two other Members who wish to speak on the motion, the longest serving Member in the House and Senator McKenna.

I welcome the motion. Being a Member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges has been a great privilege and was a great experience in my helping to formulate the proposals before the House today. It was great to have all parties and all groups in the House come together to try to make the best contribution possible for the successful future progress and debate of this House.

I wish to speak on three points. The freeing of the Order of Business, which is abused every day, will give every Member the opportunity to highlight matters of concern in his or her area during the proceedings of the House, whether it be on the same day or on the following day. It is extremely important to note that when a Member did raise a matter of importance in his or her area it was not covered on local radio. Under the proposal before the House today the issue will be covered by local radio stations, and individual Members will therefore have an incentive to raise an issue on Matters of Concern. It is very important that when issues arise in one's own area — issues that are possibly the most important matters in a locality at a particular time — they be given national publicity. It is gratifying that this opportunity is being afforded in the proposal before the House today.

I would agree with any proposal for former Taoisigh to be made automatic Members of Seanad Éireann. They would enhance the membership of Seanad Éireann because of their wealth of experience and worldwide contacts. It would be a great honour for us, as Senators——

Acting Chairman

Is that relevant to the motion before the House? The motion concerns reform of the House as constituted.

Mr. Cassidy

I bow to your guidance. However, because other Members were able to highlight the issue, I trust you will afford me the opportunity to express my delight at the idea that I might have Jack Lynch or Deputy Charles Haughey on this side of the House or Liam Cosgrave or Deputy Garret FitzGerald on the other side. I shall say no more in that respect and bow to the wishes of the Chair.

I hope some thought might be given to the very good idea that, with the EC Presidency changing every six months, we might have a Commissioner from the country holding the Presidency come to the House and let us know of that country's priorities. It would be helpful to have a Commissioner discuss those priorities with us and to give Seanad Eireann the opportunity to express our views on matters of importance. As Paudge Brennan said here on one occasion, it is never the wrong time to do the right thing.

Those two simple proposals might be considered in the future. I welcome the motion before the House and I am honoured to have been associated so closely with it.

Mr. McDonald

I shall be very brief. I have not yet had the opportunity to make my contribution to item No. 10 on the Order Paper, Statements on the Role of Seanad Éireann, but, with the help of God, I fully intend to do so when we next debate it.

Acting Chairman

I do not wish to interrupt the Senator to tell him he is wasting time but I remind him that Senator McKenna is also anxious to contribute before 4 p.m. As Senator Cassidy was very generous to you, Senator, I am sure that you will take that into consideration.

Mr. McDonald

I hope I will be awarded injury time for that intervention. In accordance with the wishes of the Chair, I shall make three very brief points.

The report before the House today is concerned with Standing Orders 28, 29 and 41. I believe that the proposed changes will prove satisfactory. The only aspect that bothers me is the proposed new Standing Order 29A. There is a possibility that matters might be raised and aired very briefly but then left hanging. I should like greater powers to be conferred on the Leader of the House. I note a potential difficulty here; we might as well forget about the idea if it means an amendment to the Constitution. However, I should like the Leader of the House to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, a post already in existence, although dormant at present. If the Leader attended Cabinet meetings, as happened in the past, he would be able to report on points made in the House. That would give the House more power and would leave us less dependent on Ministers and Ministers of State. From that point of view, I should like the Government to seriously consider making this House, as a constituent House of Parliament, more self-sufficient and self-reliant.

In view of the time constraint, I shall hold the other points I had intended to make until we debate item No. 10. I thank you for facilitating me.

Mr. McKenna

In the brief two minutes left to me I congratulate the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on the tremendous work done in relation to the reform of Seanad Éireann.

Since I became a Member of the Seanad I have heard here, on a fairly regular basis, comments, disputes, accusations and different suggestions as to the way the Seanad should be reformed that the general public were watching us and so we should try to conduct our business as we would be expected to. If we want constructive reform then we should first put our House in order and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges have set about doing that, and for that they are to be complimented. They have come up with very positive and worthwhile proposals. Given the opportunity to work, I predict that the proposals will be very successful.

I should like to comment on one or two items specifically.

Senator Cassidy made an extremely important suggestion in relation to the EC. There is a forum here that the EC could use in terms of Commissioners and indeed eminent people here or in Europe who will be coming here to speak to us at fairly regular intervals. There is an opportunity for those people to address this House. It would add to the stature of the House, not take from it. I think the Committee on Procedure and Privileges would be disposed towards that suggestion.

Mr. McDonald

That was agreed as long ago as 1982.

Mr. McKenna

It should be acted upon now; there were many suggestions in the past. Now, the committee are taking action which is very important. It is also important that the opportunity is given to people who want to raise local issues; that local radio should get involved so that people on the home front know exactly what is going on.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

We come to Item No. 3: motion on consumer protection in Ireland. The Leader stated on the Order of Business that a time limit would operate in regard to this item. Perhaps he would clarify the position?

Mr. Wright

It is agreed that half an hour per person is allowed.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.