This is by no means the first time that we have addressed the issue of Seanad reform. However, it is the first time we have done so in the light of the deliberations of the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. It is to be welcomed that the Chairman of that committee is in the Chamber today.
I wrote to the Chairman in response to his request and included some of my ideas in outline. I also included a slightly sharp note that the committee might consider the operations and functions of the Dáil. If they were considering the abolition of the Seanad they might do better to abolish the Dáil and leave Senators in charge of the country.
I was irritated by the machinations of the Chairman's colleague, Deputy Jim Mitchell, and his committee who openly and impertinently called for the abolition of the Seanad and started by getting a number of digs in at the university seats. I listened with care to the clear and thoughtful contribution of Senator Gallagher. In her closing remarks she mentioned the value of the different Senators. She spoke of the elected, nominated and university Senators. A casual reader might assume from this that university Senators are not elected. I know the Senator did not mean this. The university Senators are the most democratic element in the House. No one accepts the old hogwash about delegated universal suffrage where county councils and members of both Houses are elected by the people and the people surrender their right to elect the Members of the Seanad, the 47 people elected on the panels being elected by delegated universal suffrage, the people having voluntarily submitted and surrendered their right to elected public officials.
The reason for this system is clear. It is so that the party structure may retain its stranglehold on all these seats. That is a corrupt system. I would add the caveat that I do not attach any stigma of corruption to the people who are elected through that system. It is a source of constant amazement to me that colleagues of such calibre are elected through a system which I regard as defective.
There is one way around this, which is to look at the merits of the university system instead of at the proposed defects. There is one striking merit in the way university Senators are elected, that is, that the ordinary members of the nominating body are enfranchised. In other words, graduates of the university — I think it is ten — can nominate somebody to stand for election. However, it does not end there and is not surrendered to county councillors and Members of the Oireachtas to elect them. The 30,000 graduates of the University of Dublin, who are on the register, act as a voting college. The same applies to the National University of Ireland where over 100,000 graduates vote. Although there appears to be a degree of disparity there, only 30 per cent or less vote in the NUI constituency while 65 per cent vote in the Trinity election. Trinity graduates value and use this privilege and prerogative. That means independent minded people must persuade an articulate and informed electorate that they are worthy of being voted to Seanad Éireann.
I contrast this with the panel system. Among the nominating bodies is the Royal Irish Academy. The President of the RIA stood for election to Seanad Éireann — I presume on the cultural panel — and did not receive a single vote. The head of one of the most prestigious academic intellectual cultural bodies did not receive a vote. I know Senator Ross said one only needs about 25 votes to get in, but not to get one vote is a pretty minimal performance. I always laugh at the wonderful charades of elections which usually take place in the dining room in Leinster House where people receive 97,560 votes. One must multiply the votes by about 0.25 million to fool people into thinking that it is a real contest or election.
If we are serious about the vocational aspect of Seanad Éireann, the most important and significant contribution we can make to ensure it works is to look again at the nomination bodies and make sure we have targeted the most significant representative groups, such as trade unions and perhaps even the Churches, which should have a voice in Irish public life. When we have decided these are the most appropriate ones, we should enfranchise the ordinary members. If, for example, we have a medical lobby, we should enfranchise all the members of the Irish Medical Organisation, the nurses and so on who will vote for their representative to this House. We would then find genuinely committed people with a range of expertise which could be brought to bear on legislation and could fulfil the function of this Chamber as a reviewing one, which would be good.
I agree with Senator Gallagher that my colleague and distinguished friend, Senator Ross, was wrong when he said we should not allow Members of the House to be members of political parties. Of course they should be members of political parties and even subject to the Whip; but they should get into this House by a fair, reputable and proper electoral system. Then they should arrange themselves in any way they like. I would go so far as to say that some seats should be reserved to be fought exclusively on a party basis because one of the things I have come to appreciate about this House is that although I regard the system as essentially corrupt and vitiated, it provides a mechanism for senior politicians who are unlucky at the elections to have their wisdom and experience continued in the interest of the State. This is a bit of a volte-face for me, because I was the one who coined the phrases about the Seanad being a rest home for decrepit politicians. However, there is a sense in which that experience is sometimes too valuable to be lost to the service of the State between elections. I am not totally against any party interest in this House but I am against the Seanad being so obviously the tool of party interests.
I hope the Chairman will consider and pass on to the relevant authorities the deep sense of grievance that is felt in this House at its exclusion from the provisions of the Bill intended to finance political parties at election time. Not only should the Seanad be included in the Bill, but it must not be restricted to parties. People who are party members at the time of Seanad elections get considerable assistance in terms of workers, finance and additional envelopes. That includes people who are members of political parties in the university interest, of whom there is at least one, whose blushes I will spare. That gives an unfair advantage.
I do not see why Independent Members should not receive a degree of support, given that elections are extremely costly. I fought six elections, which cost about £10,000 each, before I got into this House. I had to pay for stamps and envelopes because I did not have Oireachtas postage. I sent 37,000 letters and signed each one by hand, which gave me writer's cramp and is slightly dull. It worked, but it was expensive. It took me about 15 years of being employed and working reasonably hard in this House to pay off the accumulated backlog, which was about £60,000.
There should be a level playing field and we should all get support. That support should be extended to candidates who get over a certain threshold of votes. They should be reimbursed by so much for every vote. It is not fair to continue to advantage sitting candidates at the expense of potential new Members of this House. I urge the Chairman to bring to the committee and Government the strong feeling that it is wrong to exclude the Seanad and Independent Members from the operation of this Bill. It is probably unconstitutional to do so.
I would like to outline a number of other reasons the Seanad should be continued, although it should be carefully reformed. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, I visited the Czech Republic a couple of months ago. The Czech's were in the process of establishing an Upper House. They now have a Senate; I believe the elections are over. We spoke to a number of Cabinet Ministers about it. I was told by a Minister that they had reviewed the operation of Upper Houses in various countries, including Ireland, and were so impressed by their operation, in particular the Seanad, that it helped to persuade them to initiate a Senate this year. It is not an idea which is passé and from the 1930s. We are recognised by our European colleagues as playing such a vital part in the democratic process that they are prepared to embark on the creation of second chamber using us as a model.
We are also able to do certain things which have not been done by the Dáil. I am an extremely egotistical person. Most academics and all theatre people and politicians are egotistical and as I fall into those three categories I am particularly so. I am sure the House will excuse me from reciting my participation in this matter but it is close to my mind.
A couple of years ago I tabled an amendment to the Child Care Bill, which was supported by Brendan Ryan and which necessitated the introduction of a new section that introduced the guardian ad litem principle into Irish law for the first time. It has been introduced into British law in the wake of a particularly horrifying case where a young girl of about six years was returned to her defective and dysfunctional family by the local authorities where she was promptly butchered and murdered. We argued hammer and tongs for six weeks with the Minister, who I think was Deputy Noel Treacy.
Senator Gallagher mentioned earlier that we are not to be trusted with the State purse strings and cannot introduce a measure which entails a charge on the Exchequer — an unnecessary disadvantage under which to place the Seanad — and it was because of this that the amendment was ruled out of order. However, I knew this would save children's lives. We had been extensively briefed by various agencies in this State and were convinced we were right. We therefore repeatedly reintroduced it and argued on it although we knew it would be ruled out of order. We wore down the Minister. He was a decent man who came to accept what we said and went through the difficult process of returning to Cabinet, recommitting the measure and sending it back to the Dáil. That change has or will in future save children's lives. That was a good day's work which this House accomplished with the assistance of the relevant Minister and which the Dáil failed to do.
It was perhaps a little technical and dull. There were none of the amusing exchanges on the Order of Business which we all enjoy so much. Not one single word appeared in any print media. It was not shown on RTÉ television or broadcast on radio. That is a disservice to the Houses of the Oireachtas because when something as important and significant in terms of its impact on ordinary people's lives takes place as a result of the legislative process in this House, the electorate should be aware of it. It is by this they will learn to value the Seanad and not by the nonsense which often appears in newspapers, for a proportion of which I am responsible.
This House is inadequately covered in all media. Some are better than others. Sometimes, this House only receives one minute's coverage in "Oireachtas Report". This is ridiculous, fatuous and insulting. I do not want to involve myself in media bashing and do, in the words of the old cliché, have many good friends in the Fourth Estate, but inane reports about Senators speaking to an empty House annoy me. Taxpayers would be in worse trouble if the place was full with stuffed eejits digesting their lunch and dozing away. If this place is empty, it is because my colleagues are in their offices working hard with one eye on the monitor, reading legislation, answering correspondence or taking part in committees. No member of the press is unaware of that; yet they trot out the same old tripe, week after week and year after year. They are unprincipled in this. We now unfortunately have tabloid newspapers in this country.
I remember some years ago being included in a delegation attending the International Parliamentary Union in Canberra. There was a big stink about it. "Senators on junket", the headlines read. No one would talk to the press. They rang me and I said I would talk to them. They told me I was attending this conference which was costing so much. I said I did not know that but they might perhaps be correct. They asked me if I would enjoy myself. I said that I most certainly would and, as a representative of Irish taxpayers, it was not up to me to be wizened, mean, begrudging and miserable. They would like me to enjoy myself and I would go on a second class flight to China and Fiji as well. I did and it was cheaper than the authorised and organised club class flight. I took part in the conference every single day and raised the question of East Timor. I blistered Gareth Evans, the Australian Foreign Minister, inside his own Parliament buildings and made the headlines in Australian, New York and some European papers. The only place it was met with a resounding silence was in my little home town of Dublin, although I had all the material faxed to the newspapers. I rang my secretary from Australia asking if there was anything in the newspapers. When she said no, I told her to ring them and to send another fax. She rang newspaper offices wanting to know why this was not covered as it was an important political statement on East Timor. The answer she received was revealing. Senators on a junket was a story. Senators working was not a story. That raises a serious question about the ethics of that kind of journalism.
Books and programmes are often produced about elections. However, they only cover the election to the Dáil. Sometimes, the election to the Seanad is completely left out. It should be recognised that unless and until there is a change, this Oireachtas comprises of two Chambers and each, in its different way, is worthy of respect.
The reform of the laws on homosexuality was handled with special sensitivity in this House. Even before the reform of the principal sections of the Criminal Law Acts, 1861 and 1885, this House pioneered the introduction into Irish legislation of sexual orientation clauses guaranteeing certain civil rights for a minority of people in this country. That is something of which this House can be proud. I also remember that I got the first debate ever on acquired immune deficiency syndrome held in this House. I was told I could not use some of the rooms in Kildare House for these briefing sessions for some fussy little reason. I then hired a room in Buswells Hotel. I got a Roman Catholic priest who worked with drug people in the city centre, Fiona Mulcahy from St. James's Hospital, who is a remarkable specialist in this area and a few others, to attend. I chaired the meeting, held my tongue and did not advocate anything. I felt that, by having colleagues from both Houses listen to others with a range of expertise, it would raise issues in their minds and make them come to terms with matters rather more so than if I engaged in a polemic. We had one of the best informed debates ever on that difficult subject which the Dáil was afraid to tackle at that time.
Remarkable work has been done by my colleague, Senator Neville, on the subject of suicide. Although he is a supporter of the Government, it is remarkable and regrettable how infrequently Government is prepared to accept in any way other than a dog in the manger fashion legislative initiative from its backbenches and Cabinet. Senator Neville has suffered from this on a number of innovative legislative proposals he has produced. So have I. The last legislation initiated by the Independent benches in this House, which passed through all Stages of debate and into law was a Bill now nearly 40 years old dealing with the humane conditions for pigs and abattoirs and was introduced by the late Senator Professor W.B. Stanford. That is lamentable. People should be encouraged to do this. It should not just be Government. This House should have a clear role in initiating legislation.
One other matter which is partly an achievement of this Seanad is the establishment of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I take some small credit for that for the following reason. I took that as my principal debate, my Private Members' Time, on three successive occasions. I possibly had that privilege about once a year then. I remember reading the contributions to previous debates, including those which took place before I was elected, and noting that every single person who spoke had at one time or other been in favour of a foreign affairs committee. I wondered why they had changed their minds and what the altered circumstances were which caused them to change their minds. The answer was an election. When people were in Government, they opposed a foreign affairs committee but were strongly in favour of it in Opposition. I imply the malign influence of the mandarins of Iveagh House and am perhaps not too far short of the mark. They did not trust us to have any input in the formation of foreign policy or to be accountable to it.
In the third debate I said that since everyone was or had been in favour of a foreign affairs committee and the Government, for technical reasons, was not capable of providing it, I would like to announce we were having our own committee anyway. I was cute enough not to push myself into the Chair; I gave that position to the present Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael Higgins. I became secretary and I wrote to all the foreign affairs committees in Europe. It was interesting that they replied because it gave us a de facto recognition which was one of the things that put the skids under the Government. Whatever about having a foreign affairs committee which it could control, the idea of having a wildcat foreign affairs committee with Deputy Michael Higgins and myself in the driving seat produced nightmares not only in Iveagh House but also in Government Buildings. That was one element which hastened the development of the foreign affairs committee. It was not perhaps crucial, but it was an influence and this House achieved it.
We used wonderful ways around things. We were forbidden, for example, to send notices out about meetings so I put it on the Order Paper that "Seanad Éireann takes note of the fact that there will be a meeting of the foreign affairs committee in Room G9 on Tuesday, 26 February". Then I would ask the Cathaoirleach on the Order of Business if he was prepared to take item 30. We had to be a little athletic when trying to find ways around these issues.
As regards reform of the Seanad, certain information should be made available to us — for example, the Standing Orders of the Seanad under which rulings are made. I have never seen this book, although I presume it exists. I would like to know if something can be raised immediately as a matter of urgent national interest because when we try to do so, we almost invariably get the Cathaoirleach's ruling that it is not contemplated under Standing Orders. That is often complete tripe. I remember raising an ESB strike here and I was told it was not a matter of national importance. Simultaneously, however, the Taoiseach was telling the Dáil it was a national emergency, yet it could not be contemplated here. Why could it not be contemplated? Why are we not entitled to know even if it is embarrassing for the Government? Let it be embarrassing because democracy is about embarrassing people from time to time.
Our exclusion from financial matters is also a mistake for the various reasons I have suggested. For example, we are excluded from considering certain financial issues, amendments can be ruled out of order and we are excluded from participating in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is made up exclusively of Dáil Members. I am not even allowed to attend because it discusses finance. Why is that the case? I have threatened to turn up like a bad penny and I intend to do so at some stage. It also discusses a wide range of other issues which are marginally related to finance but we are excluded, by virtue of our membership of the Seanad, from the operation of that important committee. That is wrong and it should be changed.
We have played an important role in a number of areas for which we do not get credit or appropriate pay. I am nakedly unashamed to say that I gloated when I saw a newspaper headline the other day which read: "Politicians Vote Themselves a Bonanza". I thought, thank God they have shown backbone at last and we will get an increase. However, that was not the case. The article was about allowances for being away from home, which was taking the situation back to what had existed previously. However, the newspapers had a field day.
We should also have improved secretarial assistance. I am not talking about the standard of intelligence or work because I cannot speak highly enough of it. However, each Senator should have a secretary, a room and the facilities that will make him or her a more productive contributor to this House. We should also have proper research assistants. We are lucky at present because the Institute of Public Administration provides a number of us with American research assistants as part of their course here and they have done extremely valuable work for me in researching papers and so on. However, we should not have to rely on this slightly exploitative system; there should be proper research assistants.
We should also be given some type of introductory course on the work of legislating. The secretaries, of whom I have spoken highly, are efficient and up to date with the latest technology. Why? Because the Oireachtas gives them time off to go on computer courses where they familiarise themselves with the tools of their trade. New and old Senators are not given any introduction on how to read legislation which is written in a specialised language. What appears to be the ordinary meaning of phrases may not be so and often one section refers to another. It would be extremely valuable to have assistance in that regard. We should also have assistance in terms of draftspersonship so that if somebody wanted to initiate legislation in a certain area, they could go with the bones of the idea to an official of this House and have it turned into legislation.
The franchise should be extended. I have said on many occasions that the logical way to do this is to recognise the separate identity of the two constituencies. Trinity College is a Dublin city centre college so Dublin City University should be included in our constituency in the same way as the Dublin Institute of Technology. The University of Limerick should be included in the NUI's constituency because it is a national constituency embracing the entire island. The dates of the election to both the Seanad and the Dáil should coincide, which would rule out direct political intervention. I agree with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's comments about representatives from different interest groups. What better non-party, committed person with a vision could we have than Ms Adi Roche from the Chernobyl Children's Project, for example? What better person could we have to speak about East Timor than Mr. Tom Hyland from the East Timor Ireland Solidarity Campaign? We should also make provision for Question Time so that we can raise matters of immediate relevance.
I look forward to the committee's conclusions and to whatever is initiated as a result of its elaborations. We have given Deputy Jim O'Keeffe sufficient material to mull over. We hope that with this type of happy collaboration between Members of this House and his committee we will arrive at a formula for making this already valuable House more efficient and productive in the interests of the people.
