Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997

Vol. 149 No. 20

Constitutional Review of the Seanad: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. Daly

I wish, with the permission of the Chair, to share my time with Senator Lydon. Last week I said that I was sceptical about any major changes to the Seanad in view of the slow progress made on amendments to the Constitution in the 25 years I have been in the Oireachtas. In that time, minimal changes have been made to the functions and operations of both the Dáil and Seanad. We should target a few key areas which would make important improvements in the way the Seanad operates and we should also make some modest adjustments to mirror the changes taking place in Dáil procedures.

The most important change in such procedures in the past 25 years has been the setting up of committees. Members of this House are excluded from participating in many of those mainly because procedure here does not entitle Members to introduce money Bills or to have an important input into financial matters. I would like to see a change in that restrictive provision which does not entitle us to introduce money Bills. I managed to get around that a while ago when I introduced a Private Members' Bill. Although significant capital expenditure was involved in that measure, we managed to debate and discuss it here because it covered many other issues dealing with flooding. The bones of that Bill were the basis of another Bill introduced at a later stage which helped to relieve the flooding and damage caused in the west Galway and Clare area.

There was a significant amount of discussion last week on the procedures adopted in other jurisdictions and countries. Some people spoke at length about the systems in place and the report mentioned some countries which did not have a system similar to ours. We should discuss a system and a mechanism which would suit our political needs rather than what is in place in other areas. We need a system which will work with the other House and will give more effective government than we have had heretofore.

Most people would agree that there is a general lack of awareness among the public about the volume of work transacted by the Dáil and Seanad. Were it not for the television transmissions which have taken place since cameras were installed in the Chambers, that level of awareness would be less. I am constantly asked what ministry I hold or what I am now doing in the Dáil although I have not been a Member of that Chamber for nearly four years. There is a general lack of awareness, especially among young people, about the institutions of Parliament and how they operate. Most young people come here when they are very young on their day out from national or secondary school. They get so bored with some of the discussion that they switch off and do not show any interest after that. There is a necessity to make the public aware of the important work transacted here and the opportunity which exists to discuss issues in this Chamber which cannot be adequately discussed in the Dáil.

Some modest changes could be easily implemented without involving major dramatic constitutional changes which would bring the Seanad and committees closer together to discuss topical issues. On 2 March 1995, almost two years ago, I spoke about Seanad reform but apart from this debate which brought Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to the House, very little substance was discussed. At that time we were speaking of the reform which might take place as a result of the peace process — the peace forum was in session at Dublin Castle and discussions on Northern Ireland were anticipated — and there was a general air of optimism that we would see major reorganisation in cross-Border institutions in the short term which would necessitate fairly major constitutional changes here. In anticipation of the establishment of a long-term peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, most people would agree there was an opportunity which would be availed of and that there would be some general acceptance of constitutional change to take into account of the new situation which was evolving in Northern Ireland.

We have got into a bit of a dilemma since that time and we have gone backwards. I look forward to the prospect of a realigned or reframed peace process. There must be peace in Ireland in the long term which will encompass North and South and that must be recognised in our institutions. When we get back to the dialogue and discussion and away from the present uncertain situation, there will be an opportunity to bring forward the kind of constitutional reform which would be necessary to give speedy effect to the changes, North and South.

I am not certain that the option to abolish Seanad Éireann is worthy of consideration. I do not believe that even the public at large, limited as is their knowledge and experience of the Seanad, would favour its abolition. When that proposition was put forward by a political party it received a very negative response. That party can speak for itself, but in general the reaction in the community at large was negative.

I believe the people would be happy to see a reformed Seanad Éireann dealing effectively with the issues of the day. The House can play a far more important role than it has in the past, especially by reforming its procedures. For instance, I was looking at a statutory instrument recently which was introduced to give effect to EU regulations on milk quotas and the management of the Irish milk quota. Effect was given to EU Directives by way of a statutory instruments which were laid before the Houses but never debated. This comprehensive legislation has had a great impact on some of the most vulnerable in the community, that is, the small farmers whose livelihood depend on milk. In my constituency I have seen 1,000 such farmers go out of business over the past nine or ten years because of the EU regulations on milk quotas. We could have had an opportunity to raise this matter within the period the statutory instrument was laid before the House but, by and large, these instruments go undebated and unnoticed. It is vitally important that Seanad Éireann has an opportunity to discuss in detail some of the major statutory instruments which are given effect merely by laying an order before Houses and putting it on the Order Paper without the opportunity of a full discussion.

This applies equally to some of the by-laws which are introduced under various Acts. Only last week we saw a comprehensive by-law, which dealt with the regulation of salmon drift and draft netting being put in place by the Minister for the Marine. This matter affected the traditional livelihood of many people living in estuarial and coastal communities and, through the introduction of one by-law made under the inactive consolidated Fisheries Acts, the livelihood of many of these people would be put at risk.

These matters should be debated before they come into effect. I would like to see Seanad Éireann discuss all statutory instruments and by-laws which are laid before the House. The regulations should also be discussed here because it has been my experience that when they are completed they are greater in length than the basic legislation and they transform what was intended when the Bill was being enacted. This applies to the operation of the subvention system under the Health Acts which is causing misery and hardship for many elderly people who must go through a detailed, complicated, cumbersome, bureaucratic system to get their subventions. It takes weeks to have one such application processed. I never anticipated that when the legislation was being enacted. A reformed Seanad Éireann should be in a position to go through these regulations in what would be a very useful exercise when there are likely to be greater demands on Dáil Éireann.

The same applies to regulations from Brussels. The Committee of the Regions has been in existence for some time. Ireland has representatives on that committee but they have never had the opportunity to put forward their views either here or in Dáil Éireann. The regions will be more important under the new Cohesion Fund and Structural Fund arrangements as the structures will be reorganised here and it is vitally important that we invite people, such as the Commissioner for Regional Affairs, to address us. The House invited Mr. Kinnock, the Transport Commissioner, to address us and we had a very good debate. There is a need for more of that type of involvement with Ireland's Members of the European Parliament, the Commissioners, members of committees — such as the Committee of the Regions — and people who are dealing with the day to day activities which affect so many citizens in the Community.

If we are to give recognition to the views of vocations, which was part of the remit of Seanad Éireann, the House should be reformed in a way which would give an opportunity to people, such as the leaders of the farming organisations, the teachers or the nursing profession, to come here and make their submissions. I had experience in the European Parliament of regular joint meetings between the Commissioners, MEPs, the farming organisations and Ministers. Such arrangements, which were very effective, are not in place here.

We spoke two years ago about this matter and we have not moved very far since. I am not certain that in the present climate, especially with the uncertainty about what is likely to happen in Northern Ireland, we will see any major dramatic changes in either Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann or the Constitution for a while. In the light of the developments in Northern Ireland, in the inevitable re-establishment of the peace process and the longer term bringing together of institutions, North and South, in a new framework for Ireland, we will have a unique opportunity to make major changes. They will not be made in a piecemeal, haphazard way; they will only be done in the context of an overall revision of the Constitution and the putting in place of a permanent structure which will give effect to some of the views of the people, North and South.

Mr. Lydon

Why are we having this debate? Some have said it is timely, but is that the reason? Have there been street protests or have letters been written to the editors of newspapers? We are having this debate because we are responding to the report of the Constitutional Review Group, which states: "It must be acknowledged, however, that the Seanad in its current form has come in for criticism from different quarters, often accompanied by demands for its abolition". I do not know from where this view has come. Nobody has written to me in this regard. They go on to say that they will not recommend anything, but they recommend a separate comprehensive independent examination. These people have a bloody cheek, and I will tell you why.

I have nothing against looking at the Seanad; it is a useful exercise and is good for democracy. However, I have great difficulty responding to a request from this group because some of the other recommendations it made are out of this world as far as I am concerned. It wants to remove the Preamble to the Constitution, something the Progressive Democrats tried some time ago, but they got their answer. It also says that every member of the Council of State should no longer take an oath in the presence of Almighty God and that they should simply make a declaration. This is the group which wants us to review the Seanad. It also wants to do away with blasphemy and sedition in this pluralist State and wants public order based on morality.

It also recommends same sex marriages, which I believe is an attack on marriage. The daddy of all the recommendations is that we should bring in legislation to put a time limit on abortion. In other words, you can have an abortion, but not after this time limit. This outfit, which is all I can call it, that wants us to review the workings of Seanad Éireann, has attempted in one fell swoop what the British could not do in 800 years, that is, destroy our language — that is another thing they attacked — our religion and our sense of morality.

The Seanad has an important role. I would like to quote from The Theory and Practice of the Irish Senate by John McGowan Smyth.

There was a Report on Bicameral Parliaments prepared by the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments and published in Constitutional and Parliamentary Information in the October, 1966 issue (Rapporteur M. Humblet, Secretary General of the Senate, Belgium):...

... The protagonists of bicameral systems submit that it is possible to have two kinds of election without considering that one of them is less democratic than the other, and that while direct universal suffrage may embody the national will at a relatively superficial level, indirect universal suffrage reflects movements of opinion that are more profound and of a longer duration.

On this reasoning a second chamber would be less of a brake and more of a balancing force. The protagonists of this system involve an argument which seems to them decisive: the work of legislation has more chance of being done well if it is carried through in two processes, each complete in itself.

A third argument is advanced in favour of the bicameral system. A single House may be tempted to exploit its omnipotence, above all if it is confronting a weak Government.

The Seanad has a role in legislation. I think this role is devolving. The chairman of the all-party committee in his address to the Seanad quoted Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, above all people, who said: "I was impressed by the utility of Seanad debates in relation to complex questions. Such debates in the Dáil are almost always narrowly adversarial and often too pettily confrontational. I found however that in the Senate there was a higher proportion of serious discussion of issues and on the whole a less polemical approach". I would go along with that. Many useful contributions are made in the Seanad. We spent over two or three months on the Environmental Protection Act, which required a lot of work. We also spent a long time on legislation reforming taxation. Recently we spent time on the Family Law (Divorce) Bill and the National Cultural Institutions Bill. I am not saying the Dáil does not have time to do this, but we seem to be able to deal with legislation without attacking Ministers too much. Perhaps we are closer in proximity to Ministers who are less inclined to slap us down. We seem to get amendments passed here and have time to think about them. The Seanad makes a useful contribution in this regard, but it could do more.

Fianna Fáil Senators made a contribution to the all-party committee chaired by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. One or two lines of that deserve to read into the record. It reads as follows: "We believe Seanad Éireann is entitled to parity of esteem with the President and with Dáil Éireann as a constituent component of the Oireachtas. The fact that in the public perception this is not the case is attributable in our opinion to a number of factors, not least of which is the lack of attention which the Seanad receives from both the electronic and print media". It is true to say that we do not get much publicity. I do not believe this debate will be published in the newspapers tomorrow or on radio or television tonight; but if I were to attack the chairman, perhaps it might be. However, I have no wish to attack the chairman, who is welcome here.

This House has a new Standing Order which has allowed us to invite people such as yourself, Professor James Dooge and Commissioner Neil Kinnock.

Unfortunately, it was too late for me to invite Mother Teresa; so at least you have done better than she has, chairman. People were afraid of Mother Teresa at the time. As I have often said, this is a useful forum to which to invite such people to talk about particular subjects. Leaders from Northern Ireland could be invited to the House. I think of people like Hume, Adams, Paisley and Taylor, who have different points of view which contribute to the national debate and the problems in the Six Counties. They would be more than welcome if they came to address us. It is different to see a man in the flesh and hear his point of view, although one might not agree with them. This would be a useful exercise for us.

The lack of media attention is not due to the lack of dedication on the part of Members. It is because we are less adversarial and consequently the House is not as exciting as the Dáil, although we could make it more exciting. I have had a few headlines but always when I said something controversial rather than practical.

The election process is fine. If we change that process and take it away from local councillors, we would be contributing further to the diminution of their powers. The local committees of agriculture and health committees have disappeared and the vocational education committees are under threat. Shortly after the formation of this Government there was an attempt to remove a couple of councillors from boards. We talk in European terms of subsidarity and devolution. Local authorities usually make wise decisions. Any further reduction in their role will render them totally inadequate and powerless; and people will not go forward for election to what is a fairly thankless position, as most Members who are members of a local authority will know. Local authority members certainly do not do the job for money and must devote a lot of time and effort to it.

The election of university Senators is elitist, but I would not like it to disappear. It is no more elitist electing a university Senator than county councillors electing one like myself. All the university Senators during the three terms I have been honoured to be here have made significant contributions, including the present Acting Chairman, Senator Henry. I do not always agree with what they say, but that is the whole point of this House. You do not have to agree with people, but you do give them a forum in which to contribute. I do not see how anybody could be a fulltime Senator. That is a drawback, the salaries are pitiful, as they are in the Dáil, but I do not think that will change. I do not think there is going to be any radical change, for the simple reason that no Dáil is going to give us more power than them.

We could do things that could be overseen, perhaps. It was recommended in this document produced by Mr. John Coakely and Mr. Michael Laver, of UCD and TCD respectively, that we could deal with tribunals of inquiry and so forth. The TDs are already massively overworked, they say, and there are clear possibilities for them to give jobs to the Seanad or to Seanad committees. That is a good idea. We could perhaps look at setting up a Seanad committee on public appointments or tribunals of inquiry and so on. This may or may not happen.

One thing is very true. At the end of this big submission made by these people is the statement that: "The present system in Ireland does not involve any conflict because the current Seanad has no teeth in what is a system of checks and balances in name only. Giving the Seanad teeth raises the possibility that we will sometimes bite". I think, therefore, that there will be no radical change and I do not think there should be. If a thing is not broken, you should not fix it.

There is no great call for change. It has not come from the public, nobody is shouting and roaring for any significant change. I think there could be some minor changes made which would perhaps enhance our role as Senators, but I do not think there is any need for a radical overhaul of something that is working quite well at the moment.

Mr. Doyle

I want to welcome the chairman of the all-party committee to review the Constitution. I am sorry he was not present to hear the opening remarks from Senator Lydon because they were not as tame as his concluding ones.

I am going to approach this issue in a different way. The question has been asked; what should the Seanad do? Much has been written about the appropriate functions of a second chamber in a modern unitary state. My preference is for the description of the four functions of revision of legislation, initiation of legislation, interposition of delay and debates on important issues written down by Lord Bryce in connection with the 1918 conference on the reform of the House of Lords.

Lord Bryce describes the revisionary functions as follows: "the examination and revision of bills brought from the House of Commons, a function which has become more needed, since on many occasions during the last 30 years the House of Commons has been obliged to act under special rules limiting debate"— I suppose what we might call the guillotine system. He felt that the House of Lords could fill in for that.

On the function of the initiation of Bills, Lord Bryce said Bills dealing with subjects of a comparatively non-controversial character might have an easier passage through the House of Commons if they had been fully discussed and put into shape before being submitted to the House of Commons. I think we do that here with Bills that come before us for the first time and Bills that have been initiated in the Seanad.

Lord Bryce also stated that the function of delay in passing a Bill may enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it. This would be especially needed as regards Bills which affect the fundamentals of the constitution or introduce new principles of legislation.

On the final function of general discussion, Lord Bryce stated that the second chamber could provide full and free discussion of large and important questions, such as those of foreign policy, at moments when the House of Commons was so occupied that they could not find sufficient time for them. These are the four functions which Lord Bryce laid down as the principles for the functioning of a second chamber.

I would suggest that these statements, made almost 80 years ago, represent a suitable basis for discussion of the role of Seanad Éireann. It seems appropriate to me to measure the performance of Seanad Éireann against these four functions described by Lord Bryce. The first function of a second chamber the examination and revision of Bills passed by the properly elected chamber. A number of Bills have been amended as they passed through this House. Sometimes Ministers are unwilling to amend Bills in the Seanad, particularly late in the legislative season, because this would require returning again to the Dáil for confirmation of the amendment. Senators often argue here for an amendment to a Bill and sometimes, I am sure, they find it frustrating that the Minister of the day will not accept the amendment. But Senators should be mindful that on many occasions the amendment which a Minister has resisted during the passing of a particular Bill would become part of the legislative provision of the next Bill on this particular topic. The fact that the full debates of the Seanad are read by senior civil servants concerned with the formation of policy is a point that should not be neglected in this connection. This is something which I have discovered myself in contributions I have made to the House on particular Bills. I found it recurring at a later stage in Ministers' statements on some other Bill.

The second function listed by Lord Bryce as appropriate for a second chamber was the initiation of Bills dealing with subjects of a comparatively non-controversial character. Through the years the Seanad has been used from time to time for the initiation of such Bills and I would like to see an increase in this activity. I think we have a capacity to shape Bills here before they go to the Dáil. I think we should be given that chance to a greater degree.

The third function mentioned by Lord Bryce was the power in delaying the passing of a Bill. In practice the limited power of the Seanad to delay Bills has not been used. It has been brought to my attention that the Government Bill to abolish proportional representation in 1959 was delayed by the Seanad due to the illness of two Government Senators. This caused a considerable delay during which public opinion became more strongly engaged in regard to the question; and when the referendum was finally put to the people some months later, the proposal was defeated by the electorate. That was the very point that Lord Bryce was making as well; that on these issues time should be given so that the general public can express their view before the matter is finally put through he House.

The fourth function of the second Chamber listed by Lord Bryce is the full and free discussion of large important questions, such as those of foreign policy. Seanad Éireann has a good record in this area; and if time cannot be found in the normal times of the House, then these issues can be raised during Private Member' motions on Wednesdays between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. I have spoken myself on South Africa and East Timor and I think we have a good record in this House of speaking on human rights issues. We find time to debate these issue here. Tomorrow we have the debate on Northern Ireland.

If it is decided that there is a need for a second Chamber to provide for constitutional balance or legislative efficiency, there remains the vexed question of what its composition will be. How can you elect a second Chamber? It would appear that in the first Seanad in 1923, 30 Members were nominated by the President of the Executive Council and the remaining 30 members were elected by the Dáil. There were certain variations in the election of the Seanad between 1923 and 1936. It is interesting to note that Mr. Donal O'Sullivan, who was the Clerk of the first Seanad, summarised the key role of the House in the formation of the new State in the following words:

In the early years, the Seanad proved to be of great value to the State. It is true that its powers were limited and the attitude to it by both the Government and the Dáil left much to be desired. But, in personnel, it was probably the equal to any second chamber that existed and it exercised considerable and wholly beneficial influence on legislation.

Senator Daly made reference to the North-South issue. I read a comment made by the same Donal O'Sullivan that a large number of Members were appointed or elected from Northern Ireland to the first Seanad. They worked very well with their Nationalist colleagues and there was never a word spoken in anger here. I would like the Seanad to play that type of role in trying to unite the people of this island.

The second Seanad, established under the Constitution of 1937, is notable for the element of vocationalism in the nomination procedure and the extension of the electorate from the Dáil and Seanad to an electorate nominated by members of the city and county councils. The Constitution provides for 60 Members of the Seanad, 49 of whom are elected by proportional representation while the remaining 11 are nominated by the Taoiseach. Six of the 49 are elected by university graduates. I accept and welcome university representation in the House but I would like the franchise to be extended to the Dublin City University and the University of Limerick. The remaining 43 Members are elected from the five vocational panels — Cultural and Education, Agriculture, Labour, Industry and Commerce and Administration. The electoral panels are not specified in the Constitution, they are determined by statute law. The statute law in respect of Seanad elections has been amended on a number of occasions.

Some Members referred to the vocational aspect of the Seanad. One of the main criticisms of the Seanad is that it was designed, under the Constitution, to represent vocational interests. However, it has notably failed to do so. A number of people argued that the intention of the Constitution for a vocational Seanad is thwarted by the statutory provisions relating to the method of election. I believe this argument deserves serious consideration. Should the Seanad be reformed by adopting recommendations of the majority report of the Seanad Electorate Commission in 1959 and providing by statute for direct elections to the Seanad by representatives of vocational organisations?

I believe consideration should be given to having the members elected to the nominating subpanels directly elected by the vocational groups that nominate them and to electing members on the Oireachtas sub-panel by the existing Seanad electorate. Such a system would give balance to the membership of the Seanad and invoke the principle of vocationalism that was intended when the Seanad was established.

The key to the proper functioning of a second Chamber is that it can only efficiently supplement the work of the first Chamber if it views legislation and debates topics in a different fashion. It has been stated that the Dáil and Seanad operate on different wavelengths and that it is necessary for Members to tune themselves to the appropriate wavelength of the House in which they serve if they are to have any chance to gain the ear of the House. I discovered this to be true when, having served for a period in the Dáil, I became a Member of this House.

The Dáil is a political Chamber but that political dimension does not exist in the Seanad. A former Member who served in both Houses once graphically described the difference between the Dáil and Seanad when he stated that the nature of the two Houses was reflected in the very design of the seats occupied by Members. He said that the seats in the Seanad are comfortable armchairs designed for sitting in and listening to the points of view of other people while, in contrast, the tipup seats in the Dáil seem to be especially designed for jumping up and interrupting. This is a fair description of the difference between the two Houses.

I support Members who requested the introduction of a Question Time procedure in the Seanad. As the Cathaoirleach is aware, the present Order of Business is used to pose questions. This is very unsatisfactory. If we do not have the same procedure as the Lower House, at least there should be a means to put down written questions.

In conclusion, I will quote the opening paragraph of a comparative study of parliaments published in 1966 for the Inter-Parliamentary Union which reads as follows:

How many Chambers should parliament comprise? This question has proved to be one of the most controversial in constitutional law and the answers given to it reflect the diversity of parliamentary institutions. This is no mere matter for academic political scientists. The solution adopted in each country is the result of a political choice which goes to the heart of the regime.

It is appropriate, at this stage in the history of our State, that we should re-examine the political choices we have made and, for that reason, I welcome the present constitutional review.

Ms Kelly

Am I correct in stating that Senators Lanigan and Quinn have yet to make their contributions?

Mr. Quinn

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

I understand that Senator Quinn is sharing time with Senator Henry and will be called next.

Ms Kelly

I welcome Deputy O'Keeffe. My contribution is a personal one and does not reflect the views of my party; it is a poor thing but it is my own. I consider it a great honour to be a Member of the Seanad, few of my peers would have believed I would become a Senator. The Seanad has done great work and made important amendments to many Bills.

There is a definite need for a second House. Most democracies in western Europe have a second Chamber. Sweden is one of the few outstanding democracies which does not have a second House. One cannot state that the Swedish system of administration is any better or worse for the absence of a second House. However, a second Chamber provides an additional element of democracy for Bills, delays them and allows members of the public the opportunity to become acquainted with them and put across their point of view.

The Seanad suffers greatly from a lack of appreciation and knowledge on the part of the general public. Due to the fact that the formation of the Seanad is somewhat difficult, the public and certain journalists do not have a comprehensive knowledge of the method of election to this House. This provides a false view of the worst side of the House. Perhaps there is a need to consider the PR angle, blow our own trumpet and ensure that there is a greater knowledge in schools, universities, etc., of the work of the Seanad. When one debates the abolition of the House with those who advocate it, one discovers that the basis of their argument is a profound ignorance of the workings of this House.

I would like a number of changes to be introduced. I believe the Seanad should be decoupled from the Dáil and its life should not be the same as that of the Lower House. In other words, as in other countries, the Seanad should have a fixed term of office which should not run concurrently with that of the Dáil. There have been calls for the Dáil to also have a fixed term of office. If that were to come about, I would continue to argue that the Seanad should run on a different track to the Lower House. If the Dáil term was to last four years, the Seanad's should last five to six years. This would be one way to move away from the notion that the Seanad is either a nursery for budding politicians or a retirement home for faded or jaded politicians.

Mr. Doyle

The Senator should not be too hard on her colleagues.

Ms Kelly

The independence of the Seanad is compromised by virtue of the fact that the two Houses are so closely aligned. For example, Seanad elections must be held within 90 days following the dissolution of the Dáil. That is the first matter which should be changed.

I value the work of university Senators and their contributions to many debates in the House but there is something undemocratic about the present system of their election. There are many graduates of DCU and UL who are bitterly resentful that, although their qualifications are recognised throughout Europe and in the United States, they are not regarded by the Oireachtas as being as good as, or having the same say as, the graduates of the NUI or Trinity College. Trinity College's allocation of three representatives is totally out of proportion to the numbers of graduates from that college. This mechanism was used by Éamon de Valera to ensure there would be a small Protestant voice in the Seanad because, at the time, few Catholics were allowed attend Trinity College by the Catholic Church. It was an artificial mechanism, is now an anachronism and it should be changed.

We need to look at the method of election to the Seanad. Anyone who has gone on the Seanad campaign trail will verify it is extremely expensive and cumbersome. One has to canvass the length and breadth of Ireland. It is interesting that the Seanad election does not seem to be covered by the Electoral Bill. Where caps are proposed on spending for the Dáil elections, none has been put on spending for the Seanad election. This needs to be looked at. There are tales of the generosity of competitors on different panels when they are campaigning. The salary would not allow anyone like me to try to compete with some of these people. I am glad to say that our county councillors are wise enough not to be bribed by the magnificence of the gifts which are often lavished on them in the course of the Seanad campaign and vote for good quality candidates despite that.

We should look at the system of election and perhaps the establishment of direct elections on a regional basis on a list system. We should encourage people from outside the political arena —for example, from trade unions, the clergy, the unemployed and vested interest groups — to enter the fray as Independents. This will ensure this House will have the spread of interests which has made it such a different Chamber to the Dáil.

I disagree with the many Senators who have said they do not see a need for emigrants to have a voice in this House. Emigrants have something to say about why they are not at home and that voice needs to be articulated. However, I do not think that would happen if they elected a native to a Dáil seat. If seats in this House were allocated to them their point of view would be aired. Ireland looks different when one is a hundred or thousand miles away. Emigrants can see things that are wrong with this country that those of us who are living in it probably do not realise. They have a voice and an opinion. Because people have emigrated does not mean that we as a nation should stop caring for them.

This is a good House. Legislation benefits from coming to it and we benefit from being Senators. Some of the better Ministers have benefited from a stint in this House and, they, in turn, have reciprocated by initiating many Bills in this House, particularly such Bills as the Cultural Institutions Bill, which deserve more time for discussion. I see a great future for the Seanad and hope this view will pertain when the report is produced.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to share my time with Senator Henry. I welcome the Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, chairman of the all-party Oireachtas committee to review the Constitution, to the House. The constitutional review group chaired by T.K. Whitaker is worthy of appreciation and attention. I am delighted the all-party committee has done such work on it.

I agree with Senator Kelly that we are privileged and honoured to be in this House. If there is any lack of appreciation, the answer is in our hands. We have to find some way to earn respect. Senator Lydon asked why we needed this debate and said there was no need for it. It is healthy and wise to have this debate on a regular basis and continually question whether we have the best legislative system.

I was in the United States two weeks ago at the inauguration of President Clinton. It was interesting to hear the discussions about the checks and balances that exist in the United States system, which has lasted since the 1780s. They have had constitutional amendments but there are checks and balances, which is something we should look at to ensure we are keeping in line with what I call, in management terms, best practices.

In the case of best practice in management, one can usually see what others are doing. We can do that here and formulate, as we did in 1937, what was regarded as a Constitution and two Houses which were most suitable for our particular needs. Those needs have served us well, and will continue to do so but only if we continue to question them. I am attracted to the strategic management initiative, which was initiated by the present Government, because it is questioning the way we run our country and is percolating through the organisation of Government, the State and semi-State bodies.

We have to ask whether the changes we can make are in our own hands. Many of the changes we can make to make the Seanad useful and capable of earning respect and appreciation are in our hands, and that is why we should question what we do. If we are talking about radical reform of the Seanad, involving changes to the Constitution, the question we have to face is, how do we create a new Seanad that will appear to the public to be attractive, useful and good value for money? This is not easy to do and it is made harder by the fact that, at the moment, there is a widespread lack of credibility in this House as an institution.

Many consider the Seanad to be fundamentally undemocratic; many see it as a useless rubber stamp and some would like to see it abolished. Very few would shed any tears if it vanished from national life overnight. I mention this not to agree with any of it but to remind us what we are up against. These are the realities of perception with which we have to deal. We on the inside can see the contribution the Seanad makes week in and week out. We see even more clearly the extent of the contribution it could make. That is why I talk about questioning what we do. However, the reality is that the world outside Leinster House is not so convinced. That reality, I suggest, must be our starting point. If we start from there I think we can best make progress by asking what the Seanad is for, or what could a reformed Seanad be for?

No discussion like this can fail to range over history. We all know that this House was conceived essentially as a vocational Chamber, and that over the years it has changed almost into a completely party political one. This is another fact we have to face up to because the rationale behind the original Seanad conceived in 1937 can no longer be used to justify the institution we have today.

Unfortunately, we have not developed an adequate rationale for today's institution. This may be one of the reasons it lacks enthusiastic public support. I do not for a moment suggest that we should try to turn the clock back to 1937. It seems a little naive to seek to exclude politics and politicians from what is essentially the nation's most important business. Most of our debates would be infinitely poorer if they did not have contributions from those Senators who are professional party politicians. Equally, however, today's Seanad does not exploit enough of what could be its greatest strength, and what could be the basis of making it far more popular.

The Seanad potentially offers an opportunity for a much wider range of voices to be heard on new legislation and on important current issues. By the nature of things, people who become professional party politicians are drawn from a fairly narrow range of occupations and backgrounds. Certain professions tend to be over-represented, such as lawyers and teachers, for instance. I had better look around carefully to see how many there are here today.

Their contribution is, of course, very valuable but no one could argue that the ranks of party politicians form a microcosm of Irish life as it is today. Last week, Senator O'Kennedy pointed out how few of us have competence in new areas of technology, and he is quite right. I made the same point when we discussed the White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation here a few months ago. This applies to the membership of both Houses, incidentally.

Full-time politics is too demanding to interest many people and others simply cannot get involved because of career commitments. This is one of the big changes that has taken place since 1937 and, as a result, participation in politics is tending to narrow all the time. In designing a second House, we have the opportunity to broaden participation in politics at a national level.

We have the opportunity to create a Chamber in which a much more diverse range of voices could be heard. That is the part of the original vision for the Seanad that would be worth revisiting if we are to have any revision of the Constitution.

To pursue this further, let me say a little bit about my ideas on representation as it applies to the Seanad. I do not think we should seek to have every facet of national life represented in the Seanad, but we should seek to have those facets reflected in its membership.

Senator Kelly spoke about emigrants and the need for emigrant votes. This is a good example of where we need emigrants' voices reflected in the House; they are actually reflected already in the six university Senators. I tried to check with Senator Henry as to what proportion of the Trinity College electorate are emigrants and, while we do not know for certain, it is something like 35 per cent. I do not know the corresponding figure for the National University. Those votes, voices and aspects of life are reflected in the University Panel representatives.

We should try to create a situation where most of the people elected to the Seanad are there because of their special background and experience, but they should not come here as representatives of pressure groups or narrow interests. To create a Chamber like that would be a step backwards.

I am in business, a fairly large employer, and, if I may say so, I am a specialist in the area of retailing. That background affects what I say because I speak from experience, but I do not represent business, large employers or retailers. They all have their own lobby and pressure groups outside the House.

We could create a much better Seanad by seeking to enrich our mix. My ideal would be a House divided half and half between party politicians and others. The politicians would ensure that we stayed in the world of practical reality, and provide that necessary connection with the business of running a Government and a country; the non-politicians would provide the broader range of voices, background and experience that no purely party political House could ever do.

I do not want to go into the nuts and bolts of how such a Seanad would be elected. Obviously, it would have to have a large measure of democratic legitimacy if it were to gain any sort of public support. I want to focus on a Seanad designed to reflect the voices of the full range of our community which could be extremely attractive to that wide range of the general public who at present are disenchanted with the entire political process, and not just with the Seanad. There is a disenchantment out there.

I received a letter from a school the other day where a teacher had given primary school children the challenge of writing out what they thought of politicians and where they saw themselves going in the future. The view these ten year olds had of politicians in general was very poor indeed. The sort of body I am talking about would be a catalyst to lead people back to our political institutions. It could stop the rot that is so alarming and, ultimately, so threatening to our very democracy.

If we had a Seanad that commanded popular appeal, what powers should it have? Here I might surprise you because I would not be in favour of giving a reformed Seanad any greater powers than it has at the moment. This comes back to what we think the Seanad is for. I see a second House as fundamentally a consultative body rather than a decision making one. The more power it seeks, the more it becomes a duplicate of the Dáil, and that is the road to abolition. Senator Doyle touched on that point earlier.

However, if consultation is to have credibility it has to be genuine. At the moment, in very many cases, it is not genuine at all. The Seanad process is very often something to be rushed through as a necessary evil at the end of the day, although this is not always the case. The Leader has certainly done a marvellous job in recent years to avoid what I experienced on some occasions in the past. By the time most Bills reach us they are cast, not exactly in stone, but in exceptionally fast-setting cement.

We could transform that very simply by building on the suggestion aired by Senator Ross. If the Seanad is a consultative body, then you can make that consultation genuine by putting it up front. In a reformed Seanad that would catch the popular imagination by virtue of its composition and day-to-day credibility could be sustained by introducing most Bills in this House rather than in the Dáil. The legislative process would then be seen as two-fold with an internal logic that our present system lacks.

First you would have a non-confrontational debate about a new Bill, followed by an examination of the details in which the full range of voices would be heard and could provide their own input. This first stage could be regarded as a kind of national sounding-board. That having been completed, the Bill could be taken into the purely political arena of the Dáil for what would then become the final stage of its process. I venture to suggest that if this was the norm, we would get better legislation at the end of the day. An arrangement like that would make possible a far more relaxed approach to legislation in contrast to the present system in which every Bill is treated in a confrontational manner from day one.

None of what I am suggesting would involve any real transfer of political power. I am too much of a realist to believe that any transfer of that kind is likely, but neither do I think it is necessary. If we are to have a revision of the Constitution, we should set our sights high. Nobody is going to get very excited about reforming the Seanad. The way things are at the moment, there would be far more energy about the notion of abolishing it. What is potentially exciting, however, is using the Seanad — reformed both in its membership and its place in the legislative process — to help transform the people's view of the entire political process. A restructured Seanad could be the means by which people's faith in the political process is rekindled. That is an opportunity I hope we will grasp in the near future.

Dr. Henry

Despite the methods of election, the diversity of Members in the Seanad is amazing. Whether it is through election from the panels, the universities or by appointment, there is a tremendously diverse range of people in the House. This is very useful. One of the most important things I noticed when I looked at the curriculum vitae of the newly elected Senator Naughten was his expertise in food technology. I was anxious to have somebody in the House to support me in my weekly call for the environmental health officers' dispute to be settled to ensure that we do not get food poisoning.

It is a pity that the House is not being included in the electoral legislation. Senator Norris spoke of the huge limitation on the number of people who can stand as Independents, or even within the parties, because of finance. It is extraordinarily expensive to get elected to Seanad Éireann, even in the university seats, where it is necessary to canvass about 30,000 constituents in my case and about 100,000 in the case of Senator Quinn. The expense excludes an enormous number of people from going forward for election.

The electorate of the panels is narrow and I see merit in allowing those institutions which nominate candidates forming part of the electorate. We could move to a position where a certain number of Members were elected by the political parties and another group have their election from within the vocational bodies.

One of the best things about this House — and I compliment the Leader of the House, Senator Wright, and the other party leaders — is the way party political differences are minimised where possible. There are no polemics — Ministers are welcomed to the House and there is a positive rapport between Members on both sides. This is important and should not be changed.

I would like to see a Question Time introduced. The replies to Adjournment debates are utterly hopeless at times and I have on occasion been confused as to whether the matter I raised was understood. A Question Time would be a great advantage and could perhaps be brought in quite simply.

Another important issue, and one which this Government has been very generous about, is the introduction of Private Members' Bills. Sometimes there are quite controversial issues on a party political basis which can be brought in by Private Members. In the early 1970s President Robinson, then a Senator, with Senator West and Senator Horgan introduced the first contraception legislation. Further legislation had to be introduced before this issue was considered by the Seanad. Senator Neville introduced legislation on suicide, Senator Roche introduced freedom of information legislation which led to the information legislation currently before the House, and Senator Norris introduced legislation on the decriminalisation of homosexuality. I was personally very glad that the Government accepted my child sex tours legislation. Legislation like this can be introduced here in a very non-controversial manner and the general feeling of the public can be ascertained. This is a very important aspect of the Seanad which would be far more difficult to replicate in the Dáil.

The fact that more legislation has been initiated in the Seanad in this session is very positive. It is a pity that when there is a significant amount of legislation ready to come into both Houses, the Seanad cannot make a start on some of it. Some of the Bills debated here have had a very easy passage when they are debated in the Dáil due to the fact that they were discussed so thoroughly here. The fact that we cannot discuss money matters is unfortunate, but perhaps we could look at how financial regulations are being implemented.

Nobody has said that the university seats should be abolished because those elected do very little. There has been no question about that, because the university Senators have been very active. It is unfortunate that the Trinity College seats are seen as the seats of a Protestant domain. I was sorry that Senator Gallagher raised this matter as I had always looked upon her as the constituent who was pivotal in my election. I can assure her and Senator Kelly that I do not see myself as a small Protestant or as representing a small Protestant electorate. Since the Dublin Institute of Technology has had its degrees awarded by Dublin University, the electorate of the Trinity Senators must be up to 95 per cent Catholic. There is no question that any of those contesting the Trinity seats could go forward on the grounds that they represented the 3 or 4 per cent of Protestants in Ireland. I have never appealed for anything, either inside or outside the House, on a sectarian basis. I would remind Senator Kelly that it was not the college that refused to allow Catholics to come to Trinity: it was others who told them they should not go. Since the foundation of the State there has been no ban on anybody attending.

The university seats should be expanded to the other universities and to all third level institutions. While this could be seen as elitist, election to the Seanad is elitist because of the financial implications I have already mentioned. If it is elitist we will have to think of other ways of facilitating those who are not in a position to get elected. If we did have the other third level institutions as part of the electorate we would have a broader vocational base. That is important as I would like to see the air of consultation expanded.

Senator Paschal Mooney said the Seanad is seen as a House of "has beens" and "wannabes". I am certainly not a "has been" but I would like to be a "wannabe" and be here after the next election. I will put all religions in my constituency on notice of that.

An Cathaoirleach

I think the Senator speaks for quite a number here.

Mr. Lanigan

Neither Senator Kiely nor myself is a "wannabe". We are dedicated Members of the House. One of the problems in the Seanad is that there have been many "wannabes" in the House. It has been used as an umbrella by people who are trying or have tried and failed to become Members of the other House. I have no objection to a Senator using this House to become a Member of the Lower House. I also have no objection to somebody who wishes to acquire experience in this House before becoming a Member of the Lower House. That issue should not be discussed in this context.

This debate is about the role of the Seanad within the constitutional review. This is the first time there has been a review of the Constitution in which the role of the Seanad has been just part of the review. This is not a case of somebody calling for the abolition of the Seanad to make life better constitutionally and in parliamentary terms. Our bicameral system was not ideal at the beginning. It offered Unionists an opportunity to participate in the operations of the new State. Many of the Unionist politicians who became Members of the first Seanad did a fantastic job to ensure the State evolved into its current shape.

It is not an ideal State, but it is ruled by two Houses of Parliament which reflect what the people want. If I asked people in the streets of Dublin whether the Dáil and the Seanad reflect what the people want, it would be hard to find a consensus that they do in terms of democracy. However, if I asked them what the alternative was I would not find many people who would say that the Seanad should be abolished to ensure a better democracy. One of the political parties currently represented in this House suggested that the Seanad should be abolished. However, when it discovered it would be electorally beneficial to withdraw from that stance it did so, That party has discovered that its involvement in the Seanad has been beneficial not only to the party but to its electorate. The Seanad is doing a job but no institution is above criticism or analysis.

Deputy O'Keeffe said that only one-third of national parliaments have second Chambers. If one takes that to mean one-third of democratically elected parliaments, the statistic is inaccurate. I do not know where the statistic comes from, but it is nonsense. Two-thirds of national parliaments in certain areas of the world are unicameral, but those countries are run by dictators who install a parliament which is a pretence. I have been involved in the Arab world for a number of years and I am familiar with a body known as the Arab Inter-Parliamentary Union. Within that union an election is occasionally held for a country's parliament, but that parliament can be arbitrarily abolished. Bicameral systems in the Arab world have been abolished by diktat, not by vote. The statistic of one-third of national parliaments would not even stand up in the IPU.

Mr. Manning

The Deputy said the source for the statistic was the Coakley-Laver study. They are two eminent academics.

Mr. Lanigan

Academics never make good politicians; but people who come from academia, such as Senator Manning, have become excellent politicians. Statisticians do not produce the right statistics. Deputy O'Keeffe said only one-third of national parliaments have bicameral systems and that the trend is towards having unicameral legislatures. That is not true. Only two countries which had bicameral legislatures have changed to a unicameral system. One of them was Sweden or Norway.

The Deputy also said: "In unitary states an Upper House, having a democratic mandate as strong as that of the Lower House, could institute the likelihood of deadlock in the legislative process because both Houses would have an equal right to veto legislation. If one sought to obviate such deadlock by dividing the legislative areas in two and giving control over an area to each of the Houses, one would immediately be presented with the question: why have two Houses?" My reply is that this country has been well served by the existence of two Houses.

I do not agree with the suggestion that Members of this House have more time, are not as political, are more academic and can deal with problems better than Members in the other House. I do not agree with people who say we are not representative of the people. With the exception of Members elected by the universities and the 11 Members appointed by the Taoiseach, every Senator is elected by somebody who has been elected. This is extremely important. The elected Members of this House, regardless of the panels they represent, are elected by representatives of the people, the county councillors who are elected in each electoral area of the country.

We have a great advantage over Members of the Lower House. Somebody from north Kerry might vote for me. If that person has a problem with, for example, fishing rights in north Kerry, I must know what they are talking about. I have been to the Border area in past years to see the commercial deprivation on both sides as a result of the Troubles. I am from Kilkenny and am not associated with a Border area, but I listened to their problems. However, if I were a Member of the Dáil I would be trying to secure votes in my own constituency and I would not be terribly worried about whether the price of diesel was cheaper north or south of the Border. Depending on the exchange rate or whether there was an incident on the Border, I would not worry about whether to dance in Letterkenny or Derry. These are the things which people forget when the question of the Seanad's existence is mentioned.

The Deputy suggested that the system of election to the Seanad made it remote from the people. That is nonsense. The Members of the Seanad elected by county councillors are closer to the majority of the people than TDs. I might regret saying that in the future because I may have to ask some of those TDs for their votes.

I was privileged to be one of the Taoiseach's nominees. I would not say that I contributed much to the House, but I have seen Members on both sides contribute greatly to Government. In some cases they have been very narrow in their focus and they could not understand how Members could broaden their horizons to talk on a variety of issues. I have seen the value of nonpolitical Members of this House, but I have also seen politicians being more effective than those selected.

There was a time when university graduates represented a very narrow group of people, and they still do. A huge number of people went to university but did not graduate. If one university can elect Members to this House then that right should be extended to all universities.

Senator Henry was wrong when she referred to Trinity College as a Protestant university for a Protestant people. The first Provost of Trinity was a Catholic. There were two universities in Great Britain — Cambridge and Oxford — founded in the 12th century. The university of Kilkenny was founded in the 18th century but it did not last because of religious differences. King James had about 20,000 soldiers of whom only 2,000 were Irish. King William also only had about 2,000 Irish soldiers.

I am glad that there is a debate taking place within the context of a constitutional review and that we are not talking about the Seanad in isolation. There is a need for such a review. If one mentioned a constitutional review to the public 99 per cent of them would not even mention the Seanad. They would talk about the division between the State and the Judiciary.

We need to analyse what we are doing. The public feels that the Seanad does an excellent job and those who are trying to get rid of this House have no idea of what democracy is about.

Mr. R. Kiely

Deputy O'Keeffe's opening address to the Seanad on this issue concerned itself solely with this House. The system of election to the Dáil also needs to be addressed, especially when so many outgoing TDs are not seeking re-election. They may be frustrated with the system, especially the multi-seat constituencies in which five TDs may be working for the same constituent. This does not help them to legislate for the country, which is what they were elected to do. The Deputy's committee should look at the possibility of introducing one seat, transferable vote constituencies.

In the Deputy's address he stated:

It must be acknowledged that the Seanad in its current form has come in for criticisms from different quarters, sometimes accompanied by demands for its abolition. Particular criticism has been directed at the Seanad's arcane nomination and electoral procedures and its almost total domination by the Dáil and Government. In 1967 the first All Party Committee on the Constitution was able to say that in having a second chamber Ireland resembled ‘most modern democracies'. The current position is that only one third of national parliaments, that is 58 out of 178, have second chambers.

The second Chamber in this country is very important and the Seanad has improved legislation which has come here from the Dáil. This House made amendments to the Consumer Credit Bill, which proves that it is justifying its existence. The Harbours Bill, in which I was very interested, was also greatly improved by this House. There was unease with some sections of the Road Traffic Bill, but the Seanad amended it in response to these concerns, as we did with the Control of Horses Bill, the Family Law Bill and the Constitutional Bill.

This House also initiated some very important legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Agency Bill, the Civil Legal Aid Bill, the National Monuments Bill and the National Cultural Institutions Bill.

The Deputy also said that:

We are all aware that the bridge between Ireland and Europe established by the treaties of the European Union is carrying a huge volume of EU legislation and that this traffic, with increasing European integration, will become even heavier. The Dáil, even with its extended committee system, is not capable of carrying out the necessary analysis of draft directives and the overview of regulations implemented by statutory instruments.

The statement goes on to say: "It seems to me that the Seanad should be given the task of monitoring this immensely important legislative traffic,". That seems to suggest that the existence of the Seanad is justified and I agree with that.

The statement then proceeds to the representative basis and states: "The way the membership of the Seanad is selected at present makes it remote from the people". I do not think it is that remote and, as Senator Lanigan said, we are elected by people who are elected by the public and are answerable to them. Eleven Members are nominated by the Taoiseach and six by university graduates. It is natural that the Taoiseach would like to have a working majority in this House to ensure that he will——

Mr. Manning

That would be a nice thing to have.

Mr. R. Kiely

I am talking about the Taoiseach who was elected and not the one appointed in mid-term. Senator Manning would agree with me that it is only natural for that to be the case. However, former Taoisigh and the current one have gone beyond that and nominated Independent Senators and ones from across the Border who have done valuable work and made valuable contributions. That is a good thing. Perhaps this is a good omen for a united Ireland.

The electoral system has been discussed. I have been a Member of this House for nearly 20 years, as has Senator Lanigan. We hope to stay, but our biggest fear is of defeated TDs being added to our panel. A Senator who was unsuccessful in being elected to the Dáil on the last occasion said:

We want to encourage effective representation at local democracy level. It may well be, however, that, because local authority members do not have that and that one of the few perks they have is to elect members to the Seanad, this has given rise to a distortion of the relationship between electors and elected. The best guarantee of being elected to this House if one is on a panel is to keep in contact with individual local authority members and supply them with tickets to All-Ireland, soccer or rugby matches.

I completely disagree with this philosophy. He states further: "I know that was not contemplated by anyone who suggested a review of the Chamber of Seanad Éireann". It is a reflection on the intelligence of county councillors that they would be influenced by the receipt of gifts of tickets or something similar. I do not mind doing favours in regard to agriculture or other constituency problems.

That same Senator, when he was Minister for Agriculture and Food, introduced the Agricultural (Research, Training and Advice) Act, 1988, and section 20 of that Act abolished the Council, An Chomhairle, the Board and committees of agriculture. He took away the power of county councillors, yet he was elected to the Seanad after failing to get his Dáil seat in the last election. He was elected on the same panel as an illustrious Member of this House who held the office of Cathaoirleach. She sent out diaries every year and even rang people up to ensure they received their diaries. The man who took away the power from councils was elected and the person giving what he saw as silly favours was not.

It is a fallacy to suggest that doing silly things such as giving All-Ireland or rugby tickets gets people elected. We amend and enact legislation and we should let people know we do that. We also give a service to the people who elected us and the general public. I appreciate the concern for this House to continue. If the Seanad is to be removed, the other House should also be examined. The burden has become so great on politicians, especially with the multi-seat constituency system, that we should think about introducing single seat constituencies to allow for a better democratic system.

Mr. Manning

On behalf of the House, I thank Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, for his attendance at the six hours of this debate. He is clearly taking seriously his job as chairman of the all-party committee. He has approached the subject of the future of the Seanad in a professional, thoughtful and consultative way supported by the first class research of Mr. Coakley and Mr. Laver, which has been useful for us in this debate. I thank Deputy O'Keeffe for his courtesy and attendance and hope the debate will be of some use.

There was no effort on my part to put any parameters on it or to try and structure it in any way. It was a good opportunity for Members of the House with divergent views on their role and that of the Seanad to have their say and in an unexpurgated way. It is the raw material for reflection by the members of the committee. Over the next few days, I, as Leader of the House, will make a written submission to the committee on the basis of the debate. It would be better to do so having considered what was said during the debate.

In 1937 the debate was taking place on the Constitution and on whether or not we should have a Seanad. President de Valera, as he was then and soon to be Taoiseach, who three years earlier had moved for the abolition of the old Free State Senate, observed that a bad Seanad was better than none at all. It was not an enthusiastic endorsement of the House which was his brainchild. I beg to differ with President de Valera in that debate. The only valid argument for a second House is that it be a good second House. Within the term "good" can be found all the reasons to justify its existence. It should add value to the political process and enhance the working of our political system.

There are many ways in which it can do this. There is no blueprint, model or example which we can slavishly follow. There are many ways often born of our experience and tradition and the legacy of those who have gone before us in the past 70 years in this Chamber. There are many ways in which we can add value to what is a democratic process which is in a constant state of transition. In the experience of all Members present this evening, and certainly in the experience of Deputy O'Keeffe, our political system has changed more in the last ten years than it did in the previous 60 or 70, and whatever change we talk about now could become part of the ongoing change. It would be far better, whether Deputy O'Keeffe's committee exists or not, that the question of the reform of this House should be first a matter for the House itself and that the many reforms mentioned over the past hours would be initiated by us.

There are reasons why this is so and one of them, if I may declare my interest as Leader of House, is that there should be a stronger statutory basis for the Leader of the Seanad. At present, the Leader has no statutory basis and no power base. The position is not recognised and is one which has grown. If a real leadership role is to be given for reform and direction of this House, the person who has the privilege of holding the office of Leader of the House should have that position supported by some form of statutory recognition. That is not something I ask for myself but is something which, from my experience, is necessary. The Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach have constitutional recognition. The Taoiseach, as Leader of Dáil Éireann, obviously has that constitutional recognition. In a more modest way there should be the same recognition for the Leader of the House, whoever that person may be.

The first Senate, the Free State Senate which existed from 1922 to 1936, fulfilled some of the criteria I would expect of a second House. It had a very distinctive contribution to make to the political life of the new Free State. At a very crucial moment in our history, it provided a vital transformative mechanism which enabled the representatives of the old Unionist tradition to come to terms with, and play an important part in, the development of a new Free State, a State which they had opposed strongly for centuries. Nonetheless, there were great days when Countess of Dysart, McGillicuddy of the Reeks and Lord Glenavy sat alongside former revolutionaries in the same House. Tophatted gentlemen arriving for the morning sitting of the Senate met former gunmen not quite in slouched hats coming into the other House. It was an arena where people could get together, that transformation could be made, and these people were able to come to terms. These people had a very distinctive contribution to make.

Likewise, the first Senate was open to people of great distinction to play a part in public life, and I am thinking of people like W.B. Yeats, Oliver St. John Gogarty and others who made very vital contributions. The role of the Free State Senate in the early years of the State cannot be over-estimated. It certainly was not a docile body. People, such as Kevin O'Higgins, quickly felt that the Senate had almost too much power — it could hold up legislation for 18 months. Ultimately, of course, it paid the price because it conflicted one principle with another and, when it came down to it, there could be no contest between the popular Lower House and the indirectly elected Upper House.

The Free State Senate did have a number of defects, one of which is central to our debate today, that is, how it should be elected. Half the members of the first Senate were nominated and it never really came to terms with the particular problem.

However, I do not have much time and I want to talk about the future rather than the past. Seanad Éireann, unlike that first Senate, does not have any such clear cut role. Our vocationalism lacks any real substance. The university Seanad system is elitist and democratically indefensible. Overall, this House does not provide a sufficient contrast or fill the gaps offered by the other House.

After what I have just said, let me enter my reservations. On the question of the university seats, I stand by what I said, that in theory it is very difficult to defend the existence of university seats in a House of Parliament in 1997. However, using my first criterion, that is, do the university seats add value and enhance our democratic system, the answer is emphatically yes. We have had some superb university Senators over the years, not least of whom was President Robinson. The contribution, points of view and degree of expertise of university Senators have been magnificent and that alone justifies the existence of university seats. Having stated my principle, in practice I would be a strong defender of university seats. Like everybody else, I believe they must be reformed and the electorate must be extended. I would tell Senator Ross that he can leave his paranoia at home. There is no conspiracy here to abolish the university seats and dress that up as the sum total of Seanad reform. That is nonsense and he can print that in The Sunday Independent if he wishes.

Vocationalism is really at the centre of what this Seanad was intended to be and, frankly, it has not worked but that does not mean it is not necessarily a good idea. If we could recast the thinking on vocationalism of the 1930s, which was behind at least part of membership of this Seanad, into the conditions prevailing in Ireland at the end of this century, there is the germ of a very good idea which would add a note of distinctiveness, a different point of view and a degree of expertise and value to what we are doing. How do we do that? There is no simple answer. One obvious way is to begin by tightening up the qualifications for standing on the vocational panels.

To echo a point made by Senator Quinn and others, the panels might be recast. Maybe there should be a panel for science and technology, the social sciences, sport, youth affairs and whatever. There are areas which are not specifically catered for in the earlier definition of vocationalism. In that sense, there is a case for looking at recasting the panels and defining the levels of expertise of those to be nominated on the vocational panel. That might well meet with the requirement to add a degree of expertise to this House.

We must examine the electoral system. I am a strong defender of the electoral college of county councillors. First, they have been elected and, second, they have a degree of expertise as they are close to the ground. There is also a need to widen the electoral system and perhaps provide that some of the 43 Members of the Seanad must pass rigorous criteria to be nominated and be elected from European parliamentary constituencies at the same time Dáil Éireann is being elected. That would ensure that people who are elected are not necessarily those who failed to be elected to Dáil Éireann but people with vocational credentials who have a popular mandate. If the election was held on the same day as a general election, it would not involve an extra cost. I will try to be more specific about this when I make my submission to the commission.

I agree with Senator Quinn and others that this House must mix strong, practical, professional, party politicians with the expertise which comes from elsewhere. I remember being at the Literary and Historical Society in UCD in the 1960s when Seán Lemass said that a Dáil full of graduates was an appalling prospect. A Seanad full of professionals and experts would be an even more appalling prospect. There is a need for a very practical mix. If we can find that mix, a great deal could be added.

As this debate began about seven or eight minutes late, I ask the House's indulgence to speak for a few more minutes?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Manning

The principle of having Taoiseach's nominees is one which I would defend strongly. In the past, we have seen some splendid nominees — Dr. Ken Whitaker, Dr. John Rob, Mr. Séamus Mallon, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Professor George Eogan, the archaeologist, Mr. Brian Friel and Mr. John Magner and Senator Edward Haughey is one of the most successful business people on either side of the Border. Such people bring with them a particular point of view and they are a justification for Taoiseach's nominees. Past Taoisigh may not have used this power with sufficient imagination but then they had their own particular pressures.

To come at a point made by Senator Gallagher from a different perspective, three of the nominated positions might well be left to Uachtarán na hÉireann. Just as the President nominates people to the Council of State, she might nominate three people to the Seanad to represent particular interests which she feels need representation. Again, that is an idea on which I will try to elaborate in my submission.

In conclusion, I want to look at the other major aspect of the second House, that is, what is the purpose of a second House? I would strongly argue that, over the years, this House, at comparatively little cost, has justified its existence in the day to day dreary detailed work of examining legislation, having debates and providing points of view not being heard elsewhere. We need to go further, to reinvent ourselves and to find new roles.

I would like to make some suggestions. Statutory instruments were once inelegantly described as crafty little buggers which creep in and suddenly one finds a body of law which nobody examined and which can have far-reaching consequences. James Dillon, one of the great legislators, always argued that any law should be scrutinised, go through Parliament and not come into existence surreptitiously because it suits civil servants or Ministers. There is a clear democratic deficit in our system at present in the examination of statutory instruments. If arrangements were properly structured, this House could have an important part to play in ensuring that law does not come into existence by stealth, as often happens, and that it is properly scrutinised. This happens all the time and there is a list of statutory instruments which will become law unless a motion is put down. I believe it should be the other way around and that they should have to justify their existence before they become law. I am sorry if that causes problems for the bureaucrats and Ministers but it would be a democratic addition, especially in an age of increasing complexity and technicality.

This should be the European House, and I do not mean inviting MEPs here once in a while to tell us what is happening in Strasbourg or Brussels. This House should be organised in such a way with proper research and secretarial backup to ensure European legislation, whether it is one month, one year or five years away, is fully examined, debated and scrutinised. There is a huge deficit in this regard. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs does not do that and it depends on people who are already too busy, although they do their best. If a House of Parliament rather than a committee was dedicated to the job of scrutinising European legislation, it would go a long way towards addressing a deficit. It could be a House to which Commissioners, as Neil Kinnock did and others will in the future, could come so that people could put their point of view on legislation which may affect theirs interests and who have no option at present but to go Brussels to the Commission or to Strasbourg.

Many ideas were put forward in speeches over the past couple of days. I refer to an interesting point made by Senator Quinn. He said legislation for the most part should begin in this House and that generally we are presented with a fait accompli. I believe he misses the point in that both Houses are generally presented with a fait accompli. Legislation is decided by civil servants, Ministers and pressure groups. Working on the legislation committee of this Government and as Leader of the House, I am constantly astonished at the unconscious arrogance of civil servants who assume that because the legislation has come from their end of the system all Stages should be taken the next day between 10.30 a.m. and 11 a.m. This constantly happens and there is a mind-set among civil servants and Minister which leads them to believe that the Houses are simply rubber stamps. If we could move towards the German system, where this House could be used during the process of the formulation of legislation and where civil servants working on it could come here to discuss the reasons for its introduction and difficulties with elected Members, Members would have an input. Ultimately, the Government is responsible for legislation, but at least points of view would have been listened to at an early stage. It may be inconvenient and civil servants might not like what they hear, but at least it ensures participation. I have more ideas which I will include in my submission to the all-party committee.

This has been a useful debate. On any cost benefit analysis, the Seanad more than pays its way and justifies its existence. If one were to examine its overall contribution to the political system, which is more than what happens in legislation, it more than justifies its existence and does so at low cost. We have an opportunity to take a great leap to change this House so that it can do the job it has been doing in a more visible way and where there is greater appreciation of its work. This is a proud institution. People such as William Butler Yeats and President Mary Robinson worked in this Chamber and made their input into legislation. It would be a shame if through an unwillingness to defend ourselves, an incapacity to change or a timorousness in the face of new ideas, our case was to go by default. I hope what Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has heard over the past few days will remove any doubt about the need for a second Chamber and will give the all-party committee food for thought in its suggestions as to how this House might be made more effective and relevant and add value to Irish democracy.