I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I did not pay attention to the same degree to the debate last June on this issue so I brought home the Official Report of that debate last night and the contributions of those who spoke made worthwhile reading. Senator Manning, in particular, opened my eyes to the need for and possibilities of reform. From that point of view, this debate today is also worthwhile.
The debate runs under one handicap, namely, that everybody assumes most of us in this House want the Seanad to continue. Anything we say, therefore, is coloured to some extent by that assumption. We have to recognise that particular weakness in our credibility. People clearly will be of the view that everything we say in this debate will be biased, but set against that is the fact that we are the people closest to the working of the system. We are experts in one sense. While our judgment may be suspect on the question of whether to continue with the Seanad, our input in terms of the practicalities involved should be valuable.
I want to make two fundamental points and build on them with some practical proposals. I read the interesting report submitted to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution by John Coakley of UCD and Michael Laver of Trinity College, but I will not waste time going over areas dealt with previously but rather concentrate on other issues. The public attitude to the Seanad is largely one of indifference rather than hostility. That is not to say that a move to abolish the Seanad would not quickly gather a head of steam if some people used it to reflect the widespread public frustration and disillusionment with the political process as a whole. Just as the public indifference to the Seanad could be turned into hostility, it could also be transformed into enthusiasm but that would require a radical transformation of the Seanad. I am sure there is no public demand or political will for reform that merely tinkers around the edges. Senator Caffrey spoke about that earlier and used the term "cosmetic changes".
It was interesting to hear Senator Glynn speak about the way Members are elected to this House. There is a danger in tinkering around the edges of that issue also. There is need for reform in that area but I will not concentrate on that aspect today because the six university seats represent a different constituency from others. We are elected by every graduate. People who graduated from university 30, 40 or 50 years ago continue to have a vote, even if they have been living abroad for many years.
One only has to read past debates on this subject, and not just the last one, to find a long list of ideas. There are also many good ideas in the Coakley and Laver report, particularly those which attack the democratic anomalies and contradictions in the process of electing and appointing Seanad Members. Some of those suggestions might form part of a wider solution but regardless of their worthiness, they will not result in a solution that will galvanise public support and political will. They have to form part of a wider new vision that addresses the shortcomings people are now finding in the political process. Tinkering around the edges is a non-starter because it will be impossible to gather sufficient support to make it happen.
Members of this House can do much more to make the Seanad more responsible and relevant, and good suggestions were put forward this morning. We can work harder to get recognition for the work we do, but that is not reform. That is internal housekeeping. I have often said we deserve the attention we receive. We do a great deal of work but we do not command attention.
Reform of the Seanad must be radical, not just different. It must go directly towards satisfying what is now a manifest political need, to marshal public support for the political process which has been damaged in recent times. It must provide the openness and transparency the public has been clamouring for but in exchange for which it has received only rhetoric. If we can craft a vision for a new Seanad that will answer these needs, it will be desirable both for the public and the political establishment. That is necessary to allow any change take place.
My second point brings me closer to the question of the type of Seanad we want. Let me clear away some of what I call the undergrowth by talking about what we do not want. We do not want a Seanad which is engaged in a power struggle with the Dáil. Whenever we debate this subject I become uneasy when I hear recipes for increasing the powers of the Seanad, not because I think we will never have an opportunity of getting increased powers but because the Seanad should not be in the power business. That is not our function. That is not the reason the Seanad was established. Our Constitution is clear on where the power lies – in Dáil Éireann, in a democracy elected by the citizens. I have no problem with that and wishing to change it is going into a cul-de-sac. A new Seanad could have a valuable and far more popular role without increasing its powers in any way. More powers are not the answer. I am not sure that Coakley and Laver, in their report, were sufficiently convinced of that need. After seven years in this House, I am in no doubt that the value of the existing institution lies in one area, the scrutiny of legislation. Equally I am in no doubt that the role for a new Seanad should be based on previous successes in that regard.
Obviously, as a Senator under the existing system, I may be biased but I believe we have consistently had a valuable input into legislation, albeit only to a fraction of the extent we could have. However, we have done so within a framework which is quite hostile to our making a contribution. Last year, the Dáil debated and passed a very short Bill on the George Mitchell scholarship. Everyone in the Dáil said nice things about the Bill which was to provide for the awarding of scholarships to American students to study in Ireland. When the Bill came to the Seanad, I noticed that, under its terms, students would be limited to studying within the State. I queried the matter with the Department because I felt that if a student wished to study peace, he or she should be allowed to do so in Belfast or Derry as well as in this State. I was informed that it was the Department's intention to limit the study to this State because problems would otherwise be incurred. I was delighted that when the matter was drawn to the attention of the Minister for Education and Science, he immediately recognised that the issue had slipped unnoticed through the Dáil but was recognised in this House. I am not trying to take credit for that, I merely want to point out that without the scrutiny afforded by this House words or phrases can slip through unnoticed in legislation.
The occasions on which we have been able to make a difference are, however, far outnumbered by those on which this House was treated, or allowed itself to be treated, as nothing more than an expensive rubber stamp. We have permitted that to happen. We are at our best in dealing with Bills which originate in this House and there has been a dramatic change in that regard in recent years. Senator Caffrey referred to the planning and copyright Bills to which hundreds of amendments were tabled. When Bills are initiated in the Seanad, we get them prior to the adversarial confrontations which are properly inherent in the Dáil and which serve to freeze ministerial attitudes and make Ministers come down in favour of one side of an argument over another.
In the past, I have suggested that a major and worthwhile reform of our legislative process would involve the origination of all Bills in the Seanad. I now realise that that suggestion does not go far enough. A gradual change has been ongoing over the past 12 years as a result of the social partnership approach which effectively commenced in 1987. Prior to coming before the Oireachtas at all, Bills have already been the subject of extensive consultation among a wide range of interest groups. All too often, we are presented with provisions which cannot be changed because they represent deals which have been done elsewhere behind closed doors and out of public view. Although it may be unintentional, there is something profoundly unsatisfactory about this process which is almost undemocratic. The process is secret rather than open. Lobby groups sometimes establish their position on an issue in an effort to garner public support, but most of the time they go directly to Government. They approach the civil servants who deal with the details of the legislation rather than the politicians who are ultimately responsible for it. This process is anything but open and transparent. There is no reason why the process should not be open and transparent. Citizens have an inalienable right to know what inputs are made to their legislation, knowledge which, in spite of the freedom of information legislation, they do not currently receive because of the current system.
We have spoken on many occasions about the control and registration of lobbyists. I suggest a reform which would compel the entire consultative process to take place in the full glare of public scrutiny. We are often told that a Bill is the fruit of extensive consultations with all of the concerned interest groups and, therefore, must not be changed. We also sometimes hear from those interest groups that they were consulted in a cursory manner and, in many cases, their views were completely neglected in the final drafting of the legislation. The result of this arrangement is that decisions are often taken by relatively junior civil servants in a manner over which we do not have any control or influence.
My vision of a new Seanad would sweep away all of this and would put in place a system of preparing new legislation which would be fully open, transparent and democratic in the truest sense of the word. I would make the new Seanad an open forum where all discussion about, and input into, forthcoming legislation would occur in the full light of day. If people wanted to lobby, they would have to do so at a public hearing of a Seanad committee where every contribution would be recorded and available to all citizens. Further, access to the Seanad committee forum would be open to virtually anyone, not merely to those vested interests which can afford extensive and expensive lobbying operations. This new approach would totally ban any lobbying of Ministers or officials outside of the Seanad committee forum. That is a radical idea. Imagine the benefits which would accrue from that system. Senator Caffrey made a lovely reference to "tribunalitis". Many tribunals have come about as a result of groups' abilities to lobby and exert influence outside normal parameters.
The new system I envisage could be defined as a pre-legislative process. I am not saying that the forum would consider legislation which had already been drafted but that all new Bills would have to undergo a pre-legislative phase in which public inputs would be invited and made. The starting point of every piece of legislation could be the publication of a Green Paper, followed by discussions at the proposed new Seanad forum which would encompass all aspects of public opinion. The outcome of that process would involve the publication of a rapporteur's report, which would bring the arguments together and suggest options to Government, and the reporting of consensus when it emerged. The Government would then proceed to draft the legislation and bring it before the Oireachtas.
Such an arrangement would acknowledge that over the past ten or 12 years, many of Parliament's original functions have drifted away in a manner which is undemocratic and quite unhealthy in the long term. My vision would bring these functions back into the centre of the political arena and the Oireachtas would become infinitely more relevant. Most important, however, it would drag back into public view the type of issues which have been decided upon on the shadowy fringes and out of the public glare.
If we speak about reform, we must offer a new vision or system which will address people's cynicism and disillusionment. We must propose a system which will garner public commitment and involvement, revitalise our democracy and make it worthy of the name. Anything less will bring us back to Nero's time – we will just be fiddling as Rome burns. Let us take this opportunity to change the Seanad's functions in an open and transparent manner which will result in the betterment of democracy.
