Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1987

Vol. 116 No. 5

Government Review of Seanad Éireann: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to carry out an urgent review of the powers and functions of the Seanad and the methods of election of its members.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this motion because the Seanad has in recent times become more and more the object of public scrutiny, press scrutiny and party political scrutiny and particularly the object of the scrutiny of one party who has called for its abolition. These calls have intensified. This scrutiny is welcome because it is right that we as Senators should be able to justify ourselves and our existence to the public.

I have no hesitation in saying that the popularity and image of the Seanad outside these walls is not a good one. That may be our fault, it may be the fault of the press, it may be the fault of the political parties, but there is no doubt that the public perception of the Seanad is undoubtedly that it is a cosy club and is probably, to a degree, a waste of taxpayers' money. The public at worst are ignorant of and at best are disinterested in our proceedings and in what we do. They wonder what we do. I do not think they have any distinct outline of what the Seanad is about. Therefore, the calls for its abolition struck a fairly popular chord around election time. It may be because of ignorance but it is a case we are obliged to answer.

I am not saying that the Seanad is all bad and that everything is wrong with the Seanad. What I am saying is that there is massive room for improvement in our procedures, our functions, our personnel and our identity and our image. We should all have an obligation to get across to the public exactly what we are doing and how we fulfil a function which the Dáil does not. What we should do is try to portray a distinctive and useful role for ourselves which is not confused with the role of the other House. The Dáil is undoubtedly the democratically elected body and we should not try to compete with it on that score. It is the supreme body. It should have the ultimate say in any legislation or motion which goes through either House. We should try to carve an identity for ourselves which is recognised as different; it may be subordinate but it is useful and it is different.

My problem with the Seanad — and this is probably one which is shared by the majority of the public — is that it is far too party politically orientated. The Seanad, if possible, should be taken out of the realms of party politics. In our deliberations, in our numbers, in our complexion and in everything we do we are a shadow of what goes on in the other House. During this debate I would like to see Senators putting forward ideas as to how we can become more like the original concept of a Seanad — more a vocational concept and more a concept where people represent pressure groups and particular interests in our society rather than political parties.

This Seanad was known as a vocational Seanad. The original idea was that all sorts of pressure groups should be represented in this House. There is a vocational element in this House at present but that vocational element has become drowned by party political interests because the nominees of most of the vocational bodies are members of political parties. The division of the Seanad is 11 of the Taoiseach's nominees, six university Senators and 43 Members elected from the various panels. The result of having these panels is that every single one of those 43 is a committed member of a political party. Their first commitment is obviously to a political party. I will demonstrate that successfully by saying that out of the 43 Senators elected by the various panels at least 27 have at some stage stood for the Dáil. I stand corrected if this is wrong. I would like to read their names into the record: Senators Seán Haughey, Katherine Bulbulia, Joseph Doyle, Patrick Kennedy, Mary Wallace, Michael Ferris, Rory Kiely, John Connor, Charles McDonald, Paul Bradford, Padraic McCormack, William Ryan, Thomas Hussey, Tom Fitzgerald, Seán Byrne, Joachim Loughrey, Maurice Manning, Seán Fallon, Mick Lanigan, Philip Hogan, Brian O'Shea, Des Hanafin, Dan Kiely, Denis Cregan, Nuala Fennell, Brian Hillery and Larry McMahon. All these Senators have at some stage stood as candidates for the Dáil. There is nothing wrong with that but their first preference is to be Members of another House and the Seanad is very much their second preference. I do not like it being a second preference House. It is a pity that the Seanad remains a second preference House. We are aware when we are here of the laudable and the perfectly understandable ambitions of many Members of this House to get to the other House but it denigrates this House by their having stood for the Dáil and by their having indicated that preference.

I have suggested that one of the ways of ensuring that career politicians, those who are not failed or aspiring TDs, are elected to this House is to change the electoral system. This would be very simple. The idea of vocational bodies and vocational members has evidently failed. The reason why it has failed is not because of the nominating bodies; the elections are carried out by politicians. Quite understandably, politicians vote for politicians for various reasons. To take it out of the political arena it would be necessary to change the electoral college. In other words, to deprive outgoing Senators, incoming Dáil Deputies and county councillors of a vote. I have a vote and I would feel no great deprivation as an outgoing Senator if I lost that vote. I see no reason why I, as an outgoing Senator, should have a vote for an incoming Senator.

The result of the present system is that every Senator takes a party whip. The lines on which they break down are as rigid as they are in the Dáil. It is so seldom to see members of political parties in this House breaking the party whip that it proves and points to the loyalty which Senators hold, not to that body which nominated them, but to their party. One has only to listen, as I did several times in the last Seanad, to some of the speeches made in this House when many Members referred regularly to what they called "my constituency". They mean the "Dáil constituency".

I recall Senator Alexis FitzGerald and Senator Mark Killilea referring to "their constituencies". Their constituencies are the county councillors — the electorate. They refer to their constituencies as the geographical areas which they hope to represent in the Dáil. That is the sort of confusion of thinking between the two Houses. That indicates where those Senators want to be and what they feel this House is — it is merely a stepping stone for them to somewhere else. That is a great pity and a great shame. One has only to look at the motions which are put down in this House by the Opposition parties to see that they are party politically orientated. Senators have to do this because they are in groups and parties in this House. Most of the motions are reflections of the motions in the Dáil.

I should like to refer to the campaign for those 43 seats which those who have to win them have to go through. This is possibly one of the most ridiculous campaigns I have ever come across. It is degrading; it is a waste of time; it is humiliating; and it is absurd. People drive thousands and thousands of miles to achieve about 50 votes. They spend more time in their cars than they do canvassing votes. The system of election involves them in fighting — not on policy grounds, because one knows beforehand how many seats are going to each party — members of their own party to secure one of those seats. There are five or six people fighting for the three seats and they are fighting only for those three which are allotted to their own party. They do not fight on policies. They fight purely on personalities and on seeing that they beat the people within their own party.

At election time, one has only to ask a candidate who is on his panel and who he is standing against and he automatically names the people in his own party. I have never come across anybody who has mentioned any members of the opposition when asked who the other people are. They know there are seats allotted to them and that they have to beat those in their own party. They do not know who is standing in the opposition parties because they are not trying to take their seats. It is an absolutely absurd system that they have to canvass throughout the country on little policy, on backstabbing and deals to see that they keep out members of their party and get in themselves. That is not the way a Parliament should be elected and it is certainly not the way the Seanad should be elected.

I have already gone on record by pointing out one example of the absurdity of this system whereby one man — and he is not alone — of enormous distinction could not get elected on the panel system. This man is Ken Whitaker. He was appointed twice to the Seanad by two different Governments. He is as distinguished as any living Irishman in his record and achievements but at the last election he came nearly at the bottom of the poll. Ken Whitaker stood on the nomination of the Royal Irish Academy purely to demonstrate the point that, if he stands for election, he cannot get elected as a Member of the Seanad because the system works against him. One may not agree with his views. I do not agree with his views on anything. What I do not dispute is that he would have an enormous contribution to make to the deliberations of this House, but the system as it stands ensures that party political hacks are elected and that those who want to get into the Dáil are elected at the expense of those who have years of distinguished experience and different contributions to make to this House. That should be remedied. A man of distinction like Ken Whitaker — and there are many others — cannot get elected simply because the system favours those whose allegiance is to a political party.

I should like to see county councillors, the outgoing Seanad and the incoming Dáil taken completely out of the Seanad electoral process. I should also like to see the right of the Taoiseach to nominate 11 Members taken away. Traditionally these 11 Members have been nominated, to give the Taoiseach of the day a majority. Also successive Taoisigh have been able to place here those who will possibly gain Dáil seats. The Seanad has been unscrupulously and ruthlessly used for this purpose by successive Taoisigh.

At this stage I will make an exception to that by saying I think the most recent spate of Taoiseach's nominees are a great credit not only to the present Taoiseach but to this House. I welcome the majority of them. They are innovative. They are original and they have something completely different to offer. This trend was started by the present Taoiseach when he nominated Senators Robb and Mallon from Northern Ireland. It was an eye opener to me and to many others in this House to listen to Senators Robb and Mallon, coming from Northern Ireland, telling us things which are completely different from and totally out of step with the normal political jargon and line we hear in this House. I welcome those nominations and I welcome the continued nomination of people from Northern Ireland. I welcome in particular the five Senators who were nominated this time who are not taking the Fianna Fáil Party Whip. If we had more people with these types of contributions to offer and who come from these different strands of Irish life, the Seanad would be a far more useful and a far more relevant place.

The first principle that should be established is that the Seanad was never meant to be a democratically elected body in the pure sense. The Seanad was not meant to be: one man one vote; put them in; we represent the people. We do not represent the people. Nobody here represents the people as such. If one wants to represent the people one should be in the Dáil representing a constituency. The Seanad is not a democratically elected body and is not meant to be a democratically elected body in that pure sense.

I would like to see direct nominations to the Seanad by the nominating bodies. We should see a wider spread of nominating bodies. I was the first person to suggest that the Seanad should contain representatives of the unemployed, the underprivileged, the handicapped, the disabled, the trade union movement, the Confederation of Irish Industry, farmers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers and all sorts of people from different aspects of Irish life, not people whose first allegiance is to a party Whip but to the pressure groups they represent.

I want to refer to the procedures of the Seanad which I have found cumbersome and extremely unsatisfactory ever since I have come in here and, from what I can see from the record, were unsatisfactory for a long time before that. Private Members' Bills introduced in the Seanad by Independents have a deplorable record. It was said recently that the last Seanad, to the great credit of the last Leader of the House, was a very effective and a very different Seanad because Bills were initiated here. Bills were initiated here, but they were all Government Bills. Bills like the Clinical Trials Bill, the Children (Care and Protection) Bill and the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill were all Government Bills initiated here. While this was an improvement because it gave us a chance to make necessary and very good amendments, the record of Private Members' Bills in the Seanad is absolutely deplorable.

The last Private Members' Bill introduced by a private Member in the Seanad to be passed into law was the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965. It is over 20 years since such a Bill was initiated in the Seanad and passed into law. All Private Members' Bills could not have been that bad. Several Private Members' Bills on the Order Paper were debated during the last Seanad but never got anywhere due to the constant obstruction of the Government at the time and the fact that the Government were not prepared to take a stand on them one way or the other.

That shows a certain contempt for the proceedings of this House and the opinions of those in this House. I respect the right of the Government to govern but I would like to be able to hear them say "no". Senator Brendan Ryan's Homeless Persons' Bill did not get through the House and my Bill on capital punishment was obstructed and temporised by the Government of the day. This again shows the contempt for this House. The Government should allow these Bills to be debated, should welcome their debate and they should give their reasons for rejecting them. The Dáil would and should be the final arbiter. I do not want to see the Seanad given increased power; I want to see the Seanad given increased opportunity and increased potential.

One of the most fundamental reforms that has been suggested, besides taking the county councils and the politicians out of the electoral process for the Seanad, is to hold the Dáil and Seanad elections on the same day. It is a very simple but a very fundamental reform. It is obvious that if the two elections were held on the same day that would surely remove a large degree of the political element from this House. It would mean that those who are in this House who want to stand for the Dáil as a first preference have made their choice and could not come here as a second choice. Those who want to stand for the Seanad and regard it as a preferable House would come here. It would remove a large number of party politicians from this House which, unfortunately, would be very welcome.

I should like to see also a system whereby Ministers were more accountable to the Seanad. The procedures of holding debates on the Adjournment which are held regularly here, is moderately unsatisfactory. It is only one particular issue per week. It is a restricted type of issue and it is not an issue which allows for backwards and forwards repartee, answers or supplementaries between the Minister and the Senator who raises the matter on the Adjournment. Such a system would give Senators scope to have a formal question time, when Ministers would come in and answer Senators' questions. This is something which ought to be considered.

There are other issues which apply just as much to the Dáil as to the Seanad. Why, for instance, do we not sit on Mondays and except in very exceptional cases on Fridays. I am told the reason is that the county councils sit on Mondays. It is a great pity that the county councils should decide when the Seanad and Dáil should sit. Why do we have such tremendously long holidays? Is it planned once again that we should break up at the end of June or the beginning of July and take four months holidays, the longest holidays of any parliament in Europe? Is there any reason for this? Is it because the Government have no legislation to bring forward? If they have no legislation why do they not have any legislation? I suggest that the Seanad and the Dáil should sit until August and take the month of August off only. If the Government cannot provide the legislation we will provide it for them. We have plenty of Bills in the pipeline which we will debate until the end of July and through August if necessary.

I would welcome the views of Senators on the Seanad. I hope that this is not going to become too much an "us and them" with people defending vested interests, a cosy club-like atmosphere. I would like to hear what Senators feel about including all those different strands which I have mentioned. I would like to hear what Senators feel about reducing the party political content in the Seanad.

I am going to be relatively brief and non-contentious. We should welcome Senator Ross's initiative in bringing this motion before Seanad Éireann. It seems that he has nothing to gain from doing this. I am not supporting him just because he is a friend of mine. Senator Ross is ensconced in a relatively cushy seat in Seanad Éireann, as an intermittent Senator, I say somewhat wistfully. One has to accept the Senator's good faith that he is doing this in the best interests of the House. Earlier today there was some intimation that many Senators felt that the idea of bringing this motion before us was treachery to the House; that we are somehow under siege from people who want to abolish us and that, therefore, it is time to close ranks, that Senator Ross was being disloyal in putting this motion on the Order Paper and being guilty of a kind of lése-majesté. On the contrary, I assert that he is doing the House a great service because the House is under attack and therefore it must look to its laurels and see how it can justify itself. On the other hand, I would say to party political Senators that I, and I am sure Senator Ross also, do not approach this motion in any “holier than thou” spirit or a purer than pure spirit.

There is a certain suspicion on the part of the majority of the House towards the university Senators. We are a gracious relic of olden times. Our former masters have long since got rid of university seats but nonetheless, as was their custom, they insisted on feeding the nostrum to the dog. In Great Britain university seats were not possible after the welfare state experiment of post World War II and also because new universities were coming on stream. It was no longer possible to maintain the university representation in the House of Commons. They survived in the Seanad because they were originally intended for the Dáil and were translated to the Seanad as a form of compensation. We are a threatened species within a threatened species.

I do not approach this in any "holier than thou" attitude. The university Senators are as elitest as the rest of the House. We also represent rotten boroughs. My rotten borough happens to be a very large one; Senator Ross's, for his comfort, is very much smaller. We would not exist as Independent Senators unless there were party politics in this country. Independents in politics exist because there are party politics and because other people take upon themselves the responsibility of mobilising public opinion and submitting themselves to party discipline which some of us more restless spirits cannot endure. We owe our existence to the party politicians. We would make no sense only for the party politicians.

My experience in this House goes back ten years. It is my privilege to have known and to have watched in action some very great Senators from all political parties who performed a great service to the State. I may be forgiven if I invoke the spirit — because it is not invidious to do so — of the late Senator Alexis FitzGerald who was an ornament to any parliamentary assembly and who gave freely of his talents to this House. Therefore, it is not because we think that we are better than the rest that we have tabled this motion; it is because Seanad Éireann has been unsatisfactory from the beginning in one way or another.

The fundamental problem in a unitary State is how do you justify the existence of a second Chamber? You can do so, but it is not self-evident. When I am asked that question at election times, I put forward a pretty plausible case but in the small hours of the morning, in the dark nights of the soul I am not entirely convinced that there is an absolutely cast iron case for a second Chamber. There is a case, needless to say, for a second Chamber in a federal system like the United States. As, apparently, we have to take integration into the European Community seriously now, hopefully there will be a proper Seanad as well in a Federal United States of Europe because the present European Assembly is usurping the functions of a parliament. To have any proper popular representation in a large community, you will have to provide for the small countries as well as the big ones just as in the United States.

There is a fundamental problem in a small and relatively poor State like this of absolutely justifying the need for a second Chamber and we continually have to establish the case. The classic dilemma of a second Chamber was expressed by Abbé Sieye, whom I am sure many of you will remember from the history books on the French Revolution. He was the original and great survivor. He could have taught the Taoiseach several lessons in the art of survival.

Having survived all the vicissitudes of fortune from the outbreak of the revolution until the overthrow of Napoleon he came to the conclusion that it was very hard to justify a second House, because, as he said, it either duplicates the work of the first House, in which case it is superfluous, or it conflicts with the first House, in which case it is pernicious. It is very hard to gainsay that kind of logic. This has happened in recent times. New Zealand abolished their Senate because it was superfluous. The Danes abolished their Senate because it was pernicious, just as the first Seanad of the Irish Free State was pernicious. There is that fundamental dilemma about the existence of the second Chamber. That is why Senator Ross has done us a service by getting us to examine the fundamental reasons for our existence.

The reason there is a Seanad in the first place is because the British bequeathed it to us, just as they did the university seats. The whole idea of a bicameral system was built into the Government of Ireland Act, 1912, and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The first Dáil did not need a Seanad. The first Dáil to which we look back as to a golden parliamentary age, did not need a Seanad or did not even think of a Seanad. Because of the need to safeguard the Unionists and the minority representation, the Seanad was built into the Irish Free State's Constitution and for that reason it was in conflict with Dáil Éireann which enshrined the Nationalist aspirations of the Irish people.

When Eamon de Valera got rid of that first Seanad, it looked for a time as if he was not going to usher in another Seanad but he did because fashions changed. Just as it was necessary in 1922 to accommodate the ex-Unionist minority population so in the middle thirties it was necessary to pay lip service to the then highly fashionable idea that society should be organised on vocational lines. Éamon de Valera was never very satisfied with the Seanad which he devised because, as he said in 1937, and I quote:

I say it would pass the wit of man to get a completely satisfactory scheme for a Second House.

If it passed the wit of Eamon de Valera to get a completely satisfactory scheme, what hope has lesser mortals?

From the first decade of the State Governments were in conflict with the Seanad and when they established it, according to their image and likeness, they found that they needed to control it. Basically, what is wrong with Seanad Éireann is that there is an unresolved identity problem. Is it a place where aspiring politicians and retiring politicians rest themselves for a while or is it truly a vocational assembly? It is, I suggest, in the in-between world of unresolved tension between vocationalism and political control.

Under the Constitution the Government must have control over the Seanad. If the Seanad is to be an integral part of processing legislation then it follows that the Government of the day must control it. It seems to me that as long as that situation obtains, the kind of scenario which Senator Ross and I desire — although I do not agree with Senator Ross on every detail — will be very hard to come by. Governments tolerate Seanad Éireann because it is one of the few areas of political party patronage at their disposal. This State is relatively immune from the grosser excesses of political party patronage found, for example, in the United States of America. The Seanad is a large area of political patronage and therefore Governments are reluctant to get rid of it but at the same time they are reluctant to take it seriously. It is also true to say that individual Members of Dáil Éireann are jealous for the primacy of the first House. There is that additional tension of Deputies towards Senators.

The attack by the Progressive Democrats has concentrated our minds fearfully. Whatever the intentions were of the Deputy who raised the question of Seanad expenses she has, at considerable pain to many Senators, caused us to ponder on the reasons for our own existence. I say to the Progressive Democrats that they will have to think again before their facile talk of abolishing Seanad Éireann can carry any conviction. I made the point in a very brief letter to the newspapers a couple of months ago that under the Constitution it is impossible to abolish Seanad Éireann. Going through Bunreacht na hÉireann the other night, I am more than ever convinced that it is impossible to abolish Seanad Éireann unless we have a new Constitution because references, direct or indirect, specific or non-specific to the Houses of the Oireachtas, both House, each House, etc. and to Seanad Éireann particularly, occur throughout about one-third to one-half of the Constitution. It is not simply a question of neatly excising Articles 18 and 19.

What Senator Ross has been suggesting tonight has been suggested by the Seanad Electoral Reform Commission, 1959. What that suggested, in effect, was to dilute at least party political control in the Seanad by taking Article 19 of the constitution seriously. Article 19 provides for direct representation in Seanad Éireann from the vocational bodies. The Seanad Law Reform Commission, 1959, came up with that suggestion and said that of the 43 let 20 be directly nominated from the various nominating bodies. It was turned down by the Government of the day for reasons mentioned already and has never been seriously taken up since. As Senator Ross said, the Seanad has been ignored by the public; it has puzzled the public despite the notable contribution to public life and to the legislative process of individual Senators. They were not all university Senators. Now we are experiencing undesirable and lurid limelight. It is a time of great financial retrenchments.

The Taoiseach's famous observation that nothing is sacred when it comes to cuts is not irrelevant to our situation here. If we are to survive we have to change and become, as Senator Ross said, more vocational, if not entirely vocational, and the ordinary people of Ireland must find this Chamber meaningful. One of the most frequent experiences I have as a university Senator — elected by a restricted franchise — is that people, like my family grocer, say to me: "Why can I not vote for you?" You will pardon the vanity in passing. I have great difficulty in explaining to him why he should not, as a grocer, be able to vote for me as a constituent who lives in Cork South-Central. In other words, why could not every Seán Citizen or Siobhán Citizen — and this is ultimately the only justification I can find for a second Chamber because I distrust the idea of nominating bodies being directly responsible for putting people in the Seanad because they would be open to pressure too — have two votes, one for his or her House representatives and one for his or her vocational or trade union or professional choice, without prejudice to class or sections in the community?

It seems to me that that is the vision we have to look to. We must take the duplicating process as it is out of the Seanad and replace it by a consultative process where there will be experts and disinterested people from all walks of life bringing their talents to bear in legislating, not with a view to obstructing the Government, but with a view to helping the Government of the day.

Senator Murphy I will confine you to the quarter of an hour. You have just one minute left.

That is all I propose to use, a Chathaoirleach. Your timing as my own is indeed perfect. Seanad reform in the last analysis cannot be separated from parliamentary reform as a whole because one justification we can make for ourselves is that as long as the average Dáil Deputy is preoccupied with constituency matters then I think we are not only desirable but absolutely essential. Parliamentary reform is the overall context to which we have to look for reform of our own House but I have no doubt that the issues raised by Senator Ross are vital and I think the publicity we are getting at the moment means that in the long term we either have to reform or be abolished.

Is mór an sásamh dom bheith páirteach sa díospóireacht seo ar ról agus feidhmeanna an Tí seo. Is dóigh liom gur cuí go ndéanfar a leithéid de phlé sa bhliain seo, ór tá caoga bhliain imithe thart ó bunaíodh an Seanad faoi mar atá sé anois.

Consideration of this motion by the House is timely in that it is a reflection of the current mood of critical questioning of the existing institutions of Government. The fact that Members of the House are prepared to initiate a debate on their own role and functions is indeed to be welcomed and puts paid to any suggestion that Senators have a vested interest in perpetuating the system merely because they are part of it themselves. I listened with interest to the views of the Senators who have contributed and in particular I will be anxious to see whether a consensus is emerging on the need for reform and the type of reform that is considered desirable.

This debate is part of the continuing process of the evolution of the role and functions of the Seanad. For the first years of its life the structure and powers emerged, one might say, on a piecemeal basis. Amendments to the method of election, and to the powers of the Seanad were effected from time to time.

A number of review committees were established to report on various aspects of the role, structures and method of election. In a unitary State such as ours, with a system of parliamentary Government deriving from a bicameral Legislature it is only to be expected that the role of the second House should evolve over a period of time and should be adapted to changing circumstances.

The fundamental question that arises in relation to the Seanad is: do we need a second House? Indeed, one political party have made the abolition of this House a major part of their policy.

Senators

Hear, hear.

I must acknowledge that their arguments have, so far, failed to impress me. Nonetheless, it is a point of view and one that we should not shy away from.

We have had only limited experience in this country of a single Chamber Parliament, that is during the period between the abolition of the old Seanad in 1936, and the adoption of Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937, so we cannot speak from great experience on this point.

While most parliamentary democracies have a bicameral Legislature, there are instances where the upper House has been abolished. For example, the New Zealand Parliament has consisted of a single Chamber since 1950. However, it is interesting to note that in the case of New Zealand a practice has been adopted in which select committees consisting of elected members of Parliament scrutinise most legislation and provide a forum for further consideration of legislation. One of the main arguments in favour of a second Chamber is that it helps to safeguard against ill-considered or overenthusiastic action by the lower House and provides a further means by which more detailed consideration can be given to a Bill.

The report of the Committee on the Constitution which was published in December, 1967, contains the most recent review of the position of the Seanad. This informal joint committee consisting of representatives of the three political parties then represented in the Dáil dealt with the necessity for a second Chamber. While the report referred to the arguments in favour of and against retention of the Seanad, it did not issue a specific recommendation on this point. It did, however, note that Constitution makers and political theorists worldwide tend to prefer a bicameral Legislature.

In this country, as in most countries with an indirectly elected upper House, the role of the Seanad is to an extent subordinate to that of the lower House, which has been directly elected by the people. This is a necessary safeguard to ensure that a clash of interest does not arise between two Chambers of equal importance.

There are no hard and fast methods of determining what type of second Chamber is appropriate to particular circumstances, but it seems that a powerful upper House would be best suited to a situation where there is a separation of powers, between the executive arm of Government and Parliament, such as exists in the United States. A strong upper House may also have a role to play in federal systems of Government to ensure proper representation of states within the federation. In a unitary State like ours, an upper House elected by a restricted electoral college, with powers somewhat less than those of the lower House seems to be the norm.

This is not to say, of course, that the role of a second Chamber must be seen as inferior or second-rate. A properly structured and constituted House contributes invaluable expertise to the parliamentary process. Indeed, it could be argued that such a House to which the appropriate powers and functions are assigned should complement, and does not compete with the lower House. The power of the upper House to scrutinise and, if necessary, hold up legislation is a salutary reminder to the lower House that any ill-considered measure is unlikely to secure an easy passage.

The 1967 report of the Committee on the Constitution, in considering the powers of the Seanad, felt that the general view of the population was that there should not be two Houses of the Oireachtas with equal powers. It was felt that such a situation would inevitably lead to conflict. The committee indicated that the general feeling in this country was that the directly elected Dáil should have authority superior to that of the Seanad. I would feel that it would be very difficult to argue otherwise, as any other arrangement would make the job of everyday Government more difficult than it already is.

Mar sin, pé athrú a chinnfear a dhéanamh amach anseo, is léir go gcaithfear tús áite a thabhairt do Dháil Éireann i gcónaí.

We are all familiar with the cynical and facile comment sometimes made about the composition of the Seanad. We are told that it is a launching pad for aspiring Dáil candidates and a haven for those who fail to make it back to the Dáil. I think the facts speak for themselves — some of our outstanding parliamentarians have served in this House. If an able and experienced public representative is, for one reason or another, unable to continue in the service of the Dáil, it would be unfortunate, indeed, if Parliament and the country were to be deprived entirely of the benefit of his knowledge and experience. We need make no apology on this score.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Is maith an mhaise dúinn go bhfuil deis againn daoine a bhfuil chun tosaigh sa pholaitíocht, sna healaíon nó san eolaíocht a thabhairt isteach sa Teach seo trí toghchan teoranta nó trí ainmniúchán an Taoisigh.

The Seanad has been criticised on the ground that it fails to reflect the vocational character originally envisaged for it. It is said that of the 43 members elected from vocational panels, a large proportion tend to be politicians or, perhaps, as Senator Ross suggests, politicians on the way up, the way down or on the way out. Persons elected from the panel must, of course, have the requisite knowledge and experience appropriate to the particular panel, but it is scarcely surprising if many of them also have political interests. The report of the Seanad Electoral Law Commission, which was published in 1959, emphasised in relation to this that, even if the Seanad was composed entirely of vocational representatives, elected by vocational organisations, it would still, because of the powers and duties vested in it by the Constitution, have to make decisions which are in the fullest sense political.

The present method of election is an area which would have to be considered in the context of a review of the position of the Seanad. Apart from the 11 members appointed by the Taoiseach, Senators are elected by a restricted electoral college consisting of members of the Oireachtas and of local authorities, and by university graduates. Whether this method is the most appropriate is a question which will, no doubt, generate much debate. I feel that few people would argue in favour of a Seanad directly elected by the people. The 1967 Committee on the Constitution considered this and concluded that it would be inadvisable to involve the public directly in the election. The point at issue, then, is whether changes could be made to the present electorate and, if so, what form such a change should take.

This was considered by the Seanad Electoral Law Commission which reported in 1959. It is worth noting that that commission made recommendations for a separate electorate for candidates nominated by nominating bodies, the electorate to be determined by the registered nominating bodies themselves. Under the recommendations, Members of the Dáil and Seanad and county and county borough councillors would continue to elect candidates nominated by Oireachtas Members. This would have entailed broadening the scope of the electorate considerably by giving the nominating bodies a direct role in the election of a proportion of Senators. There was considerable debate on this recommendation in the House in 1960 and it is fair to say that the then Senators were not enthusiastic about the idea. For my own part, I think it is singularly appropriate that local authority members, who themselves have a direct mandate from the people, should continue to have a say in the composition of the upper House.

Another facet of the system of election to the Seanad that would have to be examined, in my view, is the appropriateness at present, of having a separate university representation. Tá fhios ag an saol go bhfuil obair fhónta á déanamh ag na Seanadoirí ollscoile. De ghnáth, bíonn dearcadh úr le nochtadh acu ar cheisteanna an lae agus, an méid a bíonn le rá acu sa Teach, go h-iondúil, bíonn sé suimiúil, éifeachtach, agus bhí sé éifeachtach agus suimiúil anocht freisin.

While acknowledging the contribution of university Senators, the question must be asked: what today is the democratic justification for awarding a second parliamentary vote to a citizen who has had the good fortune as well as the intellectual capacity to achieve a university degree? Two subsidiary questions arise here. Why should one university with an electorate of 15,000 elect three Senators while the other, with an electorate more than four times that number, also elect three? Furthermore is it reasonable to give a Seanad vote to a graduate whose degree is awarded by a university while withholding it from a graduate whose degree is awarded by the NCEA?

Senators

Hear, hear.

The Seventh Amendment of the Constitution in 1979 paved the way for a change in this area by providing that provision may be made in the Seanad Electoral Law to allow graduates of other institutions of higher education in the State to be included in the electorate in respect of the Members currently elected by the Universities. I would welcome the views of the House on this aspect.

I have touched on many of the areas which must be addressed in considering the whole question of the role and functions of the Seanad. It will be important to determine whether there is a consensus on what direction we should now take. In an area such as this, it is only through consensus that satisfactory progress can be made. The Taoiseach has already indicated his willingness to consider constitutional reform in consultation with the other parties, provided there is a general and genuine interest among all the parties to consider change.

However, I think it only fair to refer also to another statement by the Taoiseach which puts this matter in its current context. If I may I will quote briefly from the record of the other House. On 10 March last the Taoiseach said: "I want to emphasise that at this stage of our affairs it is the effective management of the economy which must take priority".

Ní chun ceisteanna a fhreagairt a tháinig mé anseo inniú nó anocht ach chun cabhrú leis an Seanad na ceisteanna atá le freagairt a aithint. Is mór an chabhair an díospóireacht seo agus tá mé cinnte de gur féidir dul chun cinn a dhéanamh má tá gach taobh sásta na ceisteanna a iniúchadh go hoscailte agus go macánta.

In any consideration of the constitutional and legislative provisions relating to the composition, powers and functions of Seanad Éireann, it is useful to put the matter into perspective and to examine the political theory underlying the existence of bicameral Parliaments, that is, those Parliaments with two Houses, and to endeavour to answer the question as to why some countries prefer the bicameral system to the unicameral system. This question has been described as "one of the most controversial in constitutional law". The answers given to it reflect the diversity of parliamentary institutions. The arguments in favour of bicameralism in a unitary State such as ours are summed up in a report on bicameral Parliaments prepared by the Association of Secretaries General of Parliament and published in 1966:

The protaganists of a bicameral system invoke 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 further argument is advanced in favour of a bicameral system. A single House may be tempted to exploit its omnipotence, above all if it is confronting a weak Government. Inherent in these arguments in favour of bicameralism are the premises that a second House should have lesser constitutional powers and prerogatives than a popularly elected House and that it should not be constituted and elected in the same way as the first House.

Otherwise it would be superfluous as representing the same types of opinion in the same way. Constitutional powers are, therefore, so bestowed that the Government are responsible only to the first House. Thus a defeat of the Government, even on an important issue, in the second House, would not ipso facto involve the downfall of the Government. However, for reasons of prestige and, because they may adversely affect public opinion, Governments dislike defeats in the upper House and so many Constitutions seek to ensure that the Government have a working majority in the second House.

How then should a second House comport itself if, however, there is a majority in it opposed to the Government of the day? This has been described and, indeed, analysed by Professor Bernard Crick in his book entitled The Reform of Parliaments. In particular, he refers to the work done by the House of Lords in dealing with the Transport Act of 1947, a Bill which was initiated by the then Labour Government. He concludes:

There was a real endeavour by the Conservative Opposition as well as by the Government peers to make constructive amendments. The Opposition sharply criticised the detail but admitted that the mandate for nationalised transport in some form was definite.

Professor Crick concludes:

The passage of the Bill in an efficient form would have been impossible but for the existence of a revising second chamber.

The second House in such a case, so runs the thesis, should recognise the constitutional superiority of the first House. It should not capriciously obstruct measures for which that first House has a clear mandate and in general should use its own powers constructively and with discretion.

Assuming then the principle of bicameralism, the next problem seems to be to resolve what should be the composition and selection of the second House. It has been said of the House of Lords, for example, that if it did not exist it could not be invented. We in Ireland, however, in common with most other unitary States, have had to invent and the history of the Irish Seanad since 1922 reflects the changing attitudes towards the role of the second House which have manifested themselves from time to time over these past years. Commissions and parliamentary committees have expressed their views on the best method of choosing a second House and political commentators have waxed eloquent on the subject.

In all this discussion, however, Sir Kenneth Wheare in his book entitled Legislatures makes what I believe is a very crucial and important point when he states:

First of all it may be worthwhile to get out of the way a doctrine about the proper function of a second chamber which rests upon an illusion, the notion of a second chamber above and beyond politics composed of eminent gentlemen and ladies of great distinction in various walks of life but politically neuter.

Professor Wheare continues:

There is undoubtedly a case for saying that second chambers should contain people who are less dependent upon party considerations and party organisations than are the members of the first chamber. But if second chambers are to be anything more than debating societies and discussion circles party is bound to come in.

Professor Wheare concludes:

The second chamber is invited to give its opinion upon measures and policies initiated and pushed forward by a party government supported by a majority party or a coalition of parties and criticised by a minority party or parties in the first House. How can it avoid politics and party politics at that and why should it? A second chamber is part of a political system, its business is politics. It need not be as partisan as a lower House but it must, unless it is to be completely powerless, express views and take decisions which usually means taking sides on political questions.

The report of the Seanad Electoral Law Commission 1959 puts the position as follows:

We would like to emphasise that even if the Seanad was composed entirely of vocational interests elected wholly by vocational organisations it would still, because of the powers and duties vested in it by the Constitution, have to make decisions which are in the fullest sense political. No alteration in the system of election or the composition of the Seanad can alter this fact.

Like most democracies the Legislature in Ireland has two Houses, a lower or first House called the Dáil and an upper or second House called the Seanad. The Dáil consists of Members elected directly by universal suffrage whereas the Seanad consists partly of indirectly elected Members and partly of nominated Members. The report of the Committee on the Constitution, 1967, interestingly enough, a committee chaired by the late George Colley, TD, and which included such notable Deputies as Seán Lemass, Robert Molloy, Don Davern, Seán Dunne, Denis Jones, T. F. O'Higgins, David Andrews, Gerard Sweetman, James Tully and Senators James Dooge, Michael Kennedy and Eoin Ryan. They asked themselves the question: "Is the Seanad necessary?" and stated:

While Constitution-makers and political theorists seem in general to prefer a bicameral legislature the problem of devising the perfect second chamber has proved to be almost insoluble

—as the Minister for the Environment has said.

There is no formula which is likely to be acceptable to all people. However, the recognition of the fact that perfection cannot be achieved has not, however, deterred the majority of countries from making the attempt to devise some system which is considered to be at least of some utility in their special circumstances.

The 1967 committee concluded:

We are satisfied that what most countries expect in providing a second House is that they will thereby have a safeguard against ill-considered or hasty action on the part of the first House. A second group of public representatives will have the opportunity of examining legislation and commenting upon it. The first House will thereby be given time for reflection on the utility of the measures which it has proposed. Furthermore, a reasonable opportunity will be given to affected interests to organise public opinion in relation to controversial matters. In addition, important technical matters may receive in the second House more comprehensive treatment than it has been possible to give them in the first House.

James O'Reilly and Mary Redmond in their book Cases and Materials on the Irish Constitution have this to say;

The Seanad has made valuable contributions to legislation in this country in recent times. Such notable examples of these contributions include The Redundancy Payments Bill, The Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill.

— the various Bills referred to by Senator Ross. Then of course there was the Dentists Bill, 1985, the first such Bill introduced into this country since 1928, a Bill which was initiated in this House and much amended here and which on 2 May 1985 was passed by Dáil Éireann exactly as it left the Seanad, a comprehensive Bill consisting of eight Parts, 68 sections and two Schedules, a Bill which has now paved the way for the establishment of a new era in Irish dentistry. Therefore, as Members of this House, we welcome the decision of the Government and of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to introduce the Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987, every aspect of which I am sure will be closely monitored and scrutinised by Seanad Éireann.

The principal provisions relating to the present Constitution, as Senator Murphy has said, are set out in Articles 18 and 19 of the 1937 Constitution. There are, of course, many other clauses in that Constitution which relate to the powers and functions of the Seanad. The report of the Committee on the Constitution, 1967, again states that the whole framework of the Constitution would have to be examined, not alone Articles 18 and 19. I do not want to be unfair to the report of the Committee on the Constitution, 1967, but I have not that exact quotation. The report goes on:

If the Seanad were to be abolished it would be necessary to go through the Constitution from start to finish and to make alternative provisions for all those safeguards resting upon the existence of the Seanad which are already contained therein.

This report concludes:

If the Seanad is to be retained it does not necessarily have to remain unaltered in matters relating to its composition and method of election. In this connection we think it necessary to find out, first of all, that the Constitution, as at present drafted, affords extreme flexibility in its basic provisions relating to the Seanad such as the composition and strength of the panels, the nature of the electorate, the method of voting and, indeed, the timing of the elections. A great many fundamental changes in relation to the Seanad can, therefore, be brought about simply by the enactment of ordinary legislation without any change in the Constitution.

I would, therefore, recommend that the following reforms, which can be enacted without any change in the Constitution should be carried out immediately: (1) Governments should launch Bills in the Seanad in sufficient numbers so as to avoid the bottleneck just before the summer and Christmas recess which leaves the Seanad with too little time to execute its revising function properly; (2) that the electorate in respect of the election of the 43 Senators, referred to by the Minister on the five panels, should be indeed expanded to include not only the members of county councils and county borough councils but also the members of every borough council, urban district council and town commission because I believe, like the Minister for the Environment, emphatically in the wisdom and contribution made by our local councillors who, more than anybody else in this country, know the needs and the requirements of their local people; (3) the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1979, allows for a change in the election of the six university members of the Seanad.

The 1979 Act inserted a new paragraph 2 in Article 18.4 so that Article 18.4.2 now envisages the franchise being extended to include other institutions of higher education and other third level colleges as may be fixed by law. Under Article 18.4.2 a member or members of Seanad Éireann may be elected by, as stated in the Constitution, "institutions grouped together or by a single institution". I urge the Minister for the Environment to introduce the appropriate legislation to give effect to this provision in the Constitution and I hope that the movers of this motion will welcome the extension of the third level Seanad electorate and the widening of the franchise to include graduates of other third level institutions.

It was Lord Bryce who said the second House has four major functions: (1) the function of revision of legislation; (2) the function of initiation of legislation; (3) the function of inter-position of delay; and (4) the function of debate on important issues. Under these headings I believe that Seanad Éireann has made a valuable contribution to the development and advancement of this country.

I should like to join with other Senators in welcoming the Minister for the Environment to the Seanad to discuss this fundamental motion. It is over 20 years since I was elected to the House. When I started off I had some experience in politics in Donegal and perhaps I should give my qualifications. I have been elected to Donegal County Council five times. I headed the poll five times, if that is not too much of a boast, against Members of the other House and I never went for membership of the other House.

I want to compliment the movers of this motion. Senators Ross and Murphy, because it is proper to give this opportunity to Seanad Members especially when the purpose of having a Seanad is under attack. It is great to have an opportunity to discuss here the justification for having the Seanad. The first observation I should like to make to Senator Ross is that one of the greatest problems we have in this island is that of trying to make politics work in the part of the island I am fairly close to and have to travel through to get to my base. I have some knowledge of how important it is to try to make politics work in that part of the country. People in this part of the island would spare no effort, and there is no contribution they would not make, to get politics to work in the North of Ireland. It is very hard to contrast that with proposals in this House suggesting that politics should be taken out of the House. I find it difficult to understand, because when I first came into the Seanad and was feeling my way politically, I looked at the Seanad and asked: what is wrong with the Seanad and what is right with it?

I found it very hard to keep an interest in it because of the attitudes of people I thought would have more knowledge and more experience than I. The Dublin based professor and barrister, the people who led the posse in the House, got up and made their contribution, went out to the stenographer and corrected it. They made sure their contribution got across to the media and then they went across the river and attended to their business. I formed an impression that these were the people who were making the running in the Seanad, whether they were professors or barristers, and there were a number of them. They were the people who created the outward impression of the Seanad.

It was not the national intention for the Seanad to be administered in that way. I felt that the people who made a contribution, went elsewhere to look after their business for part of the day and came back to see how things went during the day, were making a casual input. I say to Senators Ross and Murphy that I try to understand their attitude to the Seanad and I sympathise with it to some extent, but when they say the voting system should be taken out of politics and local authority members should not have an input, they show that they have very little knowledge of local authorities.

Where are they?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order.

The two Senators have not had 27 years, as I have had, of being a member of a local authority, vocational committee, county committee of agriculture, a regional technical college and numerous other bodies such as school management boards and spending most of my time attending meetings. I would class myself as a fairly average rural representative. I certainly am not ahead of the average public representative from any political party in counties Donegal, Mayo, Kerry or any other part of the country. Rural Senators especially have a very serious commitment to public life. The impression I get is that a Senator who is based in Dublin gets off lightly because he could cover the whole area in half an hour on a bicycle.

Apart from the few acquaintances they have within their profession Senators based in Dublin would not know 100 people, whereas somebody from rural Ireland would have to be able to name a person he meets on the street and to understand his problems. It is a totally different involvement. I am very friendly with a man in County Donegal who always gives the impression that he is above politics, but mentally he always makes a little recording. He gives politicians more to do than those who are easily identified as politicians. There is a good bit of that in it as well.

If we were to take away the involvement of local authorities we would be moving away from the grass roots completely. With the indulgence of the Leas-Chathaoirleach I will give the House an example of a County Donegal problem. We had an arts committee and the artists suggested that they should be involved in the nomination and selection of Members of the Seanad. The council members selected a regional development organisation. They formed a technical committee and the technical committee formed an arts committee. If somebody disappeared from the technical committee, the RDO or the arts committee, we did not know where to go to get a democratic nomination back to the arts committee. That is the kind of suggestion being made here, that the nominating bodies should be widened, that there should be a wider base and many more people should be involved. I do not know where one would stop.

There is a fairly large list of nominating bodies at present. Many of them have not used their nominations. Would it make the Seanad more democratic if that change took place? I would like to think that the selection, nomination and final vote will be kept pretty near the grass roots. I have been elected to the Seanad on seven occasions. Everybody complains when they are standing for the Seanad that it is a fairly rough journey. Nevertheless, it does not stop them as there are generally two candidates for every seat. With regard to the people involved in the Seanad election, if a council member had not got a vote — I know one council member who lost a vote — he would feel seriously disadvantaged. I do not consider that it would be an improvement to change the system of election and take the franchise from local councillors. If we did that, we would be making the Seanad more undemocratic and then it would be entitled to be questioned.

The difficulty about the Seanad is that of communication. Many improvements could be made. I will suggest one improvement if there is a review of the Seanad which I believe will be welcomed generally. The voting system could be regionalised on a geographical basis in smaller areas and a Senator based in Cork would not have to travel to Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan. That aspect of it might be looked at. Otherwise the system of panels, the system of qualifying for panels, is reasonably good. It might not be perfect but the system that might be put in its place would have to be looked at very seriously. The present system involves those members of the community who have been elected and they are certainly as near the grass roots as possible.

The question of having a more efficient Seanad should be considered. I would like to see the introduction of Question Time in the Seanad so that one could ask questions about what was happening. At present Members have to go to Dáil Deputies and ask them to get information. It would be helpful if Question Time was available for Seanad Members. My two recommendations are: the facility for asking questions and the possibility of having smaller regions. These are two simple areas that could be looked at. Basically the Seanad works pretty well if it is not completely hogged by a few people who believe they are more qualified than others, that their elocution is better, that they are better equipped and that their research facilities are better. The Seanad is very convenient actually. Some people can run their businesses from within the Seanad whereas most of us cannot. Most of us have to put up with the criticism levied at Seanad Members from rural Ireland who have to claim substantial travel expenses.

The criticism about those Senators who incur very substantial travelling expenses is totally unjustified because there are other ways in which one could run up equally as big a bill. If some Senators administer their business largely from this House, they can use the phone continuously and use the facilities of this House. If we are having a good hard look at the Seanad we could look at that aspect of it as well. A review of the Seanad is timely. It would be welcomed by most people but let us get at every aspect of it, not just how it should be run and how the elite few could be more involved. The whole country is interested in the future of the Seanad.

The Minister's contribution has been very useful. Every Senator here has an opportunity — and I am grateful for the opportunity — to look at the changing role of the Seanad, and I hope that this debate will enable us to do that and to refute the criticisms that have been made at present.

Senator Ferris, you have two minutes. Would you like to report progress?

I will let Senator O'Shea do that.

I report progress. Debate adjourned.

Barr
Roinn