First of all, I would like to thank Senators Ross and Murphy for putting down the motion. It affords us an opportunity to show accountability to the general public. Any of us who are committed to the question of disclosure of information certainly appreciate that. It also shows that Senators are not afraid to think in critical terms about our power and functions, or the lack of them whatever the consensus turns out to be. It is only right that we should go as far as we can with the debate in the interest of public concern.
Since we are the people affected by the degree of power and functions bestowed on us, it is a good idea that we start to have a critical look at ourselves. In the final analysis we are the ones who are answerable in the sense of checking ourselves to see whether the powers and functions we have serve to protect the public interest. It also gives us a chance to let the public know about the methods of election and selection and what we here think of those methods. Even though we will differ, I doubt if we will separate on the question of the right of the public to know and to understand and, therefore, to enable them to put a more enlightened point of view and a greater depth into their future criticisms. So much for the preamble; I will now deal with the subject matter.
If most of us did not know of the well-intentioned motive behind the placing of the motion and appreciate the high calibre of the mover and seconder, we might be inclined to the view that there was an air of tempermental impatience with people who vote for and those whom they elect to this House. We might also be tempted towards the view that the movers believe that certain institutions or organisations produce the only honest ones and that they alone know the score. I refer, of course, not to the mover or the seconder but to the argument about the nominating bodies. As elected representatives we are entitled to express our views without fear or favour, but that also imposes on us the obligation to ridicule ourselves out of any despairing idea that everything is wrong because it is not 100 per cent right, or that some untried panacea is better that what we have got. I am glad to say that the mover of the motion recognises this as well and that he did not see any great panacea. I respect any individual approach to things but I cannot accept the argument that, if only we had the right conditions and good surroundings, we would perform magnificently. This brings me back to the vocational nominating body argument as advanced.
There is no guarantee that those selected or nominated for vocational reasons alone would produce novelty or originality. They may not be live, original people. I can speak from experience because I dealt with many people in my lifetime who just do not learn from experience, or else they will be mandated one way or the other and be, therefore, a body no different for the elected Seanad resulting from the present methods. I do not mean to be uncharitable but in circumstances of electing or selecting for specialities we could find ourselves without the right mix and finish up with an orgy of specialisation instead of the wider scope we now enjoy. I agree that the use of pieces and patches of knowledge, as practised here from time to time, lends itself to being disconnected and distorted. But the fact remains that, because of the system we use and because of the cross section of occupations of the people who elect us, the checks and balances are also in place in the sense that the scope for the wider debate exists as distinct from the specialisation concept.
The use of half truths, the defects of mental myopia and the suffering of blind spots is not something peculiar to the Dáil or Seanad. It certainly is not the fault of the people who elect to both bodies: it abounds in all walks of life. By going the road of specialisation or specific interest alone for the purpose of election or selection are we not risking a furtherance of arrogance on the Irish national family by pushing the idea of class structures which would soon be dominated by the more forceful, who would use their economic power to further social divisions? We could be talking of aggravating an already differing order of society.
By confining the method of election or selection we could be advancing the philosophy and ideology of people remote from the choice of the majority of those who constitute that society. For example, the power of remote financial interests to impose their own controls could well get a boost if the Seanad was dominated by special interest groups mostly geared to business and commerce — for example, irresponsible multinational organisations are about who owe allegience neither to national government nor international authority and who dictate the speed of technological development no matter what the consequences are on employment. At least, in the heel of the hunt, under the present system we can hold back indefinitely the creeping in, as can emerge in a specialisation situation, of the soulless society. Presently we can challenge irresponsible decisions by faceless men. Under any system based on specialist qualifications or vocational business organisations alone, the faceless men could be more than well represented in this House. I appreciate Senator Ross' observations on the unemployed, the under-privileged, etc., getting representation in the House, but I have only to remind the House of the unemployment marches many years ago when people lay on O'Connell Bridge and there were only about 60,000 unemployed. A man called Murphy became their leader and was elected to the Houses of the Oireachtas. God help the poor chap; he was surrounded. Any special interest groups or people of that calibre would have to do the same as Mr. Murphy. They could not find anything to advance their cause in the House because society was ganging up on them. Therefore, it is not true to say that the unemployed could have a real voice in the House. They would have no more luck with Bills or motions than say, the Independents.
I agree with the Private Members' Bill. The last Government were guilty of not moving on this issue. I adjourned the debate on one Private Members' Bill, which has been going on for the past two years and am waiting to continue the debate. Perhaps through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges something can be done in that respect, or looking at select committees in a favourable way would be another way of dealing with this matter.
I am afraid that the concept of cost-benefit analysis would grow in the system advocated under the motion to the detriment of what we have left of the social benefit analysis. At the moment people make their choice every four years or so and then they are powerless. The reason for this is not the way Senators are elected. It is one of those things that happens in society generally, not only here, but in many cities throughout the world. If we are really concerned about the fact that people have little influence over the powers and functions of the Seanad, the real answer lies in the devolution of power to local government. Local government people have more direct links at all levels, especially with the community, than this House has. This would give local government an opportunity to widen the area of choice and to make the choice a little more real for people they are close to.
Another matter to bear in mind when talking about the manner in which Senators are elected to this House and about county councils is that most county councillors represent about 1,000 votes and they have to get them from the general public to whom they are answerable. They also represent a very wide spectrum of people and collect their votes from a broad stratum of society. They are shrewd operators and they are the people who, when you sit on a one to one basis with them, will tell you whether you are for real or not. Any one who has canvassed around the country has come up against situations that we would not like to come up against too often. The county councils, urban councils and the town commissioners have at hand the raw materials to achieve broad aims for themselves and their community. If we are serious about the question of power, apart from having a look at ourselves, we might also look at the whole question of devolution in a more effective way.
We have to stop thinking that ordinary people cannot be responsible and concerned and cannot be interesting to talk to. They are very interesting to talk to. They are well read. Most of the people we visit when canvassing have The Irish Times on the table. I do not often read The Irish Times, I read The Irish Press or the Independent. They get their information from The Irish Times, as do many other people. I cannot differentiate between special interest groups and the set up we have now because, in the final analysis, there is a broader mix of shrewd operators who have to get themselves at least 1,000 votes before they are elected.
Another concern in a situation like this is where do you try to get more specialisation. I do not claim to be right on this but it is worthy of consideration. It is like the pursuit of absolutes. That can become very inhuman and tortuous. Many of us may have had some experience of that. Of course, it is not like electing an Administration. You cannot hire a pragmatist and a prefectionist who will be a good pigeon holer and get things done quickly. On the question of following the procedures of Government through the various committees, there is an aspect of administration running through the whole machinery of electing people which manifests itself in the debates and in Government action and reaction. In the final analysis, if people had to go through interviews, and so on, it is doubtful that we could get a better mix. This is a very difficult matter to argue.
If you are not sure what the situation is liable to be, the best way to deal with it is to carry on on the basis of humanistic compromise. That is the way we function here. My concern is that when we talk about specialisation you would think we were talking about altruism. Even if we were talking about altruism I do not think altruism is possible in the sense that it means being selfless. I believe that you cannot but be in some way a selfish person. If you do something for somebody or advocate it you get gratification from doing it so there is an element of selfishness there. We will not change that situation by bringing in the people who are specialists.
We talk about adjusting the environment we live in. It might be a good idea if we started to adjust ourselves instead of the environment and started thinking in terms of settling our own problems inside the House. In a bicameral Parliament it is difficult to say what power can be given to the second Chamber and where to draw the line. It has to be a slow process but that does not mean there cannot be reform, or a good concrete proposal put forward and accepted. It does not say we cannot be effective on select committees or and that we cannot advocate more of them. It does not say that we cannot consider the question of holding up a Bill for more than 90 days, as at present, as a further check and balance. There is a lot of scope here. We must adjust ourselves to this rather than trying to adjust the environment.
The people who elected me have their own values, aims and standards of conduct. Before I talk to them about what might develop, or what I might do as a Senator, I always bear in mind that these people have been through the mill with the public and that the 1,000 votes they average are a hard earned 1,000 votes. They are right at the nub of the situation.
I would be afraid to back the motion because I do not think there is a possible way of overcoming some of the difficulties I see in it. I cannot see that you can do so, for example, by confining the Seanad electorate to nominating bodies or some other method of selection. To use the vernacular, many "lame brains" get through in every exercise. I am not suggesting there are any "lame brains" here, but it is possible for such a person to reach a certain level in an organisation and to be selected and put into a body like this — and maybe two or three of them.
Going back to industry years ago, the people I used to hate dealing with were engineers, because when you were dealing with a personal problem they were talking to you in terms of cubic capacity and square roots. There are a lot of imponderables in this thing. I am in favour of giving more scope to Private Members' Bills. I do not think the Government should be afraid of it, because they have faced up to a rather difficult task and I admire them for that. I would advocate having more select committees and, if we wanted to have a debate again on whether we have made any advance on that, then certainly we should have another debate.
