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.