Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I know but it is relevant in the context of the debate we are having now. I believe that the Seanad has a specific role, namely, it is a Legislature. As such, offering it step-down facilities and responsibilities is rubbish. It was never intended to work that way. It is a second House, the purpose of which has been correctly outlined by Senator Norris. Legislation can be initiated and improved in the Seanad. As such, the Seanad does serve a particular purpose. I acknowledge its members are elected by a different electorate in the form of an electoral college and that it comes at legislation from a different perspective and with different views. The Seanad plays an important role, which should be recognised. As the Chairman is aware, that has been my view for many years.

In terms of scrutiny, I believe that the Seanad is not the appropriate route to go in terms of scrutiny and that the appropriate route in this regard is a dedicated committee, be it the Joint Committee on European Affairs or Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. I believe also that a proper scrutinising system will remove red herrings and so on, thereby reducing wasted time and so on. That is how such issues were addressed previously. The old system was replaced with a new system a number of years ago. It was believed that the new system was better because it would operate across all committees. However, it did not work. The reason it did not work is because Ministers were choosing which committees they would and would not appear before. I have experience of this, having seen it happen from both sides of the counter. I believe that a dedicated committee is the way to go, there is no better. Another reason the dedicated committee system is best is because members of that committee will develop an authority on the subjects before it, which nobody else will have. It is important all other committees while focusing on the issues relevant to them are required to reference matters of scrutiny to the dedicated committee. There should also be a reporting system to identify the issues that need to be tackled first. Also, that committee should be independent of Government. Whoever takes on the job will be doing important work.

I would like to correct a point made earlier. There is in place a system whereby the Tánaiste or Taoiseach reports to the Houses of the Oireachtas, through the Dáil, prior to and following European Council meetings. The problem that arises is that there is only limited participation in such debate by Members of the House. While the leaders of the groups are given an opportunity to speak during such debates ordinary back benchers are excluded from commenting. Perhaps that is a good thing: I do not know. Previous Ministers for Foreign Affairs were relatively good in terms of appearing before this committee and the Joint Committee on European Affairs to outline what they proposed to do at general council meetings and so on. They also reported to committees following such meetings. We are well served in this area. I would not fault the Tánaiste or previous Ministers for Foreign Affairs in that regard. There were a couple of previous Ministers, who shall remain anonymous for the benefit of this exercise, who were reluctant to appear before any committee with a view to explaining what they were doing at Council meetings and so on. It is important that is mentioned.

Reference was made again to Mr. O'Halpin's statement that "The Irish Parliament, historically at least, has demonstrated disinterest in EU international affairs. This can be shown by a number of factors, including the electoral system". That is rubbish. The reality is that there are several other parliaments throughout Europe and the world that have inherited systems which they are improving over time. The problem is that we, politicians and the public, tend to act out a different role when it suits us. We pretend we are not part of the European Union. We pretend it is a case of "them" and "us" and that we are somehow offshore and have a different role to play. This is the biggest mistake we have made. To be successful in any business one must integrate oneself into it and take ownership of it. While it is okay to be disinterested in particular issues, we should not resort to euroscepticism, calling for reform because Europe does not work. That is rubbish. The parliamentary system of democracy has existed for hundreds of years. Even the Romans had their own version of democracy, although it was fairly abrupt in certain circumstances. The French also had their version of democracy, as did the Greeks, the Egyptians and so on. Genghis Khan could have had his own version of democracy, although it would probably not be one we would readily go along with. It should be emphasised that there is nothing as old or as successful as democracy. Everybody accepts it should be reformed and improved. Historically, a few people - I will not mention names but they are well known - have tried to do so. At least one person tried during the last century to introduce his own version of democracy. He received huge support for the changes he sought at that time.