Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I am making general comments and if the Deputy wishes to provoke me, I would advise him not to do so, even if I have five or six minutes left. The allocation of Ministers of State should be based on function and I suggest the Ministers of State should be engaged with the committees structure.

The committees structure was introduced late and it differs substantively from developed committee systems such as the system is Sweden, which is now in the European Union with us. The government there does not have a monopoly of the public service and therefore Opposition members of a committee are entitled to use the public service in exactly the same way as Cabinet members. There is an arm's length relationship between the Minister and the head of the Department. The committee is entitled to frame, introduce, reform and amend legislation. One can see that our committees are very close to the Department and also how close the Minister is to the Department. These should be arm's length relationships.

I refer to how committees in Sweden are funded. People developing a career in Scandinavian politics might decide to go on a critical path such as social welfare, housing and then move on to finance or whatever. People are given a fulfilling career while, at the same time, the media in preparing for their interaction with the committees, are involved in research and writing essays about the different options coming before the committees.

I will come now to the Seanad as my last point. We need a careful development of the importance of politics among the public and this is crucial. People have made global comments about abolition or reform of the Seanad. We have always had a Seanad in this State except for the year 1936 when Mr. De Valera abolished the Seanad for reasons about obstructionism as he saw it and its Unionist tendency, but it was brought back in the 1937 Constitution, very much under the influence of the Quadragesimo Anno thinking and the corporatist fashion of the 1930s.

Yes, it could be reformed. However, I am hesitant about those who say we should abolish it. I was a Member of Seanad Éireann from 1973-77 and again in the period 1982-87, in two different capacities. I recall great reforming legislation being passed in the Seanad long before it was passed in this House. I recall, for example discussing the abolition of the status of illegitimacy, a Bill I produced, with the then Senators Mary Bourke — later Mary Robinson — and John Horgan. I distinctly recall a Senator stating, so backward were we about this at the time, that the abolition of illegitimacy was socialism under the sheets. It was much later before there was reforming legislation in the social area in this House. Therefore, historically, the Seanad has been the place where there has been legislative innovation.

In the minute of my time remaining I shall summarise what should be done in relation to reform. The appointment of Ministers of State should not be a matter of patronage or satisfaction in a party sense, but should be related to function. It needs to be justified if it exceeds the number of people who are in Cabinet. In linking the role of the Minister, we need to look at many of the unreasonable demands being made on Ministers by corporate interests outside the Oireachtas. On the question of linking Ministers of State and the committee structure, I have given indications of what a genuine committee structure might be. Finally, as regards the Seanad, I believe we could have a very good debate as regards reform. This is my last appeal to colleagues in this regard, but it is a disastrous road to follow the populist path, with people who refuse to draw distinctions between the politics of right or left and seek to dismiss us all by language about "the politicians", going on to suggest that we give up any kind of institutional activity or whatever. Let us have a debate about parliamentary reform, but let us do it positively and in a genuine comparative manner.

See this speech in context