Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

I appreciate and am delighted we are having this debate. I thank the Minister of State for speaking briefly but eloquently at the start of this debate. Obviously he could not propose resolutions to it because as he said, tá sé ag éisteacht.

Before I pay tributes and go through the report, it is important to note Appendix A on page 70 of the report. Working from the bottom up, Members will note there have been 11 reports on Seanad reform. The first report was commissioned in 1928 and the last one in 2002. Not much has happened as a result of the 11 reports, which says something not about the industry of the people who compiled them but about the lack of implementation or follow-through of their recommendations. That is a salutary lesson for us.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Brian Hayes, Leader of the Opposition, Senator Dardis, Deputy Leader of the Seanad and Senator O'Toole, co-ordinator of the Independent group for their contributions and Senator Ryan who was present for 18 meetings during which we shared our thoughts and compiled the report. Senator Ryan had an issue with the composition of the commission. He expressed his thoughts on reform, attended all the meetings and contributed greatly to the thrust of the report. I also thank Peter Finnegan and Eugene Crowley, who provided a great Civil Service secretariat, and their Northern colleague who helped us with various references. In particular, she reviewed the operation of upper houses in other countries, which is instructive and shows how other countries run their upper houses. That appendix in the report is well worth reading. Dr. Michael Laver was a terrific help to us in our thoughts on reform and in compiling the report.

This report is a compilation of the thoughts of the Senators, to whom I referred, who worked with the secretariat. We spent many mornings last summer in the good weather discussing this matter. We did not approach this from a perverse notion, as I said to my party colleagues. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges under the chairmanship of the Cathaoirleach convened a meeting at which we were given the terms of reference for preparing the reform package. We debated this matter over two days in this House at the start of this process two years ago during which Members shared their thoughts on it. We did not suddenly decide to put forward a Seanad reform package. Under the guidance of the Cathaoirleach, the sub-committee was given its terms of reference, namely, to examine the composition and functions of the Seanad, which we set out to do.

Countries throughout the world which have upper and lower houses have each adopted different ways of dealing with their upper house. Our Upper House was modelled originally on the House of Lords in the UK because many of the ideas underpinning our system of government comes from there. I am not a newcomer to the Seanad thanks to the generosity of the Taoiseach. I served here with the Cathaoirleach for two six month stints. I have always been struck by the ease of movement in dealing with matters in this Chamber because of the intimacy pertaining due to its size and the fact that it is a compulsory legislative assembly. A Bill cannot become an Act unless it has been passed by the Seanad. There is no point in saying the Seanad is worthless or that it does not have any relevance. We could not pass legislation, by which we are all governed, if we did not have the Seanad to pass Bills. We have been fortunate in that many Bills have come to this House before going to the Dáil, and vice versa, but all Members have a chance to examine every Bill and amend it on Committee Stage, a point mentioned by Senator Brian Hayes. In the Dáil, Committee Stage is taken in select committee because of the large number of Members in that House. It would be impossible to do it otherwise.

I hold fast to the idea that people throughout the country do not understand the point of having the Seanad. If we were to go out to Grafton Street, Henry Street or O'Connell Bridge and stop any number of people ranging in age from 80 to eight and ask them if they know anything about the Seanad and what it does, I would vouch that unless we were extremely fortunate, we would not meet people who knew what we were about in this Chamber. I do not mean to lessen the importance of what we do. If one does not have a democratic link with the electorate, our fine thoughts, words, speeches and attendance will come to naught. It needs to be built on a bedrock of democracy.

It could be argued that Senators are elected by county councillors who are, in turn, elected by the people. I respect the work of county councillors, who have been given a strong role in the proposed Seanad reforms. Candidates will be nominated by county councillors rather than by vocational bodies, who have lost much of their relevance to Irish society, sadly. Letters were sent to the vocational bodies on three occasions and huge public advertisements were placed in all the newspapers, but less than one third of the bodies deigned to reply or to make a submission. That indicates that they have moved out of synch.

The 1930s ideas of Quadragesimo Anno etc, resulted in greater social awareness and inclusion and other fine thoughts that were of relevance then. A great deal of time has passed since the 1930s, however. We did not have a Seanad for a time because it had been abolished by Éamon de Valera due to its inability to pass important legislation. It was revived in the 1937 Constitution and we are all here today. Very little has changed in the interim.

The sub-committee on Seanad reform examined the functions of the Seanad. I thank all those who made submissions. We received 158 public submissions in total. Everybody who engaged in the process had a purpose. Individuals and groups took the trouble to sit down to put together their thoughts and to come to the House. The sub-committee met in the Seanad Chamber for a week without the Cathaoirleach to hear the submissions. Questions were asked and certain matters were probed during the hugely interesting exercise. I wish we had more of it. RTE was very good to broadcast much of the sub-committee's hearings. Many people made submissions.

In making recommendations on the composition of the Seanad, the sub-committee tried to ensure that a certain number of Senators will continue to be elected in the traditional way. The sub-committee has a high regard for the work of county councillors and the link between local government and the Oireachtas.

A decision was also made to recommend a vote by suffrage. I cannot understand why some Senators think they would not stand a chance in such a vote. Why do they think so little of themselves that they feel they would not be elected if they faced such a vote? Others might wonder why I am making this point, given that I lost my Dáil seat in the last general election. I would respond by saying that I was returned to the other House on five consecutive occasions. Very few people can better such a record. Although I was not successful on the last occasion, I have a huge regard for the popular vote. I do not understand why people are imbued with so little self-confidence that they think they would not come through such a system when, of course, they would.

I wish to discuss the university panels. The people voted in a referendum on university representation in the Seanad in 1979. They expressed 25 years ago their wish that graduates of certain institutes of higher education would have the right to join graduates of universities in voting in Seanad elections. It is sometimes suggested that the universities voting system is elitist, but those elected under the system are the only Senators to be elected by means of a form of public suffrage. The university Senators are elected by graduates. I do not share the view that the system is elitist. It has been a huge disregard on the part of all Governments in the past 25 years. When I reminded the Taoiseach that the people voted in 1979 to allow graduates of other colleges to participate in the Seanad elections, he said that he could hardly believe it. We all continued blithely on our way in 1979 and did nothing about it. The time has come to remedy the matter.

Everybody favours changes in the functions of the Seanad, but nobody favours changes in its composition. Perhaps I am more detached in that regard, but I am conscious of the way in which I got into this House on two occasions. It is some job to court county councillors in multitudes as people do now. It is a wonderful exercise which leads to great interchanges. Certain little groups manage things much better than others. Many Senators arrive in the House in that way.

The Taoiseach made some interesting points about the functions of the Seanad in the strong letter he wrote to the sub-committee as part of his submission. He spoke in the House as part of the reform process, as did the former Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton. Members of all political parties took the trouble to come to the House in mid-September to put forward their points of view. The provosts of all the colleges also addressed the sub-committee. The Taoiseach made suggestions in respect of the North-South bodies, social partnership and the European Union. It was recommended that the House should have a role in examining the EU mid-term review, in considering what it is like and what it will be, and in assessing its scope, its work and what needs to be done. Such ideas emanated from the Taoiseach. He also spoke about several other matters.

Many people said they do not know about legislation until it has been passed and starts to be implemented. While Senator Mansergh did not quite say that we should not entertain lobby groups, he said at our party meeting that such groups might have an overweening influence on legislation. We do not see it that way, however. We consider that it would be appropriate to allow groups to state how proposed legislation might affect them, materially or otherwise. It is right that such people should convey their thoughts to those who are preparing Bills. Perhaps legislators might consider such ideas or meet the groups to explain the legislation to them. For whom are we making legislation? About what are we making it? When will it all happen? Many groups are made aware of proposed legislation that affects them in a sudden manner.

Many representatives of respectable and proper lobby groups who addressed the sub-committee said they would come to give their opinions, prior to the formulation of legislation, if they could be sure they would get a hearing. It is hugely important that we receive such advice because if we do not do so we will be preparing legislation in the air to meet a need. Such legislation is often the subject of a challenge — everybody has the right to challenge — and found to be faulty. It is important to bear in mind that it may have been rushed or it may not have taken into account human rights, poverty or some of the issues that are relevant to people's lives.

I thank Peter Finnegan, Eugene Crowley and Dr. Michael Laver for their contribution to the sub-committee's report. Anybody can read the report because it is well laid-out. It sets out the legislative and constitutional changes that are needed. We can use the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to make the functional changes that are needed. We have started on that by arranging for many MEPs to come to the House.

When one hands out leaflets while canvassing with candidates for the local and European elections, everybody asks what MEPs do when they get to Brussels. The Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, who used to represent a large, far-flung European constituency, is aware of how difficult it is to convey what one is doing. We heard the opinions of a range of extremely interesting MEPs who addressed the sub-committee. They told us about their work. MEPs should come to the House on a regular basis, although we cannot make it mandatory for them to do so. They could tell the House about the committees on which they serve, the work they are doing, the role of the Parliament and the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive. We need to know such things.

It is important that the Seanad should be relevant. The Chamber is beautiful. The Seanad office is fortunate to have excellent staff, who work diligently to serve all Senators. We should not be keen to rush into the Chamber so that we can hurry home again. I do not think we should do our business in such a manner. We should conduct ourselves properly as the full legislators we are and we should scrutinise our work in detail.

Oireachtas Members have reached a point at which they are on a decent but not lavish salary scale. However, we work for it and I have always believed that one should work for one's money. The Seanad can be put to far greater use. Members should have confidence in themselves, absorb the report and believe that recommendations can be taken from it rather than carp about it. I am very happy that the Cathaoirleach will be in the next Seanad in some capacity. The report is good and, if I may immodestly state, we have done a fair job on it.