Feargal Quinn (Independent)

In the United States, Hawaii and Alaska, with their tiny populations, have the same number of senators as California and New York. It is not very democratic but the recognition of the need for a second house which represents other interests has been recognised in this document as being well worthwhile.

The concept envisaged for the Seanad in the 1937 Constitution was well thought out. It was to ensure that those voices, which would not otherwise be heard in the Dáil, elected by universal suffrage, had some chance of being recognised. The issue of Trinity College Senators will not be solved by this process and perhaps does not need to be because the world has changed since 1937. However, it is unlikely that the voice of the Protestant minority in Trinity College would have been heard if we had not given three seats to what was, in those days, a totally Protestant university. Nonetheless, the world has changed since then and the new system for electing Members will take that into account.

The 1937 Constitution also recognised the other vocational interests and the whole concept was well thought out. However, the error was that referred to by Senator Brian Hayes, namely, that while there were vocational plans, the rights to vote were given to county councillors who voted along party lines and, therefore, Members are elected on a party political basis and do not represent the vocational interests as envisaged.

It is important to recognise the need for a second house. Some 11 reports have been produced since 1928 to examine how it can be improved but none has received the same attention as this one. I congratulate the members of the sub-committee for producing an excellent report. Never has the future of the Seanad been investigated with anything like the rigour which has been applied on this occasion. Neither has the issue ever received such a comprehensive level of public consultation. A huge number of outsiders made representations to the sub-committee in written form and personally, making the process well worthwhile.

I also congratulate the sub-committee on the subject matter of the report. Its recommendations are quite radical and far-reaching and, if fully implemented, will bring about the beginning of a new era for the Seanad as a creative and viable force in the political process which has been so definitely required. The recommendations are also courageous because they fly in the face of the expressed preferences of the main Government party.

Up to now, we have relied greatly on the energy and political clout of the Leader to push this process along and we will need even more of this in the implementation phase as the Government will clearly need some persuasion to go the route recommended by the sub-committee. I wish the Leader well in that effort and I only hope the Government will be influenced by the strength of the consensus that has emerged from the public consultation.

The sub-committee made a raft of recommendations, some of which will require constitutional amendment, new legislation or can be implemented by adopting and adapting our own procedures in the House and those of the legislative process in general. In this context, has any thought been given to the practical question of whether it will be possible to deal with the constitutional amendments by means of a single referendum question rather than a series of separate proposals? This issue, which may seem trivial, is anything but. Putting one question to the people is a relatively straightforward matter but putting a whole series before the people, even if the referenda happen simultaneously, is likely to be very much less attractive to the Government.

Furthermore, asking a series of questions of the people runs the risk that they will give different answers to different questions and the outcome may well turn out to be an unworkable mish-mash. However, we are constrained in what we do here by the Constitution, which lays down that only one issue can be put before the people in any referendum. The obvious way around this is to incorporate all the changes into a single new article. I have no idea whether it is possible or practical to do that but I suggest some consideration be given to it because the alternative is difficult and dangerous inasmuch as it will not be an attractive outcome. We should look at it, as a matter of urgency, rather than just talk about it if we are serious about achieving real progress. Having listened to the first two speakers, I know it is not the intention to just talk about it, but to act on it. We must move fast to make the recommendations in the report a reality. Therefore, I disagree slightly with the Leader when she said not to rush it. Perhaps she did not say that but I got the impression——