Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for being patient enough to remain here for the entire debate. I was not present during his contribution but I listened in on the monitor. I am sure he pleased every Member of the House when he stated that the Seanad is valued as a vital component of our system. That is good to know, particularly when it is said by someone on the Government side.

I compliment everybody associated with the report. It is very well laid out and easy to follow. I appreciate that a great deal of work was invested in this report at a time when people could have been doing other things. The sub-committee dealt with many submissions and held a large number of meetings. I commend the Leader, the Deputy Leader, Senator Brian Hayes, Senator O'Toole and even the Member who resigned for reasons outlined earlier.

I agree with the comments made by the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Like Senator Mansergh, the Leas-Chathaoirleach and I must declare an interest because we were elected twice on panels. We will not be making the final decision on this matter and we will be obliged to accept what will be decided in due course. For that reason, the report is somewhat like the proverbial curate's egg, namely, it is good in parts. However, it contains some excellent elements and I liked what Senator Mansergh had to say about rolling renewal. I would also have reservations about such renewal but we could have rolling progress as well. Progress could be made on matters that could be dealt with in the immediate or near future. There are some wonderful recommendations in that regard. However, I am not sure that a system of rolling renewal would suit people in this country or whether it would be apt to have a mid-term elections system.

It has been noted that there were 11 previous reports on Seanad reform. I did not have the opportunity to read any of these but perhaps they also contained some good recommendations. Everyone agrees that this House is less partisan than the Lower House and it is also often more objective in its outlook.

There is almost an element of concern coming through in the report in respect of legitimacy. I would not worry about that at all. The Seanad is constitutionally provided for and I do not believe anyone should be concerned in that regard. As Senator Paddy Burke stated, it does not matter what type of election is taking place because there is huge apathy abroad. That is something all politicians are trying to counter but it is not easy. Unfortunately, people are largely not interested in knowing about the make-up of the Dáil or Seanad. I am not sure whether this should be a primary concern. I accept that some Members would be more concerned than others about it and we would all like people to take more of an interest in our democratic institutions.

In Constitutional Law of Ireland, Michael Forde states:

In his account of the Senate, Professor Chubb observed that

Seanad Éireann is both singular in its composition and circumscribed in its powers. In considering a new senate, De Valera was attracted by one of the proposals of a commission set up to advise on the composition of a new house, a proposal for a body selected on a vocational basis and obviously inspired by the principles enunciated in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of Pius Xl. However, he recognised that the country was not sufficiently organised on vocational lines to allow direct choice by vocational bodies, and he was also concerned not to have a body that would be likely to oppose the government of the day.

In that sense, the 43 Senators elected on the panel system may be termed "quasi-vocational" Members. However, I do not believe that anyone would set out to have a senate or second Chamber that would run into conflict with the Government of the day. That would not be the intention. I may be wrong but there appears to be a slight conflict in the report in this regard.

In the executive summary, under the heading "Defining the Problem", it is stated that the Seanad is seen as having no distinctive role. The report also states: "These difficulties are compounded by the fact that the Seanad is dominated by the Government." Under the heading "Reform of Existing Powers and Functions", the report states: "Either explicitly or implicitly, virtually all submissions accepted that a revised role for the Seanad should not bring it into conflict with the government."

Being dominated by the Government is part of our democratic system. The people elect the Government and, particularly in the Lower House, it must dominate. There is also an in-built Government majority in this House and I do not believe this should be a matter of concern. I may be misinterpreting what is stated in the report — I have only read it once — and it may not have been intended in that way. However, it appeared to me that there was a conflict in terms of what the sub-committee stated in this regard.

There are some good recommendations in the report. I do not want to labour the point further but I accept what was said by many speakers. What was voted on in 1979 is worthy and it could be implemented without any further constitutional changes. In my view it is correct that the university franchise should be broadened. Everyone would welcome such a move. It is also recommended that MEPs should have a voice in this House, which would be relatively easy to provide. The report also refers to enhancing the role of the House in respect of reviewing EU affairs, a recommendation that would also be relatively easy to implement, and in terms of consultation with the social partners. These are meritorious and worthy suggestions and could be implemented without the need for constitutional change.

There is one matter that is near and dear to my heart and to those of many other Members because we all must engage, to a greater or lesser degree, in constituency work. I thought this might be part of the supplementary recommendations.

I agree with the supplementary recommendation that the Clerk of the Seanad should be on the Oireachtas commission. I thought there might also be a recommendation regarding a facility for Senators to seek written answers to questions. We can write to Ministers, who are courteous about responding, but a system of written questions and answers would be a great facility. This is something that would be dear to many Members' hearts, particularly if approved without obstacle and taken on board.

I return to the main point made regarding the quasi-vocational nature of this House as defined and accepted in the Constitution. The report would say that. I believe the county council is an ideal electoral college. There will be no apathy in its case as all the councillors will vote. In support of county councillors, they represent, on average, at least 1,000 voters. As Senator Mansergh just said, there is something inherently democratic about that. It is an ideal indirect method of voting.