Cyprian Brady (Fianna Fail)

We have all been involved with direct elections in some form, whether general, local or European. Our system lends itself to that involvement and this House would benefit from more direct elections. I would have some concerns about their costs and about the proposed list system which could have drawbacks in the manner in which it is compiled. These matters can be debated in the future.

Regarding third level representatives, I have always thought that all third level institutions should be represented in that election. The six Members who will be elected by all graduates will ensure good representation of that sector and such a means of representation has proven successful in the past. We have a number of successful representatives from third level institutes.

Regarding the Taoiseach's nominees, it is important to ensure that in practice the Government of the day will have a majority in the Seanad, which will enable it to get the legislative programme through the House. That this system of nominees also enables exceptional people to become Members of the Seanad is a bonus. The former Senator, the late Gordon Wilson, Senator Maurice Hayes and others have contributed greatly to the work of this House. The sub-committee states in the report that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the current system. It is proposed to increase of Taoiseach's nominees to 12 to provide for a second representative from Northern Ireland. Senator Mansergh made the point that the number could be increased even further. With the Good Friday Agreement in place, the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, cross-Border bodies up and running and even North-South and east-west bodies up and running, there is scope in that regard. However, we must be sensitive and careful how we tread. My concern is that if an offer was made to a person of either tradition in the North and it was refused, that could be not only dangerous but damaging. The point was made that the implementation of these recommendations must be pursued. The Minister of State pointed out that the Government is committed to pursuing them. That is something we can only support in this House.

There was much talk about emigrants' representation. I have often heard an argument against such representation on the basis of whether a person who has lived abroad for 35 to 40 years is in any way contributing to the country. Such emigrants have children and grandchildren. Particularly in the case of emigrants who live in the United States, a great effort is made by many of them to return home, even if only for a holiday, and that is a contribution to this economy. Many emigrants have returned to live here in recent years. As stated in the report, these people contribute daily to our economic progress in all fields. The suggestion that the Taoiseach, in his nominations, has scope to take account of emigrants' representation is valid. It would be a logistical nightmare to give emigrants a vote. As Mr. Dorr pointed out, some 80 million people around the world have some connection with this country. Irish Embassies even find it difficult to register Irish citizens abroad. There are questions in this area which we can examine.

I welcome the suggestion that former Taoisigh and Tánaistí should be allowed to address this House. A number of interesting people have addressed this Seanad, from which all Members have benefited. Use of that provision could be expanded.

I can foresee problems arising regarding the ability of graduates and indirect electors such as councillors to opt for their own list. How will we police and control that system? Our population is going to expand and there may be problems with that proposal.

As the report states, we cannot veto legislation or amend it without the agreement of the Lower House. While there is an opportunity for the Seanad to become, as the report states, more powerful, it is probably more appropriate for it to become more involved. There are ways we can become more involved in the end result of the process we go through in this House in passing legislation. The sub-committee recognises the primacy of the Lower House and I agree it should be maintained.

I attended a few of the public submissions on Seanad reform, when members of the public were invited to give their views. The report states that many of these groups and individuals valued being asked for their opinion. That point is crucial. The suggestion there should be some public input into the daily or weekly running of the Seanad is excellent. The suggestion that there should be more access for the public to have a voice is one that will benefit not only the public but also the Seanad in the sense that we have often complained about the lack of media coverage of the proceedings of this Chamber. If a certain time is set aside, as suggested, in the business of the Seanad each week for an element of public consultation or input, that would attract media coverage and enhance the standing of this House. A formal system of consultation could be put in place early in the legislative process.

Since becoming a Member of the Seanad as a Taoiseach's nominee, I have been surprised that councillors do not take full advantage of the Seanad, particularly as a conduit for information. We have the facility to debate matters on the Adjournment, but it is not used to the full extent possible. Certain Senators will raise issues, the Minister responsible will reply and the Senator will be given a copy of the reply, which he or she can use in a circular, magazine article or in a local radio programme. That facility seems to be totally underutilised. It could be expanded as a mechanism to facilitate an element of the public consultation whereby if an issue arose or information was required, it could be used to provide such information.

Regarding the proposed role of the House in EU affairs, I agree we should have a greater input in that regard. However, I caution against becoming bogged down in scrutinising the minutiae of legislation and directives. I have read some of the work of the sub-committee on EU scrutiny and it is hard work to check that every full stop and comma are inserted in legislation. I agree the Seanad should only be involved in scrutinising EU legislation or proposed legislation or directives on matters of national importance.

I agree with the proposal that MEPs should attend this House and address it. The President of the European Parliament, Mr. Pat Cox, MEP, made a good contribution when he addressed this House recently. Other MEPs also addressed it, which proved a useful exercise, particularly in the run-up to the European elections. Apart from election time, there is a contribution to be made by MEPs, because they are in a sense disconnected from us in that once they are elected they are based in Europe. People might see them once or twice a year after that, but in the meantime they are working all the time. It is similar to Members of this House. We are here two or three days a week and when we leave people believe we have nothing else to do. This proposal will provide an opportunity for MEPs to become more connected with us on a more regular basis. I used to get a regular update in the post from Niall Andrews about everything that had happened in Europe in the previous six months.