John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)

The first thing that comes to mind in terms of Seanad reform is, if it is not broken do not fix it. There are elements of this House which work exceptionally well as they were well thought out. The creation of a legislative arm that reflects the vocational groupings in the country was a far-sighted and wise undertaking. It also incorporates the universities. It is important to bear in mind that it would be impossible to run a Parliament without a Government majority in both Houses. It is a contradiction in terms because there would be no Government without a majority in both Houses because it would be impossible to get any work done. That is a practical application.

The Seanad is made up of five panels, Labour, Cultural and Educational, Agricultural, Industrial and Commercial and Administrative, a practical and wide-ranging system which has worked successfully to date. Those who serve in this House are provided with a wonderful opportunity to raise matters of immediate national and international concern on a daily basis, which is a unique privilege.

However, some change is necessary. Having a directly or partially-directly elected Seanad is not a good idea. A proposal was made earlier that 20 seats be directly elected. That would be similar to election to the European Parliament given the constituency would be so wide. The overlapping function, with elected Deputies, would be a difficult task and would be unnecessary. It would be a most difficult task given that we have a clientalist system of politics. The need to look after such an extensive constituency would take from the work of the Seanad in terms of its necessary legislative process and its role in debating issues.

The issue of holding Seanad elections on the same day as general elections was discussed earlier. One can only smile at that idea. Getting around the country as it is and hoping to meet the electorate is difficult. The electoral college works successfully and it allows us to meet our councillors and Oireachtas Members. Can anyone imagine trying to meet them during election time? What hope would one have of meeting them in an effort to secure election to the Seanad during the three-week canvassing period before a general election? There may be merit in the University Panel holding its election on the same day.

At the time the University Panel was set up, it was apposite that there would be three seats for representatives of Trinity College. However, that time and need is gone; there should be one electorate. I have no doubt the same people would be re-elected. However, the need for special representation from Trinity College is not necessary. It harks back to a time when there was a perceived need to extend a special place to such representatives. There is now a need for only one University Panel which would include all third level students.

The appointment of the Taoiseach's nominees is necessary. The Government must have a majority to ensure legislation is not delayed. It is not feasible that the Government would not have an in-built majority in the Upper House otherwise the constitutional provisions governing the House would have to be changed to remove its blocking power. It would be a pity if that were to happen.

There is a practical and obvious need for the Taoiseach's nominees. However, reform is needed in terms of membership numbers. When the Dáil first met, it had approximately 120 Members and the Seanad had 60 Members. Membership of the Dáil has increased to 166. It would be entirely appropriate that there be 80 Members of the Seanad, at a minimum. We need to increase membership of the Seanad. It is unfortunate the level of debate — I do not include myself in this — and high standard of contributions by Members of this House are not reported more often. However, the solution to that is in our hands.

I believe former Taoisigh and Presidents should have an automatic right to sit in the Seanad and contribute. We can only imagine the contributions they might make. I include in that those whom I would not have supported. Former President, Mary Robinson, would provide the House with an excellent account of human rights throughout the world. That would be of benefit to this House. It would also have the double-edged effect of focusing the media on what is done in the Seanad. Much of what is done in the Seanad goes unreported and that is unfortunate.

As I said earlier, we should not seek to fix that part of the Seanad which is not broken. It is important that councillors and elected representatives from the electoral college have an opportunity of making a direct input into Government. This is their fora and we, along with the greater electorate, represent them.

Reference was also made to constituents. As elected representatives we have a responsibility not alone to the electorate but to the wider community, just as Deputies have a responsibility to others outside their constituency. It is up to the individual whether or not he or she takes up that responsibility but I would like to believe any request made of a Deputy would be undertaken. I believe such tasks would be undertaken by the vast majority of Deputies and Senators. We have a wide role which could be expanded upon.

The Seanad is a great House in terms of debate, the introduction of legislation and its ability to take on board different views while at the same time holding fast to one's own. That is well reflected in this House. I suggest that membership of the Seanad be increased, that former Taoisigh and Presidents be allowed to sit in the House and that there be one constituency for universities.