Seanad debates

Thursday, 21 October 2004

Report on Seanad Reform: Statements (Resumed).

 

12:00 pm

Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

I wish to be associated with those comments. I was not aware that the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, is a former Member of the House but I wish him well in his new job.

Two years ago I knew very little about the Seanad. I am certainly much wiser now, having been a Member of the House for that period. I suppose my knowledge reflects that of the general public, who ultimately know little about what goes on in the Seanad. Thankfully that is changing and I suppose we have ourselves to blame for that. This Seanad has quite a high profile and that is due in no small part to the current Leader, Senator O'Rourke, who has certainly ensured that we have received good coverage and publicity at times. That is good for the democratic process because it has made people aware that there is a second Chamber and of the useful work we can do.

I agree with some points raised by Senator Hanafin on having the election to the Seanad on the same day as the election to the Dáil. Speaking selfishly, this would not necessarily be good. The abolition of the dual mandate has suddenly forced politicians into a tricky scenario. For example, if, following the next general election, people do not get elected to the Dáil or Seanad, they are finished in politics. A Member cannot be a county councillor or town councillor, unlike previously, and one's political career can come to an end very quickly. It is no harm to have options for people who invariably sacrifice their personal and business lives to go into politics. A previous speaker described politics as a rat race and I suppose it is an uncertain career. I do not think introducing more uncertainty into it would do anyone any good and it certainly would not attract people who have good, solid careers behind them.

We all know the long hours we put in and the fact that our work is, in effect, never finished. We work from early morning until late at night, we are constantly on call and there is always the danger of an election looming over us. At least if people want to contest a Dáil election and they do not succeed, there is an option of standing for the Seanad election. Without such an option, if a snap general election were called tomorrow morning, for example, we would have to wait until 2009 to return to the political race. That would be a long time to wait, especially when there are young people with families in politics. If we want to go the route of America where people are quite old and have their money made and their families reared before they go into politics, then politicians will be able to afford to take years out. However, if we want to encourage into politics young people and those who have something to offer, we must introduce some degree of certainty and security into the job and provide them with options. Otherwise we will lose those people. They will walk away from politics and politics will be poorer for it.

The idea of inviting former Taoisigh and Tánaistí into the House is quite a good one as obviously they have considerable experience. The likes of Deputy John Bruton, who was elected in 1969, even before I was born, have a wealth of experience that few in the House would match and it certainly would be worth inviting him into the Seanad every so often to make a speech or a contribution. Even the Taoiseach, who is a Member of the Dáil since 1977 and has served in numerous Departments, would have a considerable contribution to make although I might not agree with his policies. It is a pity that when politicians retire, they literally are forgotten. Ms Olivia O'Leary wrote about that in her recent book. Politicians, when they leave the Houses, are literally shunned by their colleagues. The aforementioned invitations would provide an opportunity to bring former politicians who have a wealth of experience into the House to make contributions to certain debates.

I am impressed at what the Seanad can do. The matters raised on the Adjournment are quite good, although it is an area which can be developed further. At times we get bland replies to specific matters raised on the Adjournment. It is regrettable when a Minister comes into the House with a prepared response. No matter what a Senator says in the five minute contribution, he or she gets the same response anyway and perhaps wonders whether raising the matter is a waste of his or her time. Invariably the Minister can be curtailed in what he or she can say, even though some Ministers, to be fair to them, give extra information afterwards and deviate from the script. If we are to make the Seanad really meaningful, the Adjournment should become far more specific. Senators should get proper replies they could use and not just some bland response stating how much money the Government is spending on the national development plan, etc., which ultimately is no use to us.

There should be a facility for a question and answer session in the Seanad. One was held here previously with the former Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. Senator O'Toole, in particular, and a few others engaged in a robust and informative exchange of ideas and it certainly worked well. This is something that should be looked at as it might benefit everyone involved.

Senators should also have the option of tabling parliamentary questions. It is daft that we invariably end up working through our colleague Deputies, which is unfair to them. We should be allowed to table parliamentary questions on behalf of our constituents.

I would disagree slightly with Senator Ross when he spoke about using the word "constituents". If one looks carefully at the Constitution, the constituency of those Members elected by the county council system covers the Twenty-six Counties and therefore includes everybody. While we might understandably concentrate on particular geographical areas, we are right to make representations on behalf of people and it serves democracy well.

I welcome the idea in the Seanad reform report that envisages an enhanced role in EU affairs. That should be developed further. I also welcome the suggestion that the Seanad should scrutinise public appointments. At present we are seeing this in the European Parliament, where the proposed EU Commissioners are being put through their paces. Perhaps we should have put the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, through his paces too before he was appointed as a junior Minister to see what qualities he would bring to the role. No doubt he would have passed with flying colours.

It is regrettable that the Government has not replied to a proposal by my colleague, Senator Jim Higgins, who is now an MEP, that he would give up his seat to a representative of an emigrant group. Several letters were written to the Taoiseach on that issue. It is a good idea. However, I would deviate slightly from it and recommend that, because of the considerable non-national population in Ireland, we should look for somebody living and working in Ireland to represent the different communities. Even in Carlow, there is a significant non-Irish population working, paying taxes and contributing to Irish life. It is important that they would have a representative. I am aware that Ennis in Senator Daly's county has a town councillor from a non-Irish background working on behalf of the people. Perhaps the Minister of State might bring to the Taoiseach's attention that he should make a decision on the sensible proposal by Senator Higgins. It would be a great opportunity to make the Seanad more reflective and inclusive of society and that would be welcomed.

The next Seanad will be very exciting. As a result of the abolition of the dual mandate, we will see a significant turnover of Senators. Fianna Fáil, more than likely, will lose about five seats based on the local election results. We will see smaller parties, like Sinn Féin and the Green Party, coming into the Seanad. This is a good development. It will be more reflective of society. It might also lead to better debates in the House. One criticism I have of the House at present is that perhaps it is too conservative and invariably there are no major ideological differences in the House on key debates. That does not necessarily augur well for the future. The next Seanad will be an exciting Chamber of which to be a Member because all the political parties will be represented, along with the Independents.

I compliment the media for the coverage they have given the Seanad. In particular, I compliment The Irish Times and Mr. Jimmy Walsh, who every week ensures that we get coverage. It is much appreciated by the Senators. "Oireachtas Report" gives a fair amount of coverage to the Seanad also. Other newspapers may not give the House the coverage it deserves but perhaps that is a reflection on ourselves and we are not pursuing them enough. Other media should cover the Seanad as well as it is covered by The Irish Times and "Oireachtas Report".

One criticism I have of the Seanad relates to the delay in passing Bills. Years ago most Bills were initiated in the Dáil but now half the Bills are initiated in the Seanad and then go on to the Dáil. There can be a long gap between a Bill being passed in the Seanad and going to the Dáil. In some cases the gap is two years. For example, the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill has suffered a long delay. That is regrettable as there should be a smooth transition for Bills between both Houses.

The Order of Business is good in that we have more latitude than our colleagues in the other House. It allows us to raise topical issues and we can seek debates on issues. One difference between the Seanad and the other House is that of having statements on topics. I find them good because, generally speaking, Senators put forward good ideas. It also allows Ministers to listen and be better informed and, perhaps, put some of those ideas to good use. The danger with Bills is that one can be political and, perhaps, the public do not benefit to the same extent. The option of statements on different issues is beneficial, such as we have today.

I welcome the fact that the mandate for graduates will be extended. My sister, who got eight As in her junior certificate, does not have a vote in the Seanad elections because she went to DCU. She has a degree. I know the vote will be extended to such people. Given that there are more people in higher education we should not leave the remit to a select few colleges but should widen it. There will be a difficulty in deciding to whom to give the vote. At a minimum it should be those who have undertaken a two-year degree course; otherwise people would qualify having done a one-year course and that would be unmanageable. The remit should be extended to include the institutes of technology and some of the universities that are currently excluded.

The report is good and contains plenty of information. I question whether its recommendations will be implemented. Will it be like many of the reports to the former Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, that are still on a shelf gathering dust? It is important to pick at least three or four key themes from it. I agree with Senator Hanafin in regard to the timing of elections. If the elections were held on the same day as the local and European elections it would be a nightmare because those we are meant to be canvassing with would themselves be canvassing. We need to think carefully about that issue before embarking on it.

The Seanad has many advantages and should not be a miniature Dáil. The Seanad should be a different Chamber and have a different method of election. I would not apologise for the political parties playing a major role in it. It allows people an opportunity to be elected who might not otherwise get elected. For example, the former President, Mary Robinson, was elected to the Seanad but she could not get elected to the Dáil. However, she ended up being President. We have to increase the opportunities available to people. The Dáil is not the be-all and end-all. There are other options and we should allow people to look at different political routes from local to national or European levels. Ultimately, there is not much wrong with the Seanad but it needs some improvement.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.