Seanad debates

Thursday, 21 October 2004

Report on Seanad Reform: Statements (Resumed).

 

12:00 pm

Brendan Daly (Fianna Fail)

I join other speakers in congratulating the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, and wish him well in his onerous task in the Department. He is bringing with him much experience, having been a Member of both Houses. I am sure he will make a valuable and distinguished contribution to the development of the issues that affect the Department. He is welcome here and I wish him well in his new office.

The previous speaker wound up by saying he would like assurances that some of the issues raised in the report will be implemented. I agree with him on that point. I find these debates artificial in the sense that this report now joins 11 other reports on Seanad reform since the foundation of the State. One thing I do not like doing is wasting my time and that of other people. My wish is that if action is to be taken on this report, it should be taken speedily. In that regard I thank the various members of the sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for the volume of work it put into the preparation of the report, the detailed analysis of the current situation and for looking at the various reports prepared during the past 30 or 40 years. They have made some very definite recommendations, some of which I agree with. While each of us will have our particular views, it is important that some reform of the Seanad is undertaken because the general consensus of the public is that it needs to be reformed.

While the committee indicated there were 161 submissions from the public on reform of the Seanad, that is a small number. The vast majority of people would not bother to make submissions as they believe the Seanad is irrelevant. That is not a view I hold but it is the view of the public who are not familiar with the workings of the Seanad. In the main, the public know absolutely nothing about the nominations system. Many of the young graduates feel disenfranchised even though a constitutional change was made in 1979. I recall that very clearly as I had just become a Member of the other House in 1973. The constitutional change was made to allow the vast majority of third level institutions to have a vote and take part in elections to the Seanad. That has never happened. Those Members who represent the universities should account for that as they do not represent the vast majority of third level graduates. In fact, the vast majority of third level graduates did not have a hand, act or part in the election of this or any other Seanad. Would it be possible to have the constitutional amendment implemented to allow the other institutions to have representation in order to bridge the gap between the younger intellectuals and graduates and the public at large? That would be a start.

The public view, in so far as it is expressed, is that the Seanad should be more democratic and more relevant to what is happening in Ireland as a whole, even though, through some of the changes made under the existing Standing Orders, it has become more relevant in recent years than when I first became a Member in 1992. Some of those changes allowed for commissioners from the European Commission to address the Seanad on regional policy and other matters. For example, the President of the European Parliament had the opportunity, before he left that office, to address the House. In that regard there is a great opportunity to involve the House in the activities of, for example, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the various institutions and especially in relation to dialogue between Members and the social partners.

All of us would agree that the success of the economy in recent years has come about, by and large, because of the partnership approach of unions, employers, farmers, social partners and the Government in developing economic polices. As the Minister of State will be aware we had the opportunity at Inchydoney to have some discussions with Fr. Seán Healy on social issues. There is the view that the social partners do not have an adequate opportunity to voice their opinions on some of the social issues. We need to amend that and it may be possible to do so by means of some legislative changes. If we took account of the changing economic environment and social issues which affect Ireland, the scope of this House could be broadened enormously within existing parameters. If the representatives of NGOs were more involved in the deliberations of this House, as was the case in respect of the European Parliament regional offices, it would give the public a better understanding of the role and responsibilities of Senators, which principally involve the scrutiny of legislation.

The establishment of a raft of committees of the House does not take account of the manner in which the Seanad operates. It may be advisable to bring the chairpersons of the various committees before the House to get assessments of their work because it involves dialogue between the social partners, public bodies, semi-State organisations and others. Therefore, it may be possible, without having a representative of every organisation before us, for the chairpersons of the committees to give the House regular reports on proceedings. The committees publish reports at the end of each year but I do not remember any being debated in this Chamber.

I represented Ireland on the Council of Europe for some years. As the Minister of State is aware, the Council of Europe is responsible for what is probably the world's largest body of legislation governing human rights, justice and the rule of law, at the centre of which is the European Court of Human Rights. During that entire period, Ireland's representatives had no forum in which they could express the Council's views on some of the major issues of the day such as stem cell research and euthanasia. These issues occupy much time in the Council of Europe's social and political affairs committees.

The Council of Europe has a broad membership of almost 50 countries, among which Ireland is a founder member. The deliberations of the Council among its members at assembly and committee meetings take place but Irish representatives are not afforded an opportunity of addressing the Dáil or Seanad on the Council's important and far-reaching work, other than through the European and foreign affairs committees.

It may be necessary to change legislation to broaden the scope of the activities of the Seanad to include European affairs matters, social partnership issues or the North-South bodies, which everyone in the House hopes will be restored when a new agreement is reached on Northern Ireland, all of which will open up a new dimension to the work of the Seanad. In that context, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Paul Murphy, was in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery yesterday and appeared to be very interested in the work of the Seanad. I am sure we could invite him to address the House at some stage.

The sub-committee has envisaged areas which the Seanad could address such as European affairs, social partnership, the North-South bodies and the scrutiny of public appointments, which is coming more into the public arena as people demand that those appointed to public office should be given an opportunity to explain their backgrounds, experience and expertise before a select committee of this House or the Seanad itself. We have met some of these people already and it may be opportune to carry out an assessment of whether any of these functions can be carried out under existing standing orders without the necessity for Government decisions on legislation or constitutional change.

The main focus of the work of the sub-committee has been on the issue of the vocational committees, the role of the Seanad in modern Ireland and whether that role has been fully explained and expanded upon in a way that meets the changing circumstances. The sub-committee had discussions with the Taoiseach and his predecessor about whether elections to the Seanad should be direct, a combination of direct elections and panels or a list system, all of which are detailed in the report so there is no need for me to expand on it.

Nonetheless, if we are to make the Seanad effective there must be changes. The vocational system has not worked satisfactorily. Unless candidates have party political connections their chances are limited. The point was made that people who could not get elected to the Seanad were elected as President. The Minister of State will be familiar with the case of a representative of disabled people who could not get elected to the Seanad but was elected to the European Parliament. The system of election is not as democratic as the public would like. If we reform the system, it could be reorganised on a provincial or regional basis, which would entail people from the six counties of Northern Ireland being represented as part of Ulster in the Chamber. The four provinces could be elected by the people in those areas, although it would likely require some constitutional and legislative change.

I do not wish to waste my time with debates of this nature if this report joins the other 11 in splendid isolation in the Minister's office in the Custom House. If we are to be effective, perhaps we could start by making some changes almost immediately. It is important that we bridge the gap between the public, who feel this place is irrelevant, outdated and useless, and the general view held by most of us that this is a very important place which should be protected in the context of any future changes in the governance of the country.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.