Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. After many years as a Deputy, he deserves his place in the sun having been appointed as a Minister of State and I wish him well. His popularity extends beyond his party throughout Leinster House, which says a great deal.

The issue before us has been debated at length in the House. I respect the great work that was done by the committee that was established which produced this document. Its members carried out wide-ranging research which was interesting. One often hears people outside the House make a simplistic argument for abolishing the Seanad. The Progressive Democrats wanted to abolish it. I had the experience of being a candidate in the last general election and on being unsuccessful, I traversed the Twenty-six Counties in order to get elected to this House. In the process I met councillors which was an enriching experience. The four Progressive Democrats Senators were appointed directly by the Taoiseach and gladly accepted the nomination. Sometimes it rings hollow when they say, "Let's abolish the Seanad", because they gladly embraced it.

Senators who get an easy route into this House by way of a Taoiseach's nomination should know the heartache of travelling around the Twenty-six Counties as we all did. When one loses one seat in a general election, it is difficult to pick oneself up and re-motivate oneself and face the country. However, having done so, I found it a worthwhile experience. Councillors are often criticised but we should not forget that they are elected by the people. Their decisions reflect people's thinking. When people talk about the narrow base of the elected representatives who elect Senators to this House, they should be mindful that those councillors were elected by the people.

Comparisons can be drawn between the workings of this and the other House. Having had the experience of being a Member of the other House for 13 years and witnessing reform of the Seanad, consideration should be given to reform of the Dáil. There is a great deal of rhetoric in the other House, often made up of 20 minute speeches by Members which is not covered by the media and in which nobody appears to be interested. When the Sunday Tribune did an analysis of the other House at the end of the last year, it reported Members who rated number one, two and three in terms of the number of contributions they made rather than the quality of their contributions. While there are only 60 Members of this House, there is a degree of camaraderie among all the Senators which does not exist in the other House. Such camaraderie has probably developed because this House is a smaller unit.

The composition of people elected from the vocational panels and from the universities has probably enriched the type of debate in this House. When one wishes to raise a pertinent issue, one often finds this House a better vehicle, so to speak, for doing so than the other House. I put that forward as my analysis from the perspective of having been a Member of the other House.

It is interesting to note the submissions and research carried out in respect of other parliaments which operate a bicameral system. In most cases those parliaments were seeking certain reforms. There is probably not a unique model with which we can draw a parallel.

Senator Daly was correct in pointing out that 11 such reports have been produced and this is the 12th. Based on the recommendations in this report, one would anticipate that some reforms will emanate from it. While such reforms may not be in parallel with what is recommended in the report, we should examine and change the system.

There is constructive merit in how this House has been used in recent times when MEPs made submissions on their work in the European Parliament. That was a useful exercise, which I do not believe has taken place in the Dáil Chamber. The report embraces that type of exercise which provides for accountability of MEPs through the Seanad. If anything, such submissions in the House enhance the European profile. The ordinary voter views the European Parliament in a detached way and considers that he or she is quite removed from it. Such submissions enhance the credibility of the European Parliament.

I would like a change to be made regarding how we deal with business in the Seanad. I would like 20 minutes to be provided so that Ministers can answer questions in the House. If Ministers were to do that, they would be on top of their brief. They would be prepared for any questions they might be asked. Such a facility would be enriching and preferable to a Minister and a Member having prepared speeches. It would enable us to address the serious business at issue and would be almost akin to enabling a cross-examination of Ministers. They might not want that or to be subject to that type of forensic approach, but it would be much more beneficial than what happens at present. It would also be in their interests. If anything, it would mean they would have to research their briefs more comprehensively and be less reliant on civil servants for briefing notes. I put forward that constructive proposal which I believe would help improve the operation of this House.

Most of the Members present would have been elected from the vocational panels. Those panels were probably drawn up a long time ago and they have served the House well over the passage of time. I do not know how that system could be changed to broaden or reduce it, but such change is merited on the basis of the report and the research into this area.

There are many good proposals in the report. I compliment the people involved, the leaders of the various parties, the Cathaoirleach and the people involved in producing this document. We have spoken at great length on this issue over a considerable period. I do not have much more to add because most of the other points I might make have already been made.

There is much merit in the workings of this House. If anything, the Leader has enhanced the respectability of the House. During the time I have been a Member of the House, a number of Bills have come directly to it and then gone to the other House. I have spoken privately to Ministers, who I will not name, but they have often said they would prefer legislation to take this route because the debate in this House has enhanced the legislation and they have picked up various constructive pointers which helped them in the other House. Bringing legislation directly through this House has enhanced its profile. The Leader has timed her entry to the Chamber well and I compliment her. If any criticism is made of the House outside it, she has always tried to portray it in a constructive light. I appreciate that. There are many good points about the House, but like everything else, changes are required. I wish good speed to the implementation of this report. As it is the 12th such report, I hope its recommendations will be implemented.