Shane Ross (Independent)

I endorse what Senator O'Toole said and congratulate him on tabling this motion. I do not agree with every detail in it but the thrust of what was said about the need for Seanad reform and dramatic change is indisputable. I will not go over old arguments but the Seanad is in serious danger of extinction. That is because the main Opposition party has said that if it gets into Government, it will abolish it. That is a populist and reasonably thoughtless response to what is undoubtedly the public's view. However, one cannot necessarily blame it for doing that because it is in the business of reflecting public opinion even if it is a cheap jibe at something in which it has participated and played the game extremely well for a very long time. However, that should focus our minds on the fact the Seanad is in danger of being abolished. Even if it is a cheap response, it has some sort of justification. If we reflect on what has happened in the Seanad in recent times, the respect or the attention it gets not only from the media - I would not worry about that so much because everybody is always bellyaching about the media which has its own agenda and we can let it get on with it - but from the Government in power is pretty derisory. I do not want to be disrespectful to the Minister of State present but it is indicative that we constantly get a Minister of State in here baby-sitting various motions. That is what happens.

During this period of financial crisis the Minister for Finance has not been in here as often as the Minister of State. The Minister has been in the Dáil, Brussels and all sorts of places - I know he is a busy guy - but it shows where we stand in terms of priorities. This is not only the case with the Minister for Finance but other Ministers constantly dispatch people in here to take a debate which they do not take seriously. They are sent in here to get legislation through. That is what is happening. All that tells us is that the Government does not have very much time for the Seanad.

Senator O'Toole was right in what he said about the Seanad. It has not been much use to the public. It has not reflected very much what the public wants to hear or see, rather it has reflected what political parties want. The Seanad has become a tool for political patronage. That may or may not be what it was designed to be. One never knows what was in the extremely Byzantine mind of Eamon de Valera when he set it up. The result was that it is people who are favoured particularly by the leadership of political parties who find their way in here. They have an agenda which is basically not to rock the boat and to get seats in the Dáil. That is what it is all about. As a result of that, they do not take legislation as seriously as they should. I heard a Member refer to "my constituency" here today. His constituency is a panel but what he was referring to was his geographical constituency. He regards his constituency as being in here to serve a Dáil constituency until he gets in there. That is what this place is all about. There are some exceptions and I do not want to say too much about the university seats but I will speak about them.

I thought the first and obvious reform would be a simple one, namely to have Dáil and Seanad elections on the same day. I cannot see that being a problem except that it would not allow people who have ambitions to be in both Houses to stand. That would be the idea of it. It would immediately give a new character to the type of person who would stand for election to this House. It would be someone who had made a decision that he or she would stand for this House, that he or she would not stand for the other House and very likely he or she would have less ambition to be in the other House than to be in here. That is a dramatic but simple change that could be made, whereby people would opt to stand for election to this House.

The other problem is the electoral system. One of the best examples of the way the original idea was denied, that of making the Seanad a vocational body for people who have a different and less political contribution to make, was the candidacy of Ken Whitaker for this House. Ken Whitaker, whatever one thinks of him, has an extraordinary expertise, which is and would have been of great value to the nation after he retired from the multiple positions he held in the Civil Service. He was nonimated to this House, as most Members will know by Garret FitzGerald in 1981. He was also nominated to it in 1977 - he was nominated twice. He was a very articulate and useful contributor and offered an expertise, which was not available, because of his background in the Central Bank, the Civil Service and his work with Seán Lemass. He was not nominated by, I think, Charlie Haughey for reasons which are probably political but that is neither here nor there. In 1987 Ken Whitaker decided he would stand for one of the panels and, as a man of great expertise and distinction regardless of what one thinks of him and many people like him and many people do not, one would have thought that if this was a great vocational body of any sort, at least he would be worthy of being in this House but he got a derisory vote. People would say that shows a naivete on the part of a person who did not understand the political system but it also shows an absolute and utter ruthlessness on behalf of the electorate who happen to be extraordinarily political in a party political sense.

I thought we wanted more people like Ken Whitaker in this House and fewer people whose sole ambition is to get into the other House. There is nothing wrong with having that ambition but there really is not a place in here for people whose sole ambition is to do that.

There are other areas where we could do great experiments. There have been some great contributors here in my time, mostly of a non-political basis. It was a great education to listen to Seamus Mallon, Brid Rogers, Gordon Wilson and others from Northern Ireland - Senator O'Toole touched on this point - and they were listened to with enormous respect because they had an expertise. They educated people here about what was happening there, which we did not know anything about because most of the people here had not been there. They made an enormously valuable contribution. That type of contribution is something which the Seanad can very valuably make.

I do not care whether we defeat legislation. That should not be our purpose or role. We do not have to have powers to delay legislation for 90 days. That is not the point of having people here who are not elected by the people. The point is offer expertise where subjects are debated in a non-politically contentious manner and where it is easier for a Minister to say that an amendment tabled is sensible and that he or she will take it on board and no political embarrassment is attached to it and there does not necessarily even have to be a vote on it. That could be an important role. The Seanad does not need a democratic mandate from all or any of its Members if it does not have those sorts of powers. If its powers are simply vocational and moral, that is all it needs.

I wish to make a few points about the university seats. I agree with everything Senator O'Toole said. It is virtually impossible to justify the structure of our seats at present. There is no way we can say that Dublin University should elect three Members, the National University should elect three Members and that DCU, Limerick and all the others be deprived of the democratic franchise. That is utterly and totally indefensible and unjust. If we are to survive and if the Seanad is to survive, which is now very much in doubt, and rightfully in doubt, part of the solution must be that these seats are radically reformed in a way which is acceptable where we cannot be accused of being part of the kind of elite which comprises this House.

If we do not do anything about it, this House will not necessarily be abolished because Fine Gael will have difficulties about that if it ever gets into power, but it will wither away into complete and utter irrelevance and it will attract people with little talent, vision and energy. That is the fate that is facing us if we continuously refuse to confront this problem.