John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

Perhaps we might start by reforming Senator Mary White.

Earlier my colleague, Senator Susan O?Keeffe, made some interesting remarks about the appropriateness of discussing the future of the Seanad in Seanad time. It was an interesting point, one with which I might agree if I thought this was an exercise in navel gazing. I have read the document and it seems to be a genuine and honest attempt to stimulate some proper debate about the future of the House. It is to be welcomed and the Senators who published it need to be congratulated. If we were not to discuss the future of the Seanad, we would allow the terms of the debate to be dictated by people with no interest in the House or who have a particular agenda to pursue.

As Senator Paul Bradford said, political reform must move beyond the abolition of this House. Unless we reform the culture of our politics, I do not believe any reform of our structures will be different. As politicians, we all have to take personal responsibility for all our personal utterances and political acts in this regard. If a proposal to abolish the Dáil were to be put to the people tomorrow, it would have the same chance of being passed. There is a level of cynicism about politicians. As politicians, we have not always covered ourselves in glory over the years.

Perhaps we need to look at ourselves before we start criticising our critics. Perhaps we could be genuine and generous enough to say that our critics might well have a point.

There is much wrong with the House. The matter of its election is probably the one that we hear most about. Of course, a restricted electorate in the manner of which we have is something that needs to be looked at and the franchise needs to be widened.

The lack of a clearly defined role for this House is probably where the real problem lies. Nobody seems to be terribly sure how this House is differentiated from the other House and what its role is.

Senator Keane pointed to the major flaw and problem in the working of this House, namely, the party Whip system. There are times here - we must be honest - when we follow the party Whip against matters in which we believe. I refer not only to myself and my colleagues on this side of the House, but to those on the other side of the House. We find ourselves arguing a point the opposite of which we believe and it certainly needs to be looked at. That is not to say that any one of us here is dishonest in his or her arguments. It is the system that is in place and must be worked. We must decide among ourselves whether we want to remain within the party Whip where we could achieve some things or put ourselves outside of that where, perhaps, as party politicians, we might not be able to achieve anything. That is the balance we must achieve. The party Whip system is what is wrong.

It has been said that this House is a talking shop. Senator Bradford mentioned that as well. Talking shops are sometimes good. When I look around at some of my colleagues - I will not mention anyone in particular - I see that there are public academics in this House. As to whether they are wasting their time, maybe it is a talking shop for myself and maybe I am the waffler, God knows I have often been accused of it. There are many here who put a great deal of genuine hard work into their contributions and take the job seriously. I wonder, if this is merely a talking shop, and a needless one at that, would 60 people spend so much time trying as hard as they possibly can.

Some of the jobs that could be assigned to a reformed Seanad are interesting. On the scrutiny of EU legislation, it is beyond argument that such is required. There is also an argument about two matters - scrutiny of legislation and oversight of legislation. I would see both of those matters as being very different. Perhaps the oversight of legislation is where the confusion arises in that modern legislation is proposed by politicians, it is looked at in the other House, it is looked at in committee and by the time legislation, particularly that initiated in the Dáil, arrives at this House, it is well and truly looked at. If we were to look at this to find structural flaws in legislation, which is what I would think is the oversight of legislation, we would probably not find it. Maybe there is a need to review how we do that.

The scrutiny of legislation is something quite different. In scrutinising legislation we try to ascertain here with the sponsoring Minister whether the legislation he or she brings before the House gives expression to the intention of the Minister. It is an important function. The other House does not do it. The other House breaks down on partisan lines. Here there is a real opportunity to bring the Minister in in a non-confrontational way - God knows, it does not always happen. We should be looking to do this and to try to tease out with the Minister whether the intent matches the words written in the legislation. That is an important function.

There are other functions as well. I mentioned the role of public academics. The country is not over-endowed with academics but the Seanad is a good platform for such persons.

If we were to take a look at medium to long-term policy in this House in a meaningful way, I wonder whether the real difficulties that we face would have arisen if former Seanaid were doing that job. I am not saying they were remiss in not doing it. I will mention one Senator, although it is not correct to do so. If a person such as Senator Barrett, a highly respected academic in the field of economics and finance, were here, would he be able to do something that I, without the expertise that he has built up, would not be able to do, namely, hold Ministers to account in a real and meaningful manner? I apologise to Senator Barrett for singling him out but he would take the point.