Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

----interstices of Seanad legislation. The Manning committee commissioned a former parliamentary draftsman, Dr. Brian Hunt, to do that. That is the Bill I am presenting. While it is nice to hear Members compliment me for all the hard work I put into it, and although I did assist the Manning committee on the broader issues, I cannot claim credit for the actual drafting of the Bill itself. I pay tribute to those who were part of that process and who put much work into it.

I am a bit perplexed by the Leader's approach to this and the suggestion made earlier this afternoon that we are putting the cart before the horse. I do not see that at all. There are many procedures in this House which can be changed. This House is the total master of its own procedures. It is not the total master of the resources necessary to give effect to the changes we make, however. Under the Constitution, each House of the Oireachtas is totally free to decide and change its own procedures. There is no significant constraint on us, apart from the question of resources to implement whatever we actually do.

It must be remembered that there are inside and outside electoral panels for the Seanad. The Oireachtas Members panel, the inside one, has a designated guaranteed minimum under the present system. This Bill aims to get rid of that. Deputies and Senators would not have, and need not have, a guaranteed input into who gets into the Seanad. Accordingly, if we do change it to bring in a popular franchise of, say, 30 versus 13 in respect of the 43 panels, as suggested by the Manning committee, we can strengthen the rights of councillors by eliminating the right of the Dáil and the Seanad to grab a specified portion of the seats on each panel for themselves. This would decomplicate the local authority-Oireachtas Members elections in that way.

Article 9.3 of the Constitution, an often forgotten article, states, "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens." If one holds an Irish passport, it is an indication of citizenship and one owes a duty of loyalty to the State. The fact one might belong to a greater diaspora in the numbers mentioned by Senator Lawless and be one of 40 million people does not mean one is a citizen or owes the State a duty of loyalty. If one does owe the State a duty of loyalty, the very least the State can do is recognise and reciprocate that duty. Accordingly, wherever one is in the world, if one owes that duty of loyalty to the Irish State, there is no reason the State should not care about what one thinks when we compose our Legislature.

The issue of taxation and representation is very well made as an argument. Under the Constitution, apart from making recommendations on finance legislation and money Bills, this House has virtually no competence in taxation matters.That is part of the democratic process and part of what the people voted for in 1937. We have different functions but that is not one of our functions. There is elaborate machinery in the Constitution to ensure that the views of the Dáil on matters financial are absolutely paramount and that, at best, we are given the right to make a passing comment as they do what they do.