Last Monday's diatribe by John Waters about Seanad Éireann seemed to me to reflect ignorance of its actual activities. Of course he was right in saying that the method of election of the Seanad is open to severe criticism, which I have been voicing unavailingly for over 40 years.
If he had stuck to that issue, I could have joined my voice to his - although we might have had somewhat different ideas about just how to reform that electoral system.
He went on though to proclaim the "sheer uselessness" of this House of the Oireachtas. That remark led me to wonder how much time he has spent attending its sessions or reading its debates - in particular the contributions that the members of this House make to the welfare of our State in the course of committee stage debates on the details of legislation.
Last Thursday Senator David Norris wrote in the correspondence columns about some of these contributions, giving examples of Seanad Éireann's recent impact on legislation concerning competition policy, transport legislation, a botched Government attempt to ban public opinion polls at election times, and the badly misjudged Education Disabilities Bill.
I can add to that list such examples as the 1992-97 Seanad's achievement in forcing important amendments to a Universities Bill which had threatened university autonomy, and my own experience in 1986 when as Taoiseach, I deliberately introduced my National Archive Bill in that House rather than in the Dáil, because I judged - rightly as it turned out - that this legislation would receive a much better debate in the Seanad. As in many other cases, that Bill was amended more thoroughly, and usefully, there than would have happened in the Dáil - which gave my Bill much more cursory treatment.
Everybody who has been involved in politics knows that a whole range of Bills are much more thoroughly vetted and improved in the Seanad than in the Dáil - although, understandably, this is not true of legislation on many economic matters or on financial issues in relation to which the Constitution limits the Seanad to making recommendations rather than amendments.
Of course none of this emerges in the media, for nowadays neither the broadcast media nor the print media bother to report the serious debates which represent the crucial contribution of our legislative system to our society. In addition to the authors of the "colour pieces" which often entertain and amuse us, there are also reporters who take a serious interest in the legislative performance of our politicians.
These journalists however know that there is little point in attempting to report on the serious work of parliament for even our more serious papers are reluctant to give much space to the work of the Dáil or Seanad unless some kind of a row takes place. The nearest we ever get to an evaluation of the parliamentary performance of our legislators is when at rare intervals, and mainly at general election times, a newspaper or radio programme offers a general assessment of legislators' performances.
Given the way in which the media generally fails to report on the serious work of our law-makers, it is perhaps less than surprising that the recent general election saw nine talented legislators from all three principal parties disappear, to be replaced by largely locally oriented independents, some at least of whom presented themselves in terms that seemed to rule out a serious interest in the primary function of the Oireachtas - legislation.
The antiquated way in which the Seanad is elected has discouraged many observers from taking it as seriously as ought to be the case.
The purported vocational basis of this House is notional rather than real; the members of the vocational bodies which share with the new Dáil and old Seanad the right to nominate candidates know that unless their nominees are active members of political parties they have almost no chance of being elected by the voters, who consist of about one thousand national and local politicians.
ALMOST the only non-party politicians who emerge from this system are the six people elected by graduates of the two older universities, who seem to me to contribute disproportionately to Seanad debates - although the senators from political parties have been known to complain about some university independents who, they allege, drop in to make speeches which they hope will be reported, but do not always stay for the nitty-gritty committee stage debates that follow. The 11 members who are nominated by the Taoiseach usually include at least one or two independents, who in recent times have usually been people prominent in the public life of Northern Ireland.
Contrary to popular belief, encouraged by the media, only a minority of the political senators tend to be Dáil aspirants chosen to enhance their Dáil electoral chances. This group usually includes some people who make a serious contribution to the work of the Seanad. Criticisms of the Seanad electoral system on the grounds that it is "undemocratic" entirely miss the point of a second chamber.
In fact, most countries wisely go to some trouble to avoid having an upper house that is democratically elected, because they want to avoid the danger of a clash with the principal assembly that is chosen by universal suffrage and with whom ultimate power lies.
The test of the value of any system of choosing the members of a second chamber should be whether it produces a body that is capable of giving a fresh look at legislation which will not just duplicate the scrutiny of legislation by the main, democratically elected house.
By that standard, our Seanad is reasonably successful but we would be better off with an electoral system which would bring into this House many more people from outside party politics, with a wider range of experience than party politicians as a body can claim to possess.
As suggested by a Senate Electoral Law Commission more than 40 years ago - of which I was a member - the election of at least a portion of the Seanad's members directly by bodies which at present have only a right of nominating candidates would, I believe, improve matters, although the range of nominating bodies should also be widened so that it better reflect the concerns and interests of weaker groups in our society, such as the disadvantaged, the young and the old.