Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES (Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform) debate -
Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003

Vol. 1 No. 1

Presentation by SDLP.

Witnesses: Dr. Sean Farren; Mr. Denis Haughey; Ms Éilis Haughey; Ms Carmel Hanna, MLA.

On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the representatives of the SDLP to the Seanad Chamber. We are delighted they could come and pleased that they took the time and made the effort to make a submission to us. Each delegation will have 30 minutes. Obviously, we have read each submission - many of us have done so several times. Perhaps you will hone in on the points you wish to emphasise.

On the matter of privilege, I must remind the members of each delegation that while we, the members of the sub-committee, enjoy absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses who have qualified privilege. However, the sub-committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege. I am sure nothing will arise which will lead to fisticuffs.

Having dealt with the preliminary issues and reiterated my welcome to the representatives of the SDLP, the first group we are meeting, we look forward to hearing from you. The questioners will be Senators Brian Hayes and Joe O'Toole while I am allowed to intervene.

Dr. Farren

We are pleased to be here. I am accompanied by Mr. Denis Haughey, a former Member of the Assembly, representing Mid-Ulster, and also a Minister in the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister; Ms Carmel Hanna who represents south Belfast in the Assembly and is a former Minister for Employment and Learning and Ms Éilis Haughey, one of our administrative assistants. I am also a former Minister in the Executive.

We very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the consultation process on possible reforms of Seanad Éireann. In the SDLP's first policy document, published in 1971, entitled, Towards a New Ireland, recommendations were made for a restructured Seanad in which, in particular, an all-Ireland dimension would be explicit. It is in the spirit of that same perspective that we make our contribution to the present discussion. Since the beginning, the SDLP has maintained its interest in and involvement in Seanad Éireann. SDLP members, Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers, have served this House with distinction. Others Northerners such as John Robb, Gordon Wilson and Edward Haughey have also served as has the current Member, Dr. Maurice Hayes, each bringing a distinctive Northern perspective to the deliberations of this House.

More recently, the SDLP made a submission to the Oireachtas review in 1999. While our present submission highlights the all-Ireland dimension, we have not restricted ourselves to that issue. Our submission also addresses the wider functions of Seanad Éireann, its composition and possible modes of election to it. In these opening remarks we will focus on the all-Ireland dimension to its composition, the modes of election and some of its key functions. We are not, surprisingly, extremely anxious that the Seanad should have a fixed all-Ireland dimension to its composition, not one that may or may not exist depending on circumstances and other political exigencies. Since most, but not all, Members of Seanad Éireann have a popular democratic mandate, we also recommend that Members from Northern Ireland should be elected on the basis of a similar mandate. Our submission outlines proposals in this regard. We recognise that there may well be at the present time practical and, possibly, constitutional problems to making this recommendation a reality but believe it should be seriously considered. Therefore, we recommend, as our second preference, the establishment of an electoral college for Northern Ireland which would elect the agreed number of Senators. Such a college, consisting of public representatives to the North's political institutions, would not be faced with the same constitutional or practical obstacles. Should neither our first nor second preference prove possible, we recommend that a fixed number of Senators from Northern Ireland be provided from among those Senators to be nominated by the Taoiseach. Such nominations should take due account of the need for community balance in Northern Ireland.

Turning to the functions of Seanad Éireann, we believe the Seanad has a particularly important contribution to make in scrutinising the work of the Dáil. We further agree that Seanad Éireann, with a new popular legitimacy, should initiate and comment on legislation. Our submission lays particular stress on the context created by the Good Friday Agreement. A new and more positive relationship between North and South is provided for under this Agreement. Already, we see many signs of this relationship emerging in the work of the implementation bodies as well as in other opportunities to work together to the mutual benefit of communities in both parts of our island. Suspension may have slowed the development of some initiatives but the broad thrust of what had been agreed prior to that continues and hopefully will soon be brought to a new level of momentum under restored institutions. We believe Seanad Éireann could play a significant role by bringing such developments to the attention of political representatives here in the South and, through them, to the wider public.

As other aspects of the Good Friday Agreement are put in place, for example, the North-South Parliamentary Body, even closer links can be developed between political institutions in both parts of Ireland. In this new context created by the Good Friday Agreement, Seanad Éireann could contribute significantly to the development of ever closer relationships between our northern and southern communities. It would be an important contribution to the emergence of the agreed Ireland essential to the united Ireland to which we aspire. We also believe Seanad Éireann can play a critical role in reviewing Ireland's European role and relationships as well as its role and relationships on the worldwide stage.

We thank the members of the sub-committee for this opportunity to appear before them and trust that in the not too distant future we can invite them and all other Members of Seanad Éireann to visit and engage with us in the restored institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the SDLP representatives for their comprehensive submission to our sub-committee and travelling to attend our hearings. I want to ask two questions. Dr. Farren rightly pointed out the contribution made in the past by the former Senators, Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers. Could the SDLP give us a view as to the difficulty for the party in the Taoiseach of the day selecting one member of its party to be one of his or her 11 appointed Senators? Is there a difficulty in that or would there be a case for the SDLP selecting a person to represent the party should the Taoiseach of the day designate a number of members from Northern Ireland who would represent public opinion in the North to be Members of this House? An outstanding contribution was made by both of the former Senators referred to but was there difficulty for the SDLP in that process?

The second question refers to the interesting submission Dr. Farren made about the opportunity for direct election to this assembly of people who live in Northern Ireland. Would that include the entire voting public in Northern Ireland? How would one go about operating such a system? Would it be by postal ballot or through the normal way in which elections take place? In the delegation's view, would it provide the possibility of members of the Unionist community participating in that electoral process?

Dr. Farren

I thank Senator Hayes for those questions. I will give some brief answers and invite my colleagues to contribute also. Essentially there were no difficulties with respect to the two members mentioned - Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers - taking their place on the invitation of the Taoiseach of the day. There could well be useful discussion as to whether the parties might be invited to nominate and therefore consult among themselves as to who might be invited to become a Senator. It might well be a process of consultation between the Taoiseach and the parties in some form or other and perhaps it would then be a matter for the parties themselves to select at the Taoiseach's invitation. We can discuss possible mechanisms - there are not very many - but on the principle of a fixed number of Senators from Northern Ireland, if we are to rely on the Taoiseach's nominations, that principle should be firmly established so that we can always look forward to X number of Senators from Northern Ireland taking their place in this Chamber.

As to the issues surrounding direct elections, we could look to experience in Upper and Lower Houses elsewhere where there is a place for representatives of people living abroad or people living abroad who are citizens of a particular state casting a vote for someone in some constituency in that state. I recognise immediately that there might be problems of scale because we would be talking about a significantly large electorate being afforded that opportunity if there were to be direct elections, and I imagine the mechanisms and practicalities surrounding that would pose difficulties. However, we can look at some of the possibilities mentioned by the Senator, including postal voting and so on. As I said in my opening remarks, there may well be constitutional difficulties. We have not examined the issue too much from that perspective. However, if we accept the principle and move to a popular mandate for the Seanad as a whole, we should seek to determine whether a similar basis for electing Senators might not also be adopted for the North. Was there a third question?

Would Unionists participate?

Dr. Farren

It would be open to them to participate. Obviously, it is up to every individual who has a franchise to exercise it. That is a freedom we afford people here as well as elsewhere. I would have to say that the likelihood of many exercising it might not be very great. However, if we look at the participation in the university vote, particularly given the large numbers who have attended Trinity College and exercised their franchise within that constituency, we can see quite a large number of people from a Unionist tradition exercising it. To my knowledge, having canvassed for some such Senators in the past, I know that they have been anxious to do so.

Having seen the House brought forward to the age of voting electronically, which I welcome, the fact that we still have a House in which we cannot plug in a modem to a power point is an indication of how quickly we need to modernise. I realise that is not the problem of the SDLP representatives, whom I welcome. I am irritated by this but it has always been the same in moving things forward.

I thank Dr. Farren for his presentation but it contains a number of points on which I am not clear. He did not deal in detail with the vocational nature of the current House other than to point out that the university group is the only vocational group he would replace in a different way. That is not something with which I would disagree in terms of a broader approach. However, I am not clear about how he would tie in the popular mandate and the 2% he says would be necessary in order to gain election through a list system, which makes clear mathematical sense, with a geographical spread. He makes the point that it would ensure a geographical spread but I am not sure how a list system will ensure a geographical spread while at the same time ensuring a nationwide popular mandate as an overall list system. Once we start reducing the size of the constituencies, that 2% figure does not mean the same thing.

Dr. Farren spoke about the electoral college system particularly in terms of the North and also made the point in his presentation that he would maintain a system of the kind of distilled democracy we have where elected representatives at one level, in other words, local authorities and other bodies would elect the tier of people who would sit in the Seanad. I am not sure how all those points tie in with a list system. I would like to hear the breakdown of the figures referred to. Let us say we were dealing with a figure of 100%, what percentage of that figure would be elected through a list system, what percentage would be elected through an electoral college system and, harking back to the question posed by Senator Hayes, in a Northern context would an electoral college system include Unionist councillors? I think Dr. Farren is saying that it would; that it would be up to them to exercise their franchise. In terms of the number of Taoiseach's nominees, would he consider changing those percentages? That is not clear from the presentation. Perhaps it is not an issue on which Dr. Farren has gone into detail and I understand if this is the case, but I would like to know his thinking on it. There is a list system, a geographical spread and an electoral college system. There are many systems there, but I am not clear on how they would gel with the number of Taoiseach's nominees.

Dr. Farren

I will be brief and then hand over to Mr. Denis Haughey. We are thinking more exclusively of these mechanisms. We are not thinking of having them all operating within the same system. If there was not going to be a popular mandate, as it were, we thought we would consider a college system, but we would not have the two running together. As I said in our proposal, a college system could consist of all the district councillors, Assembly Members and, possibly, MPs and MEPs, with all our public representatives forming an electoral college.

Dr. Farren said that in the event of the popular mandate not running, for instance, in regard to the North that one would have an electoral college in the North, a list system in the other three provinces and would also maintain the system of the Taoiseach's nominees. That is my reading of the presentation.

Dr. Farren

No, we are saying that if we cannot have a popular mandate operating in the North for whatever practical or constitutional reasons, we would have an electoral college system. As to what you would have in the South, we would recommend a popular mandate, but there are other recommendations coming before the sub-committee, which seek to retain some of the characteristics of the present system, perhaps as originally intended, creating colleges or constituencies which were more identifiably vocational or whatever. It is up to yourselves to decide which recommendations are possible. As far as our first preference is concerned, we would like to see the popular mandate as the basis for all but the Taoiseach's nominees. If that were impossible, we would look to an electoral college system. As to whether that would run alongside a popular mandate in the South, I do not see, in principle, any reason it should not.

Good morning. Dr. Farren has made it clear that we are rather more concerned with particular angles of Seanad reform which jive with our agenda than with the mechanics of how the Seanad should be elected within the South, which is a fair enough point for Senator O'Toole to have made. The angle we wish to stress is that one of the most fundamental compromises in the Good Friday Agreement is that whereas we, representing the Nationalist community in the North, have agreed to give our total consent to the State, to the constitutional position and to the right of Unionists to be fully involved in the nation to which they belong, the other side of that is that they accept we also have a right to an involvement with the nation to which we belong. Therefore, we have looked to the Seanad as a means of accomplishing that substantial link between the Nationalist community in the North and the body politic of the State which embodies our identity. We have been concerned to try to make a case for a substantial body of representatives from the North to be involved in the Seanad. As the practical difficulties of trying to create some kind of electoral mechanism offering every single voter in the North an opportunity to vote in a Seanad election would raise all kinds of problems, not only constitutional but logistical——

——we have proposed a college comprising elected representatives in the North. There are 650 district councillors, 108 Members of the Assembly, 18 Members of the British Parliament and three Members of the European Parliament, who comprise a substantial body of people who could be balloted by post. It is likely that Unionists would take no part in it, but the opportunity would be there for them to participate if and when they choose to.

The other dimension to the case we wish to make is that given the North-South dimension of the Good Friday Agreement, the six Implementation Bodies, the 12 or more areas for expanded co-operation between the two Administrations, North and South, and the number of European measures and initiatives which have a cross-Border angle such as the INTERREG programme, the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and a number of others, there is, in terms of its purpose and remit, an opportunity for the Seanad to become a reviewing Chamber for the North-South aspects of the Agreement. The Seanad could hear reports on the outworking of the INTERREG programme, the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and so on and could become an arena within which the outworking of those aspects of European policy might be debated, reviewed and recommendations made to Governments.

Ms Hanna

Good morning, I am delighted to be here. There is a large concern about Unionists' participation but it is essential that they participate through whatever mechanism - whether they would agree to nominate or, as in the past, have someone nominated who would at least broadly represent their view. The bottom line is that we want increased and much broader participation of all of the community in Northern Ireland. If we are to play out the Good Friday Agreement, that is what it is about. If we are talking about an agreed Ireland and an inclusive united Ireland, surely we want to be able to seriously discuss those issues here. It is essential that one way or the other, we have Unionist involvement.

Ms Hanna will be aware that there is a section in the Good Friday Agreement on the ability of both the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Assembly, whenever it is reconstituted, to create a parliamentary tier, which has not taken place since the Agreement was forged. That is a matter of great dismay in this House as, I am sure, it is among members of the old Assembly. Would that not be the forum for the proper rigorous examination of the Implementation Bodies? The Implementation Bodies reported to the Government and to the Executive in Belfast. Most parliamentarians believe that their level of input into what is going on in the cross-Border aspect of the Agreement is not what it should be. Would it not be more appropriate for a parliamentary tier to be mandated for that purpose or should it be, as stated in the SDLP's submission, a matter for a new Seanad to determine?

I have a related question. I was going to ask whether the delegates envisage a role for the Seanad in the east-west dimension of the Agreement. I have always believed the east-west dimension is one where Unionists might feel happiest. Perhaps in the broader milieu of the east-west dimension there might be an opportunity to make some attractive proposition to the Unionist side. That has effectively been ignored. There are many issues such as language which might be better dealt with in that way.

Dr. Farren

Would it not be curious if the Houses of the Oireachtas became involved in some discussion and heard reports on the progress of issues relating to relationships between North and South rather than confining everything to those institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement? I look forward to the day when the parliamentary body will be established. This House may say these matters can be discussed somewhere else, yet they go to the heart of relationships on this island. If we continue to aspire to a united Ireland, as we do in the SDLP, working the Agreement is the bedrock of that objective. That would be essential. I do not want to see the Seanad and the Dáil not having some opportunities. Even if there were no representatives here from the North, it would be curious if that did not take place.

As regards Senator O'Toole's suggestion, there are opportunities in terms of the east-west dimension for greater involvement on all sides. Many wrongly see the east-west dimension as a sop to Unionists. It should not be seen in that light but as an opportunity to engage meaningfully in an agenda of important issues related to the relationships between our islands and all the members of the British-Irish Council, which includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

The problem is that it is currently a discussion between Governments, not between Parliaments.

Dr. Farren

Yes. However, we already have opportunities under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Dr. Farren

We have the parliamentary body. There are some discussions on widening out its membership, although I do not know how far they have been taken.

The reason I raise the question is that there are issues with which we must deal, such as, for example, where the main corridor between these two islands should be. Should it be from Belfast, Dublin or Wexford? If we got the parliamentarians together in some type of forum, including the representatives of the Parliaments, perhaps they would indicate that we need three corridors. We could get a sense of unity of purpose. I wonder if we could pull the Seanad into this.

There is nothing mutually exclusive about Senator Brian Hayes's two propositions. He suggested that the interparliamentary tier might be the appropriate forum within which to discuss North-South matters. Intergovernmental matters are discussed in both Parliaments, yet there is an interparliamentary tier between Britain and Ireland. That interparliamentary tier takes up special projects, such as that mentioned by Senator O'Toole, namely, what is the best corridor along the east coast of Ireland and what shape it should take. The interparliamentary tier which exists at present commissions research and carries out studies and work on particular projects. However, that does not necessarily mean that there would not be a role for the Seanad acting as a Chamber within which these matters are routinely discussed——

——as a physical forum.

Senators will be aware of the volume of paperwork which comes out of Brussels regarding European matters. I know the Committee on European Affairs of the Scottish Parliament had to give up trying to keep up with all the paperwork coming out of Brussels. Eventually it decided to pick and choose whatever was relevant or important to discuss in detail. That keeps it busy.

The discussion has been fascinating. It is a clear example of the need to hear viewpoints, which were well presented. I thank the delegation for coming here today and we look forward to discussing everything that was said.

Dr. Farren

I thank the members of the sub-committee.

The witnesses withdrew.

Top
Share