I welcome the Sinn Féin delegation, including Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Presentation by Sinn Féin.
Witnesses: Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin; Mr. Conor Murphy, MLA, and Mr. David Cullinane.
Thank you, Chairman.
Our group includes Senators Dardis, Brian Hayes, Ryan and O'Toole. There will be different questioners for each group, otherwise we would not get through it all. The questioners for this group will be Senators Dardis and Ryan. As we have read the delegation's submission, perhaps we could just get a summary of it. We will then have a question and answer session. As regards privilege, Members of this Chamber have privilege in the same way as those in the Dáil. However, the members of a delegation have qualified privilege only. The time slot is approximately 30 minutes.
I thank you and your colleagues. We are happy to be here. I will introduce my colleagues. I am accompanied by Mr. Conor Murphy, a member of the Northern Assembly for Newry and Armagh, and Mr. David Cullinane, our representative in County Waterford. I have a brief introduction. The committee has read our submission. Therefore, I will not go into it except in response to questions.
We presented our document as a contribution to the debate on reform of the Seanad. We believe the proposals contained therein are both constructive and progressive. It will not come as any surprise to political watchers that there is a strong view within our party that the Seanad should be abolished. That was our party policy for a long time, but that has changed. It was changed in recent years to a position where we believed democratic reform of the Seanad was what was required. It is important to state we are probably not unique in the view that we previously held, which still has a currency in Irish thinking and which must be addressed.
The Seanad, as currently constituted, is both undemocratic and elitist. I do not mean any disrespect to colleagues before us. It is elected in a restricted and, in some aspects, a perverse franchise. The franchise granted to some but not all third level graduates is a notorious example. Instead of a Seanad franchise for local authority members, which I have had the opportunity to exercise, we would like to see real empowerment of local government. The bottom line in our submission is that the Seanad should be elected by universal suffrage of citizens throughout the Thirty-two Counties and those resident in Ireland for more than five years and over the age of 16 years, reflective of party policy. Representation in the Oireachtas for citizens in the Six Counties is an important issue. Our proposals would give them a direct input. It would go side by side with the right of those elected to Westminster constituencies in the Six Counties to participate in Dáil debates, something that has been reflected strongly by the all-party Oireachtas committee on the Constitution.
Emigrants should also have a vote. This is provided for by many states throughout the world and without difficulty. It could be done by postal ballot as would voting in the Six Counties pending, as we hope, Irish reunification. It is ironic that a State which repeatedly praises the contribution of the Irish diaspora denies emigrants a right that many other states grant their citizens.
Sinn Féin believes the Seanad should be an elected forum for civic society - we emphasise this - particularly for those sectors not adequately represented in the Dáil or the Seanad and the marginalised in society. For example, the tremendous energy of the community and voluntary sector is not given a direct voice in the Oireachtas and its business. We looked at various options for the method of election and came to the view that a panel system would best address the need for the diverse strands of Irish society to be represented in the Upper, or second, Chamber. We see all this in the context of what we regard as the equally important need for reform of the Dáil, something we look forward to addressing further. We commend our proposals to the sub-committee and hope they will excite some new elements in its overall consideration and we will be happy to answer any questions. Go raibh maith agat.
I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin and the representatives of Sinn Féin for coming and the detailed document submitted to the sub-committee. In regard to abolition, when I read the original document, it struck me that there was still a fairly strong abolitionist attitude within the party. Am I to assume that in the absence of fairly radical reform, the party would say the Seanad should be abolished?
No, there is a strong abolitionist rump but having probably been to the fore in the argument to change that position going back to the late 1980s, I am happy to say I think the view expressed in the document is the one that is in the ascendancy and in which I have confidence for the future.
The Deputy's is not the only party having internal——
They have a lot in common.
The issue of the vote for the Thirty-two Counties is a live issue and there is the constitutional aspect and so on. What would the Deputy say to the argument that without taxation, one should not have representation? In regard to a postal ballot, which the Deputy suggested, how would one prevent electoral abuses in circumstances where it was by universal suffrage? How would one overcome this difficulty?
I welcome the delegation. Sinn Fein's ideas are quite thought provoking and somewhat similar to some of my own. However, I wish to ask a couple of specific questions. Does the Deputy believe that simply by abolishing the nominating powers of political parties, one would make a national election independent of party politics? The accreditation panel the Deputy mentioned, an interesting idea, to which people could nominate, or through which bodies would be accredited, would not allow political parties to be accredited. However, the experience to date of all the nominating bodies is that it is people from political parties who get those nominations. Would we not be better off to have party politics overtly rather than covertly practised? Does the Deputy think it would be a good thing to get rid of it? I am not sure it would. Would it not be better for it to be overt?
My next question relates to this concept of citizenship with which members of this sub-committee will know I have a problem. The Good Friday Agreement ended the claim this State had to the citizens of Northern Ireland as its citizens. Everybody who is born in Northern Ireland, or on the island, is entitled to Irish citizenship but is not compelled to be an Irish citizen. That means we no longer claim members of the Unionist community, who choose not to be Irish, as citizens of this State. Does that mean, therefore, that they would be entitled to be Members of our Parliament without being citizens of the State? Does the Deputy have a concept of citizenship for citizens of Northern Ireland, because we only have two choices on these islands - we are either British or Irish citizens or perhaps both? Does Sinn Féin have some view on a third concept of citizenship, that is, a citizen of Northern Ireland which is not a sovereign state and which, I suspect, the party would not wish it to become?
How does this issue of citizenship sort itself out? Do we change the Constitution to state, "people living on the island"? If we in this State attempt in any way to change our Constitution back to assert that citizens of Northern Ireland are citizens of this State, whether they wish to be, we would be accused of attempting to re-negotiate or rewrite the Good Friday Agreement because that was one of the major changes to our Constitution. I note the Deputy used a phrase in his submission which had echoes of a previous wording of the Constitution. I tried to remember where I had seen the phrase "pending the reintegration of the national territory" and I remembered after a little scratching of my head.
Has the party thought through its thinking on citizenship? I am intrigued by this in terms of representation and participation for the non-national, or the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, in our institutions.
I will answers those questions to which I think it is most appropriate that I respond. I will ask Conor Murphy, as our representative from north of the Border, and one of those of whom the Senator spoke, to articulate his and our views on that whole issue.
As regards representation without taxation, the principle is no taxation without representation.
I do not believe that, incidentally.
This is the stock and trade phraseology used. We must recognise that there are many in our society who are not taxpayers and yet have the opportunity to exercise their franchise. I am not speaking only of those on the lower end of the income scale and who fail to come into the tax net. There are many - I think it has been enumerated in the hundreds - who are on the other end of the scale entirely and who make no tax contribution to the Exchequer and yet have the entitlement to exercise their vote. What we have is a right of people to exercise their entitlement to a franchise by birthright.
The Senator referred to the Good Friday Agreement and the amendment to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Article 2 refers to the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the island of Ireland. I need not go on as Senator Ryan is familiar with the detail. We are completely in compliance with and echoing the hopes, aspirations and certainly the expectations of people throughout the island of Ireland regarding the Good Friday Agreement, its outworking and promise.
In regard to independence of political parties, overt and covert, the situation is that we have, to all intents and purposes, a marriage of both. The nominating, or accrediting, bodies may be anything from various agricultural societies and organisations right through to the trade union sector and other areas of interest in Irish society. However, the people they nominate are not necessarily reflective of this; they are party political flag-bearers, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions. What we want is a system independent of political parties. The Senator is correct that this does not exclude any of the accredited bodies nominating somebody who may be a political player, something against which one cannot properly legislate. We will all look with interest to see how Deputy Ring's case in respect of measures of exclusion vis-à-vis holding elected office might echo in terms of consideration of this matter in the future.
It would probably be better if I asked Mr. Conor Murphy to contribute on the wider issue of citizenship at this point. Perhaps he will take up the issue.
The Senators are correct that our proposals are made with a view to the unification of Ireland. This predicates all of our thoughts on the matter because that is what we anticipate happening in the future. Senators quite rightly pointed to the Constitution and the amended version thereof. Besides allowing me - as an Irish citizen who lives north of the Border and holds an Irish passport - the right to be an Irish citizen, it also entitles me to the right to play a part in the Irish nation, a vague assertion that has no outworkings in the institutions of the State, which do not give me the right to play a part in the Irish nation as it currently exists. The Seanad has an opportunity to decide whether there will be a token representation of Northerners here - I have heard various proposals that five, six or whatever number should come down here to represent the northern part of this country - or whether an opportunity will be given for all citizens who live on the island to play a part in the Irish nation.
Members have concerns over citizenship and how that would impact on those who consider themselves British citizens. It may be presumptuous but I assume that the members of the SDLP who sit at Westminster carry Irish passports and would, therefore, consider themselves Irish citizens. However, they still play a part at that forum. I do not believe it is without precedent or that it is a complication which could be placed in the way to stop our proposal. From my dealings with many people in the political and broader Unionist community in the North, I am aware that there are those who would avail of the right to participate in the institutions here if that right was afforded to us north of the Border. I do not see it as being a big problem. I do not believe——
Including members of the Unionist community?
I believe so. We have dealings with Unionists on a daily basis. Unionism is not the monolith as it is, at times, presented to be by some of the more outspoken political representatives. Even among those representatives, during the more quiet moments of discourse, one will find that there is a broad degree of interest in the workings of the institutions here. If an opportunity was presented to people in the Six Counties to participate in a panel of representatives with a broad range of interests - rather than being given token representation in the House, which, in the light of the political battle currently being fought within Unionism, certain parties might feel obliged not to take up in order not to appear to be somehow diminishing the Union - and to have their voices heard down here, not just from the party political perspective, I believe it would be availed of. That would allow us, as the amended Constitution states, to be part of the Irish nation. While I am entitled to Irish citizenship, I am not entitled - even though I live only a few miles north of counties Louth and Monaghan - to play a part in the Irish nation as it currently stands and neither are hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens in the North.
If, as intended, there was a postal vote, how could we possibly protect the integrity of the ballot? Under the universal franchise, there are enough instances and anecdotal evidence of abuses of the system occurring at polling stations. How would we protect the integrity of the vote?
It is interesting that there is a presumption that voting irregularities and abuses happen only in the North. That is a myth that has been presented by the media on many occasions. There is a postal ballot system for all elections in the State which operates quite well. There is also a postal ballot system in the North which has been in operation for many years and was subject, as are all ballot systems, to abuse. However, this did not occur to the extent outlined in some of the allegations made in the aftermath of elections.
I believe the integrity of the ballot can be protected. In the North we now have some extremely stringent regulations in terms of the voting system which are preventing many from having their names placed on the electoral register. In the 21st century it is not beyond the ability of those who organise elections to devise a system whereby people who do not actually live within the jurisdiction of a state can vote. If we are to allow emigrants to vote - this is one of our proposals with which, I believe, there is a fair degree of sympathy among many across the political spectrum here - such a system will have to be devised to allow this to happen. It would probably be easier to apply such a system north of the Border than it would in the many countries around the world where Irish emigrants currently reside.
In the event of Sinn Féin going into government in the Republic, how would it respond to the Taoiseach's right to appoint nominees to the Seanad?
We have indicated in our proposals that we do not believe there should be a continuation of the Taoiseach's right to nominate 11 Members of this House. That is a perpetuation of the current arrangement, which we believe is unsatisfactory. I am of the opinion that we will continue to argue for change in this area.
Both Houses are elected by universal suffrage.
No, that is not the case currently.
If we take the presumption that both Houses would be elected on universal suffrage and there would be no Taoiseach's nominees, what would Sinn Féin suggest in terms of how the Government would function? Would there be a situation where the Upper House would continually block the will of the Lower House?
If the Senator examines the detail of our proposal, we argue that, at the Seanad stage, the entire process of legislation should change. We believe the Seanad is a very important and special stage in the processing of legislation. However, it has the power of recommendation, not veto.
Would the Deputy confine it to just Second Stage? From what I read - I may be wrong about this - Sinn Féin seems to be suggesting that the Seanad would confine itself to a Second Stage debate and that it would not then deal with Committee and Report Stages as it does at present, that debate on these would be confined to the Dáil.
That is our view.
I wish to clarify the issue of citizenship. Members of the SDLP can sit in the House of Commons, as could Sinn Féin MPs if they chose to do so, because the United Kingdom claims that they are all citizens. What citizenship they choose to exercise is a separate matter. We gave up our right to claim that everybody living in Northern Ireland was automatically a citizen of this State. While I have every sympathy with what Mr. Murphy said, I am trying to arrive at a way of sorting out the issue of citizenship in the light of the fact that there is not a place called "Northern Ireland" which has a right to have separate citizenship from either the United Kingdom or Ireland. That is all I am saying, I am not at all hostile to the idea.
On the question of a postal ballot, like Deputy Ó Caoláin, I have gone through the rigours of the voting system for the panels and the complicated process of avoiding fraud. In that context, the voting system for the Universities Panel must be the least secure of its type for a national parliament anywhere in the world because there is no proof of any kind that the person who votes is the individual to whom a ballot paper is addressed. Senator Dardis has a point in that a postal vote on the scale required would be wide open to abuse. Such a vote would require a level of enforcement, outside the jurisdiction of the State, that would be impossible to provide.
If we imagine obstacles to the practical implementation of what we are arguing for, we will never get beyond the point of cursory examination. Our document is not a definitive prescriptive position but an opening presentation to excite greater debate and discussion in this process, which we warmly welcome. What we suggest is that difficulties that cannot be signposted will have to be addressed by the collective wisdom of everyone involved. It is not beyond our gift to overcome these difficulties. If there is a will, there will certainly be a way. We are confident such difficulties can be overcome.
My final question relates to the community consultation process on Second Stage referred to by the Deputy. Should that be a formal process whereby people would appear in the House, similar to Sinn Féin, or would they just make their views known?
Mr. Cullinane
The Senator is referring to the community consultation process. Through the system we propose, many organisations will be represented and accredited but some may well not be accredited and may want to make a submission on legislation. That can be submitted in written form and, if necessary, followed up with an oral hearing. All organisations should be allowed to submit written proposals to the Seanad in order that when Second Stage is debated and the necessary changes made, their interests are looked after.
That presentation will be helpful to us in terms of our further deliberations. Deputy Ó Caoláin stated this was an opening shot and hoped it would excite us. There is no doubt it will. I thank the three representatives for taking the trouble to reply and for coming in to make their presentation.
I thank the Chairman and her colleagues. I thought I noted some enthusiasm in her welcoming remarks when she said I was very welcome in this Chamber. I will cut through that observation.
The witnesses withdrew.