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 the Alliance Party.

Witnesses: Mr. David Ford, MLA; Mr. Colm Cavanagh; Mr. Stephen Farry and Mr. Alan Leonard.

I welcome the delegation representing the Alliance Party. We are honoured that the party made a submission and followed that up by taking the trouble to appear before the sub-committee. We read the party's submission with great interest and perhaps the delegation can confine its opening remarks to a summary of the submission. While we enjoy full privilege as Members of the Chamber, those making submissions enjoy only qualified privilege but I am sure the representatives will not engage in any nastiness. The two questioners on this submission are Senators O'Toole and Hayes.

Mr. Ford

I thank you for your welcome, a Chathaoirligh. I will introduce my team. I am David Ford, leader of the party and suspended MLA for South Antrim. I am accompanied by Colm Cavanagh, president of the party, a resident of Derry and a constituent of two Members through the National University of Ireland electoral system, and Dr. Stephen Farry, general secretary of the party and councillor in north Down. I am also supported by Alan Leonard, our policy officer.

Conscious of our status as a Northern Ireland party, we will limit our remarks to the issue of providing representation for emigrants and for the people of Northern Ireland. We believe the Good Friday Agreement provided the basis for a new set of relationships to be formed within Northern Ireland, within this island and across these islands. The Agreement provides a framework under which it may be possible to move away from a traditional 19th century view of absolute and indivisible sovereignty to a more modern approach where borders carry much less significance.

Regrettably, both Unionists and Nationalists are still wedded to what might be termed "winner takes all" territorial politics. Alliance continues to support the principle of consent as a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement. It is one to which every significant party on this island gives its full support. It is in this spirit that Alliance would welcome a means to give a greater voice to a range of Northern opinions in the Seanad but we urge considerable caution regarding the means under which this is to be achieved.

It must be remembered the Agreement was designed as a carefully balanced accommodation to which the many varied political traditions on the island could give their allegiance and under which they now work for the common good. The Agreement can be explained in terms of Unionists accepting the rights of Nationalists to fairness and power-sharing in Northern Ireland in return for Nationalists recognising the principle of consent and respecting Northern Ireland's formal constitutional status within the United Kingdom. The delicate nature of this compromise must be taken into account when considering the issue of Northern representation or participation in the Seanad, to which Senator Ryan referred.

Proposals for creating formal mechanisms for direct or indirect election of Senators from Northern Ireland through, for example, an electoral college of district councillors, would pose substantial risks in this respect. Such a change could in practice alter the current constitutional structures agreed under the principle of consent. It would certainly be perceived by significant numbers in Northern Ireland as an attempt to do so. Substantial practical difficulties would be involved in organising such elections. It is also questionable whether there would be balanced participation in such an election across the Northern Ireland community.

Alliance is open to wider discussion of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to different and original sets of constitutional arrangements. However, it is crucial that such debate takes place in an open and transparent way and there are no attempts to change it surreptitiously. Changes in the current constitutional arrangements, including to the principle of consent, must be made in accordance with that principle. Nevertheless, Alliance believes there are strong grounds for encouraging the direct articulation of Northern views within the Oireachtas. A number of taoisigh have used their own nominations to put Northern voices in the Seanad in the past. Alliance notes, in particular and without disrespect to others who have served, the contribution made by figures such as Gordon Wilson, John Robb and Sam McAughtry as representatives of a wider view than is normally heard within the Seanad. Alliance, therefore, recommends that greater use should be made of the Taoiseach's nominations to appoint residents of Northern Ireland to the Seanad. We suggested two or three in our written submission. I am aware that others have suggested a slightly higher number and we would have no objections to an increase to perhaps four or five. Alliance believes this approach of encouraging creative use of the Taoiseach's nominations would be more in line with the constitutional dispensation of the Agreement.

A fundamental question may affect the procedure by which the Taoiseach might determine who to appoint. Is it the intention to ensure Nationalists from Northern Ireland are represented in the Oireachtas or is it the intention to allow the Seanad to benefit from hearing a fuller range of opinions from the North? The sub-committee will not be surprised to know that Alliance favours the latter.

We can take it as a given that for the foreseeable future no Unionist party will respond to any invitation to make a nomination for appointment to the Seanad. Proposals that depend on party nominations will, therefore, fail to achieve a balanced representation. While there should not be a bar on the participation of those who are active in party politics in Northern Ireland, there must be a way to open up participation to the wider community. Those nominated should be appointed on the basis of their personal abilities and ability to contribute to the work of the Seanad, not as former representatives of any interest. This would allow, and even encourage, people with a perceived Unionist background to enrich the work of the Seanad. It would engage the whole of wider civic society.

On the issue of emigrant representation, Alliance is concerned about the implications of an unlimited or poorly defined right to direct representation for emigrants. The question of representation and the right to vote should be linked to citizenship and residency rather than ethnicity. That is the difference between a liberal democracy and an ethnic democracy. However, we note the provisions for granting the right to citizens to continue voting in their home country's elections for a limited period after they have left. For example, British citizens may vote for 15 years after they leave the United Kingdom. This option has the advantage of clearly defining who is a citizen as well as defining the time period in which such a citizen enjoys the rights and privileges of the state with mutual duties and responsibilities.

On some related points, Alliance believes there are many practical areas where North-South co-operation could be increased which would be of as great a significance in the way people live their lives as the issue of formal representation in either House of the Oireachtas. There is no reason, for example, further issues could not come within the remit of the North-South Ministerial Council or cross-Border bodies where there are clear practical benefits to both sides. Alliance is also keen to develop the North-South parliamentary tier. This option was provided for in the Agreement, but at present, as we already have heard, participation in the North-South structures is solely restricted to members of the Executive. Although Unionists voted down an Alliance proposal in the Assembly that we should initiate discussions with the Oireachtas on this, the Seanad might consider taking the initiative on this matter when the Assembly is restored because Alliance believes this new structure should be established as soon as possible. Senator Brian Hayes has already highlighted this.

Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for your invitation and your welcome. We very much value the privilege of being able to give evidence to the sub-committee. We trust that our comments will be seen as a process of modest but significant improvement in relations North and South.

Thank you. We have two questioners and will begin with Senator O'Toole

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation. I especially welcome Mr. Colm Cavanagh who is a constituent.

I had better say "welcome" as well.

It is important to restate Mr. Ford's final point because we want to hear the different views. Any questioning is designed to get to the bottom of a point in an effort to understand it. It is not our role to argue against presentations but to understand them and bring them forward.

I found a number of what I call internal conflicts in some of the points made by Mr. Ford. I recognise and I am conscious of the philosophy and culture of the Alliance Party and know that lends itself to internal conflict regularly and that it is part of the party's nature. Reference was made to liberal democracy, a point to which I will return.

In discussing the importance of representation, it seems strange and is difficult for me to listen to members of a political party talking about the importance of representation without an election, which is effectively what Mr. Ford said. I can understand the reasons the witnesses might come to that conclusion and am fully conscious of them, as are we all, but this appears to be giving in to the forces to whom we would all be opposed by walking away and not reinforcing the importance of election. Will the witnesses develop this further? Are there in-between positions between no election and full participation?

I say that because, to take the only example of which I am aware, my colleague, Senator Ross, would claim many Unionist votes in his quota each time he stands for election. There does not appear to be a difficulty for Unionist graduates of Southern colleges in exercising their franchise. They do not see a conflict in this. It is the only example I can give where this is working, but it appears to indicate that there is not necessarily a complete divide and opposition on that side of the political spectrum.

In pursuing that in-between stage, while the witnesses would oppose full participation, how would they feel if the current set-up of vocational nominating bodies in the Seanad were set to continue with nominations coming from groups in Northern Ireland, such as the CBI in the North? Should it not have a nomination on the Industrial and Commercial Panel or whatever? Should various educational and cultural groups in the North not have nominations? Even if they did not have voting power, would the witnesses stop short of nominations? How would they feel about local authorities in the North having the right to nominate people to the ballot paper? Would the witnesses oppose them exercising the franchise and how would they feel about the franchise?

The other issue on which I must take issue with the witnesses is emigrants' votes. I have pursued this since 1987 and must come out with my hands up in terms of my bias and prejudice towards it. Unless I am missing something from the witnesses' major presentation, I think they are factually incorrect in the distinction they make between liberal and ethnic democracies. I can say for certain that the Spanish constitution contains some nine or ten pages on the voting rights of emigrants. There is a similarly detailed piece in the Italian constitution and there is no time limit on the voting rights of expatriates from Australia, the United States and other places. I do not want to go into that debate. The witnesses gave the example of the United Kingdom which has a 15 year period, which I accept and know it to be the case, but it is not the only one. It is not areason.

The witnesses asked the valid question about how this should be controlled. Let us suppose there was an emigrant panel rather than an emigrant vote in the same way as there is a university vote, in that emigrants would elect two to six people or whatever number. That would be the control in that sense in terms of the outcome, although it may not be the control in terms of the presentation. Could that be done and would it relate to Northern Ireland as well? I apologise for going on at length.

That is fine. We are trying to link questions together but we would be very gladif Mr. Ford or any of his colleagues could respond.

Mr. Ford

I will take the first part and will then leave my political philosophy colleague, Stephen Farry, to deal with the issues of liberal democracy.

Bear in mind that there will be another questioner.

Mr. Ford

When I was general secretary, I had the awkward questions dumped on me too.

Mr. Farry will have an answer for that.

Mr. Ford

The serious point in Senator O'Toole's question was the issue about whether representation without election was not giving in to certain forces. It is not; it recognises the principle of consent. The practical issues and difficulties with Unionists are only secondary to what the message of talking about direct or indirect election into the Seanad from Northern Ireland constitutes because of what we perceive as a very delicate set of balances within the Agreement and the need to maintain those. That is why the issue of graduates from Trinity - obviously and most particularly - and also the NUI is not in the same league because those who have spent time studying in Dublin who merely get a university ballot paper do not see that as being in the same league as making direct representation from within Northern Ireland. The fundamental point is that the principle of consent is seen as producing that division.

I said in our submission that we were open to looking at wider and different constitutional settlements, but one of the problems with the Agreement is that it presents us with an either-or option. Either we proceed with Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom acting under the Agreement with the various North-South and east-west bodies or else Northern Ireland becomes part of a united Ireland. A move towards any form of direct representation in either House of the Oireachtas would say that in effect is what is being done, and some people may be trying to cloud that particular point. It is not just that Unionists would not nominate. It is a wider issue about the principle of consent.

Senator O'Toole also raised a fairly interesting point about the issue of nominations for the vocational panels. It was not something I had considered in any great detail but it seems to me that there is a difference between two of the examples he cited. If one wishes to include the CBI in Northern Ireland as well as IBEC as an appropriate nominating body, I see no problem with that. If a district council, a statutory body in Northern Ireland, is included, I think this would be one step too far. I will leave Mr. Farry to talk about the other part of the Senator's question.

Mr. Farry

On the first point, the distinction we seek to make is between providing a mechanism for Northern voices to be heard in the Seanad and creating a mechanism whereby Northern Ireland is represented in the Seanad. We would lean very much towards the former. Ideally we would not want power vested in one office to make nominations. We are well used to that with the House of Lords and the Prime Minister's premises. We think, if an election takes place in Northern Ireland at the same time as elections to other bodies to Westminster, we are essentially moving towards a situation of joint sovereignty as opposed to Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. We are not necessarily opposed to discussions about the emergence of those wider type of arrangements, but they have to be done in a very open and transparent way and we need a lot more debate than we have had so far.

The issue of emigrants is very much a secondary one for us. The Northern angle is the main point we want to make to the sub-committee today. The point about liberal democracy and ethnic democracy is that they are essentially academic models of polls and in practice most nation states tend to operate somewhere in between. There are different ways in which the issues are dealt with. In the United States, as far as we are aware, the right to vote is limited to residency and people living outside the United States must maintain their essential domestic residency at the same time. Other states the Senator mentioned do things a little differently. Our concern is to avoid something that becomes open-ended and the Irish diaspora is very broad. If everyone in that disapora was included, their votes could potentially overwhelm those actually resident within the State. We are seeking some way in which the right to vote as an emigrant is defined. It is for the sub-committee to determine how that is formed.

I thank the Alliance Party for its submission. It has come out against direct elections in Northern Ireland to this body and against elected members of local government, Assembly Members and others determining who should represent people in Northern Ireland here in the South. It has leaned towards having Northern voices and Mr. Farrys distinction is very useful for us in terms of getting a clear idea of what he wants in terms of the final outcome of this.

A suggestion has been around the House for the last few months that a Taoiseach might, in the future, ask the Northern parties to nominate a representative from their parties to become a Senator for four or five years. If that suggestion grew legs and was implemented would the Alliance Party, in those circumstances, make a nomination?

Mr. Ford

I am being asked to give a formal answer to a hypothetical question in front of witnesses when the party executive has not discussed this.

There is no point in appealing to the Chairman.

Mr. Ford

As I generally do on these occasions, I make my objections and then attempt to answer as honestly as possible. I think it most unlikely that the Alliance Party would not respond positively to such a suggestion.

Most unlikely that it would not?

Mr. Ford

Yes.

Mr. Farry

That is a "Yes".

Mr. Ford

I cannot say "Yes" straight out, but would have thought the whole tenor of our participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, for example, in both its past and current guises, is an indication of our willingness to be involved in that level of North-South co-operation. The dangers for us in any suggestion of nomination depending upon party approval is that one would then, I presume, get three nominees from the the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin willing to accept. Does one then go to the wider community to get people who are perceived as bringing a Unionist viewpoint——

Let us be clear about this. The existing situation is as follows: if a Taoiseach decides that a Northern voice from, say, the Alliance Party - a well-known Alliance Party member - was to be appointed to this House, he or she would appoint that person automatically. That person may require approval from the party executive, though I am not sure. Is that situation easier for the Alliance Party rather than formally asking the party itself to produce a name? That is the question. Which is easier for the Alliance Party?

Mr. Ford

I do not think it makes any difference to us but it clearly is a big difference for Unionists, in that one may get people who are widely perceived as Unionists who would be willing to accept a nomination. I named three of them earlier. To get anybody formally nominated by any party with a "U" in its title would be impossible, I suspect, for a period of years.

Mr. Ford mentioned John Robb, Sam McAughtry - with whom I shared an office in my first term in the Seanad - and Gordon Wilson, three very eminent Northern voices, to take Mr. Farrys analogy further. What effect if any did those three eminent Senators have in the North in terms of the popular perception of the Seanad? They were people with liberal Unionist credentials making presentations to which people down here would listen. Did it have any impact in terms of wider public opinion in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ford

I suspect it had relatively little impact in Northern Ireland but that is not actually the question. The question is that of the impact they had on the working of the Seanad.

It was significant.

We would all agree it was significant.

Mr. Leonard

To carry on from what David was saying, the important thing here is for the sub-committee to determine what it wants to achieve with Northern representation or, alternatively, to look at these constitutional arrangements. If the emphasis is on why we are in favour of Northern voices, it is because we would prefer to see the Senate hearing voices from the North for a wider discussion instead of just getting into the constitutional mangle of direct representation from the North and so on. That is a question for the sub-committee.

This is clearer and more understandable. I am much clearer in this discussion on the distinction between Northern voices and Northern representation. As a final question, can this be developed further? How can this happen? I deliberately gave the example of the CBI and a local authority because they are from different backgrounds. We can understand from where the CBI would come and the statutory roots of the local authority. Could other community-type groups come forward? Is there a place for civic society in this? Could the voices of Northern civic society be the way through? What is the delegation's view of this?

Mr. Ford

In a sense I suggested that civic society is all that will be available to represent "lower case" unionism for the foreseeable future and clearly there is a need to build that. One lesson which seems to come through strongly over the past few years is how strongly those links are being developed by groups like the CBI with IBEC and by the UFU with the Irish Farmers Association. There is constant strengthening of those links. We are seeking to assist in getting some of those informal Northern views into the workings of the Seanad without clouding the constitutional position.

I thank the delegation for coming and giving us a very lively and thought-provoking session. To give a formal answer to one of the delegation's questions, I was not a Senator with John Robb, Gordon Wilson or Sam McAughtry. However, they made a significant impression in the Seanad and made great contributions to many debates through their open views on life. We are very appreciative of their contribution to the Seanad. We will reflect on the points expressed by the delegation which will find an echo in our final report.

We all got to know where Tiger Bay was.

Mr. Ford

Thank you for this opportunity and for your good wishes, Chairman.

The witnesses withdrew.

Top
Share