I welcome Senator John Minihan and Mr. John Higgins, general secretary of the Progressive Democrats. We hope Senator Minihan's seating on that side of the Chamber is not a portent of the future.
Presentation by the Progressive Democrats.
Witnesses: Senator John Minihan and Mr. John Higgins.
The Chairman might hope that.
It is a nice view. I envy Senator Hayes.
You are both welcome. I thank you for your submission and attending. While members of the sub-committee enjoy absolute privilege, as does Senator Minihan, Mr. Higgins only has qualified privilege. I do not fully understand what this means but I am sure Senator Minihan does. The questioners will be Senators O'Toole and Brian Hayes.
We welcome the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. We have outlined the details of our party position in our proposal. I do not propose to go through it in full but to address some of the key points. We believe reform of the Seanad is a welcome opportunity for all political parties and citizens to fully participate in bringing forth a more meaningful Seanad and address some of the frequently heard criticisms.
A modern Seanad should be effective, relevant and democratically-based. On its composition, we believe the House should remain a Senate of 60 seats with the possibility of adding two ex-officio Members. Some 49 seats should be filled by a full popular election for a fixed term which should coincide with the European and local elections. We propose such an election be based on a national list system which would necessitate the determination of the university and other vocational panels.
Without being overly prescriptive we wish to see sectors such as disability, Northern Ireland, the arts, education, agriculture and, most importantly, the voluntary and community pillar included by way of election or nomination by the Taoiseach. In this context, we consider it appropriate for the Taoiseach to retain the right to nominate 11 Members following each general election. The subtle difference is that the nominees by the Taoiseach would take their places following each election whereas the popular election for the 49 seats would coincide on a fixed term basis with European and local elections. One could have a situation whereby 11 Members of the Seanad would change mid-term if a general election was held.
Vacancies arising following the death or resignation of an elected Senator should be filled by the next person on the list, thereby relieving the obligation for a by-election. On ex-officio Members of the Seanad, we propose consideration be given to making previous Taoisigh and holders of the office of Tánaiste who are no longer Members of the Dáil ex-officio Members of the Seanad. This would not apply to all former Taoisigh and holders of the office of Tanaiste but to those who held such posts in the immediate past who are no longer Members of the Dáil. This would heighten the status of the Seanad and provide Government experience for it with two principal former members of Government participating towards the end of their political careers as Members of Seanad Éireann.
On equality, given the low level of female participation, we hope parties would adopt a quota requiring an equal number of male and female nominees to the various lists. On the functions of the Seanad, we propose the retention of Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution which provide that money Bills cannot be amended by the Seanad. However, other legislation should continue to be dealt with in accordance with Articles 23 and 24. We should also encourage the initiation of legislation in the Seanad. I know that is very much the case in the current Seanad and we would like to see it continue.
We believe annual reports of State agencies laid before the Houses should be subject to review by the Seanad with the option of referring them to various Oireachtas committees should it be deemed necessary. We should have a role in reviewing public policy which should be represented at social partnership talks. There is a clear role - Senator O'Toole has mentioned this - for participation by Members of this House in the social partnership talks. Such participation could be effective and would also lead to direct political involvement.
The area of European affairs has increased dramatically in recent years. European legislation now comes before the Seanad on a regular basis. We would like to see a greater input from MEPs and Commissioners and the possibility of their playing an active role in addressing the House and dealing with legislation on European issues should be encouraged and explored. Mindful of the democratic deficit in European affairs, we propose the Taoiseach should attend the Seanad in advance of Intergovernmental Conferences to outline the parameters of policy matters to be discussed. I know the Taoiseach visited the House recently to discuss the current position on Northern Ireland but we would like him to attend on a statutory basis in advance of Intergovernmental Conferences.
The Seanad should play a greater role in monitoring European legislation to ensure the principles of subsidiarity are adhered to. There were many distinguished visitors to this House during the last session, something welcomed by my party. We would like to see many more so as to stimulate debate on a wide range of issues. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges decides who we should invite but we would like to encourage greater debate.
The issue of media coverage has been referred to. We would like to explore this issue to try to bring to the public the wide and varying debates which take place in this House.
I welcome Senator Minihan and Mr. Higgins. I am aware that Mr. Higgins and I share some concerns about the west. It appears that a national list system would effectively mean total representation from the east coast given the small population in the west. Would it not provide, without some geographical base, a very biased national list system? How could one ensure representation throughout the whole country? Current population statistics indicate that normal casting of votes on this basis would ensure total representation from one side of the country only. Perhaps Senator Minihan might give us his views on this.
While I am interested in what Senator Minihan said about the equality quota, I am not sure I understand how it would work. He said such an equality quota should take precedence over any type of meritocracy, thereby ensuring people would be selected on the basis of gender rather than merit. Perhaps he will outline his views on this as well as his party's position on emigrants.
Senator O'Toole made a valid point in relation to the population on the east coast versus that on the west coast. I do not disagree with him, given the census figures. The purpose of the list system would be to bring a new dynamic to Seanad Éireann elections. While I would like to examine constituency based figures to see if they reflect what the Senator said, such an examination would broaden the list system, thereby ensuring the country as a whole would be dealt with. However, we would not like to see the system operate on a full constituency basis. Perhaps there would be a need to operate it on a geographical basis as is the case in European elections. The main principle is that of the list system.
With regard to the parties adopting a quota requiring an equal number of men and women, this would apply in the case of the nominations on the various lists. This would not mean that the membership of the House would comprise an equal number of females and males. We ask that those presented for election by parties would be proposed on an equal basis. We have covered the issue of emigrants under Taoiseach's nominees which is in the detail of our presentation.
Thank you, Senator Minihan. I also welcome Mr. Higgins to the Chamber and thank the Progressive Democrats for their submission.
Does the first recommendation from the Progressive Democrats concern the abolition of the Seanad? I know that when the party was first formed in 1987, one of its major planks of policy was the abolition of the Seanad.
God was going to go also.
On the issue of the Seanad, is that still the position of the party?
I am delighted to see Senator Hayes is as political as ever. What is probably more ripe at this time is whether we will have to abolish his party.
The terms of reference are not that great.
The Senator is correct in what he says; the historical facts are there and there is nothing I can say to dispute that, although it happened before I was a member of the party. In the opening remarks of the submission from my party, we comment on Michael Laver's paper which states the primary task is to find a viable and creative role for the Seanad and only in failing to do that should the option of abolition be revisited. We accept and agree with this. That is our position.
I did not mean to be overtly political. I just wanted to know the party's clear preference on abolition in the absence of radical reform and we have established that.
I accept that.
The issue of the national list proposal is interesting. How is it proposed to bring it about? Would it be on the basis of four European election type constituencies or a national list throughout the entire country? How is it proposed to break it down? Is there not a dilemma here? If the university seats, which in effect produce five of the six Independent Members, are abolished, how would an Independent Member get elected? What threshold would be put on the minimum number of votes required to be elected?
It is interesting that the Progressive Democrats brought forward the idea that the elections for Seanad Éireann should take place at the same time as local government and European elections, midway through a Dáil term in effect. Is there not a dilemma that if the Government of the day is unpopular mid-term, it could get a bad result and the majority of Members left in the Seanad would be Opposition Members, thereby frustrating the Government in its work of trying to progress Bills through the House? I know it has been stated in other parts of the proposal that the Progressive Democrats do not believe we should have the right to frustrate the will of the other House but perhaps the Senator will comment on this.
The point is valid. I repeat what I said to Senator O'Toole who raised similar points. Basing the list system on European election-type constituencies would address the problem. In regard to Independent Members, we need only look at Pat Cox. The system is democratic whether one is a member of a political party or puts himself or herself forward as an Independent.
In regard to the elections coinciding with European and local elections, we feel this would give new emphasis and a new dynamic to the Seanad. There is always a risk for the Government of the day. To look at it from the other side, one could say it would be a positive development in that it would keep the Government of the day on its toes. The Government is facing local elections next year. If our proposal was carried through, it would also face Seanad elections. Remember that in-built in our proposals are the Taoiseach's nominees, who would only change after a general election.
Mr. Higgins
The main purpose of what we are trying to do is to bring some excitement back into the political system in regard to a new type of election. This system is used throughout Europe. This mid-term type of shock to a government is an experience which American voters often deal to the American Presidency. It might not be a bad thing in regard to democracy and its operation. The list system would provide for an opportunity to bring more excitement into the political system.
Senator O'Toole made the point that if a geographical base did not exist for a certain number of seats, there could be an imbalance. That can be overcome. I might add that as well as representing an opportunity for retiring taoisigh, it might be one for a couple of retiring general secretaries also.
It is the wrong party for that.
Mr. Higgins
Perhaps that is the reason we want a list system. I was talking to Senator Ryan's former general secretary, Brendan Halligan, recently and he made the point that under the present system any former general secretary who thought he could get himself elected to the Seanad would be on a foolhardy mission. Perhaps that is a good reason for former general secretaries to get together. We would like to see some excitement coming back into the Seanad elections. Our proposal also tries to get people to have a better understanding of the role of the Seanad and to bring the Seanad more into the public domain in regard to its public relations.
Senator Minihan espoused the cause of the quota system quite strongly. I never regarded it as the correct way to do business. If people have ability, their chance will come. Does the quota system not confer a status on people which they might not enjoy and point them out as being there only as part of a quota? I think this is an outdated politically correct way of doing business.
That is a fair point of view with which I do not entirely disagree. However, a balance must be struck, in our opinion, to make up for the deficit of female participation in national politics. Given the great increase——
Not in all parties.
Particularly not in the Progressive Democrats.
I have made that point.
The people concerned were not elected by virtue of a quota system.
Absolutely not. They were elected as a result of their ability.
That is my point.
That point is valid. We constantly hear comments about the role to be played by women. Traditionally, women such as the Chairman were not perhaps as willing to come forward and carve out that career for themselves. In an effort to encourage that participation and to try to get a better gender balance we feel that women may just need the extra push to bring them into the political system.
It appears the lists parties would put forward would be subject to a quota. My understanding earlier was that the lists would comprise people elected by universal franchise and that the list itself would simply concern nominations. The Senator did not go into the detail of the nomination procedure.
May I comment on that?
I understood from the reply to the question raised by Senator Hayes that a person did not need to be nominated by a party to get on the list. Is that correct?
That is the case in regard to Independents. We are specifically talking here about political parties, in an effort to encourage greater participation by women. Obviously, one could not debar anybody, male or female, from seeking election to the Seanad as an Independent.
I am just trying to get a clear picture of how it would work. Will there be a party path for Senators?
A Joe O'Toole party.
I think I can help although I do not want to act as an advocate for the Progressive Democrats in this context. One way of dealing with the issue would be to have a national list drawn up by the parties and Independents - there could be an Independents list also - and when one goes to a polling station, one would vote for the party, not individuals. This leads on to how one organises the constituencies——
They are not named in law.
No. One would be voting for a party. That is the reason the by-election system would not arise. It is like the European election system, whereby one goes to the next name on the list in the event of a vacancy. It would also overcome the difficulty with regard to gender equality, on which I do not particularly disagree with the Chairman's comments. However, it is up to the party to arrange this, rather than the electorate, which is not being asked to vote 50-50. The party would determine the composition of the list, which would lead to balance.
In order to ensure I have a clear picture of the proposal, do I understand correctly that it would operate as follows: if, at the conclusion of an election, on looking at the total valid poll for the whole country, 50% of the electorate had voted for one political party, 30% for another, 10% for a third and the rest for Independents, the result would determine the shape of the Seanad? On the basis of a House of 60 Members, 30 would come from the first of the parties in my example. If Independents secured 15% of the vote, the corresponding representation in the Seanad would also be 15%. Have the Progressive Democrats considered this in terms of a minimum threshold?
Obviously, the threshold would be low. It is open to discussion, but it would be of the order of 3% or 4%.
Surely there is a conflict in that regard? A 3% threshold would be very high. The quota, on the basis of 100%, would be approximately 1.8.
Let it be that.
Mr. Higgins
I witnessed one of those list-type elections in Norway. The list must be published, but there is also an opportunity for voters to change it, in other words, to give a certain indication. I am aware that Michael Laver has suggested this. A certain preference can be expressed in relation to the list which has a bearing on the outcome of the election.
I wish to return to the point in relation to the day on which voting would take place, perhaps at mid-term of a Government's fixed term or whatever. Because there is such concern about voter turnout, this could be a great incentive to try something new and become more excited about coming out to vote on the same day as the European elections, having regard to the difficulty of getting voters out for both local and European elections.
Another advantage of the proposal is that it would establish a disconnection between the Dáil and the Seanad, in terms of the latter being perceived as a nursing or retirement home.
The witnesses brought forward the interesting idea that the most recent former Taoiseach and Tánaiste should be ex officio Members of the House. This theme has also occurred in other presentations. Why were other former taoisigh excluded? I believe there would be a great deal to be gained from people with huge governmental experience being Members of the House. There are, perhaps, five or six former taoisigh alive today and a similar number who have held the position of Tánaiste. Why did the witnesses exclude them?
They are members of the Council of State. We approached the matter on the basis of numbers without intending disrespect to anybody. The most recent former Taoiseach and Tánaiste, provided that they are no longer Members of the Dáil - let us be quite clear on this - would have an added contribution to make to the Seanad, as distinct from involving all former taoisigh and tánaistí.
The numbers would be a consideration.
Yes.
I thank the witnesses for taking the trouble to make a formal submission and their attendance. We appreciated their views of which, I am sure, we will take note in our final report.
The witnesses withdrew.