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

Vol. 1 No. 1

Presentation by the Taoiseach.

Chairman

The Taoiseach is welcome, although there is no need for me to say that as each one of us strongly believes it. Senator Brian Hayes who is also part of our team expects a family event to occur at any minute and must be gone to it. We are pleased the Taoiseach could come to this meeting of the sub-committee. He made an interesting submission to the all-party committee on Seanad reform and we were keen for him to give us his views in person. Following his presentation members of the sub-committee can put questions to him.

We have had an interesting meeting with representatives of the Northern parties and Deputy John Bruton. We had a full morning and we are looking forward to four days of the same. The Taoiseach is very welcome.

The Taoiseach

Thank you, Chairman. I have had an opportunity in Dáil and Seanad committees over a long number of years to have an input into some of the institutional issues of reform. In 1996 when Leader of the Opposition, I was a member of a small group representing my party and put forward views to a constitutional committee which led later to a report by a committee chaired by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and later again to a report of a committee chaired by then Deputy Brian Lenihan which examined Seanad reform.

From my perspective, Seanad reform has been an issue with which I have been dealing in one form or another for eight or nine years. For practically all the period I have been a Member of the other House there has been an ongoing debate on Seanad reform and reforms that should be made to modernise and move forward the work of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is in that context that I put forward my views.

I have not included the issue of Northern Ireland in the notes I want to present to the sub-committee because while I have views, they are part of a wider submission that has already been made. I was a party to that submission in the previous Dáil. All that is contained in that submission is my view. I was a member of a consensus group which worked to bring that consideration to a conclusion. I do not want to open up any other view by giving any alternative view. The all-party view of that group - with which I had the job of co-ordinating and working - that the role Northern Ireland can play in the Seanad will be useful is and remains my view. I am not sure when the Fianna Fáil Party will make its submission. It will probably be later in the week.

Chairman

Yes.

The Taoiseach

It will also have some remarks to make on Northern Ireland, to which I subscribe. They are not in conflict with the view of the other group, but they flesh out some of the detail which I hope will be useful to the work of the sub-committee.

I thank the Chairman and other members of the sub-committee for this opportunity to say a few words on Seanad reform. It is an important task. The work the sub-committee is endeavouring to do relates to the composition of Parliament, an institution that is the cornerstone of every democratic state. A key question the sub-committee will address is whether a bicameral system or a unicameral system is best suited to the circumstances under which we operate in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am aware that the sub-committee has received many submissions on this and related issues. While I do not wish to anticipate those or any of the sub-committee's ultimate findings, I merely wish to add to the points I made that I venture a personal conviction that there is a constructive role for a second Chamber, particularly one which stands some distance apart from the cut and thrust which prevails in the partisan atmosphere of the Lower House. I have been on record for three decades as saying I am opposed to any concept of the abolition of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. I will not expand on anything I have said previously, but believe the starting position is that there has to be two Houses of the Oireachtas.

The 1937 Constitution model for the Seanad is based on a vocational system. As we all know, it was intended to endow the political process with an extended range of expertise and knowledge. That was President de Valera's thinking behind the system. There is a widely held view now that after 60 years we need to re-evaluate how this model has evolved in practice and whether there is a need for a fundamental overhaul to enable the Seanad, and Parliament as a whole, to respond more effectively to today's challenges.

In addition to examining issues relating to the composition of the Seanad, the sub-committee will also consider the most appropriate role and function of the Seanad for the future. I have already made a submission to the sub-committee on two areas of special interest to my Department. They relate to the elected Northern representatives, which I mentioned, and what role a reconstituted Seanad could play in our efforts to bridge the democratic deficit which developed regarding European Union issues in the Northern Ireland, EU and international sections in my Department and my remit as an officeholder. The strong view of my Department, as distinct from my personal view, with which I agree, is that the Seanad can play a fundamental role in both of these important areas. When we consider EU issues both internationally and domestically, we realise that the EU dimension of the democratic deficit will grow rather than diminish in the future. That is an important point for the sub-committee to take into account. Just because issues do not get world headlines does not mean the Houses of Parliament should not discuss them. We should not link what is in the media with what is important. These are very important issues and we must deal with them in the Houses of Parliament.

It is worth noting that there has been a quantum shift in the role of Parliament in the period since the State was created. The sub-committee has been asked to look at an institution of the State which started at one period in time and has been in existence for many years. While its responsibility for making laws continues to be as important as ever, there is an increasing emphasis on the oversight role. The Houses of Parliament, particularly through an enhanced committee system, have a greater framework of accountability within which issues and policies of the Administration are subject to public scrutiny. This has been a healthy development.

Another significant development is the establishment of the new Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. It is amazing how that has been put in place with little or no discussion. If we asked the first 100 people we met on the street about it, I would be amazed if one knew about it. Perhaps I am wrong. The legislation to establish the commission has been enacted. The commission will underline in a significant way the independence of the Houses. It will be different from what it has been in the past. The commission will be provided with the resources to sustain the administrative machinery of Parliament for years without having to go to the Minister for Finance and the Government. That is different from what it was at the foundation of the State. It is only logical in the context of the developments I mentioned to enhance the role of Parliament that the sub-committee should now set about the task of drawing up a blueprint for a modern Seanad.

Our Constitution has served us well for 70 years. I have been involved in all the reports of the constitutional committee for the past six years in Government and for the two and a half years when I was Leader of the Opposition. I have been involved in all the work since the beginning of 1995. I played a full part in Deputy John Bruton's constitutional commission in 1996, together with David Byrne, now the Commissioner. I worked closely with the Government at the time and dealt with all the reports. I learned as I went along that it was not simple to implement many of the ideas I had, given the legal complexities, etc.

The Constitution and the way it has evolved, although there have not been many amendments, shows it is a living and breathing document. An enormous body of constitutional jurisprudence has developed in the decades since the 1937 Constitution was adopted. Any fundamental change in the character of a State institution set up pursuant to the Constitution needs to be approached with great care. That is the enormous responsibility of the sub-committee. The nature of the functions to be conferred on a newly constituted Upper Chamber must of necessity have regard to the impact those changes will have on the existing constitutional system.

The constitutional system is based on checks and balances between the State institutions of which it is part. One cannot do one thing in isolation as one must be careful of the checks and balances. That is not easy. I do not want to be misunderstood or for people to think I do not want major change. I only make the point because one must watch the bigger picture and be careful of the checks and balances. The sub-committee should be as radical as it needs to be in its deliberations. I do not believe a solution must fit neatly within the existing framework of checks and balances, but rather it must have regard to how it impacts on those and compensates appropriately. I am not saying something should not be done because there are checks and balances.

All the earlier studies will be of great interest to the sub-committee in its work. I mentioned the two fine reports by Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Brian Lenihan on which a huge amount of work was done and which were published in the past seven or eight years. They will be beneficial to the work of the sub-committee. I know the sub-committee's deliberations will be informed by our shared concern to create and nurture healthy institutions of State which will continue to serve the people from whom all legislative, executive and judicial powers derive under God. That is the constitutional position.

I take this opportunity to offer further assurances of my full support for the work of the sub-committee. The Government will give full and detailed consideration to any recommendations made. It is my fervent wish that the process now in hand will lead to broad consensus on the reforms needed and that we will be able to get all-party agreement to proceed with any recommendations. I wrote to the party leaders last March proposing that when the recommendations were to hand, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would chair a group of representatives of the parties with a view to furthering the recommendations, including by way of referendum, if necessary. I said that because if the report comes back to Government for one reason or another, it will probably not go anywhere. The only way to bring it forward is for a committee of the parties to do it. It is the only way we will get change.

I cite the example of an honours system. There have been approximately eight attempts since the foundation of the State to introduce an honours system in this country, but they have always run into the sand. I am not talking about replicating the system in any other country. Irish people who achieve something significant in their walk of life must go to other jurisdictions to get their awards. That is wrong. An awards system should not be based on a system of monarchy or anything else. It is only an awards system. The reason it has not worked - I have failed on one occasion to get the parties to engage in this - is that it has not been done on an all-party basis. My suggestion is that once the sub-committee has finished its work, we should set up a committee of all the parties under the chairmanship of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, currently Deputy Cullen, to further its work.

I welcome the public consultations in which the sub-committee is engaged. I acknowledge the time and effort the individual members are giving to the process when they could be elsewhere. I look forward to the report and the recommendations on the fundamental structures and functions of the Seanad. I wish everyone well, particularly during the public hearings. I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to make some remarks.

Chairman

I thank the Taoiseach. I know he would like to hear the questions and views of our members. I call Senator Brian Hayes.

Senator B. Hayes

I thank the Taoiseach for his presentation and submission on 30 June. He has had two opportunities to make appointments under the Constitution for the Taoiseach's 11 nominees. Can he give evidence to the sub-committee on the pressures brought to bear on his office - this is the case, I presume, for all Taoisigh - in relation to the 11 nominees? For instance, is it the case that persons outside the political system from many organisations, people who have made a contribution to society, suggest names to him to be appointed? Will he explain the processes involved before decisions are made? This is a party political House, yet there has been a fair degree of criticism of the appointments made by all Taoisigh over a period of time as to whether they have represented the broad spectrum of society. I would be grateful if the Taoiseach would comment on this.

I note that some years ago the Taoiseach welcomed the progress made on the report from the all-party committee which had come to a view on the formalising of Northern voices, or Northern Senators, here. We heard evidence from some of the Northern Ireland political parties. Following on from this, is the Taoiseach of the opinion that getting a cross-section of Northern voices in the Seanad will require direct election or, alternatively, that the current Taoiseach's 11 nominees could be appointed through mutual discussion with the parties involved?

The Taoiseach

In reply to the Senator's second question, as I said, I have signed up to two positions but they are not contradictory. One is outlined in the documents agreed last year by all the parties in the House that there should be Northern representation in the Seanad. I agree. How this could be done is fleshed out further in the Fianna Fáil document which will be brought forward. The Fianna Fáil Party has looked at what we have signed up to. We said we had not worked out how it should be done. We have expressed a view with which I agreed and to which I subscribe but it is only one way by which it could be done. While there must be Northern representation, I do not think it has to be done by way of an election system.

In reply to the Senator's first question on the formation of the Seanad, whatever about the pressures brought to bear in the lobbies, most Taoisigh who after a general election must go straight into the election of the Seanad and the formation of their 11 nominees, probably wish by the time they get to the end that there never were 11 nominees. I have had two opportunities to do so and have probably been close to at least two other leaders who also had to go through the process. Therefore, I have a fair degree of knowledge.

What is of most importance is the reason the system is in place. It is in place to make sure there is an in-built majority for the Government of the day in the Upper House. That was the logic. There are, definitely, the great and the good who believe they could make a huge contribution to the Seanad. They say how independent-minded they would be. Unfortunately, this would not subscribe to the reason for having the 11 nominees. Most of the Taoiseach's nominees have to play their part in making sure there is an in-built majority. That is the concept or idea behind it. Therefore, it is not possible for a Taoiseach, even if he or she so desired, to go out and pick 11 brilliant individuals who are apolitical.

Senator B. Hayes

Would the Taoiseach's job be made any easier if there were fixed categories and he had to select two nominees from business, two from the farming organisations and two from wherever else? Would this help him?

Senator O’Toole

No, it would not.

The Taoiseach

The job could be made easier but one would still, by and large, pick members of the Government parties. While one has to have such members, one will look for people with political experience. It is my experience that the people with the best political experience are those who have served their time in the political process in one form or another. There are those in wider society who think they could come and tell those involved in the political system how they should do things. With a few notable exceptions, I have not seen such people in the House during the years. Groups which come to the Houses find the hours we work and the lives we live extraordinary. No matter how high up people are in the great commercial world of business or education, they do not work the hours politicians do. They almost become disorientated having to sit late at night. The political system, therefore, is a good one from which to pick. I would defend the system in place for that reason. Clearly, there is pressure, given the enormous number involved. I often think we should look on this as a plus, namely, the number who want to be Members of the Upper House. By and large, they are good people from different walks of life.

Senator O’Toole

I thank the Taoiseach for his very interesting contribution. I agree completely with his point about a grown up democracy being able to pay tribute to citizens who have made a contribution. We can do this without creating a titled nobility.

I will not come back in six months' and say the Taoiseach said something but the sub-committee would appreciate his personal view on issues. Considering everything we have heard, nobody is standing up to make the case for county councillors or a university franchise but a case is being made for other matters. When all the reports come before Government, decisions will have to be taken which will take everything into consideration. The reality is that county councillors have made a huge contribution. I can say clearly as a non-party Member that I have never depended on them for a vote.

There is a huge demand for a universal franchise; to give ordinary people, in whatever way, a vote. This is coming through no matter what way we we talk about it. If one was to ask what everybody said and whether we could put it all together, one would see about 22 or 23 people elected by county councillors under the current system and the same number being elected under a list system of universal franchise or a franchise by the members of the nominating bodies but it would be ordinary people voting. That would bring the number up to the high forties or fifties. One would still have the Taoiseach's 11 nominees and a call for a university franchise which would extend to every university, not the current few. There would also be a demand for three emigrant representatives and probably six from Northern Ireland. If one added them all together, one would finish up with a Seanad of about 73 or 74 Members. A real case has also been made for former Taoisigh or Tánaistí to be made ex officio Members of the Seanad for a period of years if they are not Members of the Lower House. One would then finish up with a Seanad of 75 Members. That would probably deal with all of the issues which have been raised. While not satisfying anybody completely, it would keep the system of the past and look to a new future. How would the Taoiseach react to that kind of system about which we will talk some time in the future?

The Taoiseach

I have stated the system should be reformed. There have been many reports and views expressed by various political parties. It has been a live issue which is good. Having stated that, there must be two Houses and Northern representation, on which my views, already reflected in the Government document, will be reflected in the Fianna Fáil document. The only conclusion then to which one can come is that there must be more Members. If asked if I would be shocked and horrified at a larger Seanad, I would say "no" because I do not see how one could square the circle otherwise.

The difficulty for the sub-committee and the other committees which have looked at this is that it is not easy when one is working with a vocational system drawn up in 1937 to say, in a new millennium, what a vocational panel is. That is tricky because there are so many new categories. It is like the system under which the Lord Mayor of Dublin was elected a few hundred years ago. Goldsmiths had more votes than silversmiths. That is how they elected the entire city council. As time passes, one changes the system but still ends up with persons from various panels. The sub-committee will be obliged to see how the system can be changed.

If Senator O'Toole was to ask me about it, I might state the populist way might be to allow the public at large to have a substantial say in Seanad elections. This matter can be argued in two ways. For example, county councillors and the vocational panels represent many and must decide who to nominate to run for election to the House. It is a detailed process. I am not too sure that this system is completely outdated; it still has certain merits, but it probably needs to be updated and restructured. If we were to run a Seanad election alongside a Dáil election, would it not just become totally lost and lose relevance?

Senator O’Toole

They would not need to be held at the same time.

The Taoiseach

No, they would not. A Seanad election might be held shortly after a Dáil election or at mid-term. I am not saying the turnout would not be high in such an election but we must take into account the enormous resources required to ensure a 60% plus turnout at a general election. To do it separately would not be very successful.

While the current system is dated, some of the principles on which it is based have merit. It is a question of being able to carry forward what was envisaged for those principles when they were put in place into the situation that exists today, which is clearly different. I contend that a vocational panel in Ireland in 1937 would have been slightly different from the type in place in 2003.

Senator Ryan

I thank the Taoiseach for his submission and giving of his time. I realise how pressurised is the position he holds. Therefore, it is generous of him to devote 45 minutes of his time to coming before us. I also thank him for what seems to be a clear commitment on his part to take seriously what emerges in the sub-committee's report. Like Senator O'Toole, I will not hold the Taoiseach to any of his personal opinions on matters of Seanad reform. However, the commitment to devote time to dealing with the outcome is one to which we will all hold him because we want to engage in dialogue.

There are a number of issues which arise. One that runs through many of the documents we have received is the question of gender balancing, either by quota or aspiration. Does the Taoiseach have any views regarding an institutional arrangement in a second House which would not just deal with gender but also with the various groups in society which are marginalised or under-represented in our political system? How does he feel about such matters?

The Taoiseach

I feel strongly about them. As stated in my submission, the vocational system is a good basis but it must relate to the current position. I discussed this matter in July with a number of people in my Department and the point was made that consideration should be given to social partnership in terms of where it began 16 or 17 years ago and with regard to the number of organisations which have developed in the interim. For example, in the earlier part of my political career, there were hardly any organised committees in Ireland to deal with matters relating to the aged. Now, however, if one put them in the NGO category - I accept that they would not like this to happen - groups throughout Europe representing the aged are some of the strongest in existence. Such groups are really only beginning to develop here to the same extent. I refer to the Senior Citizens Parliament, headed by Michael O'Halloran, and other groups. The structure in place is huge. The groups to which I refer would not have been on the list for social partnership ten years ago and are not the only ones. For example, everyone is conscious of the strength of the groups representing people with disabilities.

In 1936, if Mr. de Valera had been faced with the situation with which we are faced today, would he haved state certain groups would not have a say? I do not believe so. If one accepts that the vocational system is good and has stood the test of time and reviews it, one must ask what those who developed the system in the first instance would do in the current situation. There are many groups which they would consider in a different light. There might be other groups which may have been included in that era - if one considers GDP in 1936, one can identify them - one could ask if they still hold the same position in society. These are difficult issues with which to deal.

As far as the gender balance issue is concerned, I am not in favour of quotas or distinctions because I do not believe people need them. Such quotas or distinctions are condescending in nature. I am all in favour of promoting gender equality within the political system. However, in all the countries where there is a far better gender balance than that which obtains here, a quota system was not needed to achieve them. When one speaks to people from the countries in question about quota systems, they look at one and appear to think one is from another society entirely. I do not agree with quotas.

Senator Dardis

I thank the Taoiseach for attending and giving of his time. It is obvious that he has thought about this matter in some depth, which is good.

I wish return to a point to which Senator Brian Hayes referred, namely, the need for an in-built Government majority. There is a sort of double-lock in the sense that the powers are quite limited in terms of the capacity to block legislation for the same type of reason, otherwise there would be paralysis in the Government. However, if there is an in-built majority and a double-lock, it seems there is a powerful mechanism in place - it may even be overly powerful - in terms of the degree to which the Seanad can influence legislation. The Taoiseach might comment on this matter.

In the one instance where a change of Government took place without a general election, the Taoiseach's 11 remained in place and we were left with a minority Seanad which worked very well. The latter was probably a result of the relationship between the former Leader, Mr. Maurice Manning, and the then Senator Wright. Could a case be made that, in the event of a change of Government without a general election, the Taoiseach's 11 nominees should have to stand down and that the incoming Taoiseach would have the right to nominate replacements?

My final point relates to the issue of European affairs, with which the Taoiseach dealt in his submission. I am a member of the sub-committee which deals with European legislation. A proposition has been brought forward that the Seanad could deal with such legislation. My view is that some of the material involved is so dry and arcane that it would not interest Members and that no one would be prepared to deal with it. On the wider matter of dealing with the bigger policy issues at European level and looking at the way forward, about which he made some suggestions, how would the Taoiseach see the relationship between Seanad and the Joint Committee on European Affairs developing? It seems there would be potential for a certain degree of conflict in that regard.

The Taoiseach

On the point relating to the mid-term change of Government without an election, I believe that while that was included, no one ever quite knew how it would work out if it happened. It was, therefore, never worked out in detail. If the Senator recalls, there was a debate about the position of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at the time and the new Government - I understand the reason it did so - stated it was effectively a new Dáil and that it could get rid of the existing Leas-Cheann Comhairle. However, it was then discovered that it was not a new Dáil but one of there being a new Government and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle could not be removed. The same applies to the Seanad, unless there is legal certainty regarding the position. At present, there is not such certainty. Existing arrangements would have to be changed totally in respect of the entire Oireachtas in order to allow a new Taoiseach to appoint new nominees in such circumstances.

On European legislation, the Senator is absolutely correct. An enormous amount is heavy and detailed but I have a separation in mind. We are in a new position in Europe and there must be consultation with Parliament. Future developments will be discussed at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs or elsewhere. However, with regard to issues of major importance, experts on the committee represent their parties and, whether they are members of Government or Opposition parties or Independents, they play their role. The more detailed European issues of a fundamental nature - there are always several - must be aired somewhere in a more meaningful way than at present. Deputy Gay Mitchell is working hard to do this. His committee is working well but it deals with a great volume of business.

European business must be dealt with somewhere and the Seanad is an ideal place to at least debate policy issues. The European Union will have a bigger remit and will deal with more issues. On the basis of subsidiarity and everything else, it is better that such issues are dealt with on the floor of a House. The Seanad would be an ideal place to do this without getting into the heavy stuff. That would serve the Houses of the Oireachtas well.

If one examines what is happening in the world and on the European agenda, practically everything related to business, finance, health and safety law, workers' rights, agriculture and standards for competitiveness and for consumers emanates in the European domain in one form or another. When Ireland takes up the Presidency, we will deal with 28 member states, comprising the current 15 member states, plus ten and an additional three - Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. The last time Ireland held the Presidency eight years ago, there was only 40% of the volume of the business being done now.

The major part of my preparations for the Presidency next year will not only relate to the Presidency, the European Council, the Lisbon agenda and all those issues, and dealing with the social partners in Europe, but also the five major summits involving the European Union - the EU-Canadian summit, the EU-US summit, the EU-Carribean-Latin America summit, EU-Russia summit and the dealings with Africa. All these meetings happen during every Presidency but, with the greatest of respect to everyone, where is that being formalised within the Houses of the Oireachtas? While Ireland is small, if a decision had been reached at the World Trade Organisation talks this week, it might have affected us more than any legislative decision taken in Parliament over the next six months.

Somebody could ask what will happen at the meeting I will co-chair with President Fox at the EU-Caribbean and Latin America summit. The main item is agriculture. The agenda may not seem to be relevant all the time but someone has to deal with it because it is not being dealt with. If we are to address the democratic deficit and understand what is happening in the world, the European agenda must be dealt with in the Houses of the Oireachtas and I contend the Seanad could play a good role in this.

Senator Dardis

It has been suggested to us that the Taoiseach could come before the Seanad in advance of European Council meetings to discuss these issues. He has explained the time constraints that apply but what is his reaction to this?

The Taoiseach

I do not have a difficulty with it. My concern is that our Presidency will be the last of its kind, which is a great honour but the agenda will not cease. It will be taken on by the President of the Commission, the President of the European Parliament, the new President of the European Council and the new Foreign Affairs Minister for Europe. All the work will still have to be done but who will watch and change it? If one wants, as I do, to support the agenda as it evolves, this has to be dealt with somewhere. That is the road Ireland should travel for the next 50 years, not to mind the next year. The traditional Presidency will be gone by this time next year no matter what happens. Where then is the link and the accountability? Is it good enough to have all these developments on the world stage that directly and indirectly affect Ireland, but to only have them dealt with by a specialist committee comprising a handful of people? I contend that is not the way to proceed and certainly not the way to get the people to sign up to European treaties.

We saw what happened in Sweden and to us during the first referendum on the Nice treaty. These issues could be dealt with this way and then there would be more trust in the European agenda. Future decisions might be left to the Parliament. As time passes, it will not be possible to ask the people to vote for a treaty similar to Maastricht. Parliament will ultimately have to deal with such a treaty, as is the case in other countries, and will have to explain the issues as we go forward.

Within a decade there will be between 33 and 40 member states in the Union and a premiership of six blocs in the world, including Africa, the Carribean and Latin America, Russia and the United States. That is the way the world will evolve. Therefore, any fundamental review of where we are going must take account of this and build for it. To do otherwise would not plan properly for the future.

Chairman

The Taoiseach has given us 45 minutes of his time and we are greatly assured by the way he studied and reflected on what he would say and the easy way in which he replied to us because he has a real knowledge of his subject. We are appreciative of his visit and will reflect his views in our final report. I thank the Taoiseach.

The witness withdrew.