The all-party sub-committee welcomes the witnesses from The Workers' Party and thanks them for making a detailed submission and attending in person to discuss it. The members of the sub-committee are Senators Dardis, Brian Hayes, Ryan and O'Toole. As each of us has read the witnesses' submission and we have a total of 30 minutes, perhaps the witnesses might synopsise their submission which will give more time for questions. Senators Brian Hayes and O'Toole in the main will ask questions. We look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Presentation by The Workers’ Party.
Witnesses: Mr. Seán Garland and Mr. John Lowry.
Mr. Garland
I thank the Chairman. We appreciate very much the invitation and opportunity to meet the sub-committee. As members will have seen from our submission, our key demand is not reform of Seanad Éireann but its abolition as it is constituted. The creation of an all-inclusive and democratic Seanad is our priority. This is not a case of turkeys voting for Christmas but rather enlightened people ushering in a new era of democracy for all. We are convinced that Senators, past and present, must look to the day when their deliberations and votes are equal to those of Deputies on all issues that come before them. This can only happen when Senators are elected by all the people. Being elected by popular vote, the Seanad would be transformed from being seen as a talking shop and empty vessel to being an institution that the people would see as relevant to their lives. That surely must be the aim of all politicians.
We recognise that, over the years and up to and including today, Seanad Éireann has had many fine, able and courageous men and women as Members but, regrettably, due to the character and limitations imposed on the Seanad, they were and are unable to give the nation all they could, and the nation, in turn, could not derive the maximum benefit from their abilities and talent in Parliament.
That is our brief opening statement. We would welcome questions.
I thank Mr. Garland and Mr. Lowry for their presentation and the submission they sent to the sub-committee. It is very much appreciated. I understand the motivation of The Workers' Party and it is not on its own on this issue. Both Sinn Féin and the Progressive Democrats have stated that their principal first position is one of abolition.
The witnesses stated that, in a reformed Seanad, they believe the votes of Senators should be the same as those of ordinary Dáil Deputies. If the Seanad is placed on a par with the Dáil, would gridlock not be created between both Houses and would there not be a sense of both Houses doing the same job? Is that a fair criticism of the proposal? What is the point of having two assemblies performing the same functions? I put it to the witnesses that this would happen if the proposal were put in place.
I was interested to read in the witnesses' submission that they sought postal voting in Northern Ireland. Would that include all citizens of Northern Ireland or just those who hold an Irish passport? How would they ensure the independence and scrutiny of the postal ballot in Northern Ireland as a direct vote in comparison with other methods in the Republic?
Mr. Garland
Regarding the question about having two equal Houses, we made some inquiries about the situation in the United States between the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are also two Houses in Italy which are elected by popular vote. There is no great conflict between the two Houses in these countries.
Is there not gridlock between the two Assemblies?
Mr. Garland
There is not. The United States, the most powerful country in the world, operates very efficiently in terms of the business of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Italy also has the same system of two Houses. They sometimes have conflicts and problems in coming to a resolution, but they manage to get consensus or a majority voting in favour of what they want and they move on.
Regarding the security of the ballot in Northern Ireland, we cannot go into the nuts and bolts at this stage, but if the idea, concept and principle were accepted, ways could be devised to ensure the security of the ballot. It would be open to all citizens of Northern Ireland to partake in the election. Some may refuse to take part, but it would be open to all.
I thank the witnesses for their opening remarks. I also had in mind the issue Senator Brian Hayes raised of the balance between the Houses, but I will leave that for the time being.
In terms of the witnesses' proposals for the emigrant vote, an issue on which we have heard a great deal about how it might be approached, one of their points about which I would like to hear more is that emigrants would vote in the constituencies of their birth. That is different from the vast majority of contributions. Most feel it would be very difficult. The witnesses did not state how long people would hold their vote. Obviously, it would be for a lifetime.
There is a broad diaspora vote which would be a significant influence on the Seanad. Would it not be more efficient to have an emigrants' constituency based on where emigrants were living at the time of the election? The world could be divided into constituencies for this purpose. Alternatively, there could be an emigrants' constituency from which they would elect representatives rather than having a vote in their old constituency. I know the Italian system has a combination of these where emigrants return to vote in some elections and not in others. In the French system, emigrants vote for people in a constituency. Have the witnesses thought this through?
Mr. Garland
We have not gone into such detail. We say that representation should be given to emigrants and that it should be in the constituency of their birth because it would be easy to relate the constituency to the voter and the voter to the constituency. It would be easy to ascertain that they were genuine voters from the constituency rather than descendants of those who had left.
We heard submissions this morning from political parties in Northern Ireland. The Workers' Party is an all-Ireland party organised on a 32 county basis. If a recommendation was made that all citizens of Northern Ireland should be entitled to vote in Seanad elections, would Unionists participate in that vote? We have heard views from different parties in Northern Ireland. I would be interested to hear the view of the Workers' Party which has a unique perspective on this issue.
Many Unionists would be prepared to participate in such elections. From my experience of knowing people, I imagine that many graduates of the NUI who reside in Northern Ireland, a great many of whom I suspect from personal knowledge would be from Unionist backgrounds, may already be participating in the elections to the Seanad as constituted. In the context of how British-Irish relations, especially relations between North and South, have developed since the Good Friday Agreement, it would be very much in keeping with the recent political developments that we would allow for direct representation for people within Northern Ireland. My experience of Unionists, not just in political life but socially, culturally and economically, is that there is far greater interaction between North and South than there was 15 to 25 years ago. The issue of participation with institutions in the South is not perhaps as much of an ideological bugbear as it was in 1974. Much of this has been clouded by the fact that we still have a degree of political instability. However, if we are looking to the future - the medium and long-term - and things settle down as envisaged under the Good Friday Agreement, directly elected representatives in the Seanad - elected by popular vote within Northern Ireland - is a very feasible and welcome proposition. A growing number would be prepared to participate.
In addition, regarding that form of representation from Northern Ireland, up to now there has been a practice whereby the Taoiseach uses some of his 11 nominations to appoint people from Northern Ireland to the Seanad. The experience and the knowledge——
Has that had much impact in Northern Ireland - the fact that various taoisigh have appointed liberal-minded Unionists and Unionists from a labour background such as Mr. McAughtry and others? Has that had any impact on popular opinion in Northern Ireland about what goes on here?
I think it has had a significant impact. One of the main benefits has been that more and more people in Northern Ireland have been able to dispel many of the myths and prejudices about the South and its institutions. There is far greater acceptance of the different type of society that the South is today and of the progress - socially, politically and otherwise - of North-South relations. The presence of those individuals in the Seanad has been an important feature which has contributed to that greater understanding. It could be increased further if we had more people from Northern Ireland, in the way we have proposed, as Members of the Seanad.
My main question arises from my, and Senator Hayes's, first point. How does the delegation see the two Houses being different, or does it see the Houses being identical apart from having Northern representation in the Seanad, having spoken about the same powers? What would distinguish one House from the other?
The important principle is this - why have a second Chamber at all if it is not going to carry out substantial scrutiny in any way? There may not be much point in being critical of the Government of the day unless a second Chamber is effectively able to do something about that matter. For a second Chamber not to be a talking shop or an advisory body, it must have substantial powers, maybe to initiate or block legislation if it deems that is necessary. This ought not to be insurmountable - there are other examples from around the world where democracies with two Chambers exist.
I agree absolutely but that was not really my point. Almost every aspect of Irish life is included somewhere in the vocational system among the agricultural, educational, cultural or other areas. If the current vocational system was used properly, one could devise a scheme where every single person on the island, including university graduates, had a vote. One would have a universal franchise but it would not be on a geographical basis representing areas. Everyone could be represented. I am not seeking the delegation's view on this but it is a way in which a different complexion could be given to the Chamber. I do not want to misunderstand the delegation's views, as we need a clear idea of what its members are saying. However, are they saying they would have the two Houses elected on exactly the same basis except that Northern Ireland would be included in this House? Is that a fair representation of the delegation's position?
It is, yes.
I thank the delegation, which has been extremely clear in its views. Everyone appreciates that Mr. Lowry and Mr. Garland came and their views have been recorded. When we produce our final report, I am sure those views will be reflected in it. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Garland
Thank you.
The witnesses withdrew.