I welcome the representatives of the Green Party, Deputy Boyle and Councillor White, to the sub-committee. We have a Senator Mary White, but there is only one Mary White in the Chamber today. As Deputy Boyle will be aware, the sub-committee is an all-party committee comprising Senators Dardis, Brian Hayes, Ryan and O'Toole. We have already read the submission. The delegation has half an hour to give us a synopsis. Senators Brian Hayes and O'Toole will then ask questions at the end of the presentation, but we will all chip in. Members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, but non-Members only have qualified privilege.
Presentation by the Green Party - An Comhaontas Glas.
Witnesses: Deputy Dan Boyle and Councillor Mary White.
Deputy Boyle has full privilege.
Yes, as a Member of the Lower House.
Deputy Boyle can libel me away.
Thank you, Chairman. We appreciate the opportunity to make an oral presentation to the sub-committee. It is our intention to make a short initial presentation and invite questions afterwards. Our submission outlines much of what we want to say. To put a context on our presentation, we represent the Green Party candidates for the past three Seanad elections. The submission is based on personal experience as much as the party's view of the institution of the Seanad. I will go through the main points and Councillor White will then talk about the process of being a candidate for the Seanad, from her perspective of previous Seanad elections, and how effectively Seanad Éireann is fulfilling its role in achieving a gender balance in terms of political participation in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Green Party ^ A Comhaontas Glas strongly supports the idea of a bicameral legislative process. As constituted, the Seanad plays a valuable role as a revising Chamber. In whatever manner reforms are put in place, it is important that there is a second Chamber to allow all legislation to be properly considered. In terms of Seanad reform, we identify - it is up to the sub-committee in its deliberations to decide whether it agrees with us - a major problem in public identification with the Seanad as an institution, its role and potential to achieve societal change. The reforms we propose might help to turn this around.
One of the difficulties with the Seanad comes about largely because of its electoral process. We argue that the Seanad represents a combination of how second Chambers are elected throughout the world. There is a nomination approach and the approach of being elected by people who themselves are elected. There is no general public election outside of the universities, which electorate is itself qualified by an educational qualification. For the Seanad to achieve identity with the public, it should be opened up totally or as far as is possible in terms of being a publicly elected and accountable body. There are examples of second Houses that fulfil that principle, the Australian Senate being one.
We are suggesting a particular voting model that would be based on the European Parliament constituencies which are subject to change. Multiplying the 13 seats we have in the European Parliament by four would give 52 of the 60 seats in the Seanad. We further propose that the eight remaining seats would be filled by a combination of four Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland who choose to participate in a direct election and four Irish citizens living outside the island of Ireland to allow wider representation. In general terms, that is how we see the electoral system to the Seanad being changed.
Regarding the manner in which the Seanad does its business, we would like it to achieve a sense of equality in terms of how often it meets, how it structures its internal committees and how those committees participate in processing legislation. By achieving that type of parity, the Seanad would become more effective as a House of the Oireachtas and achieve the public recognition that is currently seriously lacking. These are the bones of our submission.
It is a great honour as a former candidate in Seanad elections to be here as part of the submission from the Green Party ^ A Comhaontas Glas. I wish to give a personal view of how I feel the Seanad affects a candidate and how it might be reformed.
Apart from seeing the wonders of the Irish countryside, which I did in depth, I really felt being a Seanad candidate was so disconnected from the real world that it had to be changed. This is particularly the case for the smaller parties. Candidates from small parties know they are on a loser from the start as they try to canvass support from the larger parties. That is the reason the Green Party is coming to this issue in terms of reforming the electorate, which is important from a small party's viewpoint. As a former candidate, I found it incredibly interesting to meet all 900 councillors and hear their diverse views. The fact was, however, that they were more interested in getting their party colleagues into the Upper House than in engaging with me as a member of another party. If the electorate could be widened out, it would be much more beneficial to the public.
Yesterday's radio vox pop in which eight people were asked about the Seanad was timely. Six of the eight did not know what the Seanad was and some even went so far as to ask if it was part of folk history.
It is part of folk history.
We will be able to say it is part of folk history if we do not update the manner in which we elect people to this august Chamber.
It is a mystery.
We must ask how candidates can engage with the public. The Green Party wants the electorate to be widened. We want the Irish diaspora to have a vote as part of Seanad reform. As a woman candidate, I would like to see more women elected to the Upper House. If anyone read the National Women's Council report on where women are going in Irish public life - be it politics, business or whatever - we are still very low down the pecking order. We would like to see as many women as possible being appointed to public and commercial positions and boards of State bodies. If the reform of the Seanad was to allow disparate groups to be represented and change the form of the electoral panels, it would be a step in the right direction. Before I hand back to Deputy Boyle, I am very sorry that I am not a Member of this Chamber.
It would be interesting if Councillor White was a Member. I recall the day of the count because there were two Mary Whites. Councillor White did remarkably well. I wondered how much misadventure in the vote giving had arisen because of you both having a similar name. One cannot quantify those things but of course one thinks about them.
Senator Hayes will be the first member of the sub-committee to put a question.
I welcome the representatives of the Green Party. I thank Councillor White and Deputy Boyle for the thought that their party has put into this presentation. Councillor White should not be so hard on herself. She did very well at the last Seanad elections. She actually got twice as many votes as the number of her party councillors would have indicated.
Four times as many.
As it was four times as many, that proves that some of the councillors from parties other than her own were listening to her. She should not be so hard on herself.
It must be a matter of significant frustration to the Green Party, which made a significant breakthrough in last year's Dáil election and which has significant popular support in the country, that none of the 60 Senators is a member of the Green Party. The delegation might articulate that frustration further.
Why has the Green Party not made the breakthrough? Democratic Left, a smaller party in terms of the total number of votes it received, managed to get one person elected. The Progressive Democrats, a small party, got two people elected in 1992.
One of the Green Party's ideas is the notion of a mid-term election whereby the Seanad election would take place at the same time as the local and European elections. The Green Party is probably aware that the European Parliament has a negative view about holding a number of elections on one day. Does the Green Party think that adding another election would create more confusion, particularly if, in effect, there would be a Seanad election based on the European constituencies?
Deputy Boyle referred to the fact that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland should be entitled to vote but that would preclude over one million Unionists. Is that the Green Party's intention? If so, only Nationalist members would be elected. Has the Green Party any further views on this issue?
On the first question, yes, we are frustrated. The fact that in 1992 there was a breakthrough for both the Progressive Democrats and Democratic Left had much to do with the Green Party itself. That was acknowledged by all of the smaller parties at the time.
In terms of our local authority membership, we fish in a very shallow pool. We must appeal to independent local authority members and strengthen the geographical ties of our candidates to maximise our vote.
We have done relatively well in all three elections. In 1997, because I was an inner panel candidate I came quite close to being elected for one of the three seats kept for the inner panel on the Industrial and Commercial Panel. I was the fourth candidate on that particular panel. Given the current configuration, that is the only route we would have into Seanad Éireann, other than the Taoiseach honouring us with a number of nominations after a general election. We will see what will come out of this.
Maybe one day.
The idea of a mid-term election will invigorate the political process. It does happen in a number of political systems.
However, the Green Party is not suggesting having three elections on the one day.
No. We would argue that the local election should not be held on the same day as the European elections. That was a mistake. However, there could be a tie-in of the Seanad and European elections and the fact that we are proposing a constituency-based list system would fit in with that. It would not cause an overwhelming amount of voter confusion because we would be encouraging people to use——
What minimum threshold would the Green Party put on such a list system?
It has to do with the number of seats in each constituency. There are 12 in one and 16 in the biggest. One is talking about a threshold that would at least be one sixteenth and one twelfth in each of the list areas, which would still be significant. One would still be talking about 3% to 6% of the vote. Therefore, there would be no need for a formal threshold. It would be those who came closest to meeting the requirement of getting one of the 12 or 16 members.
Therefore, the constituency would go from a four seat to a 12 seat constituency and the amount of votes required for an independent or small party to get elected would be significantly smaller than under the current configuration.
That would not be a bad thing either. One finds that in second House elections or even Lower House elections where there are regional lists based on regional constituencies, one gets a better representation as a result. People are restricted by needing to be a national political party if there are regional concerns not being addressed by the national parliament. It is not unusual in Irish politics.
Would the party or the individual be on the list?
All list systems are based on the fact that there are registered political parties and individuals can form independent lists. It does not change the system one way or the other.
What would be on the ballot paper - the names of political parties or of individuals?
The lists would be named. There would probably be an Independent Joe O'Toole list as well as ones with the names of the parties.
Would one still vote for a party?
One would vote for a list. There is nothing to stop an independent coming up with a list of similar people.
In the case of registered political parties, the political party name would be on the ballot paper.
That is correct.
The parties would select the lists.
The parties would have, through their national registration, a right to be on the ballot paper and there would have to be qualification for those who want to go on a regional or constituency list. It is not very restrictive in other systems. I do not see the reason it would be restrictive here.
May I tease it out a little? I agree with the thinking that the reason some of us are on University Panel currently is that it is the only way in for independent people. That should be recognised and we should proceed on that basis.
I am not convinced that Deputy Boyle has made an argument for dropping county councillors out of the equation completely. I speak of this as a disinterested party. Is there not also a case for retaining some of that participation in some form or another, and having the geographical list system for this reason? If there is a geographical list system, one is getting a mirror of the second House. It might be a mid-term election but the second House mirrors the first House. It is very much a parallel House. It is a geographical system, it is a party system and the outcome will reflect the configuration to a great extent, although not exactly if it is held at adifferent time.
Second, is it possible to have a slightly different list system where one would vote for people in the following way: Dan Boyle, Green Party; Joe O'Toole, Independent; Mary White, Independent; etc.? Much of the disconnection to which Deputy Boyle refers is created because of the distance created by large groupings. With such a system, in counting the votes afterwards one could assess how many Green Party members got votes and that would be the process in which the members would be selected. That would be how one would work out the percentages afterwards. The Independent Member would be whoever was highest on the Independent list, with the number of Independent Members being determined by the total proportion of votes for Independents.
There are list systems which allow one to do that, where one indicates which list one prefers and then the named people within that list. However, one is talking about huge ballot papers where one indicates the order in which one thinks they should be elected. It is a double election as such and it would be complicated.
On the second point of whether elected representatives-county councillors should still be involved, we are arguing against an either/or system. The German system for the Bundesrat is on the basis of regional government being the electorate. The problem with the local authority members largely being the electorate for Seanad Éireann is, as we explained in the submission, that there is such a wide variation in the mandates of the population balance between areas that are largely urban and sparsely populated.
One could still manage to have geographical lists for councillors. I am merely teasing this out with Deputy Boyle. I understand the points he made about the fact that there are certain Houses elected by what I call this distilled form of democracy where the first tier elects another higher tier. There must be some argument for it, although I have never been through it. How would Deputy Boyle feel about electing X number that way, also on a regional list but perhaps by the local authority members, and then the remaining in the list system he outlined? Is there a case for such a system? Obviously, we want to hear all the different views on all the different aspects.
We definitely think there is a case for it. We think the public should elect the Members of Seanad Éireann totally but recognise that one could come up with a combination where the public element was the largest part. However, our preference is for a totally publicly elected Seanad.
Regarding Senator O'Toole's point about the Seanad reflecting the composition of the Lower House, I do not think that is the experience of Upper Houses in other countries. For instance, the Australian Senate, which is elected on the same day as the other House of Parliament has a vastly different composition from the Lower House.
It has significantly more power.
It does. The Australian Lower House is elected on a transferable vote with single seat constituencies. The regional list comes into place for the Senate. Under that system the Greens have more representation in the Senate than in the House of Representatives, although a Green Party Member has recently been elected to the House of Representatives in a by-election.
I accept Deputy Boyle's point. Many of the people who vote for me are committed party members. They feel they have done their duty to their parties in the Lower House and do something else in the Seanad. I have looked at this question in other countries. I wanted Deputy Boyle to tell me the reason we should move away and make the argument for doing so. He has done so.
If we took up the Green Party suggestion, we would be moving away completely from the vocational nature of the Seanad. I am not saying that would be a good or a bad thing but I would like to hear the Green Party's view as to the reason it would be a good idea.
The vocational element is completely out of date now. Our skill base is so much wider than the panels on which we are forced to put our names. The system could be replaced by some form of reaching out to a greater number of groups, including marginalised and disability groups. There are many groups which have not contributed to the existing vocational panels and should be encouraged to participate in some form. I must choose my words carefully and judiciously to express the nature of the current method of getting one's name on a panel. Perhaps not all people on those lists are suited to particular vocational panels. Either the whole notion of vocational panels will have to be scrapped or a whole new system must be introduced in order to reach a wider electorate and to give people a greater chance to elect people to this House. It is up to the sub-committee and the Green Party, in our submission, to come up with ideas. Our submission shows that we want the vocational panels to be reassessed as they are not working. If they do not reach a wider public and are not inclusive of many forms of industry and commerce, they will not bring forward representative people to be elected to the Seanad.
In the modern sense.
In the modern sense.
What about the issue of Irish citizens?
Whether people living in Ireland consider themselves to be Irish citizens is a question that would have to be asked in drawing up the electorate. Over one million people living in Northern Ireland identify with the idea of Britishness. That does not mean that due to the totality of relationships between these islands and North-South, east-west and internally in Northern Ireland, the vote cannot be offered to everyone living in Northern Ireland who wants to participate.
Would vacancies which arise be filled from the list rather than by way of by-election?
That is how list systems usually work. If one is talking about very large constituencies where one seat might become available, it might not be feasible to have a single by-election. We like to think of ourselves as a party that holds with the idea of having elections as often as possible.
The Green Party wishes to abolish the Taoiseach's nominees. It does not propose any change in the way we conduct legislation through the House. This raises the question of the Government not having a majority in the Upper House and the difficulties to which that might lead. The Taoiseach's nominees confer an inherent in-built majority on the Government.
We do not see that as a problem. Perhaps, as an Opposition party, we would not be expected to. The idea of having Government control of both Houses does not exist in other countries. It does not exist in Germany and I do not believe it exists in Australia. The Seanad is a revising Chamber, not one of veto. It is severely restricted in terms of money Bills, which is what the business of Government is about. Having different complexions in both Houses would add to the political life of the country rather than detract from it.
Our one experience of having a different complexion on the Upper and Lower Houses did not cause the difficulties many people predicted.
No, it worked quite well.
How would the Green Party propose to address the gender issue?
We are not specific in our submission. A guideline should be given to whoever is compiling the list for election that a certain number should be of a set gender and a certain number be of a set age. That should not be prioritised in terms of numbers one, two and three or four, five and six being of a certain gender or age. It has been the Green Party experience in encouraging better participation of women and younger people that it is the opportunity to be candidates that increases representation. We should get away from the idea of forced quotas but one can encourage, through a guideline format, a set number of candidates who are women and a set number who are younger people.
Deputy Boyle and I have known each other for years. This is a very thoughtful submission although, obviously, I do not agree with some of it. The submission addresses the question of marginalised groups. I am not talking about large groups, such as women, who are under-represented. They have the potential to increase their representation. I am thinking of groups, such as Travellers and the homeless who are, of their nature, marginalised. Has the Green Party any thoughts on how one could institutionalise a way of increasing the chances of such people being involved in politics but which is not at variance with democratic principles? It is my view that the Chamber should remain as powerless as it is. The same degree of democratic proportionality that would be required in the Dáil is not required in the Upper House because it is a secondary Chamber. If one insists on a fundamental system of one person, one vote and each vote being equal, one might end up with the same exclusion of marginalised groups. Has the Green Party thought about this?
We have not included anything specific in our submission. However, the same formula that we have suggested for younger people and women could be used, through the auspices of the Equality Authority. We should not get into ghettoising and insisting that one representative should be a Traveller and another should have a disability. One could suggest that one person on a list must be defined as being in one of the groups named in the Equal Status Act. Those putting together party or independent lists could be encouraged to ensure a candidate from each of these groupings is included on the list. This would be a further step along the road of improving that type of representation.
Deputy Boyle is a little harsh on the system of Taoiseach's nominees and says this system is not repeated in the Upper House of any functioning democracy. He will be aware that Mr. Tony Blair intends to abolish the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords and appoint the entire House of Lords, a brazen attempt at what one might call jobbery. I merely point out Deputy Boyle's error.
It could be construed as an unfair comment. There is no doubt that Members of other second Chambers are nominated. We would say it does not exist to the same degree. We also argue against the House of Lords being considered a democratic Chamber.
Deputy Boyle did not say that. He said, "functioning democracy", which is incorrect.
Let us assume that the Green Party was part of a package in the not too distant future——
That is a careful selection of words.
I can see it now, Fianna Fáil and the Greens.
I just said part of a package; I did not say with whom. Let us assume that the Green Party was part of a package which would make up the next Government. Would the Green Party accept nominations to the Seanad from the leader of that Government?
I suppose we would be inclined to accept one.
Fair enough.
It is important for all parties which are part of the Government to be represented in both Houses. It is to our disadvantage, as of now, that we cannot oversee all legislation through both Houses. We hope the recommendations of this sub-committee will not need to put us in that position and that we will be elected as of right.
The Green Party's submission went into great detail on the importance of getting groups from wider civic society involved in the process. I had expected it to focus more on bridge building to civic society through the workings of the Seanad. The Green Party will have looked at some of the second Chambers around the world and seen that many of them have an in-built system of consultation with groups in civic society as part of the process of legislation. Has the Green Party considered this as a role for the Seanad? In some countries following the First Reading of a Bill, which is discussed in the House, hearings are then held or there is wider consultation with groups from civic society. The Second Stage then comes back into a form of Committee Stage where the issues raised are discussed anew with a view to progressing them. Such a process gives a clear directional input and bridge from some of the groups about which the delegates spoke.
We would not have any objection to that. If the Senator is talking about focus groups, consultation, think tanks or whatever term he wants to use in order to engage with the greatest number, this is all part of the inclusiveness. Senator Ryan asked how we would envisage engaging with people from disparate backgrounds and the disability movement, asylum seeker, etc. We need to be totally inclusive.
I am conscious of the time and want to nail this issue before we go. We are talking about reducing the age at which people are allowed to sit in both Houses of the Oireachtas to 18 years. I know we are talking about young people here, but I want to say clearly that we want to see the age reduced to 18 years. People can get married at that age and drive cars. They can do absolutely anything within the State.
That is very clear from the presentation.
I have recently returned from a parliamentary delegation visit to Poland. The Senate of the Polish Parliament has exactly that type of system, which I found very interesting. The Committee Stage of legislation involves not only the members of the Senate, but there is also an opportunity for outside groupings to make presentations on Committee Stage.
Would it not be more valuable to give this input prior to formulation stage?
In some countries they have a new stage. For example, in New Zealand they combine both Houses from a bicameral to a single parliament. The process of legislation is not that different from a bicameral one. They have inserted two extra stages, one of which is between Second and Committee Stages when consultation takes place. It is as if there are two consecutive Committee Stages, one involving those groups and the other back in the House.
Following Second Stage, we have the power to conduct hearings, but unfortunately this is not used sufficiently frequently. Many of the problems at the other end of legislation could be teased out were we to find out the response of all of the groups.
This can take place after Second Stage and before Committee Stage. This would certainly be very valuable because many of the quirks that emerge too late could be considered.
I thank the Green Party for making such a detailed and authoritative submission and thank Deputy Boyle and Councillor White, in particular, who gave us such a vivid account of her visits around the country. Clearly, her points of view and policies had an effect. Getting four times the vote her party's councillor strength would have indicated in the Seanad election, including the transfers she received, was a remarkable achievement. If I may offer a personal viewpoint, I feel she will make it to this Chamber.
I thank the Chairman.
We wish the sub-committee well in its deliberations. We are confident it will come up with the correct proposals.
The witnesses withdrew.
Sitting suspended at 1.05 p.m. and resumed at3. p.m.