I welcome Ms Sinnott. I apologise for the unavoidable absence this afternoon of the Leader of the House and Chairman of the sub-committee, Senator O'Rourke. She wishes to convey her apologies. There are about 25 minutes for this presentation. The format is an opening statement and questions from my colleagues. I remind you that while we have absolute privilege, you have qualified privilege.
Presentation by Ms Kathryn Sinnott.
Ms Sinnott
People have talked frankly to the sub-committee and I intend to suggest things that the Senators might not like but it is not in any way personal. It will not surprise Senators, given their interest in Seanad reform, that the beat on the street is that this Chamber is a waste of space, and an expensive one at that. Others describe it as a rubber stamp. Senators will have heard all the terms, although perhaps people do not say them directly to them. It took me years to find out what the Seanad was because any time I started a conversation about it, I was told not to worry about it and that it was a club.
The public perception of the Seanad is tragic. I am not sure there is not a lot of truth in it, which is tragic because the Seanad holds the key to good legislation. The maxim that the government proposes and parliament disposes is no comfort to the public when, in terms of passing legislation, the Government and the two Houses of Parliament are effectively one and the same, particularly now. The Seanad might have good and interesting debates but when the votes are counted on a Government Bill, it is passed, regardless of the quality of the debate. In the present system control seems to be a numbers game. The Seanad should be the brakes in the system and the body which ensures balance, consideration of issues from various perspectives and expertise, and critical discussion. Quality control is rendered largely useless by a party political election and nomination system.
If we are to have good laws, we need an effective Seanad, an Upper House independent of party political interests and which vets legislation from a broad range of expertise and experience. To have an effective Seanad we must change the way it is constituted, nominated and elected. I tried to keep my proposals within what the Constitution already permits. I am not suggesting referenda. It might be a good idea but I am trying to propose things that can be done under the existing provisions of the Constitution.
The composition of the Seanad no longer reflects the realities of Irish life. We need to broaden the understanding of terms such as "labour", "agriculture" and so forth in the existing panels and possibly redistribute the number of seats given to certain panels. Agriculture is an obvious example. When the number of seats for that panel was first established, this was a rural, agricultural country. The Constitution provides for bringing matters up to date. The fact that there are such strong institutes of technology means we must update the university panels.
We could retain a nominated panel but there is no reason that the Taoiseach could not be directed to take names from various groups. The panel could be seen as an opportunity to broaden the membership of the Seanad. The Taoiseach could be directed in legislation to take names from unrepresented areas such as Northern Ireland, Irish emigrants overseas, immigrants in this country, Travellers and other bodies whose voices are not heard. Alternatively, the Taoiseach could be directed to take the names from chief civil servants in 11 key Departments. That could mean an experienced civil servant or adviser in the area of foreign affairs, social and family affairs or the environment might be a nominee. The Taoiseach would still nominate the Members as provided for in the Constitution but the nominations would be directed at the type of issues or people who need a voice.
Potential candidates can be nominated by groups or petition relevant to the panel to which they aspire. The nominee can then be vetted by the Clerk of the Seanad and an adjudicating High Court judge. The candidate can defend his or her nomination, as I did last year. I have no problem with the challenge to my candidacy last year other than the fact that it had been 21 years since anybody else had had to do it. In fact, the procedure was useful. Many of the questions the Senators have been asking delegations today could be answered by that procedure. The procedure was used to establish my credentials and suitability. It checked that I would make a good candidate. It focused on the job of a Senator and it ensured I as a candidate had the necessary experience and expertise to be a good Senator on the Labour Panel.
It was interesting because they had the idea that "labour" meant a labour union or a leader of a labour union movement. I explained that I had a number of different experiences in labour, besides having nine babies. I had the experience of dealing with the area of disability, which means not just those working in disability but those unemployed because of their disability, a key area of unused labour. I also had experience of voluntary labour. There is a voluntary panel but, in a sense, this was different. It was the experience of working for no money. This receives no acknowledgement in a system that views labour through tax and so forth. I also had experience of labouring in the home. They accepted my experience as an advocate for labour in the area of disability and on behalf of people not employed because of disability.
They would not accept that one could have knowledge and experience as a woman who had laboured in the home. That was interesting because it is the key to the discrimination between men and women on the grounds of class, income levels, abilities, etc. We do not necessarily have to say a seat is for a certain type of person. We could keep panels such as labour which is fundamental to life but allow candidates to defend the reason a woman in the home had expertise and experience in labour. That expertise could be extended and thereby the constituencies in the Seanad to people who would be good Senators and represent areas which needed to be represented. They could explain in the vetting process the reason that was necessary for Seanad Éireann. The judgment I got was that not only would I be an expert Senator but that the area I represented was also neglected and ignored. We should see how this can be expanded through a vetting process.
The first election would be cumbersome for potential candidates because everyone would have to be vetted. It would not matter if a person had been a Senator before. Candidates would have to explain the reason and show that they had experience in a certain area, rather than just saying it was because they were in Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. It would get easier with every election because once a person was a candidate or a Senator, they would not need to be vetted. Only new candidates would need to be vetted. Each new candidate gives us the opportunity to extend the understanding of the panels. The Agricultural Panel, for example, should include the person who eats the food on which there is fertiliser.
I am conscious of the time.
Ms Sinnott
I will go through it quickly.
We want to ask some questions.
Ms Sinnott
I suggest that all voters should be invited to register to vote in Seanad elections.
Is Ms Sinnott talking about a new register?
Ms Sinnott
Yes. As regards updating the register, there is a little box a person can tick if he or she wants to be a Seanad voter. It should be explained that it will take time and effort, but assurance should be given that it will not take a lot of education and that help will be given. An illiterate or blind person will be able to ring the Seanad office to get alternative ways to vote. A person can be invited to be a Seanad voter, but he or she must be warned that it will take interest, effort and time. We live in the age of computers. There is no reason we could not randomly choose a voter on the live register or the Seanad register. The advantage is that the scenario would be public, but the voter would be anonymous. A telephone line could be set up which people could ring if they needed help. Voting should be made as easy as possible. A catalogue could be produced.
Perhaps Ms Sinnott could concentrate on the details during questions and just give us a broad synopsis.
Ms Sinnott
This is broad.
Fifteen minutes have elapsed and we have only ten minutes left to ask questions.
Ms Sinnott
A candidate could have one page of a catalogue in which panels could be colour coded. It could be as simple as carrying out the page and writing one, two, etc. It is not a case of canvassing. Therefore, it would not involve money. A person does not need to be rich to run for the Seanad, but he or she must set out his or her stall as to the reason he or she should be a Senator. A person should be elected on his or her merits, expertise and experience.
I also recommend that the deadline for nominations, having regard to the constitutional principle of voting in line with the general election, should be the day before the general election in order that people run for the Seanad because they would be good Senators, not because they lost the election to Dáil Éireann. The election for the Seanad should be held as soon as the nominees can be vetted. The job of a Senator is different from that of a Deputy. The position must be rescued from party and geographical constituency politics. One could have constituencies such as labour, agriculture, etc. Dáil Éireann looks after other issues.
We cannot discuss the submission in detail.
Ms Sinnott
If the Seanad was elected in such a way, it would enhance the knowledge base and be a real asset not only to the legislative system but also the Oireachtas committee system. As a person who believes the Seanad has great potential for wise leadership and effective democracy and as an incorrigible optimist, I hope the sub-committee will consider implementing my proposals.
I thank Ms Sinnott for taking the trouble to make a detailed submission and for coming. As regards her original presentation, the first section on mobile telephones is completely inaccurate.
Ms Sinnott
I got it from The Irish Times and RTE.
A Bill was not passed by the Government, rubber-stamped by this House and sent to the President. It was a ministerial order which did not have anything to do with either House. That is completely incorrect in terms of making the argument about the reason we need an effective Seanad.
Ms Sinnott
I am delighted the Senator has corrected me because, like mere mortals, I get my news from the media.
The only reason I correct Ms Sinnott is that I do not want it broadcast any further. I will also take the matter up with The Irish Times because it is completely wrong.
Ms Sinnott
And RTE's evening news.
As regards the other issues raised, I listened to what Ms Sinnott said. However, I did not hear her arguing in favour of taking a random sample of a group to elect someone. I would not see any gain in this, whether random or otherwise. If everyone had a random vote, what would be the advantage?
Ms Sinnott
I did it that way because the Constitution mentions groupings and pulling the voters from groupings. I was trying to keep it as close as possible to the way it was done now but with a different voter. I do not mind if everyone who wants to vote for the Seanad does so.
It is not just about grouping the voters, but about the panels from which people would come forward. Ms Sinnott went into great detail about this and I am clear that people should be subject to some qualification. However, the Constitution does not say anything about grouping voters.
Ms Sinnott
It mentions taking voters from groups. I wanted to randomise it because I wanted to streamline it. People could be told that if they wanted to vote for the Seanad, they could register but it would take time and effort. I want to avoid a second general election which would involve an expensive canvassing campaign. An expensive campaign, more than anything else, keeps elections within party politics and excludes large sections of the population.
How would that exclude them? The big parties or the people with money will take out big advertisements around the country or on television or radio. That will only be done by those who can afford it. People whom we might like to participate might not get a vote. It does not seem to do what Ms Sinnott is setting out to do. The system she proposes would give it to the people with wealth. That means that people who wanted to vote and had ticked the box to vote may not get a vote. That does not balance.
Ms Sinnott
I do not mind if everyone who wants to vote does so. However, canvassing would be part of it if it became another general election. I hope this system, in which one would not know the voters but would know there were random voters, would represent everyone who wants to vote for the Seanad. We can let everyone who wants to vote for the Seanad do so. If one wanted to stand for the Seanad and if one had a lot of experience and expertise in this area, one could find groups related to one's expertise to nominate one. It could be a selection of groups or a number of people who would sign a petition - something credible one could give the Clerk of the Seanad to say——
That is very clear in the Seanad elections.
Ms Sinnott
What will it cost one to run for the Seanad after that? One must set out one's page. If one canvasses, it is expensive and that eliminates. It would not eliminate if all one had to do was be credible enough to get a nomination, go through the vetting process - which is a train ride up to Dublin - and be able to defend it. There would then be no expenses in running, so no one would be prevented from doing so.
What Ms Sinnott is arguing is the very opposite. What she just outlined leaves it wide open to the person with the most amount of money to make the largest nationwide impact. People or groups with a lot of money would simply ask one to vote for their list or for the person who is described as whatever - it does not matter what the description is. It would make it impossible for an individual to get through. The individual would simply have to do what Ms Sinnott said but everybody else with money would be mobilising the country, as it were.
Ms Sinnott
I do not think it would work like that. Some very rich person could do that.
Parties or groups could do so, not just an individual.
Ms Sinnott
Voters would have a catalogue in front of them. I base this catalogue on an old idea of a summer work scheme. If one was a student, one registered for the scheme and was sent a catalogue of groups looking for people. It explained the group and the job. One could then pick the job one wanted and apply for it. The voter would look at that catalogue. There is usually twice the number of candidates than positions. If there were 60, 120 or 150 candidates, a handful of them may decide to campaign but most them would restrict themselves to the catalogue. That is what voters would have in front of them.
Can we move the debate on?
Ms Sinnott
Yes. I think it could work.
Does Ms Sinnott think it is constitutional that a defeated Dáil candidate could be prevented from running in a Seanad election? Ms Sinnott and I have something in common in that we both lost in the last general election, although she came much closer to being elected as an independent candidate than I did as a member of a big bad political party. It is not constitutional to exclude people because they——
Ms Sinnott
I did not say they would be excluded. I said the nominations would be in the day before the general election. If one was running for the Dáil, why could one not nominate oneself? It may say something to one's constituents, namely, that one is not terribly confident of winning but there is no reason one could not be nominated. I did not say it excluded people running for the Dáil. It is just that one would be giving a very mixed message.
Would both elections be on the same day?
Ms Sinnott
No, I did not say that. I said the nominations would have to be in the day before the general election.
That would, in effect, exclude someone.
Ms Sinnott
It would not if they did not mind giving a mixed message.
I make the point because Ms Sinnott and I lost in the last general election and we both went on to contest the Seanad election. I do not think the Constitution would permit a group of individuals to be debarred from the right to stand for another House of the Oireachtas.
Ms Sinnott
I am not excluding anyone running for the Dáil from getting nominated as a Seanad candidate. The nominations would be in the day before the election. It is up to one to decide whether one wants to send a mixed message to one's constituents, but why not? If one wants to be nominated for the Seanad and run for the Dáil, one could drop one's nomination. We would still have the vetting process. Therefore, there would still be time.
As regards Ms Sinnott's recent contest in the Seanad elections in which she did exceptionally well given that she could not vote for herself and came within two votes of winning a seat which was a marvellous performance for someone standing for the first time, will she give the sub-committee an idea of how she managed to garner so many votes in a campaign we all had to undertake?
Ms Sinnott
As Jamie was not terribly well those weeks, I never left my home as I could not. I made some telephone calls, although not a lot. I wrote to everybody and told them I was running. After the vetting process, I wrote again with quotes from that process stating that I would be an excellent Senator, etc. That was the sum total of what I did. On one occasion somebody telephoned me and said that if I got them some votes, I would get some votes.
Who was that?
Ms Sinnott
Dan Boyle telephoned and said if I wanted four Green Party votes——
So it does go on.
Ms Sinnott
I telephoned somebody to say that Dan Boyle wanted some votes. He said okay if they voted for them, namely, Independent Fianna Fáil in Donegal. I telephoned Dan Boyle back but he said "Kathy, those are for Independent Fianna Fáil, not you." As I did not like that, I did not do anymore of it. I said I would be elected on my merits.
I thank Ms Sinnott for her openness and transparency on the issue. I wish to make one small observation, which is not particularly directed at Ms Sinnott, but which has surfaced several times. As we are moving out of this module, so to speak, I need to make this observation from an entirely vested interest point of view. I have a qualification in agriculture and I am a farmer and an agricultural journalist. Therefore, I think I qualify under the criteria. Several people have said that agriculture is a declining section and, therefore, the numbers available to the Agricultural Panel should possibly be curtailed, reduced or perhaps even eliminated. I find that difficult to square with the advocacy for what would be regarded as narrower sections of the society and how they should be represented. That is not to say their case does not have merit. I accept the merit of the case made by disability groups, Travellers and so on. I have a problem as to the reason one section should be reduced when smaller sections should be increased.
Ms Sinnott
I am not necessarily asking for the Agricultural Panel to be reduced. I like the idea that within the organic vetting process - not to make a pun on agriculture - someone could say they wanted to run on the Agricultural Panel because he or she had a lot of knowledge about the consumption of agricultural goods. We may be able to fit all these groups and may not have to add new panels once we allow people to explain why they come under the social, voluntary, educational or agricultural sections.
I think Senator Quinn would be with Ms Sinnott on that definition of agriculture and the wider view of what it is. I thank Ms Sinnott for her presentation and the interchange.
Ms Sinnott
Thank you. Some of my ideas could work if they were given a chance.
The same thing was said about Christianity and socialism.
Ms Sinnott can be assured that all her ideas will be given equal weight in the sub-committee's considerations.
The witness withdrew.