You are very welcome. We have been here all week and you are the last person to meet us. We are honoured that you saw fit to make a submission and come here. Members of the committee have full privilege while you have qualified privilege.
Presentation by Dr. Edward Walsh.
Dr. Walsh
It is a privilege to be invited to give evidence. I have worked with the Chairman on a number of projects and it is a pleasure to know that when she sets about turning ideas into practice, she achieves it. The country is fortunate that she and her colleagues are addressing this important issue.
I made one simple point in my submission about the list system. Over my many years working in Ireland, it has occurred to me that to make Ireland a better place we often focus on those issues that require funding and sometimes those issues that require no funding and only a change in wording are overlooked. I can think of no single initiative in the second category more important than the reform of our Parliament. Unlike most parliaments in Europe, our Parliament has not been significantly changed since the 1937 Constitution was enacted.
In considering what might be done, I continued to do what I have done over the years, namely, identify international best practice. Since the Second World War and, more recently, the collapse of the Soviet Union, European states have had reason to concentrate their minds and identify what form of parliamentary democracy they wish to adopt. I have submitted a map to the committee that shows a large stretch of green over Europe. This represents those states that have adopted one form or other of the PR system. Ireland and Malta are the only states in the world that adhere to our existing electoral system. Others that have used it in the past have abandoned it. As Scandinavian countries have used it so effectively, and developed it, the committee, as it considers reform of the Seanad, should give serious consideration to international best practice.
I have read with interest the reports of the all-party Oireachtas committee. I scanned the reports but read carefully the seventh. I agree fully with the statement: "the Seanad is a resource that could be deployed to far greater effect if it were reformed". We need a Seanad but it must be reformed. I also agree with the statement: "The vocational element of the present arrangements has, in practice, become quite meaningless. Moreover, we would not support any attempt to revive it in a modernised form".
As a past university president, once one reads that statement one feels it threatens the special position in which the universities exist with regard to the Seanad. I had to attempt to take off my vested interest hat, as I do not think that is what the activities of this committee are concerned with. I asked myself what would be the best arrangement for a reformed Seanad. I have come to the conclusion that the vocational framework is, as the all-party committee commented, now meaningless. I would prefer to see election to the Seanad by means of a list system on the basis of best practice in other well-run states.
I have tried to spell out my position with regard to university Senators in an additional written submission. I recognise the most significant contribution they have made over the years to the Oireachtas, especially Seanad Éireann. In the interests of giving democratic legitimacy to the Seanad, it would be appropriate to review what was an elitist system that reflected the times, the 1930s, and consider the adoption of a system that would give to each citizen equal rights and privileges in electing Members to an important part of our Legislature. Should the committee decide to retain the vocational system I would strongly advocate that the old and the new institutions be given parity.
I thank Dr. Walsh for his contribution and submission. We are conscious that, from his experience of the administration of a university, he has had something significant and important to say to us.
Several groups have advocated the list system - open or closed; universal franchise, probably organised on the basis of the European constituencies; and the election of a fixed term Seanad, probably coinciding with the European and local elections. However, one group recommended a seven year term, which would coincide with the presidential election.
In its submission to us, Fianna Fáil stated a unified list system as proposed by the all-party Oireachtas committee - elected by universal suffrage on the same day as a general election - would have the effect of making the Seanad an almost entirely nominated body, the ranking and order of election being decided by party leaderships, with the electorate deciding only the numbers to be elected from each party. How would Dr. Walsh respond to that statement?
Dr. Walsh
That view is frequently expressed without knowledge of the experience in other well-run states. If one were Taoiseach or the leader of a party in the process of putting the list together, could one have a list that did not have a good gender balance, did not represent some of the minority interests in the State or did not represent ethnic balance?
With respect to Dr. Walsh, one of the criticisms of the list system is that that is exactly what is happening. The parties have huge control since they can determine who is on the list and it is only a matter of what percentage of the vote they get.
The most recent experience I can think of in regard to the list system was in the United Kingdom in the last European elections, where a colleague of mine in Socialist International, Mr. Blair, deliberately used the list system to push people of whom he did not approve, who had taken opposite views, off the stage by placing them so far down his party list that they almost could not be elected unless there was a Labour Party landslide.
Dr. Walsh
Every system is open to abuse. One of the significant benefits of the list system would be the retention by the parties of the most valuable members who serve in the Oireachtas. In election after election I have been dismayed to see some of the best people, with whom I have had the privilege to work, denied the opportunity to be returned to Parliament because they have not attended to silly messenger boy issues in the local constituency. In the AMS system, there is a 50:50 parliament - half the seats are grassroots elected, with all that means and the other half represents people with maturity in politics. If parties were forming a list system, I would suggest they approach people of standing who are not in the political system such as leaders of business, the academic community and the public sector.
The Seanad is an extraordinary place. Some 80% of the Oireachtas is composed of Members who have come through the local authority system. Therefore, we draw our parliamentary Members from an electorate of about 1,000 people. I frequently had this debate when I was attempting to introduce the North American modularised semester system into the academic community. Many reasons were put forward as to why it would not work and disparaging comments were made. However, I was continually able to demonstrate that other well-run universities use such systems and benefit from them. The Scandinavian countries would be well worth examining.
It is noticeable to those of us who have received foreign delegations or travelled abroad that in several of the newer democracies in eastern Europe, one will meet impressive Ministers who have come through the list system. In other words, their qualities were identified and it might be the case that they would not have been elected were it not for their party's list. The counter argument to that is that the party then exercises such control that it becomes anti-democratic in terms of who is put forward to the electorate.
Dr. Walsh
I return to the basis of my thesis which is that well-run, highly-respected democracies world-wide use the list system and elect a proportion of their parliament in the direct fashion in order that they have the benefit of both systems.
As Dr. Walsh knows, there are several ways this can be done. Would he be in favour of a system where the voter could vote for a political party that would decide internally which of the candidates presented by it might be elected? The alternative would be an open list system, whereby people would vote for individuals. Of which system does Dr. Walsh come down in favour?
Dr. Walsh
As the Senator knows, there are a variety of systems which have been fine-tuned to meet various national requirements and preferences. I do not take a view on the detail. However, I consider the introduction of the list system as the most vital single act this Parliament can take. More important, I would see that a successful list system in the Seanad would permit one to test it nationally and tune it with a view to subsequent adoption in Dáil Éireann when it is inevitably reformed. This is an ideal opportunity to test the system without threatening the electorate. The present arrangement could not be worse.
That point has been made in various submissions.
I was interested in Dr. Walsh's comments on Northern Ireland. He has clearly picked up that the Taoiseach has recommended that there be a more potent expression of Northern opinion in this House. Dr. Walsh is in agreement, but only on the assumption that this would not be seen as a provocation to the majority community there. That would clearly not be the intent of anybody. It must not be seen as a predatory move but rather one of accommodation in the spirit of a genuine wish to hear their views. Does Dr. Walsh have a comment in this regard?
Dr. Walsh
It depends very much on the way in which this is done. It would need to be perceived in the context of a generous gesture. However, I am aware that the 1937 Constitution had elements related to Northern Ireland with which we grappled for many years before solving the problem. It would be too bad if a well-intentioned move by this House were to be misinterpreted and I am uneasy that it would be readily misinterpreted by the majority. Perhaps the same intent and a similar outcome might be achieved by slightly different means.
I thank Dr. Walsh. The committee was enlivened by his presence and what he had to say to us. His views will inform our thoughts.
I thank the ushers of Leinster House, who have been so important to how we did our business this week, as well as our own secretariat. It would be wonderful if the Dáil and Seanad had the same backup we have had in the work of this committee. I also thank Dr. Laver who is helping us with our deliberations and I am appreciative of the constant presence of Mr. Jimmy Walsh of The Irish Times, who is a most avid visitor to and reporter of the proceedings of this House.
The sub-committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m. sine die.