I thank the Fianna Fáil delegation for attending to make its presentation to the sub-committee. With the exception of Mr. Dorgan, to whom qualified privilege is extended, all of us have full privilege as Members of the Seanad. We are an all-party sub-committee and my colleagues are Senators Dardis, O'Toole, Ryan and Brian Hayes.
Presentation by Fianna Fáil.
Witnesses: Mr. Seán Dorgan, Senator Martin Mansergh and Senator Timmy Dooley.
Mr. Dorgan
I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to make the following submission which is based on two principles. The first is our keenness to ensure our proposals and recommendations to the sub-committee are made in the context of reform of the Seanad to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. We are keen to avoid making recommendations or suggesting reforms simply for the sake of doing so. Our overall focus is on examining ways in which the standing and contribution of the Seanad to society and political life can be enhanced. I pass now to my colleague, Senator Dooley, who will outline to the sub-committee the salient points of our submission.
I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to discuss the Fianna Fáil submission on Seanad reform. We recognise the need for a second Chamber in the parliamentary system, the role of which in the scrutiny of secondary legislation is very important. It provides a forum for less partisan parliamentary debate on a range of local, national, European and foreign policy matters. In his submission, the Taoiseach dealt clearly with the role he envisages for the Seanad in the context of the future of Europe. As a party, we support and echo his remarks, the details of which we will not get into again. We also envisage an important role for the Seanad in facilitating engagement by Northern Ireland politicians and representatives in our Parliament. SenatorMansergh will deal with the details.
Moving on to the more important elements of our submission, we support the current method of Seanad composition. We disagree fundamentally with the list system proposed by the joint Oireachtas all-party committee on the Constitution which reported in 2002. Such a system lacks transparency and democracy and could lead to an entirely nominated Seanad. The panel system is democratic, representative and provides us with a Chamber which is complementary to the working of the Dáil, with which it does not conflict. The list of nominating bodies should be revised and updated and, in this context, we recommend the granting of nomination rights to umbrella emigrant groups in England, the United States of America and Australia. The six university seats should be retained, recognising the valuable contribution the mainly independent Members within that group have made. However, we recommend the creation of a unified panel of six, the electorate of which should comprise all graduates of recognised third level institutions in the State.
Regarding the powers and functions of the Seanad, Senators should be given the right to table a number of written questions for information purposes while matters raised on the Adjournment should be open to brief questioning to allow an element of discussion to take place. We further recommend that the Leader of the Seanad should be designated a Minister of State with the right to attend Cabinet meetings in a similar capacity to the super-junior position created for smaller parties forming part of the rainbow coalition. There is a role for the Leader in terms of participation in the business of Cabinet not merely to confer an honour on that person, but to provide a conduit between the workings of the Executive and those of the Seanad. In keeping with the remarks of the Taoiseach in his submission, Minister of State status for its Leader would create a role for the Seanad in terms of defining and discussing matters of some, if not immediate, importance to the State. Such matters would include the future of Europe etc.
I hand over now to Senator Mansergh who will deal with the Northern Ireland element of our submission.
From the beginning, voices from the North have been heard in both the Free State Senate and the post-1937 Seanad. One thinks of people such as Alice Stopford Green. Alhough she was born in County Meath, most of her activity took place in the North. One thinks also of Denis Ireland, John Robb, SeamusMallon, Gordon Wilson and, today, SenatorMaurice Hayes, among others. They have enhanced the debate, discussion and information available to the public with regard to the very important issue of Northern Ireland and peace. Part of the thinking at the time of the Good Friday Agreement was to get away from the pressures involved in the formation of an Oireachtas faced by the Taoiseach who may or may not have space for Northern representation. In practice, such representation has worked well and should be put on a systematic basis.
In considering Oireachtas representation, we must take care to avoid upsetting the very balanced constitutional accommodation in the Good Friday Agreement. Our proposal has precedence and avoids such an upset. It is, broadly speaking, acceptable to most of the parties in Northern Ireland. We propose that the Taoiseach nominates on the basis of recommendations of party leaders or, in the absence of such recommendation, nominates a person drawn from the groups they represent. We should retain the independent voice we have come to value so much.
I thank Mr. Dorgan and Senators Mansergh and Dooley for their presentation. My first question relates to comments made by Senator Mansergh on the North. Would it be difficult for Unionist parties to nominate from among their members a person to participate in this House? Previous evidence to the sub-committee is that the nomination should be made by the Taoiseach on the basis of his selection of someone from that community. It would be easier for someone to accept a nomination rather than being asked to nominate from the party. Such a submission was made to the sub-committee by the Alliance Party. Can Senator Mansergh comment on this? It would be difficult for Unionist parties to nominate someone from among their number as huge pressure would be brought to bear on them to refuse to nominate.
I was intrigued by a remark in the Fianna Fáil submission, which referred to a willingness on the part of Ministers to accept reasoned amendments. Can the delegation name the good and the bad Ministers? Has the delegation any idea as to how that greater willingness on the part of some Ministers could be institutionalised? Many Senators feel amendments put forward on all sides should be considered, some of which should be put into effect.
To answer the first question, one must apply formally the same system to both Unionists and Nationalists. There are certain merits in having a formal request. I fully accept the likely reality in the short-term. In practice, the selection may have to be made on a more informal basis. I can envisage situations in which it would be indicated, albeit not formally, that such and such a person would be acceptable to the leader of a mainstream Unionist party.
To answer the second question, we will not name anybody.
Bring on Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.
We all recognise that from time to time some Ministers are more co-operative than others in terms of accepting ideas and amendments which come forward from this House. It is not something for which one can necessarily legislate, but to build a connection between the Executive and the Seanad is the way to go. A seat at Cabinet for the Leader would be a method by which the discussion of a Bill at that level would provide him or her with information as to its direction or the likelihood of the acceptance of amendments. If we build a greater harmony between the Executive and the Seanad in that way, there is the potential to overcome the problem to which Senator Hayes refers. It is something that will be worked out in practice rather than by the imposition of a set rule.
We hope Ministers would recognise that all wisdom does not necessarily reside in Departments and that both Houses of the Legislature have something to contribute and should be listened to.
I wish my colleagues and Mr. Dorgan good morning. The early part of the presentation by Senator Dooley, when he said with a straight face that the method of election to the Seanad was transparent, took the wind out of my sails. Since we started this process we have heard repeatedly that the method of election is utterly non-transparent. Nobody knows how the system works or who elects whom.
Having read the Fianna Fáil Party submission a number of times, I can only describe it as a lesson in protectionism. It examines all the issues and on the main one, the election of 43 Senators by local councillors, grudgingly proposes a couple of additional nominations without effective change. The sub-committee is exploring radical solutions to make the House more amenable to greater understanding among the public.
I and everyone else present accept the point made regarding the important contribution elected members of local authorities make to the process and the need for it to continue. Surely, however, there is a case for extending the electorate to bring other people into the process of electing Senators. My intention is not to diminish the valuable input of local authority members. Most would agree their role has served us well and may continue to do so. Will the members of the delegation justify to the great Irish public the reason no more of them should have a vote in Seanad elections?
I view the matter somewhat differently.
That is certain.
I will try to explain my perspective. I have stated I believe in the fundamental necessity of a second Chamber. Whatever method one finds to elect the Members of such a second Chamber, it is critical that it does not conflict with the method by which one elects Members of the Dáil. Appealing to the same electorate would create a conflict between the two Houses. There is little point in having another Chamber elected by the wider community. I am not suggesting councillors are special in terms of their wisdom in the election of 43 Senators.
Is the Senator's imagination unable to accommodate a space between holding elections for the second Chamber and the current position? It is the space between these two positions that we are exploring.
I consider reform from the perspective that one should not try to fix what is not broken.
That is the reason we never make progress. Anything that is not fixed quickly becomes obsolete.
I disagree with the Senator. When compiling this presentation, we examined the elements of the current system we thought needed improvement. We did not ask how one creates a second Chamber from a green field but recognised what is already in place. Rather than changing for the sake of change, it is better to stick to reforming the elements that need reform.
My earlier point on avoiding a contest between Senators and Deputies as regards the electorate is fundamental. The Senator will agree with my observation, made since being elected to this House, that a high level of balanced debate takes place in the House outside of the glare of publicity. Topics are discussed much better here because we do not necessarily play to an audience that could in some way bring us into conflict with our colleagues in the other House.
To catch up with the tenor of the debate thus far, while I accept the Senator's point, the method by which a person becomes a Senator is to all practical purposes a complete mystery to the electorate. If one was to ask members of the public on Kildare Street if they could name Members of the Seanad, recognised the names of Senators or were aware of the role of the House, they would, almost to a woman and man, say "No". It is, therefore, one of our duties to make our Chamber more transparent and open to the wider electorate. Senator O'Toole defined the space in which we are trying to find our place in order that more of the public will know about Seanad Éireann and what Senators do. While we all know we do valuable work, we do so in the context of a club of which the wider public appears unaware.
One way of explaining the system is that it is one of indirect election. Effectively, one has an electoral college of local and national elected representatives. This principle works quite well. There is outside input in the nomination process. Senator O'Toole will be able to tell me how many members are in the ICTU or some of the main farming organisations. One way or another, a large number can potentially be involved in the process. The way in which the ICTU goes about making nominations is a matter for itself.
We have explored this issue with the various nominating bodies and arrived at some interesting points.
I thank the members of the Fianna Fáil Party delegation for their thoughts. I wish to develop the argument a little. The Taoiseach himself used the phrase "democratic deficit". If one was to ask members of the general public what a nominating body is, I am sure few of them would be able to tell one what it is or does. While I do not reject the argument made by Senator Mansergh with regard to the electoral college and its representative nature in terms of county councillors, nevertheless, one of the recurring themes to emerge in the past few days is that the nominating bodies feel completely disconnected from the Seanad and the electoral process because although they are nominators, they are not part of the electorate.
Even if one chose not to go as far as universal suffrage, my preferred option, an alternative would be to ensure the nominating bodies at least have an input into the electoral process which extends beyond simply nominating people to be elected by county councillors. I would welcome the delegation's views on that matter as they raised the manner in which the nominating bodies should be reviewed.
The other issue, on which Senator O'Toole touched, is that there is a mixed option, in other words, one in which a certain proportion of Senators would be elected on a list system. I do not accept the point raised by the delegation that a list system would make the Seanad an entirely nominated body. There are plenty of precedents around Europe which would suggest otherwise. Some of the most effective members of Cabinet in other European countries appeared on a list. The system has many merits, which is not to say it is the best.
Would there be any merit in having a fixed term Seanad, not elected at the same time or subsequent to the election of the Dáil, in other words, one whose term could be the same as the European Parliament or the local authorities?
That depends on whether one wants to have fluidity between membership of the two Chambers. I do not want us to get into the type of mess one has across the water, where, having got rid of one principle, it appears one will have a House of Lords which is entirely appointed. At least elections to the Seanad are closely contested and there are no safe seats. Even those of us who have been elected are not quite sure how we succeeded.
Divine intervention.
By knocking on everyone's door.
I do not want to go over all of Senator O'Toole's comments, with some of which I agree. Let me accept the delegation's basic position which, while not explicitly stated in the presentation, I assume to be that we should retain the current electoral system as it applied to 43 seats. What surprises me is that the delegation has not been more explicit on those elements of the electoral system which could be changed. For instance, the panel titles as they stand are anomalous in modern Ireland. We had a proposal for a separate science and technology panel, which could perhaps include an industry element. This is the reality of modern Ireland.
Another point which was vigorously made to the sub-committee is that we have a major anomaly in terms of population distribution. Compared to County Dublin, for example, the number of votes allocated to the smallest county, Leitrim, is highly disproportionate in population terms.
The United States Senate has a similar system.
While I accept that to be the case, the United States is a federal system whereas Ireland is so centralised as to make federalism irrelevant as a matter for discussion.
The US Senate is geographically structured.
A separate and perhaps more immediate issue is that there are large urban areas with larger populations than County Leitrim which have no right to vote. We could at least rectify that anomaly and ensure town council members in Dundalk, Tralee and other large towns which are cities in all but name are given equal weight to small county councils.
We will leave that point of reflection for the members of the Fianna Fáil delegation to ponder. I thank them for coming. We will certainly consider their recommendations and bear them in mind when we make our final deliberations.
Mr. Dorgan
I thank the Chairman and committee for their time, questions and interest.
The witnesses withdrew.