We will now hear the submission from the Fine Gael Party which is represented by Deputy Bernard Allen and Senators John Phelan and Sheila Terry. We look forward to hearing their submission. As we are all Members of the Oireachtas, we have full privilege. I trust the speakers will not exceed the 20 minutes available for the submission.
Presentation by Fine Gael.
Witnesses: Deputy Bernard Allen and Senators John Phelan and Sheila Terry.
I introduce Senators Sheila Terry and John Phelan. We are delighted to have the opportunity to present supplementary information on the submission which we made in July.
Our proposals for the reform of the Seanad are radical. They would give the public the right to take part for the first time in the direct election of 20 of the 60 Senators. The Seanad would be charged with drafting a long-term strategy for 21st century Ireland. It would also have a greater role in scrutinising European Union legislation. Three Senators would be elected by overseas Irish citizens and the university vote would be extended to all third level graduates. It was a key recommendation of the constitutional reform group that NUI graduates as well as those graduating from the NCEA, as it was then, would be allowed vote for the Universities Panel.
Our proposals would transform the composition of the Seanad and the work which it does. I put it to the Chairman and members that in recent years the Seanad has increasingly mirrored the Dáil, both in its membership and the work it undertakes. However, because none of its Members is directly elected by the public, the Seanad is regarded as increasingly irrelevant and there is limited knowledge of its work and functions. Our proposals strike a balance between an effective second House able to attract high calibre Members and a second House of Representatives. We would like to see the Seanad take on a more strategic role with less emphasis on short-term party political positions and more emphasis on identifying the needs of Ireland in the 21st century. I am aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has ruled out the possibility of emigrants voting in Seanad elections, however, we urge the committee to review the issue.
I will highlight two of the nine key elements in our submission. We propose the establishment of a committee for the future which would examine issues of future concern to Ireland, particularly those needing long consideration and planning. Such issues would include challenges in terms of environmental protection, demographic trends and new technology. Rather than being a reactive Chamber it would have a proactive role in planning for the future. I ask the committee to consider this in detail.
We also wish to highlight the principle of direct elections based on four European constituencies, each one to elect five Members to the Chamber. It would go some of the way towards giving people a feel for the Seanad and allow them feel that the Seanad represents their views in a realistic way. They are our key points. The three of us are here to answer questions.
I thank Deputy Allen. Senator Dardis will ask the first question.
I thank the members of the Fine Gael Party for attending and the summary of its submission. They will have heard the earlier discussion with Fianna Fáil in regard to the electoral system. It is a novel proposal to have 20 seats based on the European constituencies and to be elected on the same day as the Dáil by universal franchise, but why not go the whole hog and vest the entire control with the people and allow them to decide rather than have the nominating bodies and the electoral colleges?
That is something we considered and, while we decided to be radical in our approach, we also wanted to be realistic. The best possibility for getting real change is by doing it in stages. The first stage would be to make the Seanad directly elected. As Senator Dardis pointed out in his question to the Fianna Fáil delegation, the concept of direct election from a list system has been successful throughout Europe. We should adopt an amalgam of the best systems that operate in Europe. Given that we are realistic, we did not want to come in on a hara-kiri mission with extreme views. We felt it would be more practical to make progress in stages.
We have a system where local authority members elect the majority of Seanad Members. It would be too sudden a change to switch to a system in which everybody would be elected from a list system. We need to strike a balance between the systems. There is a degree of merit in the system in place. County and city councillors are directly elected and have a role to play in electing the Seanad. We need to strike a balance between a list system and what is in place.
Our aim is to open up the Seanad to the people. As the Chairman said, the public does not know how Members are elected to the Seanad. This would give them an opportunity to elect individuals of their choice. This would be a major step and one which requires close consideration. Going all the way at once would be too radical. County councillors have the privilege of electing Members and would object strongly if that power was to be taken away.
Would it be intended to extend the local authority franchise to municipal authorities and town councils?
The committee of the future is a good idea. If I recall correctly, there is a model for it in Finland which works well. There is a constitutional aspect to this, in that the Executive is responsible to the Dáil. It is not clear to what degree the Seanad would be able to demand of the Executive that it produce reports and so on which would come before us. This is a small Chamber, and the question arises as to whether the 60 Members could not deal with the matter just as effectively. In other words, why set up a committee at all? Why not do this through the entire membership of the Seanad?
More than one issue would have to be dealt with in a planned way. Matters such as environmental protection and the other ones to which I referred would have to be dealt with almost immediately because there is an urgency to bring in a sense of planning into affairs both in the Dáil and Seanad. Having two or three committees working in tandem on different issues would be the best solution. It is the principle that we are bringing forward; we are flexible in our approach. This model works very effectively in Finland. We were very impressed by it and felt we would put it forward as a matter for discussion. We are open-minded regarding whether it be discussed by the sub-committee or a committee of the whole Seanad. Many issues, including demographic trends, the impact on pensions, the use of technology and global warming, have to be dealt with in a proactive way rather than a reactive way. I believe our proposals are innovative and would work.
Will the witnesses respond to the proposal by the Association of Municipal Authorities with regard to the town councils?
The more we open up the panels to as many as possible, the more relevant and central the Seanad will become. Having said that, I believe the Seanad has, since the last general election, become more central. This is a compliment I can pay to its Members.
I found the submission interesting, challenging and grounded in realistic expectations of what might be achievable. When Deputy Allen referred to "local authority", was he deliberately saying he will drop the right of Members of the Oireachtas to vote on the panels or was that just an omission?
It was an omission.
Do you intend to retain it?
I intend to retain the present system, with the possibility of extending it, as has been said already, to——
Including Members of the Oireachtas.
Including Members of the Oireachtas.
On the question of university seats, I take it that the Deputy is talking about the same number of seats in respect of all graduates.
That is correct.
Has the Deputy considered graduates from, say, colleges in Northern Ireland? The case has been made to us that we should not distinguish between an Irish person who graduates from a UK or German university and an Irish citizen who graduates from an Irish institution.
Again, that is a very good idea. It could and should be considered and we would have no objection to it. The principle of encompassing all of the island in our political affairs is one we would support.
I, too, find the general balance very good and attractive. Consider the four European Parliament constituencies, with which there are obvious parallels. Is there any case for requiring any sort of qualification of the people who can be nominated to go forward for election or placing certain conditions on their election? I know what Fine Gael is saying about the electorate, about which we are clear but, in terms of making the system somewhat different, has it considered insisting that those who go forward for election to the Seanad have some form of qualification or have to be subject to certain conditions? Alternatively, would it be open to anybody, as is the case in respect of the Dáil?
I believe everybody should have a constitutional right to run for election to any of the Houses of the Oireachtas and I am very much against the principle of putting barriers before those trying to gain access to any of our Houses.
There is a barrier - it is questionable to what extent it exists - in that one has to have knowledge in a certain field to become a member of one of the vocational panels. If one stands on the Agricultural Panel, one has to have knowledge of agriculture. Nobody is quite clear what that means, but we will find out more about it as we progress. However, a barrier does exist. Fine Gael is advocating that we open up the process.
Yes.
It would present a wonderful opportunity for those not involved in politics but who would like to be involved in the work of the Seanad by way of their being directly elected. We do not believe in candidates having to fulfil any criteria. It should be open to anybody. It could be particularly attractive to people who do not want to be on a local authority or be involved in the political aspect of life.
Does Senator Terry think Independents would be elected?
Of course. There is always a place for Independents.
That is a nice thought.
What are the ideas of the Fine Gael Party on the nomination of Members of the Seanad by the Taoiseach?
Our proposal would reduce the number of persons nominated by the Taoiseach from 11 to eight. The current arrangement is archaic and should, at some stage, be examined with a view to phasing it out. We set out what we thought was a practical, reasonable document rather than putting something forward that would be "mission impossible". However, the current arrangement smacks of feudalism and the fiefdoms of the past. We hope our proposals are ones which the Chairman could accept fairly readily.
Set against what will happen in the House of Lords, it is very mild. Cronyism is beginning to emerge there——
"Tonyism".
"Tonyism" and cronyism.
Will the delegates expand on the idea of directly electing three emigrants to three seats in the House? They are aware that our former party leader, Deputy John Bruton, gave evidence to the committee on Tuesday outlining his idea for three constituencies, from each of which an emigrant would be elected. I think the constituencies included the Americas, Europe, and the rest of the world and Australia. Has Fine Gael considered this? I know it has brought forward the idea of electing three emigrants to the House. How would this happen in effect and what kind of methodology would it employ to ensure there would be no tampering with the legitimate electoral process through postal ballots or whatever?
I would not disagree with what Deputy John Bruton has said. That explains the reason he was not at our party meeting in Killarney.
He and others.
There would have to be safeguards in place. There are difficulties. Just as somebody claiming a vote for a local authority election has to approach the relevant authority, to claim a vote under this proposal one would have to submit one's application for a vote to the nearest embassy in writing. If there were major question marks over the eligibility of an individual, a more detailed examination of the application would have to take place.
On emigrants, we had a very interesting presentation yesterday by the president of the university in Maynooth. Using a wonderful phrase he said how he could not see how a Wall Street stockbroker or a homeless person in Camden could be represented by a geomorphologist - I believe that is what he called it - in the Transkei in South Africa. He said all three were people he knew to be emigrants. Is the idea of proposing emigrant representation not pretending that emigrants are a homogeneous group, whereas they constitute a series of strands of different groups?
Our own society is no longer a homogeneous group. What the Senator is referring to is indicative of a similar situation. However, the people forced to emigrate were victims of our history and economic decisions. They built a good reputation for Ireland abroad, with building other democracies. We have an obligation to extend to them an opportunity to make an input into our democratic process.
Their experience would be of enormous benefit to us. There is no doubt that they come from all strands of life, but no individual lives in a glass case either. We should be seeking to broaden the Seanad and the experience we can bring into it. This is just another idea.
I do not believe there is any question of Irish emigrants being a homogeneous group but they have Irishness in common. They obviously all come from different walks of life and have different interests, hobbies, pastimes and jobs, but the justification for electing three Irish emigrants is their common Irishness.
I thank the Fine Gael Party, including Deputy Allen and Senators Terry and John Phelan, for its recommendations this morning. We will certainly be reflecting on them as we reach our conclusions.
I thank the committee for affording us the opportunity to make a presentation and congratulate it on its work.
Thank you.
The witnesses withdrew.