I am glad to welcome representatives of the Labour Party. We were glad to receive the party's recommendations. Members of the Houses have full privilege; qualified privilege extends to Mr. O'Malley
Presentation by the Labour Party.
Witnesses: Deputy Pat Rabbitte and Mr.Finbarr O'Malley.
Thank you. I thank the committee for permitting the Labour Party to make a brief submission on the subject of Seanad reform. I am bound to say I agree with the Chairman's summary when she said she hoped the process would be successful in order that it would clear up the mystery that surrounds the Seanad. I think that is a fair enough summary of the perception of the man and woman on the street about the functioning, purpose and role of the Seanad.
We have to start by questioning the role of the Seanad and what is it for. Whatever else one believes, I cannot agree with my Fianna Fáil colleague who said a second Chamber was a fundamental necessity. Whatever it is, judging from its performance, I would respectfully suggest it is not a fundamental necessity. In our submission we tried to trace the history of bicameralism. We concluded that only in a federal state does a bicameral parliament or Oireachtas work well.
Many have forgotten that the framer of the 1937 Constitution, Mr. de Valera, was agnostic on the issue. Colleagues will recall that the Senate of Saorstát Éireann was abolished in 1936 and the Dáil managed to function quite well as the sole component of the national Parliament. Mr. de Valera made the following remarks when he came into the House:
At any rate, we set up a committee to deal with this question of a Seanad, and on that committee there were a number of people who were interested in this particular matter. As far as I could manage it, I got representatives on that committee from all the different Parties. They sat down and considered the question, and the result of their deliberations - I think it is not unfair to say - was, in the main, to prove the thesis that it is not possible to get a satisfactory Seanad; and the only thing that made me put a proposition for a Seanad into this measure at all is this: that there were members on the benches opposite, as I remember, who, during the Seanad debate, said: "Very well, even a bad Seanad would be better than no Seanad at all." It is precisely on that basis - that some Seanad, the best Seanad we can get, even though it may be adjudged a bad Seanad, is still better than no Seanad at all - that this proposal is now included. My attitude is that, even though some of us may be largely indifferent to the question of whether or not there is a Seanad, if a large section of the people of the country think that there is something important in having a Seanad, then, even if we ourselves are indifferent to it, we should give way to the people who are anxious for it.
Did he look into his heart and see this?
While he was an eminent statesman, I do not customarily start my speeches by quoting from him. Like de Valera, I am largely agnostic on the issue. If we have a Seanad, we should try to make it work. I am not sure that that is true about the present Seanad. It is true that it has a number of outstanding Members, as each Seanad down the years has had. I believe some of the myths that surround the Seanad cannot be supported. It is an unelected Seanad and a Chamber of second opinion. Either in my own experience or in observation, I cannot say it has worked especially well. When Minister of State with responsibility for commerce, I brought seven measures through the House. I cannot say the attention by many Members of the House was particularly impressive.
There is a myth that the standard of debate in the Seanad is better than the Dáil. That is manifestly and transparently not true. While there are some excellent contributors, that is a different matter. For that reason, I would, for example, support the proposition that the university franchise be extended to the graduates of all third level institutions holding degrees or equivalent. Personally, I would like to see the number of seats from the higher education constituency increased. If one looks at the record of such Senators down through the years, it has been quite exceptional.
I should preface that by saying I do not agree that increasing the number of Senators can be justified. While I do not want to apply concepts like "value for money" to the institutions of Parliament or democracy, I do not think that can be justified. The Seanad escapes scrutiny in that area which is focused, often in a trivial way, on the other House. I think cross-community representation from Northern Ireland ought to be done through the Taoiseach's nominees. I cannot see any other basis where the participation of the Unionist community would be assured.
I was supportive of the idea of participation by emigrants. Without breaching Cabinet confidentiality, I can tell the committee that the rainbow Government looked very closely at this issue.
Deputy John Bruton told us that.
Is that right? The idea was prominent at the time. While I was not the Minister involved, we found that there were immense practical difficulties. It would be a hugely costly exercise. I believe one would be much better devoting that money to services to emigrants, which I think successive Governments have been weak in doing over the years.
Thank you. I appreciate the submission from the Labour Party. Taking the Deputy's general indifference to the Seanad, and that articulated by de Valera, is it not the case that the Labour Party is arguing for abolition of the House?
I would not describe my position, or that of Mr. de Valera, as indifference - "agnostic" is the word I used. I do not think it is the task of a democratic party to advocate the abolition of a democratic forum. I would prefer to focus on how it might be improved. The comments I made are my perception of the historical performance, contribution and role of the Seanad. It is a question of seizing on the strengths of the Seanad, such as its introduction of new ideas into political debate. I think of former Senators from across the board. For example, the former Senator Mary Robinson piloted ideas here that were greeted in a hostile environment at the time. That is the kind of strength on which the Seanad can build. That probably means reviewing the traditional definition of interest groups.
We have heard evidence this week from many of the vocational bodies that can nominate candidates to this Chamber but cannot vote. Is it the view of the Labour Party that the franchise could be extended to allow ordinary members of the organisations which make up the vocational system to vote in future Seanad elections? For instance, many trade unions can nominate candidates but cannot vote.
That is the kind of question one should honestly answer only after having looked at it in great detail. On the face of it, it sounds like a good idea. However, putting it into practice by, say, the Labour Panel being elected by members of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions may have its own attendant difficulties. In so far as I have thought about it, perhaps a combination of both may be the ideal via media. In other words, some might be nominated and elected on a more democratic basis. An institution like the NASF had to set about devising some kind of architecture through which its members would be nominated and I am sure the same would happen within the ICTU also.
I see a difficulty in putting all the seats out to universal franchise. There would be no problem of definition in the case of the ICTU because presumably one's trade union membership card would entitle one to vote. However, there might be difficulties on the other side of the House. Nevertheless, the idea has merit.
I thank Deputy Rabbitte and the Labour Party for their submission and attendance.
One of the issues which may arise as a potential difficulty, if one is to allow the nominating bodies to participate, is - if we take it that there are federations of congress, where one might have a large trade union and a small one - if one extends the vote to every member of the ICTU, the smaller trade union could be excluded from the possibility of ever having a representative. A possible way around this would to create an electoral college within the nominating group with each subset having one vote within the system. How would Deputy Rabbitte react to such a system as a means of allowing the nominating bodies to have a more meaningful role?
There could be a sub-panel system. It is a possibility and may have merit. However, I am not so sure that the detail of the engineering is the issue. In so far as the bodies have tended to have influence, they have tended to nominate senior personnel who may have come through the same system. Rather, it is more a question of looking at how appropriate a panel system devised in 1937 is in 2003. I do not know what the figures are - I am sure they are available to the committee - but the number involved in the peasant agrarian economy in 1937 must have been ten times what it is today, yet the education panel comprises five Members, whereas the Agricultural Panel has 11.
That undermines the argument about the representation of minorities.
We would include you all, Senator Dardis. We would let a few of you stay on.
Most farmers are part-time.
A recurring theme in recent days has been the need to have specified groups represented here, for example, disability and other groups within society, almost to the extent that some want to completely de-politicise the process. This is a political institution which should comprise political people. Therefore, what we are trying to get at is how we can reconcile the debate and come forward with proposals.
The business of de-politicising is difficult in practice. There is a tenuous connection between some of the committee's more esteemed colleagues and their nominating bodies. That is not to say they do not bring immensely useful qualities to the Chamber but what precisely their connection is with their nominating bodies is not always apparent to me. Unless one is prepared to tackle the method of election, one will not de-politicise the Chamber by simply saying that, say, the Disability Federation of Ireland will have one nominee.
We must have been listening to one another. In Wexford I heard Deputy Rabbitte express the strong view that he was committed to reform of the Dáil. Therefore, I take it that he approves of what we are endeavouring to do here.
Absolutely.
I am glad to hear it. If the Deputy's party is part of the Government after the next general election, will he retain the Taoiseach's nominees?
I think so, yes. I do not believe one should have a situation where the business of Government was unreasonably obstructed - that is not the purpose of the Seanad. However, there are changes which can be looked at. I do not see the reason it is a requirement that the lifetime of the Seanad ought to be coterminous with that of the Dáil, nor do I see, if the Taoiseach ceases to hold office, the reason his or her nominees should continue to be representatives in the Chamber.
There was an example in this House when the rainbow Government took office and it worked rather well.
The Deputy gave two reasons in regard to the need for a bicameral parliament. Whereas in 1937 it was easy to be agnostic on the issue of a second Chamber, times have changed considerably and it is difficult to ignore the extension of the Deputy's third point in which he referred to a pluralist society. I am sure he would not object to my saying that, in consideration of that society, interculturalism is crucial and perhaps the only way to give groups such as immigrants a voice in decision-making and political power. There are ways to ensure such voices come through which might not include the simplistic manner of saying, "You are a disability group, there is a seat," rather they would include a means to ensure they come through in an imaginative and creative manner which solves problems in society. This is an issue we cannot ignore as this society develops from pluralism to interculturalism and the need to have this engagement between different groups increases.
Deputy Rabbitte referred to a bicameral system and its alternatives. In that context, the committee has taken the time to look closely at parliaments in various countries, particularly those which were subject to the parliament in Westminster - New Zealand being a classic example. That country got rid of its second House which had a huge impact on the remaining House because the structure in the creation of legislation had to be changed. Rather than Bills taking half the time to pass, they took longer because the Administration had to provide for three extra stages in their passage. Therefore, there is a practical function for the Upper House in the passage of legislation. Deputy Rabbitte referred to this as just ensuring the popular mandate does not run ahead and providing a way of taking a slower and more considered look at legislation. That is important.
I agree with Deputy Rabbitte's original point in that I do not believe the standard of debate in this House is any better than in the other House or vice versa - politicians are politicians and the interplay between them can vary. Nevertheless, being a Member of a 60 seat Chamber makes it easier to have more of an input into legislation than in a 166 seat Chamber, something which has not been adverted to. On the one hand, it is a good reason for maintaining the number and ensuring Members have an input into legislation on the other.
The matters raised by Senator O'Toole may be reflected on by the Deputy's party. I thank him for coming and taking the trouble with the submission. I also thank him and his colleague for being with us this morning. We will reflect on his submission and oral presentation when making our final report.
I thank the Chairman and her colleagues.
The witnesses withdrew.