We are conducting a review for proposed Seanad reform. We have an all-party committee and because we are Members of the House we have privilege. The witness has qualified privilege. We thank him for his submission and attending. He will have 20 minutes in total. The sub-committee members have read the submission carefully and the witness might confine his presentation to the salient points, following which there will be a questions and answers session.
Presentation by Mr. Muiris Mac Cárthaigh.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
I know the sub-committee is pressed for time. I summarised everything and put it on a page to simplify it.
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the sub-committee. My own background is academic. I am not going to give the sub-committee a lecture, but I have just finished a PhD thesis on parliamentary accountability in Ireland.
I see. That is great.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
Some of the issues left over involved the Seanad, and I summarised these in a letter to the Chairman.
It caught our eye.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
A lot of what I have to say is based on new political science literature on second parliamentary chambers. The subject has become a major topic.
The one page summary presents the four arguments why any country might have a second Chamber. I will concentrate on two of the arguments because we are not a federal state and do not have to worry about territory. The political argument as to whether the country should have a second parliamentary chamber has always gone on in Irish politics. That is a misplaced argument: we have such a Chamber. Therefore, let us use it in the best possible way.
Regarding representation, I read the Dáil debates from the 1937 Constitution when the Seanad was being established. Even then, there was uncertainty as to whether the Seanad could ever properly represent vocational interests. Representation has always been the big issue in Irish politics. Now, representation of emigrants has come to the fore. Under the Good Friday Agreement, the definition of Irish nationality has broadened so much that emigrant representation will continue to be on the agenda. Representation for Northern Ireland is a matter raised repeatedly this week, with representation for minorities. I do not need to speak on these topics.
I noted in my summary that reform on the representation issue is feasible because ultimately it fortunately does not threaten the Executive technically. Therefore, for the reasons given the chances of successful reform would be greater.
My thesis was principally about the second issue noted in the supplied summary, that of the institutional roles. Much of the thesis referred to Dáil debates, and I have read many of them. Whatever about some Bills being rushed through the Dáil, they are very often moved even more quickly through the Seanad. Most Senators accept this. The Seanad does not have the personnel or the time to do otherwise than rush them through.
Though I have not put a lot of thought into this matter, there might be some way to deal with Bills thematically.
I noted that reference in the witness's presentation.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
The Committee of Public Accounts, for example, does a very good job technically with finance legislation. Constitutionally, the Seanad must consider legislation. However, is doing so not a waste of time if, for example, the Committee of Public Accounts, which includes Senators, does a very good job? I do not know what the solution might be, because constitutional difficulties would arise. In other Westminster-type legislatures around the world, such as Australia and Canada, the second parliamentary chamber is very much going through the motions when it comes to a great deal of legislation. In terms of efficiency, much more could be done. I am very glad I do not have to say how this could be done.
Mr. MacCarthaigh is going to be asked.
The sub-committee members are thinking.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
The House of Lords is one of the most active parliamentary chambers in the world. It has of course 1,200 members. I have spoken to some Members of that House, and one of its big successes has been in EU legislation. Part of that is to do with the fact that the legislatures of many "eurosceptic" countries such as Denmark and now Britain itself include mechanisms for better EU scrutiny. Ireland too has such mechanisms, because there is now sizeable anti-European feeling in the country. Breadth versus depth was the philosophy behind the EU legislation reforms in Westminster. The House of Lords set up a large committee to look at the breadth of various legislation and focus on what was most important in it, after which the House of Commons considered those most important aspects in depth. I have been told that this approach has been very successful and has pleased many people. I am the last person to advocate that Westminster practices should be copied but there is no harm in copying best practice, especially when Ireland operates in a similar institutional environment to that of England.
The Oireachtas commission offers great hope with regard to the three year allocation of funds. There is a great opportunity for the Seanad to put its foot in the door and request a three-year project. It might, for example, take on some issue like EU legislation, or start a pilot project.
One the main aspects of my thesis is that, from a parliamentary point of view, there is no doubt that, institutionally, the tribunals are related to parliamentary procedures and practice and their failure. There are now so many external forms of executive overview in Irish political life. Be they judicial, such as tribunals, or more public forums such as standards in public office, the Ombudsman and freedom of information, they provide much information. However, from a parliamentary viewpoint they are not great. In terms of imparting important information they are placing the Dáil in particular as the poor relation.
There is a fantastic role possible in this area for the Seanad. The whole issue of matters of public concern leads to confusion. Who decides what constitutes these matters? Too often the decision in those areas is left to the Government. The Seanad could perhaps involve itself in such matters. A committee in the Seanad might say that if someone has a good cause, and it is mentioned by a Member of the Lower House as being a matter of public concern, the Seanad might well consider it, and perhaps suggest it would be worthwhile setting up some sort of inquiry. That might be a new commission of inquiry or a committee. We will come to the Abbeylara issue shortly.
Yes, I see the witness has mentioned that. The succinct page he has supplied is a great help to us. I now ask Senator Brian Hayes to begin the questioning.
I thank the witness, Mr. Mac Cárthaigh. The manner in which he has set out how the role of Senators might be changed is very useful. Is he envisaging a total break from the Seanad's mirror image of the Second Stage, Committee Stage, Report Stage debate that takes place in the Lower House? If that is so, how would the witness envisage a Bill which comes from the Dáil passing through the Seanad? I note he has brought forward the idea that one of the jobs of the Seanad would be to involve itself with discussions with interested parties and groups before the legislation was even envisaged. How exactly would that be done? One of the uses of this House is its ability to bring forward various amendments to legislation. The appropriate Minister, depending on his or her disposition to the House and the individual Member, sometimes accepts an amendment. More times than not, we find that amendments come out of the process that the Seanad itself engages in. The Lower House sometimes gets an opportunity to hear an amendment tabled by the Seanad, though it might not accept it. By breaking away from the Second, Third and Fourth Stages of each Bill, would less time be provided for the reflection on legislation, which should be the primary job of the Upper House?
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
That is the function of the Seanad, and its composition ought to be different in order to bring forward different viewpoints on legislation. I made the point about the possibility of dealing with legislation thematically in the Seanad rather than dealing with it Bill by Bill. Perhaps matters could go straight to Committee Stage, with Members already being aware of the issues. I know that this could cause constitutional difficulties. From my experience of reading Dáil and Seanad debates over the last 20 years, legislation often passes through the Seanad very quickly.
Some Bills do not. The witness is correct in noting that the Seanad is a small Chamber and all Members are non-officeholders except for the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Cathaoirleach. There have been spectacular examples involving a number of Bills where this House has managed to change the position of the Government on legislation.
The witness referred to the issue of accountability. We have had many new bodies established with, in effect, no accountability, in the view of the witness. Would it follow, therefore, that the appointment of very senior personnel to these bodies - such as the appointment of the Freedom of Information Commissioner for example - should be made by the Seanad, or vetted by the Seanad? Should there be some public or parliamentary vetting of the nominations made by the Government?
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
As it was the Government's decision to set up various tribunals, with the assent of both Houses, I do not see the reason this Chamber might not take the initiative in raising issues.
Potentially, the Executive might not be too happy with this. It would just mean the power to forward proposals to one of the new commissions of inquiry, to perhaps give this Chamber more of a chance for the very reasons that the Seanad is given legislation - it facilitates a different viewpoint. Dr. Garret FitzGerald has said some of his best Bills started in the Seanad because he knew they would be dealt with better there - the National Archives Act 1986, for example. I believe more power overall should be given to this Chamber in terms of the oversight function. It sort of relates to the Abbeylara issue, which I did not touch on. The Supreme Court judgment left open the door for Parliament to set up some sort of inquiry. The Seanad does not suffer from that structural bias at all - that thing that came up in the Supreme and High Courts. I know it is easy for me to stand here and say Senators should do X, Y and Z.
No, in fact, I have just been saying to my colleague that judges do not want to give up their powers.
As regards the Abbeylara inquiry, did the Supreme Court not find that the Houses of the Oireachtas could not make findings of fact on individual cases, but we could arrive at conclusions regarding a policy or a certain direction of Government?
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
Absolutely.
Presumably, that is where the opportunity arises.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
Yes.
Either way, it is just a matter of changing the law. It is effectively a matter of deciding on the role and ensuring what can be done in a matter that is constitutionally safe and sound. That is not difficult.
Let me take Mr. Mac Cárthaigh back, on the legislation issue. I am not taken by it, I have to say. I do not believe it is very radical. One of the advantages of this House, in a sense, is its size. To give an instance, Mr. Mac Cárthaigh mentioned the Committee of Public Accounts. I am sure he meant the finance committee, as the one that deals with finance legislation. That is actually a joint committee of both Houses. What happens is that finance legislation if introduced in the Dáil is regularly referred to that committee on Committee Stage. At that point the Seanad Members withdraw from the committee. Why is there not a select committee of the Seanad to do it? The reason is simple: because we find we can allow everybody to participate. Therefore, our Committee Stage is held with the whole House. We could decide to do it otherwise. I just make that point for that reason.
There is no advantage in organising legislation thematically. What happens is that in the case of the Dáil, legislation is almost always referred to the appropriate committee, on which Senators are also represented. We have decided we can get through the business of legislation in one third of the time the Dáil takes, if similar levels of input are allowed pro rata. That is one issue.
The other issue on which I am not clear is the proposed break away from the four or five Stage structure. Perhaps Mr. Mac Cárthaigh could explain this to me. We have looked at some places that have tried to break away from it, New Zealand, for example. They did not manage it too well.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
That is right. I have come across New Zealand. It is based on my reading of Bills and I see some of them are dealt with cursorily because the Seanad does not necessarily have the manpower.
It could just be a purely practical issue. If somebody wants to change legislation to allow local authorities to extend speed limit signs a half mile out the road, there is no point in going through a day per Stage in that case.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
Of course. We are back to the composition of the Seanad being different from the Dáil. There are people with fantastic expertise in certain areas that one would never find in the other Chamber because of the elected——
We have dealt with that and I am taken by it.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
That is why I said"thematically".
This is my final question. When Mr. MacCarthaigh talks about moving away from the four or five Stage Westminster process in his main presentation, I am not clear as to the reason. Is it because it is too long or too short, or just something different?
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
I think it is quite cumbersome for this Parliament, again given the size of the Chamber. It is following a practice that, even at Westminster, was found at times to be frustrating.
What is cumbersome? The First Stage is basically the Second Stage. The Second Stage is a debate where everyone reads the legislation and reacts to it in a general way. This has to be done regardless of what system is in place.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
At the end of parliamentary sessions this House suffers pretty badly when the Lower House shoves through a lot of legislation.
That is true.
That happened on the last occasion. We got more than 60% of the Bills here first before they went to the Dáil.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
I know.
We have a problem in that legislation passed here in the Seanad sits on the Dáil Order Paper in some cases for up to a couple of years.
I think that has been changed.
At the end of the last session there were 11 Seanad Bills queued up in the Dáil. That is not a case either way. It just depends where it starts.
If one adds up the amount of time that this House spends dealing with Second Stage and Committee Stage legislation, it is actually more because the cut and thrust of politics in the other House takes up so much time.
There are hours and hours of Leaders' Questions which go nowhere.
There is a wrong order as well, which might not be picked up in the debates. That is that Bills are amended frequently by the arguments made rather than by the amendment being accepted. In other words, a cogent argument is made on Committee Stage and the Minister will undertake to come back to it on Report Stage.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
Absolutely. It is rare to accept it, in situ, as it were.
The various Stages create a vehicle by which the amendments can be introduced by the Government as its amendments, whereas in fact they have come from across the floor of the House.
You had an interesting point on your one-page précis which reads, "In short, the Commons deals with the legislation in depth, whilst the Lords looks at it in breadth." How would you envisage that precept pertaining to the Dáil and the Seanad?
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
It is basically about the Seanad developing more expertise regarding European legislation. That was essentially the argument regarding the House of Lords. It could allocate a very large committee on European scrutiny and then filter what it believed was necessary to accommodate changes in British domestic law or issues of grave importance. It sent its findings to the House of Commons and it was very much an exercise in co-operation rather than being adversarial.
Are you saying they got it first?
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
The Lords would select.
Yes.
Let me just make a point which I made to somebody else. I am a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and also a member of the Sub-committee on European Scrutiny. Therefore, there is now a formal vehicle. I believe the Seanad would have plenty to say in terms of the global aspects of European policy, foreign affairs and so on. The Taoiseach has actually agreed it would be useful to hear the views of the House before Council meetings. I can guarantee that in terms of the volume of material coming before us, however, and the arcane nature of much of it, it would not rate on the visibility scale. It is so technical and frequently not at all contentious aside from, say, fishing quotas and some agricultural matters. We talk about tobacco in Burma or some such matter. Things like that come before us all the time. I cannot imagine the House would wish to deal with them.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
I am aware that there is a very complex and complicated system in place for monitoring such legislation. I was speaking to the director of committees. There is an elaborate system in place for Members for monitoring all European legislation.
There needs to be a clearing system. If we regard something as being of sufficient importance it is referred to the relevant joint committee or Department. A screening system is needed because many items do not even merit discussion.
You did talk abut resources, in which we were interested. You did your PhD on comparative electoral systems. Is it your belief that other countries devote greater resources to members of parliaments?
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
Yes. This came up in the DIRT inquiry, did it not?
It did.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
We are the least well-resourced. Part of it involves having to approach the Department of Finance if anything is to be done. I believe an allocation of close to €300 million for three years is considerable. It is incredible what one could do with that in a parliament, in terms of resourcing. From a university viewpoint I know that there is so much more technical expertise that could have been availed of, even ten years ago, because of higher education funding. There are resources out there which just need to be tapped into, as it were. The time for the Seanad to set its stamp is at the start of these financial projects when it can decide on what needs to be achieved.
We would very much agree. Thank you very much, Mr. Mac Cárthaigh. It was good of you to make such a submission and come today. When we come to the final compilation of our report, we will be dwelling on your submission. Thank you.
Mr. Mac Cárthaigh
Thank you for your time.
The witness withdrew.