Although we know Mr. O'Mahony well enough to call him T. P., we cannot do so due to the formality of the occasion. He is very welcome. I thank him for making this submission. We had 164 submissions from which we culled the most vivid. We look forward to hearing Mr. O'Mahony's presentation which we hope will be followed by a good to and fro discussion, otherwise there is no point to it. Some 20 minutes are available to us. We are an all-party committee determined upon Seanad reform and while we have full privilege, Mr. O'Mahony has qualified privilege.
Presentation by Mr. T. P. O’Mahony.
Mr. O’Mahony
My thanks to the Chairman and her colleagues on the sub-committee for the invitation. I received it with pleasure and, indeed, honour. I am delighted to be here. Had the result in Croke Park gone differently last Sunday - as I thought it might have done - I had planned to come in here singing a verse of "The Banks". We will have to wait one more year.
Mr. O'Mahony can still do it.
I will leave before he starts singing that song.
Mr. O’Mahony
I will let my submission stand, for good or ill. I would not for a moment suggest that comments made in my local pub earlier this week amount to a serious critique of Seanad Éireann but when word got round that I was coming here I was taken aside by three separate individuals who wished to make known their feelings about it. One guy did it in language so colourful that I could not repeat it within the precincts of this august Chamber. The bottom line was they were hoping I would be coming here to recommend the abolition of the Seanad. That is a sentiment I do not share and, if I did, I do not think I should be here.
These are the people who would say abolish the Dáil also.
Mr. O’Mahony
And the Constitution. With renewed vigour, the Seanad can fulfil the role envisaged for it in the Constitution but only if, as an institution, it is itself renewed. This was what I tried to communicate to my three colleagues but they were not convinced. We may not attach much weight to what was said in my local pub but I am mindful of comments made by two of our distinguished constitutional scholars. Professor David Gwynn Morgan of UCC said the case for maintaining the Seanad in its current unreformed condition is very weak. Perhaps more significantly, the late Professor John Kelly, who as we all know was a distinguished Member of the Oireachtas apart from his work as professor of Roman law and jurisprudence in UCD, said that in so far as the Seanad was dominated by party politicians, it negated the vocational element which the Constitution wanted it to have. That falls a little short of saying that in some respects the Seanad might be in violation of the Constitution, or that in its make-up it is somehow unconstitutional. That is perhaps as far as a cautious constitutional scholar would wish to go.
My final comment derives from recently re-reading the debates in from the 1787 convention in Philadelphia from which sprang the American Constitution. When the 55 delegates, all male, came to contemplating what sort of Senate they might have, time and again, the phrase that cropped up was that they wished it to be an assembly of wise men. Today, we would rapidly add, and wise women as well. I sincerely believe a Seanad that would aspire to be an assembly of wise men and women would have, and will I hope have, depending on the committee, an important contribution to make in the future to our constitutional system of government.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony for his presentation. I apologise for the absence of Senator O'Toole who has been here all morning - as he was every other day - but had to go to an urgent appointment. Senator Ryan will begin the questioning.
I have been looking forward to this for the past three months. Mr. O'Mahony and I debated the issue of Seanad Éireann in the local paper in Cork not so long ago.
I thought Senator Ryan was in the pub also.
I know the pub. I could give Senator Dardis the name of it, but I will not.
Were they all smoking?
Will they all be smoking after 1 January? Fortunately for the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, it is on the north side of Cork. Therefore, he will not have to be too brutal.
Nobody would disagree with Mr. O'Mahony. We all fundamentally agree that democracy will not collapse if we do not have a second Chamber. The evidence, however, suggests that in those places where a second Chamber was abolished, they ended up having to reconstitute something which was effectively a second Chamber anyway.
In terms of Mr. O'Mahony's proposals, I agree that the panel system could be reconstituted to reflect the composition and structure of modern Ireland which is now much more urban and industrialised. If we are to have direct elections by people in various agencies, and I think, in particular, of the voluntary social services sector, what about the risk of politicising them? There is no way one will keep party politicians out of any election other than making it illegal, which would be unconstitutional. Wherever there is a chance to get into a position to be involved in national politics one will find people with national political ambitions. This has diluted my thinking somewhat on the notion of direct elections. I would hate to see organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul or even in my own case, the Simon Community, ending up with its members deciding who to vote for among people who are clearly and overtly political, or worse still, among people who pretend they are not political. I have come across both types of candidate in the Seanad elections. One knows that these people will be party affiliates when they get into the Seanad but they pretend they are not. It is a different case with 100,000 or 40,000 in the universities. However, if one has small electorates such as the members of one organisation, one is in danger of introducing party politics within that organisation and that would concern me. Would that concern Mr. O'Mahony?
Mr. O’Mahony
It would, but I would have thought a more basic consideration is that in a democracy we must be prepared to live dangerously. Surely one of the key characteristics of a democracy is that one cannot predict its outcome.
That is right.
Mr. O’Mahony
One must live with these unpredictable situations and be prepared to live with the outcome, however unpalatable it may be. These are necessary risks and one cannot eliminate them from the system as I am not sure what one would be left with then. My concern, and I am not sure I expressed it terribly well in the submission, is to try to identify electorates for the panels in order that the end result would truly reflect the constituency, which is clearly not happening at present. With respect, it would be fair to say that in any reading of the two Articles in the Constitution dealing with the Seanad - Articles 18 and 19 - one would be hard pressed to conjure from them the reality that is now the Seanad. There has been huge distortion along the way. Reading these two Articles and looking at the reality, a huge journey has been travelled to the detriment of the current institution. The business of reform which is the focus of the committee is an untidy one which will involve living with an element of risk. One will certainly not be able to predict the outcome but anything is better than what we have at the moment.
That is a fair point.
Mr. O’Mahony
Some day I will write a book entitled My Barstool Theory of Journalism because a lot of wisdom is tossed back and forth in pubs. The extent to which this institution has haemorrhaged credibility cannot be exaggerated.
I do not want to go off on a tangent on that point. My view is that politics, the political system and the system of government has haemorrhaged credibility and we happen to be at the front line. Similar views would be expressed about Dáil Éireann but not quite as bluntly. The problem is politics and the perception thereof.
On what Mr. O'Mahony called the university seats, is he referring to universities specifically or is that just a term to cover places such as that in which I work and other institutes of technology that are also producing large numbers of graduates?
Mr. O’Mahony
I readily amend my submission in that respect. I have since come across a more elaborate scenario and one with which I am in full agreement. In essence, it is a proposal that the franchise should be extended to the new universities and other third level institutions. Second, it proposes that they should be grouped roughly on a provincial basis and that the electorate should then be restructured to reflect those provincial divisions. If I understand the proposals correctly, Munster graduates of the Munster universities and third level institutions would be voting for candidates from those universities and third level institutions for whatever seat or seats have been allocated to that constituency. That is the best scenario I have come across for the university panel. In that process one would be addressing the obvious imbalance between Trinity and the constituent colleges of the NUI.
I thank Mr. O'Mahony for his presentation. I want to relate the argument he has just made about the universities to the vocational panels. He makes a case for farmers constituting the electorate for the Agricultural Panel. Why not extend the franchise universally and operate on a geographical basis? In other words, the process should be carried out as in the European constituencies where there is universal suffrage. Let every citizen have a vote. One could have the panels in terms of their vocational aspects but allow the electorate to comprise every citizen. What is Mr. O'Mahony's response to this?
On the proposal regarding the Seanad's role in terms of replacing the tribunals and investigations, the group that preceded Mr. O'Mahony made a similar proposal. There is a consensus that the system is very unwieldy and I am in agreement with Mr. O'Mahony in terms of televising proceedings. I have always said that and I believe the courts should be televised also. There is a huge air of mystery about it. Some of the tribunals have been set up as a result of things that have happened in the Oireachtas, such as investigations into Members' conduct and their role in public life. How would Mr. O'Mahony deal with this?
Mr. O’Mahony
We have created monsters in terms of the duration and cost of the current spate of tribunals and commissions of inquiry. We have to look elsewhere. I merely had in mind the American congressional committee system. I was mindful of an interview Michael Heseltine did recently in the context of the Hutton inquiry. He has said there is nothing in Britain that compares with the American congressional committee system. I know one must make a distinction when one is talking about Britain and the Hutton inquiry and Ireland, which has a written Constitution. Obviously, the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. However, if the United States, which has a written constitution and a Bill of Rights, can make it work - I take the point about Britain being somewhat outside the fold because it has an unwritten constitution - we could, with profit, look at what it is doing. Michael Heseltine said the US committees were effective, powerful and got the job done. They do so against the background of a society with a written constitution. The parallel with Britain may not hold up but the parallel with the United States must surely——
What about cases in which some of the matters under investigation relate to the conduct of Members of the Houses?
Mr. O’Mahony
Where can one find a neutral forum, neutral in all senses of the word?
What is Mr. O'Mahony's position on my point about universal suffrage?
Mr. O’Mahony
It seems it is making the situation in that particular constituency or set of constituencies much more cumbersome. I do know what is to be gained. Is it just the elitist aspect that concerns the Senator?
It is to try make a connection between the House and——
Mr. O’Mahony
I know the Chairman's views on this matter because I have heard her on radio. I am confident that something will happen in terms of Seanad reform but I hope that when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of reform, the last thing that will concern the Senator is that this institution should be labelled elitist. Excellence has no road map. I would have no problem with that. If we could find a John Maynard Keynes tomorrow——
I am with Mr. O'Mahony on that.
Mr. O’Mahony
It would not bother me at all. I hope the Senator will not get hung up on it. I would be quite happy to have this institution labelled as elitist if it was doing the job for which it was designed. I have no difficulty there.
I hope the Chairman will have a comment on this. I will tell the committee where I was coming from - I am not sure that I handled it very well. I do not need to remind Members of the Seanad of the gender imbalance in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Therefore, I decided to float the idea of a separate panel that would consist of not less than five females and the electorate for which should be the entire female electorate nationally. That has two things to recommend it readily. First, if it were to happen, one would be, in a stroke, making half the electorate - I do not exaggerate about this - stakeholders in Seanad Éireann. That would do an enormous amount of good——
That comes back to my question. Why not make everyone a stakeholder?
Mr. O’Mahony
Maybe so.
I was intrigued by Mr. O'Mahony's description of the wise men in Philadelphia who met over 200 years ago. I wonder if they would think the Senate they created is full of wise men and women now. Looking from a distance, it seems that many of the problems associated with US politics are due to the sheer partisan nature of both Chambers. The way in which the Clinton affair was dealt with was just an example of party politics of the worst sort. I am not sure if that is the best example but I understand the initial intention of the Philadelphia men as they attempted to do their business.
Without a proper change in the relationship between backbench Deputies and Senators and the Government, the Executive, will we change at all? Having been in this House and in the Dáil for a short period, it seems that the great problem in Irish politics is the over-centralisation of power in the Executive, Government parties and the leader of the Opposition. If we are to really break through, it will require a seismic shift in the way in which parliamentarians see themselves because they can influence developments. Most backbenchers cannot influence anything because the Government of 15 or 16 people determines everything. The same is true for the Opposition. The total centralisation of power is a concept the late Jim Mitchell spoke about avidly in Fine Gael. How does one address the frustration, brilliantly articulated by Mr. O'Mahony, without breaking down the huge power of the Executive?
Mr. O’Mahony
I picked up on Senator Ryan's comments, which seem to be yet another example of some deep-seated fear that there should not, in any circumstances, be an independent Seanad. We are back to the question of the 11 nominees. As I understand it, the Taoiseach's right to nominate 11 people existed for two reasons. The primary reason was to ensure the Government would have a majority in the Seanad and the second reason was that it would give him the wherewithal to fill gaps in representation, whereby he could appoint one or more people to fill a gap if he felt a particular sector of society was not represented. Our democracy could be enriched if we had a Seanad that could, if it so wished, be independent of the Executive and the Dáil. Why is there such a great fear that an independent Seanad might reject legislation proposed by the Government and endorsed by the Dáil? Senator Ryan touched on the Freedom of Information Act which is a good example. I get a sense that there is a great desire not to have such a Seanad. This seems to be based on another misconception that an independent Seanad would automatically be hostile to the Executive. I do not think that is true. Legislation that was well thought out, seen to be necessary and well presented would be passed by the Seanad 99% of the time.
It would require the abolition of the Whip, probably the worst stranglehold in our parliamentary democracy.
Mr. O’Mahony
That does not fall within our remit.
No. I am simply thinking aloud and trying to provoke the witness.
It is not too hard to do.
Mr. O’Mahony
I might sing, "The banks of my own lovely Lee".
The witness is being greatly helpful to the committee. The party Whip presents a big problem. While there is huge independence on the Government side, most notably through the Leader and other senior figures, the dilemma is they will not vote against the Government. The same is true in the opposite case. It would have to be broken down by an abolition of the party Whip which would seem difficult to achieve.
Mr. O’Mahony
Am I right about the vibes I have picked up about the 11 nominees and the need to have a subservient Seanad?
We cannot go on for long.
We will have to outline in our report whether the witness was right or wrong.
There is realpolitik. I wanted to tease out what the witness thought and have found out what he thinks. I have not made up my mind about the Taoiseach’s nominees. There is a role for this in introducing people who would otherwise be left out. On the other hand, the idea that the Oireachtas will accept reform of Seanad Éireann which would involve the Seanad having the capacity to become a permanent and major nuisance to Government is fanciful. The fundamental problem is that being a good legislator is the last thing that will get you elected.
That is true, whether it is a Dáil or Seanad election. Thank you for meeting us. There is no doubt that you have enlivened proceedings. Your thoughts will be reflected upon when we come to make our final compilation. We are honoured that you made a submission and then met us.
Mr. O’Mahony
The honour was mine. Thank you very much for having me.
The witness withdrew.