I understand Senator Craughwell will share time with Senator McDowell.
Amendment to Seanad Standing Orders: Motion
I move:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann relative to Public Business are hereby amended as follows:
(1) Standing Order 2 is amended by the substitution of the following for paragraph (a):
‘(a) the Chair shall be taken by the member present in the House who has the longest continuous period of service as a member of the Seanad, who is willing to serve as Acting Chairperson until such time as a Cathaoirleach has been duly elected and who shall not be the subject of either a nomination under Standing Order 4 or a motion made under Standing Order 4B for that sitting and who shall not have signed a nomination form for a candidate for Cathaoirleach. Such member shall exercise the authority conferred upon the Cathaoirleach by these Standing Orders provided where two or more Senators satisfy the provisions of this paragraph, the selection of the Acting Chairperson shall be determined by lot by the Clerk at least one hour prior to the sitting;’ ;
(2) The substitution of the following for Standing Order 4:
‘4. (1) When the Clerk has read the names of the Senators nominated and of the Senators elected, the Seanad shall proceed to the election of a Chairperson, who shall be designated and addressed as the Cathaoirleach. Save as provided otherwise by this Standing Order, the Senator with the longest continuous period of service, as determined under Standing Order 2(a) [hereinafter referred to as the longest serving member], shall act as Chairperson until the Cathaoirleach is elected and takes the Chair. If any question is to be put under Standing Order 58 to bring the debate to a conclusion the Chair shall be vacated and Standing Orders 58, 59, 60, 61 and 63 shall apply with the substitution of “Clerk” for “Cathaoirleach” therein.
(2) The election of the Cathaoirleach shall be conducted by means of a secret ballot, subject to the provisions of this Standing Order. Preparatory arrangements for the ballot shall be made under the supervision and direction of the Clerk.
(3) Any nomination of a candidate for Cathaoirleach shall be in writing and shall be received by the Clerk not later than 6 p.m. on the day before the first meeting of a Seanad subsequent to a General Election for the Seanad, not counting a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday.
(4) A candidate for Cathaoirleach is validly nominated where—
(a) the candidate has already signed the Roll of Members in accordance with Standing Order 1 and has declared in writing to the Clerk his or her willingness to stand for election as Cathaoirleach; and
(b) the nomination form bears the supporting signatures of a Senator as proposer and another Senator as seconder, each of whom has also already signed the Roll of Members in accordance with Standing Order 1. A member may add his or her supporting signature to one nomination form only. Where a member adds his or her supporting signature to more than one such form, it shall be invalid on all such forms.
(5) Where a candidate’s nomination does not comply with the provisions of paragraph (4), such candidate is not validly nominated, and the Clerk shall return the candidate’s nomination form as soon as is practicable.
(6) A candidate may, in writing, withdraw his or her nomination at any time up to the close of nominations.
(7) As soon as is practicable following the close of nominations, the Clerk shall publish, in alphabetical order, a list of the validly nominated candidates on the Houses of the Oireachtas website: Provided that if no candidate is validly nominated, the Clerk shall publish a notice to that effect in lieu of the list. Where no candidate is validly nominated, immediately after the Clerk has read the names of the Senators nominated and of the Senators elected, a motion proposing a member for Cathaoirleach may be made by any member, and the provisions of Standing Order 4B shall apply.
(8) If only one candidate is validly nominated, there shall be no secret ballot for the election of the Cathaoirleach. Immediately after the Clerk has read the names of the Senators nominated and of the Senators elected, the Clerk shall announce the name of the candidate validly nominated, whereupon the longest serving member shall take the Chair. Following contributions, which shall not exceed five minutes each, the Clerk shall proceed to put the question under Standing Order 4A(2).
(9) If more than one candidate is validly nominated, immediately after the Clerk has read the names of the Senators nominated and of the Senators elected, the Clerk shall announce, in alphabetical order, the names of the candidates validly nominated, whereupon the longest serving member shall take the Chair. Following contributions from each candidate, or another member nominated instead of a candidate, which shall not exceed five minutes each, the longest serving member shall vacate the Chair. The Clerk shall then announce that the House is proceeding to a secret ballot and direct that the bells be rung for four minutes.
(10) (a) The secret ballot shall take place in the division lobbies. Members shall enter and leave the division lobbies under the direction of the Clerk.
(b) Each member intending to vote shall be provided with a ballot paper bearing the names of the validly nominated candidates listed in alphabetical order.
(c) Each member may vote for as many or as few candidates on the ballot paper as he or she wishes, marking them in order of preference.
(d) The ballot shall be declared closed when, in the opinion of the Clerk, all members intending to vote have cast their votes or, otherwise, after the expiration of 60 minutes, whichever is the earlier: Provided that the Clerk may, where he or she has determined that exceptional circumstances apply, extend the time for voting by up to 30 minutes. The Clerk may also determine that exceptional circumstances have arisen which require a further ballot, and such further ballot shall be held under the provisions of this Standing Order.
(e) Where a ballot has been declared closed, the sitting shall stand suspended, and counting shall take place under arrangements determined by the Clerk.
(f) The ballot shall be counted under the Proportional Representation Single Transferable Vote (PRSTV) system.
(g) The provisions of Schedule 2 to these Standing Orders shall apply in relation to the ballot, the counting of votes and matters relating thereto.
(h) The Clerk shall have the power to make a determination on any matter of doubt arising from the conduct of the ballot or the count.
(11) The procedure outlined in this Standing Order for the election of the Cathaoirleach shall be used on any occasion when the office becomes vacant and it accordingly becomes necessary for members to elect a new Cathaoirleach.’;
(3) That the following new Standing Order be hereby adopted:
Putting the question on election of Cathaoirleach
‘4A. (1) A candidate for Cathaoirleach shall only take the Chair where the House has agreed the question put thereon under this Standing Order. No amendment may be tabled in respect of such a question, and if a division is claimed thereon, and in the event of there being an equality of votes, the question shall be decided in the negative.
(2) Pursuant to Standing Order 4(8), where there is only one validly nominated candidate for Cathaoirleach, the longest serving member shall, following the contributions, then put the question, “That……………. (naming the candidate), who is the sole validly nominated candidate, be elected and do now take the Chair of the Seanad as Cathaoirleach”.
(3) Pursuant to Standing Order 4, where a secret ballot has taken place for Cathaoirleach, as soon as is practicable after the votes have been counted and the name of the successful candidate has been announced in the count centre, the sitting shall resume, and the Clerk shall announce to the House the name of the successful candidate selected by secret ballot. The longest serving member shall then put the question, “That……………. (naming the successful candidate), who is the successful candidate duly selected by secret ballot by the members of Seanad Éireann, be elected and do now take the Chair of the Seanad as Cathaoirleach”.
(4) If a division is claimed on a question put under paragraph (2) or (3), the longest serving member shall vacate the Chair and the Clerk shall call on the members claiming the division to rise in their places, and if fewer than ten members so rise, the Clerk shall forthwith declare the determination of the Seanad in favour of the successful candidate, and the names of the members who have risen shall be recorded as dissenting in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.(5) If, when the question is put under paragraph (2) or (3), a division is claimed thereon, and ten or more members rise in their places, and, in the resulting division, the question is decided in the negative, the provisions of Standing Order 4B shall apply.’;
(4) That the following new Standing Order be hereby adopted:
Alternative procedure for election of Cathaoirleach
‘4B. (1) Where, under Standing Order 4(7), no candidate is validly nominated for Cathaoirleach or where, under Standing Order 4A(5), the question that a candidate be elected and take the Chair as Cathaoirleach is decided in the negative, the provisions of this Standing Order shall apply.
(2) Any Senator may move:- “That Senator ………… be elected and do now take the Chair of the Seanad as Cathaoirleach”. If any question is to be put under Standing Order 58 to bring the debate to a conclusion the Chair shall be vacated and Standing Orders 58, 59, 60, 61 and 63 shall apply with the substitution of “Clerk” for “Cathaoirleach” therein.
(3) If only one Senator be proposed, the Clerk shall put the question:- “That Senator ………… be elected and do now take the Chair of the Seanad as Cathaoirleach” which shall be decided like other questions: Provided that in the event of there being an equality of votes, the question shall be decided in the negative.
(4) If more than one Senator be proposed as Cathaoirleach the Clerk shall, in the order in which the Senators shall have been proposed, put the question:- “That Senator ………… be elected and do now take the Chair of the Seanad as Cathaoirleach” which shall be decided like other questions: Provided that in the event of there being an equality of votes, the question shall be decided in the negative.
(5) The contribution by any Senator on any motion or motions made under this Standing Order shall not exceed five minutes.’;
(5) The substitution of the following for Standing Order 6:
‘6. Immediately after the election of the Cathaoirleach, the Seanad shall fix a date for the election of a Deputy Chairperson who shall be designated and addressed as the Leas-Chathaoirleach. The election of the Leas-Chathaoirleach shall be held according to the procedures outlined in these Standing Orders for the election by secret ballot of a Cathaoirleach, save that:
(a) nominations for candidates shall be received by the Clerk not later than 6 p.m. the day before the date fixed for such election, not counting a Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday;
(b) where no candidate is validly nominated, or where the successful candidate selected by secret ballot is not elected, the Seanad may decide—
(i) to fix another date for the election by secret ballot of the Leas-Chathaoirleach; or
(ii) to fix a date on which motions may be moved for the election of a Leas-Chathaoirleach: Provided that such motions shall be moved after notice;
(c) following the secret ballot, the votes shall be counted as soon as the Clerk considers it practicable to do so, and the Clerk shall announce to the House the name of the successful candidate selected by secret ballot as soon as he or she considers it practicable to do so thereafter.’;
(6) The title of the Schedule to Standing Orders is amended by the substitution of ‘Schedule 1’ for ‘Schedule’;
(7) That the following new Schedule be hereby adopted:
‘Schedule 2
Rules for the selection of a candidate for Cathaoirlach for the purposes of Standing Orders 4 and 4A:
Provision of ballot papers
(1) Ballot papers shall be provided to members in the following manner—
(a) The ballot paper shall be marked with the official mark;
(b) Members present in the Chamber shall be provided with ballot papers by the Clerk;
(c) A mark shall be placed on the members’ division list opposite the member’s name to indicate that a ballot paper has been issued to such member;
(d) A member who has inadvertently spoiled his or her ballot paper shall, on returning it to the Clerk and satisfying the Clerk as to inadvertence, be given another ballot paper. The Clerk shall immediately mark “spoilt” on the spoilt ballot paper. The Clerk shall retain the spoilt ballot paper and deal with it in accordance with paragraph 19 of this Schedule.
Rules for the counting of votes
(2) The Clerk, his or her assistants and the candidates may be present at the opening of the ballot boxes and counting of the votes extracted therefrom and no other person shall be present without the permission of the Clerk.
(3) The Clerk shall reject any ballot paper that is invalid, endorsing “rejected” on its face and any such ballot paper shall not be included in the count.
(4) The Clerk shall then ascertain the number of first preferences recorded on the ballot papers for each candidate, and shall then arrange the candidates on a list (hereinafter called “the order of preferences”) in the order of the number of first preferences recorded for each candidate, beginning with the candidate for whom the greatest number of first preferences is recorded. If the number of first preferences recorded for any two or more candidates (hereinafter called “equal candidates”) is equal, the Clerk shall ascertain the number of second preferences recorded on all the ballot papers for each of the equal candidates, and shall arrange the equal candidates as amongst themselves on the order of preferences in the order of the second preferences recorded for each such candidate, beginning with the candidate for whom the greatest number of second preferences is recorded. If the number of first and second preferences recorded for any two or more equal candidates is equal, the Clerk shall, in like manner, ascertain the number of third preferences recorded on all the ballot papers for each of such last mentioned equal candidates, and arrange such candidates on the order of preferences accordingly, and so on until all the candidates are arranged in order on the order of preferences. If the number of first, second, third, and all other preferences recorded for any two or more equal candidates is equal, the Clerk shall determine by lot the order in which such candidates are to be arranged on the order of preferences.
(5) The Clerk shall then arrange the valid ballot papers in parcels according to the first preferences recorded for each candidate.
(6) The Clerk shall then count the number of papers in each parcel and credit each candidate with a number of votes equal to the number of valid papers on which a first preference has been recorded for such candidate.
(7) The Clerk shall then add together the number of votes credited to each candidate and divide that number by two; the result increased by one, any fractional remainder being disregarded, shall be the number of votes sufficient to secure the selection of a candidate and this number is referred to in these Rules as the “quota”.
(8) If at the end of any count or at the end of the transfer of any parcel or sub-parcel of an excluded candidate, the number of votes credited to a candidate is equal to or greater than the quota, that candidate shall be deemed to be the “successful candidate” and the count shall thereupon be concluded.
(9) If at the end of any count, the quota has not been reached or exceeded by any candidate, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) the Clerk shall exclude the candidate (in this Rule referred to as the “excluded candidate”) then credited with the lowest number of votes and all the papers of that candidate shall be examined;
(b) the transferable papers of the excluded candidate shall be arranged in sub-parcels according to the next available preferences recorded thereon for continuing candidates and each sub-parcel shall be transferred to the continuing candidate for whom the preference was recorded;
(c) a parcel containing original votes shall be first transferred;
(d) sub-parcels containing transferred votes shall be transferred in the order in which the excluded candidate obtained them;
(e) a separate sub-parcel shall be made of the non-transferable papers and they shall be set aside as finally dealt with;
(f) if, when a candidate has to be excluded under this Rule, the total of the votes of the two or more lowest candidates is less than the number of votes credited to the next highest candidate, the Clerk shall in one operation exclude such two or more lowest candidates;
(g) if, when a candidate has to be excluded under this Rule, and two or more candidates have each the same number of votes and are lowest (the total of which is more than the next highest candidate), regard shall be had to the number of original votes credited to each of those candidates, and the candidate with the lowest number of original votes shall be excluded. Where the numbers of the original votes are equal, regard shall be had to the total number of votes credited to those candidates at the first count at which they had an unequal number of votes and the candidate with the lowest number of votes at that count shall be excluded and, where the numbers of votes credited to those candidates were equal at all counts, the candidate lower in the order of preferences at the first count shall be excluded.
(10) If at the end of any count, the quota has not been reached or exceeded by any candidate, and there is only one continuing candidate remaining, that candidate shall be deemed to be the successful candidate and the count shall thereupon be concluded.
(11) On every transfer under these Rules, each sub-parcel of papers transferred shall be placed on top of the parcel or sub-parcel (if any) of papers of the candidate to whom the transfer is made, and that candidate shall be credited with a number of votes equal to the number of papers transferred to him or her.
(12) At the end of every count the Clerk shall record on a result sheet the total number of votes credited to each candidate at the end of that count and also the number of the non-transferable papers not effective on that count.
(13) Any candidate may, at the conclusion of any count, request the Clerk to re-examine and recount all or any of the ballot papers dealt with during that count, and the Clerk may re-examine and recount accordingly the ballot papers indicated.
(14) The Clerk may at his or her discretion, or at the request of a candidate, recount ballot papers either once or more often in any case in which he or she is not satisfied as to the accuracy of any count.
(15) Nothing in these Rules shall make it obligatory on the Clerk to recount the same parcel of ballot papers more than once.
(16) In the re-examination and recount, the number or order of ballot papers in any parcel shall not be disturbed.
(17) The decision of the Clerk, whether expressed or implied by his or her acts, on any question which arises in relation to the count, including the exclusion of any candidate, or to any ballot paper or transfer of votes, shall be final.
(18) On the completion of the counting of the votes, the Clerk shall determine and declare the result in the count centre, and announce the name of the successful candidate whose name shall be put before the House in accordance with Standing Order 4A(3).
Destruction of ballot papers
(19) As soon as practicable subsequent to the election and taking of the Chair by the successful candidate, the Clerk shall destroy the ballot papers.
Definitions
(20) In these Rules—
(a) “continuing candidate” means any candidate not deemed to be the successful candidate and not excluded;
(b) “count” means (as the context may require) either—
(i) all the operations involved in the counting of the first preferences recorded for candidates; or
(ii) all the operations involved in the transfer of the votes of an excluded candidate; or
(iii) all the operations involved in the transfer of the votes of two or more candidates together;
(c) “determine by lot” means determine in accordance with the following directions, namely, the names of the candidates concerned having been written on similar slips of paper, and the slips having been folded so as to prevent identification and mixed and drawn at random, the candidates concerned shall as amongst themselves be arranged on the order of preferences in the order in which the slips containing their names are drawn, beginning with the candidate whose name is on the slip drawn first;
(d) “invalid” by reference to a ballot paper means any ballot paper—
(i) which does not bear the official mark; or
(ii) on which the figure “1” standing alone, or the word “one” or any other mark which, in the opinion of the Clerk, clearly indicates a first preference, is not placed at all or is not so placed as to indicate a first preference for some candidate; or
(iii) on which the figure “1” standing alone, or the word “one” or any other mark which, in the opinion of the Clerk, clearly indicates a first preference, is set opposite the name of more than one candidate; o
(iv) on which the figure “1” standing alone indicates a first preference and some other number is set opposite the name of the same candidate; or
(v) on which anything is written or marked which, in the opinion of the Clerk, is calculated to identify the member voting;
(e) “non-transferable paper” means a ballot paper—
(i) on which no second or subsequent preference is recorded for a continuing candidate; or
(ii) on which the names of two or more candidates (whether continuing or not) are marked with the same number, and are next in order of preference; or
(iii) on which the name of the candidate next in order of preference (whether continuing or not) is marked by a number not following consecutively after some other number on the voting paper or by two or more numbers; or
(iv) which is void for uncertainty;
(f) “original vote” in regard to any candidate means a vote derived from a ballot paper on which a first preference is recorded for that candidate;
(g) “preference” shall be interpreted as follows—
(i) “first preference” means the figure “1” standing alone, or the word “one” or any other mark which, in the opinion of the Clerk, clearly indicates a first preference;
(ii) “second preference” means the figure “2” standing alone, or the word “two” or any other mark which, in the opinion of the Clerk, clearly indicates a second preference standing in succession to a first preference;
(iii) “third preference” means the figure “3” standing alone, or the word “three” or any other mark which, in the opinion of the Clerk, clearly indicates a third preference standing in succession to a second preference and so on;
(iv) “next available preference” means a preference which, in the opinion of the Clerk, is a second or subsequent preference recorded in consecutive order for a continuing candidate, the preferences next in order on the ballot paper for candidates already excluded being disregarded;
(h) “transferable paper” means a ballot paper on which, following a first preference, a second or subsequent preference is recorded in numerical order for a continuing candidate;
(i) “transferred vote” in regard to any candidate means a vote derived from a ballot paper on which a second or subsequent preference is recorded for that candidate.’.”.
The Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann now provide for the election of the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle by secret ballot. This was done as a measure of internal Oireachtas law reform, with a view to making the positions more demonstrably independent of the Government and Government parties. Up to then, the Ceann Comhairle's position was traditionally filled by an arrangement that led to the formation of a Government, and the background to many appointments to the position of Ceann Comhairle was that Governments with narrow majorities sought to widen them by appointing a particular person to the position. The problem with that, of course, is that the speaker of the House is supposed to be absolutely independent of the Government and is supposed to carry out the will of the Members of the House as such. In this House, we amended the Standing Orders to provide that the Cathaoirleach makes a declaration on assuming office, which is provided for in our Standing Orders.
This House has had the benefit of a number of commitments made in respect of Seanad reform, and it is notable that when the amendments were tabled in Dáil Éireann, there was all-party support, especially from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, for the election of a Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot. Various reform proposals for Seanad Éireann have all advocated that the positions of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach of this House should be similarly elected. On foot of the then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's solemn commitment to reforming this House made on St. Brigid's Day 2018, in which he set out all his ambitions, the Cathaoirleach's position was to be elected by a secret ballot of the Members of this House. When Deputy Varadkar, as Taoiseach, came to this House and said he believed we should do the same, in respect of the reform of Dáil Éireann, for electing the Cathaoirleach of this House the next time around, I took him seriously at the time but learned later not to take him seriously because he established a group to implement the Manning report, and as soon as that report had finished with its business and supplied him with not only recommendations on implementing it but also a Bill to amend the law that had been drafted by parliamentary draughtsman paid for by the then Taoiseach's Department, he reneged on it in the most remarkable way. In private, he told me he had no interest in reforming the way in which the Seanad positions were elected, despite having come here on 1 February 2018 and stating it was his intention to do so. That was a low point in Irish politics. An all-party group of this House was established and did what it was supposed to do. It produced legislation, paid for by the Exchequer, to bring about what had been stated to be Government policy, and in private one evening in the Taoiseach's room in early 2019, the then Taoiseach told me he had no intention of doing it. That is pretty low politics, as it goes.
I should add that the then Cathaoirleach, Senator Mark Daly, attempted to reform this House in a number of ways. He attempted to bring about an EU scrutiny committee in respect of draft EU statutory instruments, and the Government has now stated that the committee cannot see those draft statutory instruments and claims, ridiculously, that the Attorney General has said that when they are in draft form, they are subject to legal privilege, even though everyone including a first-year law student, let alone the Attorney General, knows it is always open to people who have privilege to waive that privilege and permit a document to be made public or used in any given way. Again, however, in the utmost bad faith, we are left with a situation where that committee, which is effectively high and dry and functionless and has not had the opportunity to consider a single statutory instrument in draft form, will not be allowed to function.
We have had, therefore, a deliberate breach of the commitment made to this House by Fine Gael to implementing an all-party group's proposals for reforms. We have had a collapse in the initiative taken by this House, and by Senator Daly in particular, to implement a system whereby this House would have a role in EU affairs, scrutinising draft statutory instruments and referring them on to various sectoral committees. In that context, we come to what we are dealing with in this motion. The text of the amended Standing Orders that has been proposed is not something the people supporting it produced in an amateurish way. They asked at the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight of this House that the secretariat of the House would generate the draft Standing Orders, and that was done. The text, therefore, as it is laid out, has been carefully worked out as to how the system would work and how the practice of electing the Chair of this House would be brought into line with that of Dáil Éireann, in conformity with what the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, said should happen.
What happened then was that various people from the Government parties at that committee said they would bring these proposals to their own parliamentary groups for further discussion. Happily, there were a few decent people on the committee who told me that nothing of the kind ever happened. These proposals were never brought before the parliamentary parties of any of the parties in government - they simply were not. When the day came eventually, after the secretariat of the Seanad had prepared the text of the enabling changes in the standing orders, it was put on the agenda. No reason was given for not supporting it but the Government party members of the committee were instructed to say “No” in the hope that it would die there on the table of the CPPO.
They ignored one thing, which is that it is for this House to decide these matters. It is not for a committee and certainly not for the Government Whip or the Cabinet to decide them. Under the Constitution, each House decides its own Standing Orders. The result is that we have tabled a motion to bring about what the professional draftspersons involved with the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight proposed on foot of what they believed at the time was a consensus to change the Standing Orders in accordance with what the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, had promised.
The bottom line is this. If we do not change this today, we may have the opportunity to do it after the general election because this House will still be in existence, theoretically, probably into February or March, but certainly into February because the limit is 90 days from the dissolution of the Dáil, whenever that happens. However, if we do not make these changes before the next general election of the Seanad, the result will be that the old practice stays in place. The Government of the day will decide, on a "share out the jobs among the lads and lasses" basis, who should be Cathaoirleach of this House, and a message will be given to the Whips of the various groups to bring about a particular appointment, rather than allowing the Members of this House a vote on the matter as is the case in Dáil Éireann and is now guaranteed to its Members.
Why did the Government parties decide to frustrate the proposals that the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, had supported? No explanation was given. The most shocking thing about that CPPO meeting was that no argument was made whatsoever by those present, who simply indicated by raising their hands that they were voting it down. Not one argument or not one sentence was spoken as to why it should not be done. It was just cynically voted down without explanation and without the consultation that the committee had been told was about to take place with the parliamentary parties of the Government parties, which were to consider it. That consideration never took place. A decision came down from on high that this was not to be done. The Government wants to hand out this job as part of the booty and loot after a general election. It wants to deprive this House of the right to select from among its membership.
I am a realist. The Government parties are probably likely to have a significant majority in this House the next time around. However, if they decide at Cabinet level who should be Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, the whip will be applied and the individual members of the Government parties will have no choice but to choose between forfeiting their membership of their party or doing what the Cabinet has suggested.
Reform of the Seanad has been cynically and consistently obstructed for the past five years. The group of which I was a member was convened, did its job, produced a report and produced a Bill to reform the way the membership of the Seanad is elected. As its chair, I was told privately that although we had spent all that time and all those resources, and taken expert evidence from outside the committee, the Taoiseach had no personal interest in the matter and it was to die a death. That is not the way to run a democracy. If this House is ever to function properly, the very least it can do is assert its own right to decide which of its Members should be its Chair in a process that is not decided for it by the Cabinet of the day. Is that an outrageous demand? No, it is not.
This is a well-drafted change to standing orders, done not by the proponents of tonight's motion but by the secretariat of this House and approved by them. There is nothing objectionable about it unless we say that the system of electing the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is objectionable too. The time for cynicism has ended. I am not going to allow this to go quietly. We will continue to raise the matter and to raise reform of the Seanad, even in the electoral cycle that is coming up. We will see who speaks out of both sides of their mouth, who wants to leave the Seanad unreformed and whose party programme says, “Leave it alone, it is perfect.” We will see all that fairly soon. This is a modest step to improve the standing of this House and its independence, and to put it at least on a par with Dáil Éireann as regards respecting the wishes of the Members of the House as to who they want to be, effectively, the quasi-judicial Chair and the person who is responsible for ensuring fair play in the House. If this is rejected this evening, I will not be surprised because the cynicism I have seen thus far has inured me to being shocked, but I will say that it is an exercise in the utmost bad faith to turn it down.
I second the motion. I will speak shortly.
I acknowledge Senator McDowell's interest in and commitment to Seanad reform. He has certainly advocated for this measure for a number of years. We have had numerous debates. It has almost become like the drainage of the Shannon in that it has been talked about for decades and very little has happened, which I acknowledge. A Bill relating to the university Senators before the Dáil today. It is an issue that has been raised again on foot of a court decision, and the Government has had to act. In my time as Government Chief Whip, I remember advocating at Cabinet to the then Taoiseach before the last election that this issue was something that perhaps he could pursue. That did not happen at the time but it has happened now because of court challenges.
I have also advocated in this House. The 2020 programme for government discussions were a long, drawn-out process and we were coming to a stage where the Seanad could not constitutionally sit. If we are talking about Seanad reform, I believe the Taoiseach's 11 nominees, if they are to be retained, should have a status as being Members of the new House until such time as a new Taoiseach is elected in order to allow a fully constituted 60-Member body. When the Seanad elections are over and if there were an impasse in the election of the Taoiseach, the old or outgoing Taoiseach's Seanad nominees could form part of the 60-Member body to allow the work of the Seanad to go on.
This change happened in the election of the Ceann Comhairle, as I understand, for the first time in 2016. Let us be blunt about it. It happened in 2016 because it was not obvious what the Government make-up would be. It was not some grandiose plan that Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael had. It was a fact that we had a situation where it was not clear what Government would be put together and in order to allow the election of a Ceann Comhairle, the view was if we could not elect a Ceann Comhairle, it would give a bad signal as a country that we could not get agreement on that basic point. It was not out of necessity. What is the opposite to necessity? It happened because of the election results. It happened because there was an impasse in the election. That is why it happened. It was not something that was debated. We have had a fine Ceann Comhairle elected in Deputy Seán Ó Fearghail and I am sure we will have fine Cinn Comhairlí elected in the future just as we had in the past but it is important that was not something that there was this big debate about it; it just happened because of the election results. Senator McDowell is not saying this, because we have had under the current system fine Cathaoirligh elected in this House, whether that be Senator Buttimer, Senator Mark Daly or all those who went before and who have served, and Government nominees and those with the support of Government have chaired as impartially has they could. There were not any issues. There has been the odd skirmish, perhaps, but it could not be said that there was not a totally impartial Chair. If people have instances, they can cite those. In that vein, we have had a system that has worked and because it has worked, I see no particular reason it should be changed.
Senator McDowell is correct that it can be up to the next Government, as part of a programme for Government, whomever that may be. It may be himself, as part of that Government or other Members of the Opposition. Who knows what the Senator's plans are? Who knows what the next Government will be, what its make-up will be and what parties will be involved? If that is part of a manifesto and then a programme for Government, that would have to be honoured. On that basis, and on that basis that we would be tying the hands of the future government in respect of this House, I see no reason it should be changed.
There could be instances in the future when the government does not have a majority in this House. The days of two or two-and-a-half party system, or two-and-a-half parties running the country, are gone. We have a much more fluid electoral system. We have many more parties than we had. We have many more Independents than we had. Who knows in the future what the make-up of a Seanad will be and what situation would have to be entered into in terms of an election for a Cathaoirleach?
I do not see that this is the top priority in the reform of the Seanad. Seanad reform may be part of the manifestos of different political parties and a programme for Government. We will have to wait and see and if it is, issues will be brought to the fore as part of the next government. I do not see that there is a clamour in the country to enact changes in this manner just as there was not a clamour to enact changes in the election of a Ceann Comhairle. We have had situations where Cinn Comhairlí were removed or resigned under pressure. There is that balance of the House and the Members and standards, etc. I do not see that this is a priority or that there is a clamour for it. The system has worked well. It is working now and depending on what happens in the next government, that would be a decision for those as part of a programme for Government with regard to any changes.
Before I call the next speaker, I welcome to the Gallery one of our long-serving ushers, Fintan O'Curry, along with his daughter, Laura, and her friend, Emma Shine, who are back from Australia. Enjoy your evening in Leinster House. I call Senator Fitzpatrick.
I thank the Senators for bringing the motion this evening and I thank the secretariat for drafting the motion so expertly.
I sympathise with the proposer on his experience of the duplicity of a former Taoiseach. I cannot speak to that or account for it, or I certainly cannot apologise for it.
I reject the insinuation that Chairs who are supported by Government are somehow impartial or of a lesser quality than those who are otherwise elected. Change is inevitable. That is one thing of which we are certain but this side of the House is not persuaded to support piecemeal reform of the Seanad. Therefore, we are not persuaded to support the motion and we will not vote in favour of it.
It is an important and detailed motion that sets out the full process. This would allow for this to become possible in the next Seanad.
It is a useful constructive piece of Seanad reform at a time when there has been deep disappointment, not only among the Members of the Seanad reform implementation group, whom the House has heard from. Senators McDowell, Warfield and I, and others, have spoken in the past about a deep frustration at the legislation that passed recently and the huge inadequacy of the Seanad reform offered in respect of just six seats in an extraordinarily narrow way and completely disregarding the excellent work done by so many for Seanad reform over so many years. That was pitched to us last week as a small step forward but actually it is a step backwards because in the previous Oireachtas at least there was a commitment to implementing the many recommendations of the Manning report.
It should be borne in mind, fundamentally, how we vote within the House matters and how people vote for us outside the House matters. A fundamental principle of meaningful Seanad reform is that every person should have a say and have the chance to cast their vote in an election to the second House in the Oireachtas. Almost half of the legislative process takes place in this room with 60 individuals and it is a fundamental principle that every citizen over 18 should be able to cast his or her vote and have a say in what happens inside this Chamber because what happens in this Chamber is extremely important. I am a passionate believer in the work the Seanad does and the importance of what the Seanad brings, in particular, to the legislative process.
The opportunity to meaningfully reform who votes for the Seanad and send a signal back to the public, who sent such a strong signal to the then Government in the referendum when they voted to keep the Seanad and to send a clear signal that they wanted a say in the Seanad, has been missed to give them a vote.
It seems, as a minimum, that we could look to the other parts of Seanad reform. I want to give credit. Certain things have happened. They are there up against the wall. Like Senator McDowell, I am a member of the EU scrutiny committee. It is a positive initiative that the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Mark Daly, initiated as Cathaoirleach. It was something whereby the Seanad would be adding significant value by bringing invisible parts of the law under public and parliamentary scrutiny. That committee has faced significant obstacles and significant obstructions but, nonetheless, is, and I believe, will be, a fundamental contributor to greater democracy and oversight.
I also acknowledge that the cathaoirligh we have had in this term have been very positive in respect of Seanad reform. Part of that positivity has come from the fact that there were competitions. There was significant competition within Fianna Fáil that led to the election of Senator Mark Daly as Cathaoirleach for the first part of this term. There was also a competition that was won by Senator Buttimer. That gave a strength to the role of Cathaoirleach, which meant it was not just a sinecure or honorarium from Government, but a significant role that could lead and represent this House and frame initiatives constructively, such as, for example, Seanad 100.
However, I believe that would be strengthened massively if we had that competition. We have been lucky in having two individuals who put forward meaningful platforms in that election. This is not about Government or not Government, but it would be strengthened if we had a situation where every individual in this House could cast a vote for the person who puts forward a clear vision to drive and spearhead Seanad reform in a meaningful way, who puts forward a clear message of how they will serve all within this House and ensure this House serves the public better. Having independence in who puts themselves forward, so decision making is not done on party political lines, but on the merit of the candidates, gives strength and credibility. It raises the profile of the House. It sent a positive signal to many when they saw the Leas-Cheann Comhairle elected in the Dáil.
Thank you, Senator.
I will come to my conclusion. That sent a positive signal. The reaction from people on the ground was that they saw democracy in play and decisions being made for the best. It strengthens the faith the public have in democracy when they see genuine democracy and the same principles of a secret ballot, of the best decisions, and a PR system as set out in the detailed proposal here. That is democracy in best practice.
Thank you, Senator.
When they see it in the Chamber it gives them some faith that they may eventually see it outside the Chamber and in how the Chamber is itself fully elected.
Before I move on to Senator Craughwell-----
I am sorry, but I just say that we will be supporting the motion.
I welcome Niamh and Brenda Murray, guests of Senator Ahearn. They are accompanied by Emma Walsh who works in the Senator's office. They are all welcome and I hope they enjoy their stay in the Seanad.
This House is notoriously known for cronyism. I know because I was elected in 2014 and I believe I was one of the first people to break the pattern of cronyism in this House. Members might recall that my election hit all the headlines at the time. The Government wanted to put in one of its favoured sons and at the end of the day it failed to do that. What is wrong with democracy? Many Members of this House will put themselves before the public in the coming weeks and months seeking to be elected, and they will do that by way of secret ballot. Nobody in this House is afraid of a secret ballot, so why are they afraid of a secret ballot to elect a Cathaoirleach? What is the problem? One of my colleagues referred to the reform as piecemeal. Maybe the reform of the university seats was piecemeal, but it is going to happen. What would be wrong with putting a Cathaoirleach forward by secret ballot? I have no difficulty with any of the Cathaoirligh I served under over the past ten years. Every one of them did a fine job. However, I suggest to my colleagues on the Government side that what has them spooked is what happened with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the Dáil. They saw that democracy can work and they do not want that to happen.
We have got to make this House relevant. In the past two years in this House, they have usurped democracy at every turn. Guillotines have been used time and again. They have rammed all sections and Stages of legislation through in a couple of hours in one afternoon. It is time that all Senators stood up for the democracy we are supposed to believe in. That democracy is underpinned by a secret ballot. The people who elect us, elect us by secret ballot. At the end of the day, we can walk out of here and tell the public that we are afraid of democracy, and of a secret ballot in this House. Why would you do that? Senator McDowell is 100% correct. At the end of the day, when the next Seanad is elected there will be a significant Government majority, and that majority will just instruct its members to elect whoever it chooses. That is wrong in every sense of the word. We should never have a situation like that. I have spent my life believing that nobody should ever be gifted a seat. They should fight for it, and if they win it, good and well. The idea of somebody in a party room somewhere deciding that A, B or C will be the Cathaoirleach the next time around is just repugnant to democracy and everything democracy stands for.
As I say, the Cathaoirligh we have had have been useful, and Senator Higgins is correct. During the last election, at least there was a battle within the parties themselves for the role of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach. It was quite obvious at the time that it was a heated battle. The people who ran are to be commended because they put themselves before the electorate, but we again had an open vote and that was just wrong. It should have been a secret ballot. If we had a secret ballot, we might have finished up with a situation similar to what happened in the Dáil. We might have had somebody elected whom we did not expect. A number of those sitting here are going to put themselves in front of the public in the next couple of weeks. They should please go out to the public and tell them they are not afraid of a secret ballot. They should tell the public they respect democracy every step of the way. They should tell the public that this House is relevant and that having an independent Cathaoirleach elected by secret ballot is not something they are afraid of. None of them should be afraid of that.
I do not know how many reports there were before Manning, but I understand there was a number of them. Kicking this to touch like the Manning report demeans us and the House. It is part of what has the public looking at us and saying we are a shower of cronies in here, referring to us as members of a nursing home or of a crèche depending on whether we are young and up and coming politicians or elderly and on our way out, or in the departure lounge as some might say. I ask the Members to please not oppose this, to show themselves to be democrats and stop adhering to a Whip from people who do not sit in this House. I ask them to do that, and if it is pushed to a vote, then it will be pushed to a vote. However, all of this will be on social media before the night is out.
I thought there might be more thoughts on the subject from other Members. Senator Fitzpatrick referred to the duplicity of the former Taoiseach in how this House was dealt with. That is a tough term to use, but it is remarkable that he paid for a Bill to be drafted and then said he had no interest whatsoever in the scheme. It is certainly remarkable that he came in here on 1 February 2018, promised reform and did nothing about it.
The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, came here and told us he would set up a process, a committee among the Government parties, to consider the Manning issue and that never happened.
These things are remarkable. It is remarkable that the very limited scrutiny of EU measures, which was simply an air traffic control to alert sectoral committees and joint committees in the Houses of the Oireachtas of material to which their attention should be drawn, has been sunk on the foolish contention that the Government cannot waive a privilege it claims in respect of draft statutory instruments. That is childish nonsense and legal rubbish. We have seen it before. We saw it with the occupied territories Bill. We were told it was impossible under European law to do it. They are going to do it now, folks. We can get advice that something is impossible and then find that it is possible when it suits.
Reference has been made to the university seats in the Seanad legislation. That "reform" was one which the Government sent the Attorney General into the Supreme Court to oppose. Let us be clear about this. This was not something the Government chose to do; this was something it opposed in the courts and tried to stop. It wanted to leave things exactly as they were in relation to the university seats. There is one instance of cynicism on the Government's part. This is probably the last instance of it. Senator Fitzpatrick is a fine parliamentarian and does not argue against the principle; she just says she is not persuaded by it. Well, what am I to say about that? What would it take to persuade her of that?
People may have forgotten this but when we had the golf-gate crisis, the Ceann Comhairle in the other House decried that everybody was present at a certain dinner in Clifden in the most trenchant terms and implied they had let down the Oireachtas. The Government of the day believed it had the right to contact Senator Buttimer, the then Leas-Chathaoirleach of the House, and tell him to step down. The Government thought it had the right to say to this House, "By the way, we are directing your officer to step down". That shows where the Government considers the real power lies. Senators Buttimer and Mark Daly are fine Chairs and their predecessors have been fine people. They take their jobs seriously, and I do not denigrate them at all. However, I believe we should trust the Members of this House to make the best judgment in their private minds as to who should be Chair. By the way, in case anybody thinks I have an ambition to be a Minister, I do not. In case anybody feels the people who proposed this imagine themselves being Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, they do not. They merely took Leo Varadkar's statement that he wanted this to happen at face value and were naïve enough to ask the Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight to have the necessary rule changes drafted extremely well and are naïve enough think that if they brought them forward, they would be given a fair hearing. They were not and they were given no reasons.
Senator Kyne has given no reason either. He gave some background to the decision in the Dáil but gave no reason as to why it was wrong for Deputy Connolly to be made Leas-Cheann Comhairle of the Dail if that was the free choice of the majority of that House. No reasons have been offered here today, except that one very fine parliamentarian has said she is not persuaded. I have to press the matter.
Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Craughwell, Gerard P.
- Flynn, Eileen.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Higgins, Alice-Mary.
- Keogan, Sharon.
- McDowell, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Byrne, Maria.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Cummins, John.
- Dolan, Aisling.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fitzpatrick, Mary.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lombard, Tim.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Reilly, Pauline.
- Seery Kearney, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Michael McDowell and Gerard P. Craughwell; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Joe O'Reilly.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Rebecca Moynihan has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 23rd September, 2024 for the remainder of this Seanad term and, accordingly, has not voted in this division. Senator Catherine Ardagh has notified the Cathaoirleach that she has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Moynihan for the duration of her maternity leave and, accordingly, has not voted in this division.
Question declared lost.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 7.30 p.m. go dtí 9.30 a.m. Déardaoin, an 24 Deireadh Fómhair 2024.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24 October 2024.