The Sub-committee met at 10.30 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

SENATOR M. O'ROURKE IN THE CHAIR.

Public Hearings on Seanad Reform.

Presentation by SDLP.

Witnesses: Dr. Sean Farren; Mr. Denis Haughey; Ms Éilis Haughey; Ms Carmel Hanna, MLA.

Chairman: On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the representatives of the SDLP to the Seanad Chamber. We are delighted they could come and pleased that they took the time and made the effort to make a submission to us. Each delegation will have 30 minutes. Obviously, we have read each submission - many of us have done so several times. Perhaps you will hone in on the points you wish to emphasise.

On the matter of privilege, I must remind the members of each delegation that while we, the members of the sub-committee, enjoy absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to witnesses who have qualified privilege. However, the sub-committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege. I am sure nothing will arise which will lead to fisticuffs.

Having dealt with the preliminary issues and reiterated my welcome to the representatives of the SDLP, the first group we are meeting, we look forward to hearing from you. The questioners will be Senators Brian Hayes and Joe O'Toole while I am allowed to intervene.

Dr. Farren: We are pleased to be here. I am accompanied by Mr. Denis Haughey, a former Member of the Assembly, representing Mid-Ulster, and also a Minister in the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister; Ms Carmel Hanna who represents south Belfast in the Assembly and is a former Minister for Employment and Learning and Ms Éilis Haughey, one of our administrative assistants. I am also a former Minister in the Executive.

We very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the consultation process on possible reforms of Seanad Éireann. In the SDLP's first policy document, published in 1971, entitled, Towards a New Ireland, recommendations were made for a restructured Seanad in which, in particular, an all-Ireland dimension would be explicit. It is in the spirit of that same perspective that we make our contribution to the present discussion. Since the beginning, the SDLP has maintained its interest in and involvement in Seanad Éireann. SDLP members, Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers, have served this House with distinction. Others Northerners such as John Robb, Gordon Wilson and Edward Haughey have also served as has the current Member, Dr. Maurice Hayes, each bringing a distinctive Northern perspective to the deliberations of this House.

More recently, the SDLP made a submission to the Oireachtas review in 1999. While our present submission highlights the all-Ireland dimension, we have not restricted ourselves to that issue. Our submission also addresses the wider functions of Seanad Éireann, its composition and possible modes of election to it. In these opening remarks we will focus on the all-Ireland dimension to its composition, the modes of election and some of its key functions. We are not, surprisingly, extremely anxious that the Seanad should have a fixed all-Ireland dimension to its composition, not one that may or may not exist depending on circumstances and other political exigencies. Since most, but not all, Members of Seanad Éireann have a popular democratic mandate, we also recommend that Members from Northern Ireland should be elected on the basis of a similar mandate. Our submission outlines proposals in this regard. We recognise that there may well be at the present time practical and, possibly, constitutional problems to making this recommendation a reality but believe it should be seriously considered. Therefore, we recommend, as our second preference, the establishment of an electoral college for Northern Ireland which would elect the agreed number of Senators. Such a college, consisting of public representatives to the North's political institutions, would not be faced with the same constitutional or practical obstacles. Should neither our first nor second preference prove possible, we recommend that a fixed number of Senators from Northern Ireland be provided from among those Senators to be nominated by the Taoiseach. Such nominations should take due account of the need for community balance in Northern Ireland.

Turning to the functions of Seanad Éireann, we believe the Seanad has a particularly important contribution to make in scrutinising the work of the Dáil. We further agree that Seanad Éireann, with a new popular legitimacy, should initiate and comment on legislation. Our submission lays particular stress on the context created by the Good Friday Agreement. A new and more positive relationship between North and South is provided for under this Agreement. Already, we see many signs of this relationship emerging in the work of the implementation bodies as well as in other opportunities to work together to the mutual benefit of communities in both parts of our island. Suspension may have slowed the development of some initiatives but the broad thrust of what had been agreed prior to that continues and hopefully will soon be brought to a new level of momentum under restored institutions. We believe Seanad Éireann could play a significant role by bringing such developments to the attention of political representatives here in the South and, through them, to the wider public.

As other aspects of the Good Friday Agreement are put in place, for example, the North-South Parliamentary Body, even closer links can be developed between political institutions in both parts of Ireland. In this new context created by the Good Friday Agreement, Seanad Éireann could contribute significantly to the development of ever closer relationships between our northern and southern communities. It would be an important contribution to the emergence of the agreed Ireland essential to the united Ireland to which we aspire. We also believe Seanad Éireann can play a critical role in reviewing Ireland's European role and relationships as well as its role and relationships on the worldwide stage.

We thank the members of the sub-committee for this opportunity to appear before them and trust that in the not too distant future we can invite them and all other Members of Seanad Éireann to visit and engage with us in the restored institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. Go raibh maith agat.

Senator B. Hayes: I thank the SDLP representatives for their comprehensive submission to our sub-committee and travelling to attend our hearings. I want to ask two questions. Dr. Farren rightly pointed out the contribution made in the past by the former Senators, Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers. Could the SDLP give us a view as to the difficulty for the party in the Taoiseach of the day selecting one member of its party to be one of his or her 11 appointed Senators? Is there a difficulty in that or would there be a case for the SDLP selecting a person to represent the party should the Taoiseach of the day designate a number of members from Northern Ireland who would represent public opinion in the North to be Members of this House? An outstanding contribution was made by both of the former Senators referred to but was there difficulty for the SDLP in that process?

The second question refers to the interesting submission Dr. Farren made about the opportunity for direct election to this assembly of people who live in Northern Ireland. Would that include the entire voting public in Northern Ireland? How would one go about operating such a system? Would it be by postal ballot or through the normal way in which elections take place? In the delegation's view, would it provide the possibility of members of the Unionist community participating in that electoral process?

Dr. Farren: I thank Senator Hayes for those questions. I will give some brief answers and invite my colleagues to contribute also. Essentially there were no difficulties with respect to the two members mentioned - Seamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers - taking their place on the invitation of the Taoiseach of the day. There could well be useful discussion as to whether the parties might be invited to nominate and therefore consult among themselves as to who might be invited to become a Senator. It might well be a process of consultation between the Taoiseach and the parties in some form or other and perhaps it would then be a matter for the parties themselves to select at the Taoiseach's invitation. We can discuss possible mechanisms - there are not very many - but on the principle of a fixed number of Senators from Northern Ireland, if we are to rely on the Taoiseach's nominations, that principle should be firmly established so that we can always look forward to X number of Senators from Northern Ireland taking their place in this Chamber.

As to the issues surrounding direct elections, we could look to experience in Upper and Lower Houses elsewhere where there is a place for representatives of people living abroad or people living abroad who are citizens of a particular state casting a vote for someone in some constituency in that state. I recognise immediately that there might be problems of scale because we would be talking about a significantly large electorate being afforded that opportunity if there were to be direct elections, and I imagine the mechanisms and practicalities surrounding that would pose difficulties. However, we can look at some of the possibilities mentioned by the Senator, including postal voting and so on. As I said in my opening remarks, there may well be constitutional difficulties. We have not examined the issue too much from that perspective. However, if we accept the principle and move to a popular mandate for the Seanad as a whole, we should seek to determine whether a similar basis for electing Senators might not also be adopted for the North. Was there a third question?

Senator B. Hayes: Would Unionists participate?

Dr. Farren: It would be open to them to participate. Obviously, it is up to every individual who has a franchise to exercise it. That is a freedom we afford people here as well as elsewhere. I would have to say that the likelihood of many exercising it might not be very great. However, if we look at the participation in the university vote, particularly given the large numbers who have attended Trinity College and exercised their franchise within that constituency, we can see quite a large number of people from a Unionist tradition exercising it. To my knowledge, having canvassed for some such Senators in the past, I know that they have been anxious to do so.

Senator O'Toole: Having seen the House brought forward to the age of voting electronically, which I welcome, the fact that we still have a House in which we cannot plug in a modem to a power point is an indication of how quickly we need to modernise. I realise that is not the problem of the SDLP representatives, whom I welcome. I am irritated by this but it has always been the same in moving things forward.

I thank Dr. Farren for his presentation but it contains a number of points on which I am not clear. He did not deal in detail with the vocational nature of the current House other than to point out that the university group is the only vocational group he would replace in a different way. That is not something with which I would disagree in terms of a broader approach. However, I am not clear about how he would tie in the popular mandate and the 2% he says would be necessary in order to gain election through a list system, which makes clear mathematical sense, with a geographical spread. He makes the point that it would ensure a geographical spread but I am not sure how a list system will ensure a geographical spread while at the same time ensuring a nationwide popular mandate as an overall list system. Once we start reducing the size of the constituencies, that 2% figure does not mean the same thing.

Dr. Farren spoke about the electoral college system particularly in terms of the North and also made the point in his presentation that he would maintain a system of the kind of distilled democracy we have where elected representatives at one level, in other words, local authorities and other bodies would elect the tier of people who would sit in the Seanad. I am not sure how all those points tie in with a list system. I would like to hear the breakdown of the figures referred to. Let us say we were dealing with a figure of 100%, what percentage of that figure would be elected through a list system, what percentage would be elected through an electoral college system and, harking back to the question posed by Senator Hayes, in a Northern context would an electoral college system include Unionist councillors? I think Dr. Farren is saying that it would; that it would be up to them to exercise their franchise. In terms of the number of Taoiseach's nominees, would he consider changing those percentages? That is not clear from the presentation. Perhaps it is not an issue on which Dr. Farren has gone into detail and I understand if this is the case, but I would like to know his thinking on it. There is a list system, a geographical spread and an electoral college system. There are many systems there, but I am not clear on how they would gel with the number of Taoiseach's nominees.

Dr. Farren: I will be brief and then hand over to Mr. Denis Haughey. We are thinking more exclusively of these mechanisms. We are not thinking of having them all operating within the same system. If there was not going to be a popular mandate, as it were, we thought we would consider a college system, but we would not have the two running together. As I said in our proposal, a college system could consist of all the district councillors, Assembly Members and, possibly, MPs and MEPs, with all our public representatives forming an electoral college.

Senator O'Toole: Dr. Farren said that in the event of the popular mandate not running, for instance, in regard to the North that one would have an electoral college in the North, a list system in the other three provinces and would also maintain the system of the Taoiseach's nominees. That is my reading of the presentation.

Dr. Farren: No, we are saying that if we cannot have a popular mandate operating in the North for whatever practical or constitutional reasons, we would have an electoral college system. As to what you would have in the South, we would recommend a popular mandate, but there are other recommendations coming before the sub-committee, which seek to retain some of the characteristics of the present system, perhaps as originally intended, creating colleges or constituencies which were more identifiably vocational or whatever. It is up to yourselves to decide which recommendations are possible. As far as our first preference is concerned, we would like to see the popular mandate as the basis for all but the Taoiseach's nominees. If that were impossible, we would look to an electoral college system. As to whether that would run alongside a popular mandate in the South, I do not see, in principle, any reason it should not.

Mr. Haughey: Good morning. Dr. Farren has made it clear that we are rather more concerned with particular angles of Seanad reform which jive with our agenda than with the mechanics of how the Seanad should be elected within the South, which is a fair enough point for Senator O'Toole to have made. The angle we wish to stress is that one of the most fundamental compromises in the Good Friday Agreement is that whereas we, representing the Nationalist community in the North, have agreed to give our total consent to the State, to the constitutional position and to the right of Unionists to be fully involved in the nation to which they belong, the other side of that is that they accept we also have a right to an involvement with the nation to which we belong. Therefore, we have looked to the Seanad as a means of accomplishing that substantial link between the Nationalist community in the North and the body politic of the State which embodies our identity. We have been concerned to try to make a case for a substantial body of representatives from the North to be involved in the Seanad. As the practical difficulties of trying to create some kind of electoral mechanism offering every single voter in the North an opportunity to vote in a Seanad election would raise all kinds of problems, not only constitutional but logistical-----

Senator O'Toole: Of course.

Mr. Haughey: -----we have proposed a college comprising elected representatives in the North. There are 650 district councillors, 108 Members of the Assembly, 18 Members of the British Parliament and three Members of the European Parliament, who comprise a substantial body of people who could be balloted by post. It is likely that Unionists would take no part in it, but the opportunity would be there for them to participate if and when they choose to.

The other dimension to the case we wish to make is that given the North-South dimension of the Good Friday Agreement, the six Implementation Bodies, the 12 or more areas for expanded co-operation between the two Administrations, North and South, and the number of European measures and initiatives which have a cross-Border angle such as the INTERREG programme, the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and a number of others, there is, in terms of its purpose and remit, an opportunity for the Seanad to become a reviewing Chamber for the North-South aspects of the Agreement. The Seanad could hear reports on the outworking of the INTERREG programme, the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and so on and could become an arena within which the outworking of those aspects of European policy might be debated, reviewed and recommendations made to Governments.

Ms Hanna: Good morning, I am delighted to be here. There is a large concern about Unionists' participation but it is essential that they participate through whatever mechanism - whether they would agree to nominate or, as in the past, have someone nominated who would at least broadly represent their view. The bottom line is that we want increased and much broader participation of all of the community in Northern Ireland. If we are to play out the Good Friday Agreement, that is what it is about. If we are talking about an agreed Ireland and an inclusive united Ireland, surely we want to be able to seriously discuss those issues here. It is essential that one way or the other, we have Unionist involvement.

Senator B. Hayes: Ms Hanna will be aware that there is a section in the Good Friday Agreement on the ability of both the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Assembly, whenever it is reconstituted, to create a parliamentary tier, which has not taken place since the Agreement was forged. That is a matter of great dismay in this House as, I am sure, it is among members of the old Assembly. Would that not be the forum for the proper rigorous examination of the Implementation Bodies? The Implementation Bodies reported to the Government and to the Executive in Belfast. Most parliamentarians believe that their level of input into what is going on in the cross-Border aspect of the Agreement is not what it should be. Would it not be more appropriate for a parliamentary tier to be mandated for that purpose or should it be, as stated in the SDLP's submission, a matter for a new Seanad to determine?

Senator O'Toole: I have a related question. I was going to ask whether the delegates envisage a role for the Seanad in the east-west dimension of the Agreement. I have always believed the east-west dimension is one where Unionists might feel happiest. Perhaps in the broader milieu of the east-west dimension there might be an opportunity to make some attractive proposition to the Unionist side. That has effectively been ignored. There are many issues such as language which might be better dealt with in that way.

Dr. Farren: Would it not be curious if the Houses of the Oireachtas became involved in some discussion and heard reports on the progress of issues relating to relationships between North and South rather than confining everything to those institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement? I look forward to the day when the parliamentary body will be established. This House may say these matters can be discussed somewhere else, yet they go to the heart of relationships on this island. If we continue to aspire to a united Ireland, as we do in the SDLP, working the Agreement is the bedrock of that objective. That would be essential. I do not want to see the Seanad and the Dáil not having some opportunities. Even if there were no representatives here from the North, it would be curious if that did not take place.

As regards Senator O'Toole's suggestion, there are opportunities in terms of the east-west dimension for greater involvement on all sides. Many wrongly see the east-west dimension as a sop to Unionists. It should not be seen in that light but as an opportunity to engage meaningfully in an agenda of important issues related to the relationships between our islands and all the members of the British-Irish Council, which includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Senator B. Hayes: The problem is that it is currently a discussion between Governments, not between Parliaments.

Dr. Farren: Yes. However, we already have opportunities under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Chairman: Yes.

Dr. Farren: We have the parliamentary body. There are some discussions on widening out its membership, although I do not know how far they have been taken.

Senator O'Toole: The reason I raise the question is that there are issues with which we must deal, such as, for example, where the main corridor between these two islands should be. Should it be from Belfast, Dublin or Wexford? If we got the parliamentarians together in some type of forum, including the representatives of the Parliaments, perhaps they would indicate that we need three corridors. We could get a sense of unity of purpose. I wonder if we could pull the Seanad into this.

Mr. Haughey: There is nothing mutually exclusive about Senator Brian Hayes's two propositions. He suggested that the interparliamentary tier might be the appropriate forum within which to discuss North-South matters. Intergovernmental matters are discussed in both Parliaments, yet there is an interparliamentary tier between Britain and Ireland. That interparliamentary tier takes up special projects, such as that mentioned by Senator O'Toole, namely, what is the best corridor along the east coast of Ireland and what shape it should take. The interparliamentary tier which exists at present commissions research and carries out studies and work on particular projects. However, that does not necessarily mean that there would not be a role for the Seanad acting as a Chamber within which these matters are routinely discussed-----

Chairman: -----as a physical forum.

Mr. Haughey: Senators will be aware of the volume of paperwork which comes out of Brussels regarding European matters. I know the Committee on European Affairs of the Scottish Parliament had to give up trying to keep up with all the paperwork coming out of Brussels. Eventually it decided to pick and choose whatever was relevant or important to discuss in detail. That keeps it busy.

Chairman: The discussion has been fascinating. It is a clear example of the need to hear viewpoints, which were well presented. I thank the delegation for coming here today and we look forward to discussing everything that was said.

Dr. Farren: I thank the members of the sub-committee.

The witnesses withdrew.

Presentation by Sinn Féin.

Witnesses: Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin; Mr. Conor Murphy, MLA, and Mr. David Cullinane.

Chairman: I welcome the Sinn Féin delegation, including Deputy Ó Caoláin.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: Thank you, Chairman.

Chairman: Our group includes Senators Dardis, Brian Hayes, Ryan and O'Toole. There will be different questioners for each group, otherwise we would not get through it all. The questioners for this group will be Senators Dardis and Ryan. As we have read the delegation's submission, perhaps we could just get a summary of it. We will then have a question and answer session. As regards privilege, Members of this Chamber have privilege in the same way as those in the Dáil. However, the members of a delegation have qualified privilege only. The time slot is approximately 30 minutes.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: I thank you and your colleagues. We are happy to be here. I will introduce my colleagues. I am accompanied by Mr. Conor Murphy, a member of the Northern Assembly for Newry and Armagh, and Mr. David Cullinane, our representative in County Waterford. I have a brief introduction. The committee has read our submission. Therefore, I will not go into it except in response to questions.

We presented our document as a contribution to the debate on reform of the Seanad. We believe the proposals contained therein are both constructive and progressive. It will not come as any surprise to political watchers that there is a strong view within our party that the Seanad should be abolished. That was our party policy for a long time, but that has changed. It was changed in recent years to a position where we believed democratic reform of the Seanad was what was required. It is important to state we are probably not unique in the view that we previously held, which still has a currency in Irish thinking and which must be addressed.

The Seanad, as currently constituted, is both undemocratic and elitist. I do not mean any disrespect to colleagues before us. It is elected in a restricted and, in some aspects, a perverse franchise. The franchise granted to some but not all third level graduates is a notorious example. Instead of a Seanad franchise for local authority members, which I have had the opportunity to exercise, we would like to see real empowerment of local government. The bottom line in our submission is that the Seanad should be elected by universal suffrage of citizens throughout the Thirty-two Counties and those resident in Ireland for more than five years and over the age of 16 years, reflective of party policy. Representation in the Oireachtas for citizens in the Six Counties is an important issue. Our proposals would give them a direct input. It would go side by side with the right of those elected to Westminster constituencies in the Six Counties to participate in Dáil debates, something that has been reflected strongly by the all-party Oireachtas committee on the Constitution.

Emigrants should also have a vote. This is provided for by many states throughout the world and without difficulty. It could be done by postal ballot as would voting in the Six Counties pending, as we hope, Irish reunification. It is ironic that a State which repeatedly praises the contribution of the Irish diaspora denies emigrants a right that many other states grant their citizens.

Sinn Féin believes the Seanad should be an elected forum for civic society - we emphasise this - particularly for those sectors not adequately represented in the Dáil or the Seanad and the marginalised in society. For example, the tremendous energy of the community and voluntary sector is not given a direct voice in the Oireachtas and its business. We looked at various options for the method of election and came to the view that a panel system would best address the need for the diverse strands of Irish society to be represented in the Upper, or second, Chamber. We see all this in the context of what we regard as the equally important need for reform of the Dáil, something we look forward to addressing further. We commend our proposals to the sub-committee and hope they will excite some new elements in its overall consideration and we will be happy to answer any questions. Go raibh maith agat.

Senator Dardis: I thank Deputy Ó Caoláin and the representatives of Sinn Féin for coming and the detailed document submitted to the sub-committee. In regard to abolition, when I read the original document, it struck me that there was still a fairly strong abolitionist attitude within the party. Am I to assume that in the absence of fairly radical reform, the party would say the Seanad should be abolished?

Deputy Ó Caoláin: No, there is a strong abolitionist rump but having probably been to the fore in the argument to change that position going back to the late 1980s, I am happy to say I think the view expressed in the document is the one that is in the ascendancy and in which I have confidence for the future.

Senator Dardis: The Deputy's is not the only party having internal-----

Senator O'Toole: They have a lot in common.

Senator Dardis: The issue of the vote for the Thirty-two Counties is a live issue and there is the constitutional aspect and so on. What would the Deputy say to the argument that without taxation, one should not have representation? In regard to a postal ballot, which the Deputy suggested, how would one prevent electoral abuses in circumstances where it was by universal suffrage? How would one overcome this difficulty?

Senator Ryan: I welcome the delegation. Sinn Fein's ideas are quite thought provoking and somewhat similar to some of my own. However, I wish to ask a couple of specific questions. Does the Deputy believe that simply by abolishing the nominating powers of political parties, one would make a national election independent of party politics? The accreditation panel the Deputy mentioned, an interesting idea, to which people could nominate, or through which bodies would be accredited, would not allow political parties to be accredited. However, the experience to date of all the nominating bodies is that it is people from political parties who get those nominations. Would we not be better off to have party politics overtly rather than covertly practised? Does the Deputy think it would be a good thing to get rid of it? I am not sure it would. Would it not be better for it to be overt?

My next question relates to this concept of citizenship with which members of this sub-committee will know I have a problem. The Good Friday Agreement ended the claim this State had to the citizens of Northern Ireland as its citizens. Everybody who is born in Northern Ireland, or on the island, is entitled to Irish citizenship but is not compelled to be an Irish citizen. That means we no longer claim members of the Unionist community, who choose not to be Irish, as citizens of this State. Does that mean, therefore, that they would be entitled to be Members of our Parliament without being citizens of the State? Does the Deputy have a concept of citizenship for citizens of Northern Ireland, because we only have two choices on these islands - we are either British or Irish citizens or perhaps both? Does Sinn Féin have some view on a third concept of citizenship, that is, a citizen of Northern Ireland which is not a sovereign state and which, I suspect, the party would not wish it to become?

How does this issue of citizenship sort itself out? Do we change the Constitution to state, "people living on the island"? If we in this State attempt in any way to change our Constitution back to assert that citizens of Northern Ireland are citizens of this State, whether they wish to be, we would be accused of attempting to re-negotiate or rewrite the Good Friday Agreement because that was one of the major changes to our Constitution. I note the Deputy used a phrase in his submission which had echoes of a previous wording of the Constitution. I tried to remember where I had seen the phrase "pending the reintegration of the national territory" and I remembered after a little scratching of my head.

Has the party thought through its thinking on citizenship? I am intrigued by this in terms of representation and participation for the non-national, or the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, in our institutions.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: I will answers those questions to which I think it is most appropriate that I respond. I will ask Conor Murphy, as our representative from north of the Border, and one of those of whom the Senator spoke, to articulate his and our views on that whole issue.

As regards representation without taxation, the principle is no taxation without representation.

Senator Ryan: I do not believe that, incidentally.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: This is the stock and trade phraseology used. We must recognise that there are many in our society who are not taxpayers and yet have the opportunity to exercise their franchise. I am not speaking only of those on the lower end of the income scale and who fail to come into the tax net. There are many - I think it has been enumerated in the hundreds - who are on the other end of the scale entirely and who make no tax contribution to the Exchequer and yet have the entitlement to exercise their vote. What we have is a right of people to exercise their entitlement to a franchise by birthright.

The Senator referred to the Good Friday Agreement and the amendment to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Article 2 refers to the entitlement and birthright of every person born on the island of Ireland. I need not go on as Senator Ryan is familiar with the detail. We are completely in compliance with and echoing the hopes, aspirations and certainly the expectations of people throughout the island of Ireland regarding the Good Friday Agreement, its outworking and promise.

In regard to independence of political parties, overt and covert, the situation is that we have, to all intents and purposes, a marriage of both. The nominating, or accrediting, bodies may be anything from various agricultural societies and organisations right through to the trade union sector and other areas of interest in Irish society. However, the people they nominate are not necessarily reflective of this; they are party political flag-bearers, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions. What we want is a system independent of political parties. The Senator is correct that this does not exclude any of the accredited bodies nominating somebody who may be a political player, something against which one cannot properly legislate. We will all look with interest to see how Deputy Ring's case in respect of measures of exclusion vis-à-vis holding elected office might echo in terms of consideration of this matter in the future.

It would probably be better if I asked Mr. Conor Murphy to contribute on the wider issue of citizenship at this point. Perhaps he will take up the issue.

Mr. Murphy: The Senators are correct that our proposals are made with a view to the unification of Ireland. This predicates all of our thoughts on the matter because that is what we anticipate happening in the future. Senators quite rightly pointed to the Constitution and the amended version thereof. Besides allowing me - as an Irish citizen who lives north of the Border and holds an Irish passport - the right to be an Irish citizen, it also entitles me to the right to play a part in the Irish nation, a vague assertion that has no outworkings in the institutions of the State, which do not give me the right to play a part in the Irish nation as it currently exists. The Seanad has an opportunity to decide whether there will be a token representation of Northerners here - I have heard various proposals that five, six or whatever number should come down here to represent the northern part of this country - or whether an opportunity will be given for all citizens who live on the island to play a part in the Irish nation.

Members have concerns over citizenship and how that would impact on those who consider themselves British citizens. It may be presumptuous but I assume that the members of the SDLP who sit at Westminster carry Irish passports and would, therefore, consider themselves Irish citizens. However, they still play a part at that forum. I do not believe it is without precedent or that it is a complication which could be placed in the way to stop our proposal. From my dealings with many people in the political and broader Unionist community in the North, I am aware that there are those who would avail of the right to participate in the institutions here if that right was afforded to us north of the Border. I do not see it as being a big problem. I do not believe-----

Senator O'Toole: Including members of the Unionist community?

Mr. Murphy: I believe so. We have dealings with Unionists on a daily basis. Unionism is not the monolith as it is, at times, presented to be by some of the more outspoken political representatives. Even among those representatives, during the more quiet moments of discourse, one will find that there is a broad degree of interest in the workings of the institutions here. If an opportunity was presented to people in the Six Counties to participate in a panel of representatives with a broad range of interests - rather than being given token representation in the House, which, in the light of the political battle currently being fought within Unionism, certain parties might feel obliged not to take up in order not to appear to be somehow diminishing the Union - and to have their voices heard down here, not just from the party political perspective, I believe it would be availed of. That would allow us, as the amended Constitution states, to be part of the Irish nation. While I am entitled to Irish citizenship, I am not entitled - even though I live only a few miles north of counties Louth and Monaghan - to play a part in the Irish nation as it currently stands and neither are hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens in the North.

Senator Dardis: If, as intended, there was a postal vote, how could we possibly protect the integrity of the ballot? Under the universal franchise, there are enough instances and anecdotal evidence of abuses of the system occurring at polling stations. How would we protect the integrity of the vote?

Mr. Murphy: It is interesting that there is a presumption that voting irregularities and abuses happen only in the North. That is a myth that has been presented by the media on many occasions. There is a postal ballot system for all elections in the State which operates quite well. There is also a postal ballot system in the North which has been in operation for many years and was subject, as are all ballot systems, to abuse. However, this did not occur to the extent outlined in some of the allegations made in the aftermath of elections.

I believe the integrity of the ballot can be protected. In the North we now have some extremely stringent regulations in terms of the voting system which are preventing many from having their names placed on the electoral register. In the 21st century it is not beyond the ability of those who organise elections to devise a system whereby people who do not actually live within the jurisdiction of a state can vote. If we are to allow emigrants to vote - this is one of our proposals with which, I believe, there is a fair degree of sympathy among many across the political spectrum here - such a system will have to be devised to allow this to happen. It would probably be easier to apply such a system north of the Border than it would in the many countries around the world where Irish emigrants currently reside.

Senator Dardis: In the event of Sinn Féin going into government in the Republic, how would it respond to the Taoiseach's right to appoint nominees to the Seanad?

Deputy Ó Caoláin: We have indicated in our proposals that we do not believe there should be a continuation of the Taoiseach's right to nominate 11 Members of this House. That is a perpetuation of the current arrangement, which we believe is unsatisfactory. I am of the opinion that we will continue to argue for change in this area.

Senator Dardis: Both Houses are elected by universal suffrage.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: No, that is not the case currently.

Senator Dardis: If we take the presumption that both Houses would be elected on universal suffrage and there would be no Taoiseach's nominees, what would Sinn Féin suggest in terms of how the Government would function? Would there be a situation where the Upper House would continually block the will of the Lower House?

Deputy Ó Caoláin: If the Senator examines the detail of our proposal, we argue that, at the Seanad stage, the entire process of legislation should change. We believe the Seanad is a very important and special stage in the processing of legislation. However, it has the power of recommendation, not veto.

Senator Dardis: Would the Deputy confine it to just Second Stage? From what I read - I may be wrong about this - Sinn Féin seems to be suggesting that the Seanad would confine itself to a Second Stage debate and that it would not then deal with Committee and Report Stages as it does at present, that debate on these would be confined to the Dáil.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: That is our view.

Senator Ryan: I wish to clarify the issue of citizenship. Members of the SDLP can sit in the House of Commons, as could Sinn Féin MPs if they chose to do so, because the United Kingdom claims that they are all citizens. What citizenship they choose to exercise is a separate matter. We gave up our right to claim that everybody living in Northern Ireland was automatically a citizen of this State. While I have every sympathy with what Mr. Murphy said, I am trying to arrive at a way of sorting out the issue of citizenship in the light of the fact that there is not a place called "Northern Ireland" which has a right to have separate citizenship from either the United Kingdom or Ireland. That is all I am saying, I am not at all hostile to the idea.

On the question of a postal ballot, like Deputy Ó Caoláin, I have gone through the rigours of the voting system for the panels and the complicated process of avoiding fraud. In that context, the voting system for the Universities Panel must be the least secure of its type for a national parliament anywhere in the world because there is no proof of any kind that the person who votes is the individual to whom a ballot paper is addressed. Senator Dardis has a point in that a postal vote on the scale required would be wide open to abuse. Such a vote would require a level of enforcement, outside the jurisdiction of the State, that would be impossible to provide.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: If we imagine obstacles to the practical implementation of what we are arguing for, we will never get beyond the point of cursory examination. Our document is not a definitive prescriptive position but an opening presentation to excite greater debate and discussion in this process, which we warmly welcome. What we suggest is that difficulties that cannot be signposted will have to be addressed by the collective wisdom of everyone involved. It is not beyond our gift to overcome these difficulties. If there is a will, there will certainly be a way. We are confident such difficulties can be overcome.

Senator Dardis: My final question relates to the community consultation process on Second Stage referred to by the Deputy. Should that be a formal process whereby people would appear in the House, similar to Sinn Féin, or would they just make their views known?

Mr. Cullinane: The Senator is referring to the community consultation process. Through the system we propose, many organisations will be represented and accredited but some may well not be accredited and may want to make a submission on legislation. That can be submitted in written form and, if necessary, followed up with an oral hearing. All organisations should be allowed to submit written proposals to the Seanad in order that when Second Stage is debated and the necessary changes made, their interests are looked after.

Chairman: That presentation will be helpful to us in terms of our further deliberations. Deputy Ó Caoláin stated this was an opening shot and hoped it would excite us. There is no doubt it will. I thank the three representatives for taking the trouble to reply and for coming in to make their presentation.

Deputy Ó Caoláin: I thank the Chairman and her colleagues. I thought I noted some enthusiasm in her welcoming remarks when she said I was very welcome in this Chamber. I will cut through that observation.

The witnesses withdrew.

Presentation by the Alliance Party.

Witnesses: Mr. David Ford, MLA; Mr. Colm Cavanagh; Mr. Stephen Farry and Mr. Alan Leonard.

Chairman: I welcome the delegation representing the Alliance Party. We are honoured that the party made a submission and followed that up by taking the trouble to appear before the sub-committee. We read the party's submission with great interest and perhaps the delegation can confine its opening remarks to a summary of the submission. While we enjoy full privilege as Members of the Chamber, those making submissions enjoy only qualified privilege but I am sure the representatives will not engage in any nastiness. The two questioners on this submission are Senators O'Toole and Hayes.

Mr. Ford: I thank you for your welcome, a Chathaoirligh. I will introduce my team. I am David Ford, leader of the party and suspended MLA for South Antrim. I am accompanied by Colm Cavanagh, president of the party, a resident of Derry and a constituent of two Members through the National University of Ireland electoral system, and Dr. Stephen Farry, general secretary of the party and councillor in north Down. I am also supported by Alan Leonard, our policy officer.

Conscious of our status as a Northern Ireland party, we will limit our remarks to the issue of providing representation for emigrants and for the people of Northern Ireland. We believe the Good Friday Agreement provided the basis for a new set of relationships to be formed within Northern Ireland, within this island and across these islands. The Agreement provides a framework under which it may be possible to move away from a traditional 19th century view of absolute and indivisible sovereignty to a more modern approach where borders carry much less significance.

Regrettably, both Unionists and Nationalists are still wedded to what might be termed "winner takes all" territorial politics. Alliance continues to support the principle of consent as a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement. It is one to which every significant party on this island gives its full support. It is in this spirit that Alliance would welcome a means to give a greater voice to a range of Northern opinions in the Seanad but we urge considerable caution regarding the means under which this is to be achieved.

It must be remembered the Agreement was designed as a carefully balanced accommodation to which the many varied political traditions on the island could give their allegiance and under which they now work for the common good. The Agreement can be explained in terms of Unionists accepting the rights of Nationalists to fairness and power-sharing in Northern Ireland in return for Nationalists recognising the principle of consent and respecting Northern Ireland's formal constitutional status within the United Kingdom. The delicate nature of this compromise must be taken into account when considering the issue of Northern representation or participation in the Seanad, to which Senator Ryan referred.

Proposals for creating formal mechanisms for direct or indirect election of Senators from Northern Ireland through, for example, an electoral college of district councillors, would pose substantial risks in this respect. Such a change could in practice alter the current constitutional structures agreed under the principle of consent. It would certainly be perceived by significant numbers in Northern Ireland as an attempt to do so. Substantial practical difficulties would be involved in organising such elections. It is also questionable whether there would be balanced participation in such an election across the Northern Ireland community.

Alliance is open to wider discussion of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to different and original sets of constitutional arrangements. However, it is crucial that such debate takes place in an open and transparent way and there are no attempts to change it surreptitiously. Changes in the current constitutional arrangements, including to the principle of consent, must be made in accordance with that principle. Nevertheless, Alliance believes there are strong grounds for encouraging the direct articulation of Northern views within the Oireachtas. A number of taoisigh have used their own nominations to put Northern voices in the Seanad in the past . Alliance notes, in particular and without disrespect to others who have served, the contribution made by figures such as Gordon Wilson, John Robb and Sam McAughtry as representatives of a wider view than is normally heard within the Seanad. Alliance, therefore, recommends that greater use should be made of the Taoiseach's nominations to appoint residents of Northern Ireland to the Seanad. We suggested two or three in our written submission. I am aware that others have suggested a slightly higher number and we would have no objections to an increase to perhaps four or five. Alliance believes this approach of encouraging creative use of the Taoiseach's nominations would be more in line with the constitutional dispensation of the Agreement.

A fundamental question may affect the procedure by which the Taoiseach might determine who to appoint. Is it the intention to ensure Nationalists from Northern Ireland are represented in the Oireachtas or is it the intention to allow the Seanad to benefit from hearing a fuller range of opinions from the North? The sub-committee will not be surprised to know that Alliance favours the latter.

We can take it as a given that for the foreseeable future no Unionist party will respond to any invitation to make a nomination for appointment to the Seanad. Proposals that depend on party nominations will, therefore, fail to achieve a balanced representation. While there should not be a bar on the participation of those who are active in party politics in Northern Ireland, there must be a way to open up participation to the wider community. Those nominated should be appointed on the basis of their personal abilities and ability to contribute to the work of the Seanad, not as former representatives of any interest. This would allow, and even encourage, people with a perceived Unionist background to enrich the work of the Seanad. It would engage the whole of wider civic society.

On the issue of emigrant representation, Alliance is concerned about the implications of an unlimited or poorly defined right to direct representation for emigrants. The question of representation and the right to vote should be linked to citizenship and residency rather than ethnicity. That is the difference between a liberal democracy and an ethnic democracy. However, we note the provisions for granting the right to citizens to continue voting in their home country's elections for a limited period after they have left. For example, British citizens may vote for 15 years after they leave the United Kingdom. This option has the advantage of clearly defining who is a citizen as well as defining the time period in which such a citizen enjoys the rights and privileges of the state with mutual duties and responsibilities.

On some related points, Alliance believes there are many practical areas where North-South co-operation could be increased which would be of as great a significance in the way people live their lives as the issue of formal representation in either House of the Oireachtas. There is no reason, for example, further issues could not come within the remit of the North-South Ministerial Council or cross-Border bodies where there are clear practical benefits to both sides. Alliance is also keen to develop the North-South parliamentary tier. This option was provided for in the Agreement, but at present, as we already have heard, participation in the North-South structures is solely restricted to members of the Executive. Although Unionists voted down an Alliance proposal in the Assembly that we should initiate discussions with the Oireachtas on this, the Seanad might consider taking the initiative on this matter when the Assembly is restored because Alliance believes this new structure should be established as soon as possible. Senator Brian Hayes has already highlighted this.

Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for your invitation and your welcome. We very much value the privilege of being able to give evidence to the sub-committee. We trust that our comments will be seen as a process of modest but significant improvement in relations North and South.

Chairman: Thank you. We have two questioners and will begin with Senator O'Toole

Senator O'Toole: I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation. I especially welcome Mr. Colm Cavanagh who is a constituent.

Senator Ryan: I had better say "welcome" as well.

Senator O'Toole: It is important to restate Mr. Ford's final point because we want to hear the different views. Any questioning is designed to get to the bottom of a point in an effort to understand it. It is not our role to argue against presentations but to understand them and bring them forward.

I found a number of what I call internal conflicts in some of the points made by Mr. Ford. I recognise and I am conscious of the philosophy and culture of the Alliance Party and know that lends itself to internal conflict regularly and that it is part of the party's nature. Reference was made to liberal democracy, a point to which I will return.

In discussing the importance of representation, it seems strange and is difficult for me to listen to members of a political party talking about the importance of representation without an election, which is effectively what Mr. Ford said. I can understand the reasons the witnesses might come to that conclusion and am fully conscious of them, as are we all, but this appears to be giving in to the forces to whom we would all be opposed by walking away and not reinforcing the importance of election. Will the witnesses develop this further? Are there in-between positions between no election and full participation?

I say that because, to take the only example of which I am aware, my colleague, Senator Ross, would claim many Unionist votes in his quota each time he stands for election. There does not appear to be a difficulty for Unionist graduates of Southern colleges in exercising their franchise. They do not see a conflict in this. It is the only example I can give where this is working, but it appears to indicate that there is not necessarily a complete divide and opposition on that side of the political spectrum.

In pursuing that in-between stage, while the witnesses would oppose full participation, how would they feel if the current set-up of vocational nominating bodies in the Seanad were set to continue with nominations coming from groups in Northern Ireland, such as the CBI in the North? Should it not have a nomination on the Industrial and Commercial Panel or whatever? Should various educational and cultural groups in the North not have nominations? Even if they did not have voting power, would the witnesses stop short of nominations? How would they feel about local authorities in the North having the right to nominate people to the ballot paper? Would the witnesses oppose them exercising the franchise and how would they feel about the franchise?

The other issue on which I must take issue with the witnesses is emigrants' votes. I have pursued this since 1987 and must come out with my hands up in terms of my bias and prejudice towards it. Unless I am missing something from the witnesses' major presentation, I think they are factually incorrect in the distinction they make between liberal and ethnic democracies. I can say for certain that the Spanish constitution contains some nine or ten pages on the voting rights of emigrants. There is a similarly detailed piece in the Italian constitution and there is no time limit on the voting rights of expatriates from Australia, the United States and other places. I do not want to go into that debate. The witnesses gave the example of the United Kingdom which has a 15 year period, which I accept and know it to be the case, but it is not the only one. It is not a reason.

The witnesses asked the valid question about how this should be controlled. Let us suppose there was an emigrant panel rather than an emigrant vote in the same way as there is a university vote, in that emigrants would elect two to six people or whatever number. That would be the control in that sense in terms of the outcome, although it may not be the control in terms of the presentation. Could that be done and would it relate to Northern Ireland as well? I apologise for going on at length.

Chairman: That is fine. We are trying to link questions together but we would be very glad if Mr. Ford or any of his colleagues could respond.

Mr. Ford: I will take the first part and will then leave my political philosophy colleague, Stephen Farry, to deal with the issues of liberal democracy.

Chairman: Bear in mind that there will be another questioner.

Mr. Ford: When I was general secretary, I had the awkward questions dumped on me too.

Senator B. Hayes: Mr. Farry will have an answer for that.

Mr. Ford: The serious point in Senator O'Toole's question was the issue about whether representation without election was not giving in to certain forces. It is not; it recognises the principle of consent. The practical issues and difficulties with Unionists are only secondary to what the message of talking about direct or indirect election into the Seanad from Northern Ireland constitutes because of what we perceive as a very delicate set of balances within the Agreement and the need to maintain those. That is why the issue of graduates from Trinity - obviously and most particularly - and also the NUI is not in the same league because those who have spent time studying in Dublin who merely get a university ballot paper do not see that as being in the same league as making direct representation from within Northern Ireland. The fundamental point is that the principle of consent is seen as producing that division.

I said in our submission that we were open to looking at wider and different constitutional settlements, but one of the problems with the Agreement is that it presents us with an either-or option. Either we proceed with Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom acting under the Agreement with the various North-South and east-west bodies or else Northern Ireland becomes part of a united Ireland. A move towards any form of direct representation in either House of the Oireachtas would say that in effect is what is being done, and some people may be trying to cloud that particular point. It is not just that Unionists would not nominate. It is a wider issue about the principle of consent.

Senator O'Toole also raised a fairly interesting point about the issue of nominations for the vocational panels. It was not something I had considered in any great detail but it seems to me that there is a difference between two of the examples he cited. If one wishes to include the CBI in Northern Ireland as well as IBEC as an appropriate nominating body, I see no problem with that. If a district council, a statutory body in Northern Ireland, is included, I think this would be one step too far. I will leave Mr. Farry to talk about the other part of the Senator's question.

Mr. Farry: On the first point, the distinction we seek to make is between providing a mechanism for Northern voices to be heard in the Seanad and creating a mechanism whereby Northern Ireland is represented in the Seanad. We would lean very much towards the former. Ideally we would not want power vested in one office to make nominations. We are well used to that with the House of Lords and the Prime Minister's premises. We think, if an election takes place in Northern Ireland at the same time as elections to other bodies to Westminster, we are essentially moving towards a situation of joint sovereignty as opposed to Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. We are not necessarily opposed to discussions about the emergence of those wider type of arrangements, but they have to be done in a very open and transparent way and we need a lot more debate than we have had so far.

The issue of emigrants is very much a secondary one for us. The Northern angle is the main point we want to make to the sub-committee today. The point about liberal democracy and ethnic democracy is that they are essentially academic models of polls and in practice most nation states tend to operate somewhere in between. There are different ways in which the issues are dealt with. In the United States, as far as we are aware, the right to vote is limited to residency and people living outside the United States must maintain their essential domestic residency at the same time. Other states the Senator mentioned do things a little differently. Our concern is to avoid something that becomes open-ended and the Irish diaspora is very broad. If everyone in that disapora was included, their votes could potentially overwhelm those actually resident within the State. We are seeking some way in which the right to vote as an emigrant is defined. It is for the sub-committee to determine how that is formed.

Senator B. Hayes: I thank the Alliance Party for its submission. It has come out against direct elections in Northern Ireland to this body and against elected members of local government, Assembly Members and others determining who should represent people in Northern Ireland here in the South. It has leaned towards having Northern voices and Mr. Farry's distinction is very useful for us in terms of getting a clear idea of what he wants in terms of the final outcome of this.

A suggestion has been around the House for the last few months that a Taoiseach might, in the future, ask the Northern parties to nominate a representative from their parties to become a Senator for four or five years. If that suggestion grew legs and was implemented would the Alliance Party, in those circumstances, make a nomination?

Mr. Ford: I am being asked to give a formal answer to a hypothetical question in front of witnesses when the party executive has not discussed this.

Chairman: There is no point in appealing to the Chairman.

Mr. Ford: As I generally do on these occasions, I make my objections and then attempt to answer as honestly as possible. I think it most unlikely that the Alliance Party would not respond positively to such a suggestion.

Chairman: Most unlikely that it would not?

Mr. Ford: Yes.

Mr. Farry: That is a "Yes".

Mr. Ford: I cannot say "Yes" straight out, but would have thought the whole tenor of our participation in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, for example, in both its past and current guises, is an indication of our willingness to be involved in that level of North-South co-operation. The dangers for us in any suggestion of nomination depending upon party approval is that one would then, I presume, get three nominees from the the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin willing to accept. Does one then go to the wider community to get people who are perceived as bringing a Unionist viewpoint---

Senator B. Hayes: Let us be clear about this. The existing situation is as follows: if a Taoiseach decides that a Northern voice from, say, the Alliance Party - a well-known Alliance Party member - was to be appointed to this House, he or she would appoint that person automatically. That person may require approval from the party executive, though I am not sure. Is that situation easier for the Alliance Party rather than formally asking the party itself to produce a name? That is the question. Which is easier for the Alliance Party?

Mr. Ford: I do not think it makes any difference to us but it clearly is a big difference for Unionists, in that one may get people who are widely perceived as Unionists who would be willing to accept a nomination. I named three of them earlier. To get anybody formally nominated by any party with a "U" in its title would be impossible, I suspect, for a period of years.

Senator B. Hayes: Mr. Ford mentioned John Robb, Sam McAughtry - with whom I shared an office in my first term in the Seanad - and Gordon Wilson, three very eminent Northern voices, to take Mr. Farry's analogy further. What effect if any did those three eminent Senators have in the North in terms of the popular perception of the Seanad? They were people with liberal Unionist credentials making presentations to which people down here would listen. Did it have any impact in terms of wider public opinion in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ford: I suspect it had relatively little impact in Northern Ireland but that is not actually the question. The question is that of the impact they had on the working of the Seanad.

Senator B. Hayes: It was significant.

Chairman: We would all agree it was significant.

Mr. Leonard: To carry on from what David was saying, the important thing here is for the sub-committee to determine what it wants to achieve with Northern representation or, alternatively, to look at these constitutional arrangements. If the emphasis is on why we are in favour of Northern voices, it is because we would prefer to see the Senate hearing voices from the North for a wider discussion instead of just getting into the constitutional mangle of direct representation from the North and so on. That is a question for the sub-committee.

Senator O'Toole: This is clearer and more understandable. I am much clearer in this discussion on the distinction between Northern voices and Northern representation. As a final question, can this be developed further? How can this happen? I deliberately gave the example of the CBI and a local authority because they are from different backgrounds. We can understand from where the CBI would come and the statutory roots of the local authority. Could other community-type groups come forward? Is there a place for civic society in this? Could the voices of Northern civic society be the way through? What is the delegation's view of this?

Mr. Ford: In a sense I suggested that civic society is all that will be available to represent "lower case" unionism for the foreseeable future and clearly there is a need to build that. One lesson which seems to come through strongly over the past few years is how strongly those links are being developed by groups like the CBI with IBEC and by the UFU with the Irish Farmers Association. There is constant strengthening of those links. We are seeking to assist in getting some of those informal Northern views into the workings of the Seanad without clouding the constitutional position.

Chairman: I thank the delegation for coming and giving us a very lively and thought-provoking session. To give a formal answer to one of the delegation's questions, I was not a Senator with John Robb, Gordon Wilson or Sam McAughtry. However, they made a significant impression in the Seanad and made great contributions to many debates through their open views on life. We are very appreciative of their contribution to the Seanad. We will reflect on the points expressed by the delegation which will find an echo in our final report.

Senator Dardis: We all got to know where Tiger Bay was.

Mr. Ford: Thank you for this opportunity and for your good wishes, Chairman.

The witnesses withdrew.

Presentation by the Progressive Democrats.

Witnesses: Senator John Minihan and Mr. John Higgins.

Chairman: I welcome Senator John Minihan and Mr. John Higgins, general secretary of the Progressive Democrats. We hope Senator Minihan's seating on that side of the Chamber is not a portent of the future.

Senator Ryan: The Chairman might hope that.

Senator Minihan: It is a nice view. I envy Senator Hayes.

Chairman: You are both welcome. I thank you for your submission and attending. While members of the sub-committee enjoy absolute privilege, as does Senator Minihan, Mr. Higgins only has qualified privilege. I do not fully understand what this means but I am sure Senator Minihan does. The questioners will be Senators O'Toole and Brian Hayes.

Senator Minihan: We welcome the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. We have outlined the details of our party position in our proposal. I do not propose to go through it in full but to address some of the key points. We believe reform of the Seanad is a welcome opportunity for all political parties and citizens to fully participate in bringing forth a more meaningful Seanad and address some of the frequently heard criticisms.

A modern Seanad should be effective, relevant and democratically-based. On its composition, we believe the House should remain a Senate of 60 seats with the possibility of adding two ex-officio Members. Some 49 seats should be filled by a full popular election for a fixed term which should coincide with the European and local elections. We propose such an election be based on a national list system which would necessitate the determination of the university and other vocational panels.

Without being overly prescriptive we wish to see sectors such as disability, Northern Ireland, the arts, education, agriculture and, most importantly, the voluntary and community pillar included by way of election or nomination by the Taoiseach. In this context, we consider it appropriate for the Taoiseach to retain the right to nominate 11 Members following each general election. The subtle difference is that the nominees by the Taoiseach would take their places following each election whereas the popular election for the 49 seats would coincide on a fixed term basis with European and local elections. One could have a situation whereby 11 Members of the Seanad would change mid-term if a general election was held.

Vacancies arising following the death or resignation of an elected Senator should be filled by the next person on the list, thereby relieving the obligation for a by-election. On ex-officio Members of the Seanad, we propose consideration be given to making previous Taoisigh and holders of the office of Tánaiste who are no longer Members of the Dáil ex-officio Members of the Seanad. This would not apply to all former Taoisigh and holders of the office of Tanaiste but to those who held such posts in the immediate past who are no longer Members of the Dáil. This would heighten the status of the Seanad and provide Government experience for it with two principal former members of Government participating towards the end of their political careers as Members of Seanad Éireann.

On equality, given the low level of female participation, we hope parties would adopt a quota requiring an equal number of male and female nominees to the various lists. On the functions of the Seanad, we propose the retention of Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution which provide that money Bills cannot be amended by the Seanad. However, other legislation should continue to be dealt with in accordance with Articles 23 and 24. We should also encourage the initiation of legislation in the Seanad. I know that is very much the case in the current Seanad and we would like to see it continue.

We believe annual reports of State agencies laid before the Houses should be subject to review by the Seanad with the option of referring them to various Oireachtas committees should it be deemed necessary. We should have a role in reviewing public policy which should be represented at social partnership talks. There is a clear role - Senator O'Toole has mentioned this - for participation by Members of this House in the social partnership talks. Such participation could be effective and would also lead to direct political involvement.

The area of European affairs has increased dramatically in recent years. European legislation now comes before the Seanad on a regular basis. We would like to see a greater input from MEPs and Commissioners and the possibility of their playing an active role in addressing the House and dealing with legislation on European issues should be encouraged and explored. Mindful of the democratic deficit in European affairs, we propose the Taoiseach should attend the Seanad in advance of Intergovernmental Conferences to outline the parameters of policy matters to be discussed. I know the Taoiseach visited the House recently to discuss the current position on Northern Ireland but we would like him to attend on a statutory basis in advance of Intergovernmental Conferences.

The Seanad should play a greater role in monitoring European legislation to ensure the principles of subsidiarity are adhered to. There were many distinguished visitors to this House during the last session, something welcomed by my party. We would like to see many more so as to stimulate debate on a wide range of issues. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges decides who we should invite but we would like to encourage greater debate.

The issue of media coverage has been referred to. We would like to explore this issue to try to bring to the public the wide and varying debates which take place in this House.

Senator O'Toole: I welcome Senator Minihan and Mr. Higgins. I am aware that Mr. Higgins and I share some concerns about the west. It appears that a national list system would effectively mean total representation from the east coast given the small population in the west. Would it not provide, without some geographical base, a very biased national list system? How could one ensure representation throughout the whole country? Current population statistics indicate that normal casting of votes on this basis would ensure total representation from one side of the country only. Perhaps Senator Minihan might give us his views on this.

While I am interested in what Senator Minihan said about the equality quota, I am not sure I understand how it would work. He said such an equality quota should take precedence over any type of meritocracy, thereby ensuring people would be selected on the basis of gender rather than merit. Perhaps he will outline his views on this as well as his party's position on emigrants.

Senator Minihan: Senator O'Toole made a valid point in relation to the population on the east coast versus that on the west coast. I do not disagree with him, given the census figures. The purpose of the list system would be to bring a new dynamic to Seanad Éireann elections. While I would like to examine constituency based figures to see if they reflect what the Senator said, such an examination would broaden the list system, thereby ensuring the country as a whole would be dealt with. However, we would not like to see the system operate on a full constituency basis. Perhaps there would be a need to operate it on a geographical basis as is the case in European elections. The main principle is that of the list system.

With regard to the parties adopting a quota requiring an equal number of men and women, this would apply in the case of the nominations on the various lists. This would not mean that the membership of the House would comprise an equal number of females and males. We ask that those presented for election by parties would be proposed on an equal basis. We have covered the issue of emigrants under Taoiseach's nominees which is in the detail of our presentation.

Senator B. Hayes: Thank you, Senator Minihan. I also welcome Mr. Higgins to the Chamber and thank the Progressive Democrats for their submission.

Does the first recommendation from the Progressive Democrats concern the abolition of the Seanad? I know that when the party was first formed in 1987, one of its major planks of policy was the abolition of the Seanad.

Chairman: God was going to go also.

Senator B. Hayes: On the issue of the Seanad, is that still the position of the party?

Senator Minihan: I am delighted to see Senator Hayes is as political as ever. What is probably more ripe at this time is whether we will have to abolish his party.

Senator B. Hayes: The terms of reference are not that great.

Senator Minihan: The Senator is correct in what he says; the historical facts are there and there is nothing I can say to dispute that, although it happened before I was a member of the party. In the opening remarks of the submission from my party, we comment on Michael Laver's paper which states the primary task is to find a viable and creative role for the Seanad and only in failing to do that should the option of abolition be revisited. We accept and agree with this. That is our position.

Senator B. Hayes: I did not mean to be overtly political. I just wanted to know the party's clear preference on abolition in the absence of radical reform and we have established that.

Senator Minihan: I accept that.

Senator B. Hayes: The issue of the national list proposal is interesting. How is it proposed to bring it about? Would it be on the basis of four European election type constituencies or a national list throughout the entire country? How is it proposed to break it down? Is there not a dilemma here? If the university seats, which in effect produce five of the six Independent Members, are abolished, how would an Independent Member get elected? What threshold would be put on the minimum number of votes required to be elected?

It is interesting that the Progressive Democrats brought forward the idea that the elections for Seanad Éireann should take place at the same time as local government and European elections, midway through a Dáil term in effect. Is there not a dilemma that if the Government of the day is unpopular mid-term, it could get a bad result and the majority of Members left in the Seanad would be Opposition Members, thereby frustrating the Government in its work of trying to progress Bills through the House? I know it has been stated in other parts of the proposal that the Progressive Democrats do not believe we should have the right to frustrate the will of the other House but perhaps the Senator will comment on this.

Senator Minihan: The point is valid. I repeat what I said to Senator O'Toole who raised similar points. Basing the list system on European election-type constituencies would address the problem. In regard to Independent Members, we need only look at Pat Cox. The system is democratic whether one is a member of a political party or puts himself or herself forward as an Independent.

In regard to the elections coinciding with European and local elections, we feel this would give new emphasis and a new dynamic to the Seanad. There is always a risk for the Government of the day. To look at it from the other side, one could say it would be a positive development in that it would keep the Government of the day on its toes. The Government is facing local elections next year. If our proposal was carried through, it would also face Seanad elections. Remember that in-built in our proposals are the Taoiseach's nominees, who would only change after a general election.

Mr. Higgins: The main purpose of what we are trying to do is to bring some excitement back into the political system in regard to a new type of election. This system is used throughout Europe. This mid-term type of shock to a government is an experience which American voters often deal to the American Presidency. It might not be a bad thing in regard to democracy and its operation. The list system would provide for an opportunity to bring more excitement into the political system.

Senator O'Toole made the point that if a geographical base did not exist for a certain number of seats, there could be an imbalance. That can be overcome. I might add that as well as representing an opportunity for retiring taoisigh, it might be one for a couple of retiring general secretaries also.

Senator B. Hayes: It is the wrong party for that.

Mr. Higgins: Perhaps that is the reason we want a list system. I was talking to Senator Ryan's former general secretary, Brendan Halligan, recently and he made the point that under the present system any former general secretary who thought he could get himself elected to the Seanad would be on a foolhardy mission. Perhaps that is a good reason for former general secretaries to get together. We would like to see some excitement coming back into the Seanad elections. Our proposal also tries to get people to have a better understanding of the role of the Seanad and to bring the Seanad more into the public domain in regard to its public relations.

Chairman: Senator Minihan espoused the cause of the quota system quite strongly. I never regarded it as the correct way to do business. If people have ability, their chance will come. Does the quota system not confer a status on people which they might not enjoy and point them out as being there only as part of a quota? I think this is an outdated politically correct way of doing business.

Senator Minihan: That is a fair point of view with which I do not entirely disagree. However, a balance must be struck, in our opinion, to make up for the deficit of female participation in national politics. Given the great increase-----

Senator Ryan: Not in all parties.

Senator Dardis: Particularly not in the Progressive Democrats.

Senator Minihan: I have made that point.

Chairman: The people concerned were not elected by virtue of a quota system.

Senator Minihan: Absolutely not. They were elected as a result of their ability.

Chairman: That is my point.

Senator Minihan: That point is valid. We constantly hear comments about the role to be played by women. Traditionally, women such as the Chairman were not perhaps as willing to come forward and carve out that career for themselves. In an effort to encourage that participation and to try to get a better gender balance we feel that women may just need the extra push to bring them into the political system.

Senator O'Toole: It appears the lists parties would put forward would be subject to a quota. My understanding earlier was that the lists would comprise people elected by universal franchise and that the list itself would simply concern nominations. The Senator did not go into the detail of the nomination procedure.

Senator Dardis: May I comment on that?

Senator O'Toole: I understood from the reply to the question raised by Senator Hayes that a person did not need to be nominated by a party to get on the list. Is that correct?

Senator Minihan: That is the case in regard to Independents. We are specifically talking here about political parties, in an effort to encourage greater participation by women. Obviously, one could not debar anybody, male or female, from seeking election to the Seanad as an Independent.

Senator O'Toole: I am just trying to get a clear picture of how it would work. Will there be a party path for Senators?

Senator B. Hayes: A Joe O'Toole party.

Senator Dardis: I think I can help although I do not want to act as an advocate for the Progressive Democrats in this context. One way of dealing with the issue would be to have a national list drawn up by the parties and Independents - there could be an Independents list also - and when one goes to a polling station, one would vote for the party, not individuals. This leads on to how one organises the constituencies-----

Senator O'Toole: They are not named in law.

Senator Dardis: No. One would be voting for a party. That is the reason the by-election system would not arise. It is like the European election system, whereby one goes to the next name on the list in the event of a vacancy. It would also overcome the difficulty with regard to gender equality, on which I do not particularly disagree with the Chairman's comments. However, it is up to the party to arrange this, rather than the electorate, which is not being asked to vote 50-50. The party would determine the composition of the list, which would lead to balance.

Senator O'Toole: In order to ensure I have a clear picture of the proposal, do I understand correctly that it would operate as follows: if, at the conclusion of an election, on looking at the total valid poll for the whole country, 50% of the electorate had voted for one political party, 30% for another, 10% for a third and the rest for Independents, the result would determine the shape of the Seanad? On the basis of a House of 60 Members, 30 would come from the first of the parties in my example. If Independents secured 15% of the vote, the corresponding representation in the Seanad would also be 15%. Have the Progressive Democrats considered this in terms of a minimum threshold?

Senator Dardis: Obviously, the threshold would be low. It is open to discussion, but it would be of the order of 3% or 4%.

Senator O'Toole: Surely there is a conflict in that regard? A 3% threshold would be very high. The quota, on the basis of 100%, would be approximately 1.8.

Senator Dardis: Let it be that.

Mr. Higgins: I witnessed one of those list-type elections in Norway. The list must be published, but there is also an opportunity for voters to change it, in other words, to give a certain indication. I am aware that Michael Laver has suggested this. A certain preference can be expressed in relation to the list which has a bearing on the outcome of the election.

I wish to return to the point in relation to the day on which voting would take place, perhaps at mid-term of a Government's fixed term or whatever. Because there is such concern about voter turnout, this could be a great incentive to try something new and become more excited about coming out to vote on the same day as the European elections, having regard to the difficulty of getting voters out for both local and European elections.

Senator Dardis: Another advantage of the proposal is that it would establish a disconnection between the Dáil and the Seanad, in terms of the latter being perceived as a nursing or retirement home.

Senator B. Hayes: The witnesses brought forward the interesting idea that the most recent former Taoiseach and Tánaiste should be ex officio Members of the House. This theme has also occurred in other presentations. Why were other former taoisigh excluded? I believe there would be a great deal to be gained from people with huge governmental experience being Members of the House. There are, perhaps, five or six former taoisigh alive today and a similar number who have held the position of Tánaiste. Why did the witnesses exclude them?

Senator Minihan: They are members of the Council of State. We approached the matter on the basis of numbers without intending disrespect to anybody. The most recent former Taoiseach and Tánaiste, provided that they are no longer Members of the Dáil - let us be quite clear on this - would have an added contribution to make to the Seanad, as distinct from involving all former taoisigh and tánaistí.

Chairman: The numbers would be a consideration.

Senator Minihan: Yes.

Chairman: I thank the witnesses for taking the trouble to make a formal submission and their attendance. We appreciated their views of which, I am sure, we will take note in our final report.

The witnesses withdrew.

Next | Up | Previous