Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:"welcomes the fact that:

— through the Leader of the Seanad, the Government has presented a package of reforms to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges to improve the operation and effectiveness of the Seanad; and

— the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government published earlier this year, for public consultation, the general scheme of a Bill to give effect to the 1979 amendment of the Constitution allowing the State to extend the provisions for the election of members of the Seanad by certain universities to other institutions of higher education in the State and that the Bill is expected to be published next year."

Before setting out in detail what the Government has done on these and other initiatives, I will address the motion as presented. While some aspects of the motion are worthy in principle, part of it is inaccurate and many other aspects lack the substance required to make them workable. It would have been much better if they had been given more thought and greater detail had been provided. Other parts of the motion appear to be unfeasible without further constitutional amendments by means of referendums. We have before the House a wish list, albeit one which includes some worthy objectives. The motion does not have regard to whether the proposals contained therein could or should be implemented in some cases. These proposals raise policy and constitutional issues that have not been properly addressed in the text.

Citizens made their decision on the future of the Seanad in October 2013. Their decision was clear and all Members of the Oireachtas fully accepted it. Some Deputies, including me and the Minister of State seated beside me, Deputy Paudie Coffey, have had the honour of being elected to Seanad Éireann. When I appeared in the Seanad in the first week following my appointment as Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government I made it clear that I hold the Upper House in high regard. I am committed to seeing the House play a full and effective role in our democratic system and while I am also committed to Seanad reform, I will not agree to the proposals before us as they cannot be delivered. I must be realistic.

While the Government does not support the motion as presented, this debate presents the House with an important opportunity to discuss the future role of the Seanad. It is equally important that proposals for reform are credible, substantial and detailed and have the potential to be effective. We must know how a policy proposal can be implemented in practice and how much it will cost. This is the approach adopted by the Government. Notwithstanding a number of worthy elements in its motion, Sinn Féin has taken the opposite approach.

The motion comprises two parts, the first of which sets out a commentary while the second consists of a list proposals set out in bullet point format. The opening paragraph makes a series of rhetorical points, with reference to commitments made by the Taoiseach in October 2013. Following the referendum, the Taoiseach addressed the Seanad on 23 October 2013. On that occasion, he invited ideas and proposals on reform. The Sinn Féin motion as framed does not reflect the content or tenor of the Taoiseach's comments at the time. I believe he is being misrepresented and I urge Sinn Féin Deputies to read the statement he made in the Seanad. At that time, the Government made a commitment to listen to the views of all parties and groups on the reform of the Seanad and to legislate and reform the Seanad university constituencies. We have made progress on both counts in the past 12 months, as reflected in the amendment I have proposed.

The motion calls on the Government to engage with all parties and groups as well as wider civic society. This process has been ongoing for the past year. As Deputies will be aware, the Taoiseach and the then Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, met the leaders of the different parties and groupings in the Dáil and Seanad in December 2013 to elicit their views on what areas of the Seanad should be reformed and how we should proceed to develop and implement appropriate reform proposals. These meetings produced a very good discussion with all parties and groups, and all of those present were given an opportunity to express their views, which have been taken on board. It was agreed that a number of operational and procedural reforms could be implemented quickly by amending Seanad Standing Orders. It was also agreed that the parties and groupings in both Houses, including the Government, through the Leader of the Seanad, could submit their proposals for reform to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It would then be a matter for the committee to consider the proposals. Arising from this, the Government, through the Leader of the Seanad, presented a package of Government proposals on Seanad reform to the committee in the first half of 2014. I will elaborate on these proposals in more detail presently.

It is clear that a good deal of debate on Seanad reform has taken place in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I have personally engaged in some of it. In the past year alone, three Private Members' Bills have been introduced on Seanad electoral reform, and the Government's general scheme on the revision of the university constituencies has been debated. The observations made by Members of the Oireachtas and submissions received from stakeholders and members of the public as part of the consultation process on the general scheme are informing the further development of this draft legislation as we speak. There has been no shortage of consultation and engagement. Moreover, the Government has taken a lead in presenting its proposals for operational, procedural and legislative change.

The motion calls for the introduction of direct elections by way of universal franchise for all Irish citizens. Whatever the merits of this proposal as an idea, it needs to be acknowledged that when the Constitution was framed, provision was not made for elections to the Seanad by universal franchise. If this had been the intention, the constitutional provisions on the election of Members of Seanad Éireann would have mirrored those of the elections of this House. That was not the case and we must deal with this fact. The Constitution stipulates that Members of the Seanad are elected by secret postal ballot. This cannot be changed without holding a further constitutional referendum. The consequence of this provision and of not amending it are sometimes overlooked when Seanad reform is addressed. This is not the first time I have made this point. Arising from this constitutional requirement, ballot papers are issued to voters by registered post. The Sinn Féin proposal does not address how a universal franchise would be implemented and how exactly a secret postal ballot on this grand scale would be conducted. Perhaps a further referendum is also envisaged to change this provision. My general point in this regard is that Sinn Féin must spell out its proposals in much greater detail.

It is also important to point out the cost of running a Seanad election with a universal franchise. Without a referendum to amend or remove the postal ballot provision in the Constitution, these costs could be significant. Based on 2014 postage rates, it would cost €6 to send each ballot paper. This gives an indication of what it would cost to send a ballot paper by registered post to 3.1 million voters, the number currently entitled to vote in Dáil elections. This figure does not include voters from Northern Ireland or among the diaspora, whom the motion envisages as being included in an extended franchise, nor does it include the cost of administering the election, counting the votes or a number of other processes.

Apart from the cost of administering the elections, there is the matter of how candidates might fund a campaign on such a scale, as not all of them have deep pockets. These are important considerations when contemplating the introduction, without further constitutional amendment, of a universal franchise for the election of Members of the Seanad.

The motion calls for the introduction of Northern and diaspora representation in the Seanad but does not specify how this might be done. I note the recent Sinn Féin policy document on the role of the diaspora, which also includes this proposal, is similarly lacking in detail. Leaving aside the desirability of having representation of the diaspora in the Seanad, there is a question as to whether this could be done within the parameters set down by the Constitution. The Constitution provides for the nomination by the Taoiseach of 11 members of the Seanad and the election of six members by the National University of Ireland, the University of Dublin, namely, Trinity College Dublin, and what are referred to as "other institutions of higher education in the State." The constitution further provides for the election of 43 members from the five identified vocational panels of persons having knowledge and practical experience of what are termed the "interests and services" covered by the panels. Article 18.7.1 of the Constitution lists these panels as covering national language and culture, literature, art, education and such professional interests as may be defined by law for the purpose of this panel; agriculture and allied interests and fisheries; labour, whether organised or unorganised; industry and commerce, including banking and finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture; and public administration and social services, including voluntary social activities. While there is scope under Article 19 of the Constitution to vary the vocational panels by law, it cannot be assumed that a diaspora panel could be created with reference to this article.

2 o’clock

We need to see exactly what is being proposed and if another constitutional referendum is envisaged or required to give effect to the proposal, and it is likely it would be.

The Sinn Féin motion calls for the introduction of 50% female Members in the Seanad. On the matter of gender balance in national politics the Government has led the way. We have legislated for gender balance in candidate selection at Dáil elections through the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012. Part 6 of this Act links the State funding of political parties to the achievement of a gender balance in candidate selection at all general elections.

In order to receive full State funding, a qualified political party will have to have at least 30% female candidates and at least 30% male candidates at the next general election. After seven years from the next general election this will rise to 40%. By any measure, this is far-reaching, radical and necessary legislation. It should be recalled that the matter of applying these gender balance provisions at Seanad elections was addressed during the passage of the legislation through the Houses. In fact the Bill that subsequently became the 2012 Act commenced in the Seanad where it was given a thorough examination by its Members.

State funding is provided under the Electoral Acts to qualifying political parties which contest general elections. Payments are based on the performance of the qualifying parties at general elections. There is no link between these payments and elections to Seanad Éireann, therefore the provisions in the 2012 legislation could not be applied to Seanad elections. Furthermore, the nomination process for Seanad elections is very different to that for Dáil elections. It would not be feasible to apply the gender balance provisions to a registered nominating body for the vocational panels, for example. Where a body has the right to nominate one candidate it would be impossible to achieve a gender balance with this one nomination. One is either male or female, I suppose.

It would similarly not be possible to enforce a gender balance requirement on an individual who nominates a university candidate. I am sure one can see the practical issues. Again, I would like to see how exactly the proposers of the motion plan to address these points without having a constitutional referendum to alter the composition of the Seanad. The same observation can be made on the proposal in the Sinn Féin motion to ensure the representation of marginalised minority groups within Irish society in the Seanad. There is no question but that broader representation in politics is a good idea and an important and worthy aim that we must all strive to achieve. The Houses of the Oireachtas should better reflect the composition of society. The issue is how this can be done in an effective and fair way that is compatible with the Constitution.

There are two types of approach which can be identified as a means to promote the participation by groups that are under-represented in political life. These are described as the mandatory opportunity measures and the mandatory outcome measures. The gender balance provision introduced by the Government is a mandatory opportunity measure. It incentivises political parties in the selection of candidates, in other words it provides opportunities. There is, of course, a sanction for non-compliance. This is what makes the incentive effective. A mandatory outcome measure involves seats being reserved in Parliament for certain groups. Mandatory outcome measures are considered to be particularly problematic in constitutional democracies, for obvious reasons.

There is a fundamental question of whether it would be feasible to introduce such a measure within the parameters currently set out for the election of Members of the Seanad in the Constitution. The question to be answered is how representation cane be improved in an effective and fair way that is compatible with the Constitution. We need to acknowledge that the Government's track record on this point has been strong. It is widely acknowledged that the Taoiseach's nominees to the current Seanad have added to its diversity in a significant way. This was done without recourse to constitutional or legal change. In fact, the Constitution does not provide for the nomination process by the Taoiseach to be regulated by law. In contrast, the Constitution does provide for elections for the five panels and for the university constituencies to be conducted in a manner provided for in law.

The Government has shown itself to be imaginative and practical in advancing greater participation by women and other groups in national political life. This is in direct contrast to the motion before us which contains no specific proposals. The motion before the House implies that the Government has failed to put forward any proposals for reform of the Seanad. Of course, this is not the case and I am glad to put the record straight for the benefit of the Deputies who have tabled today's motion.

I mentioned that the Government has submitted proposals for operational and procedural reforms in the Seanad. While the implementation of these proposals is a matter for the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges, it is useful to recall what the package contained. The proposals focused on the legislative and vocational roles of the Seanad, while also acknowledging its role in EU scrutiny, which is particularly important. The proposals also suggest ways in which the Seanad can engage with Government, within the parameters of the Constitution, as well as work jointly with the Dáil through the Oireachtas committee system.

On its legislative role, the package proposed that the Seanad should be involved in the legislative process at an early stage. It should play a key role in improving legislative proposals before enactment. The package said the Government would initiate more Bills in the Seanad, especially ones that deal with interests and topics on which the Seanad vocational panels are based. It also proposed that the Seanad will have a role in the new pre-legislation stage for non-emergency Bills. Oireachtas committees that have carried out pre-legislative reviews of heads of Bills would provide copies of their recommendations to both the relevant Minister and the Seanad. The Seanad will then be able to ask the committee Chair to appear before it to discuss the committee's findings and can subsequently submit its own recommendations to the Minister. This process of course would have to include an appropriate deadline so as not to delay unnecessarily the introduction of the Bill. The package put forward by the Government also proposed that the Committee Stage of non-emergency Bills of a detailed or technical nature will be restructured, to allow better consideration of Seanad amendments, which I welcome. The Government also proposed that more Seanad time be given for Private Members' Bills.

In regard to the Seanad's vocational role, innovations such as the Seanad Public Consultation Committee have enabled the Seanad to develop its work in this area. The Government supports the continued enhancement and development of the Seanad's vocational role within the existing constitutional framework. The Seanad should also review and debate reports of public bodies covering matters related to the vocational areas on which the Seanad electoral panels are based. The Government proposed that the Upper House would play a more enhanced role in North-South relations. The Seanad should review the work of the North-South Ministerial Councils and the British-Irish Council, and Ministers should make statements to the Seanad after attending such meetings. It was proposed that the Seanad should review the work of the North-South Implementation Bodies and continue to engage with minority and other special interest groups from both North and South.

The Seanad should continue to invite high-profile individuals to address the House, as well as develop other initiatives, such as the Young Senators Initiative to enhance its parliamentary and democratic role. In terms of the Seanad's engagement with the Government, it must of course be recognised that the Government is responsible to the Dáil under Article 28 of the Constitution. However, it is appropriate that the Seanad should engage with the Government of the day in regard to policy matters within the parameters of the Constitution. The package proposed, therefore, that the Government would outline its annual priorities to the Seanad in the same week that it outlines them to the Dáil.

It also proposed that the Seanad should consider the reports of Oireachtas joint committees and, if it wishes, make recommendations to the relevant Minister. The Houses of the Oireachtas jointly scrutinise EU legislative proposals and much of the detailed work on this is done through joint committees, which are best placed to undertake this task. However, the Seanad can provide a high-profile forum for public debate on the work of the joint committees, and on EU matters in general. This is something I have advocated for many years since I was in the Seanad.

The Government is proposing that the Seanad should review the reports of joint committees on EU policy proposals and also that it should debate motions for reasoned opinions from committees on compliance with subsidiarity, the so-called yellow card motions. In 2013 two such motions were passed by each House, without debate in either House. The Government also proposed that the Seanad should debate the European Commission's annual work programme.

The Government believes it is important that the sittings of joint committees, the Dáil and the Seanad should be organised in a way that enables members to attend to their duties in their respective Houses and in the committees. The Government package therefore proposes the rescheduling of Seanad business to accommodate this. The Government proposals recommend that the Adjournment debates be replaced by commencement debates, to take place before the Order of Business. This will allow Senators to raise issues in a more high-profile time slot.

The Order of Business and Leaders' Questions in the Dáil have already been rescheduled to take place between noon and 1 p.m. on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

Rescheduling the Seanad Order of Business to take place at the same time would mean that Oireachtas committee meetings could be held between 9 a.m. and 12 noon and after 1 p.m. on those days. This would improve the running of both Oireachtas committees and the Houses. These reforms can be implemented within the existing constitutional framework and without the need for legislation.

I understand that some people have also submitted proposals for operational reform to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges and that these are under consideration by that committee. We look forward to early implementation of proposals for practical and workable reform of the Seanad. The motion before the House sets out a series of statements and a list of issues. The real challenge is not to identify problems that we all know exist, but to come up with solutions. On this count, the Government has a strong record, not just in regard to the Seanad but in regard to political reform in general.

Since taking office in 2011, the Government has introduced radical and significant reforms to the financing of the political system. I have already mentioned the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012, which contains the provisions on gender balance. This Act also brought into force restrictions on corporate donations and considerable reductions in the maximum amount that a political party or an individual can accept as a political donation. In implementing recommendations from the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals, it demonstrated the seriousness of the Government in learning lessons from our difficult past.

In 2010, the Council of Europe Group of States Against Corruption, known as GRECO, published a report on political party funding in Ireland. It identified particular problem areas and made recommendations to address these. In December 2013 a final report on the implementation of the recommendations made by GRECO was published. This report recognised that the regulation and transparency of political funding in Ireland had greatly improved. To quote directly from the report: "Ireland has engaged in a reform process by which virtually all concerns raised by GRECO have been taken on board." This is not a case of the Government blowing its own trumpet. These are the comments and considered judgments of a respected international body.

A number of other political reform measures have also been introduced. The Government legislated for a reduction in the number of Deputies, which will result in the number of Deputies falling from 166 to 158 at the next general election. We provided that the writ for a Dáil by-election must now be issued within six months of the vacancy occurring. As Deputies are aware, during the lifetime of the previous Dáil, there were significant delays in calling by-elections. The result of this measure was clear for all to see last week, when vacancies that arose from the European Parliament elections in late May were filled. The spending limit for candidates at a presidential election was reduced from €1.3 million to €750,000. Reimbursement payments to candidates were also reduced. The spending limits for the 2014 local elections were reduced across the board and the legal provision restricting a person who is bankrupt from being a member of, or standing for election to, the Dáil or European Parliament was repealed by legislation enacted in the past year.

The Government has taken a proactive approach to reform and the system for regulating politics in this country has been transformed. However, there is further work to do, not only on Seanad reform, but on the administration of our electoral system. Hence, the statement of Government priorities published in July of this year states: “Preparatory work for the establishment of an Electoral Commission is being advanced with a view to bringing forward legislation for the establishment of such a Commission in early 2015.” This will involve detailed and considered work. Issues for consideration include: international best practice; the commission's structure and functions; whom it reports to; its relationship with other bodies currently involved in electoral administration; and the approach to be followed in regard to the extensive legislation that will be required, as well as practical matters including staffing and funding arrangements.

The statement of Government priorities also provides for the enactment of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill. I mentioned already that the general scheme of the Bill was published earlier this year for consultation. It provides for a six-seat constituency for institutions of higher education; for all holders of a qualification of ordinary degree level or equivalent to be entitled to register to vote in the constituency; for every voter to have only one vote in the constituency, no matter how many qualifications he or she holds; for an updated nomination process; and for new arrangements for the filling of casual vacancies, to be modelled on the replacement candidate provisions for European Parliament elections.

The general scheme was presented in the Seanad for discussion in March 2014 and a total of 22 submissions were received as part of the public consultation process. A technical working group was set up to examine and make observations on operational matters, including the register of electors, the administration of elections and costs arising. To date, the group has met on four occasions and good progress has been made in developing the Bill further. I look forward to its enactment. I believe this approach represents a good and effective way of dealing with legislation. We have consulted widely and brought key stakeholders around the same table. The observations of Members of the Seanad, the input from the technical working group, and the issues raised in the consultation process are now informing the further development of the general scheme. I look forward to coming before this House to debate the Bill in the near future.

This Private Members' motion criticises the Government for not delivering on its commitments. However, the Government has been delivering on what it said it would do. This is evident not only in regard to the Seanad, but also on fundamental political reform generally. The Government has brought about real and lasting change. For the reasons outlined earlier, it makes sense to enhance the way the Seanad operates within the current constitutional and legislative frameworks. The Government has put forward a package of proposals designed to achieve this outcome and I look forward to the endorsement of these proposals by the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

All sides of the House should get on with the process of reforming the Seanad. Unlike the various reports and recommendations on Seanad reform since 1937 that remained on the shelf, this time there will be action. We need to see reform that is implemented appropriately. Reform will largely depend on the Members of the Seanad working closely to develop reforms and working with the Government towards implementing these reforms. I believe we can all work together to bring Seanad Éireann into the 21st century and I am committed to doing that.

It is good that we are having this debate today, but the motion before us leaves us with more questions than answers. It raises expectations, but lacks the substance to back them up. It does not stand up to detailed scrutiny, particularly in regard to constitutional requirements. The Government cannot agree to the motion in its present form and that is why we are moving our amendment. I thank our colleagues for putting forward this motion.

See this speech in context