Seanad debates

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Seanad Electoral (Panel Members)(Amendment) Bill 2008: Second Stage

 

11:00 am

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister of State. Section 8(2)(h) of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947 states that the General Council of County Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland shall be registered in the register in respect of the administrative panel for Seanad nominations. The Local Authority Members Association (LAMA) was founded almost 30 years ago and fulfils a similar role to that of the two representative associations mentioned in the 1947 Act. Section 266 of the Local Government Act 2001 states:

A member of a local authority may, in his or her own right, hold membership of the association known as the Local Authority Members Association.

Therefore, the bona fides of LAMA is recognised in the Local Government Act 2001. The Local Authority Members Association, since its inception, has been granted parity of esteem with the other two representative associations by all Ministers with responsibility for local government. In fact, a former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, was an officer of LAMA for a number of years.

When the Minister, Deputy Gormley, held all-party meetings to discuss Seanad reform I asked that my Bill form part of those proposals and it was accepted by the Minister and by all present that mine was a reasonable request and would correct an anomaly. This is a simple Bill which addresses that anomaly by granting the Local Authority Members Association the same nominating rights as section 8(ll)(h) of the 1947 Act confers on the General Council of County Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland (AMAI).

The General Council of County Councils has, in the meantime, changed its name to the Association of County and City Councils (ACCI) and I have changed the reference in the Bill from the "General Council of County Councils" to the "Association of County and City Councils" to reflect this change in name.

Why is this Bill necessary? The Local Authority Members Association has applied on several occasions to be included in the list of nominating bodies eligible to nominate a person to contest a Seanad election. The request was refused on each occasion. The only way it can become eligible is to amend the 1947 Act to give the association parity of esteem with the AMAI and ACCI. The Bill tries to address an anomaly which currently exists and I hope it will have the unanimous support of the House.

Some technical or consequential amendments may arise as a result of the Bill but I am not aware of these. If the Minister or the Government do not have amendments I would not object to having all stages of the Bill taken today, or in early course. I seek the support of all Members to address the anomaly that exists by not granting LAMA parity of esteem with the other two representative associations. I hope this short Bill will be unanimously supported.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to debate this important little Bill. I am happy to second the proposal of my esteemed colleague, Senator Cummins.

As Senator Cummins said, we find ourselves in an anomalous situation and we are merely trying to put this right. I think the Bill has the agreement of all. I hope the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong in stating that every county council member, and perhaps every local authority member, is a member of the Local Authority Members Association. We would not wish to deny LAMA parity of esteem with any of the other bodies.

In our democracy we guarantee the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and association, and properly so. None of us would wish to deny that to members of local authorities, who look to this association as their own, and participate actively in it. That is also my recollection of my time as a councillor from 1985 to 1999. We are merely trying to extend equality to all of the members of the association without denying nominating rights to anyone else. The membership of the association touches 100% of individual local government representatives. Given this membership profile, I cannot see how, as democrats, we would not fully support this Bill. I am happy, therefore, to second Senator Cummins's proposal and I look forward to seeing it receive the approval of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Photo of Michael FinneranMichael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Cummins for raising this issue and for his engagement with the all-party group on Seanad reform. I welcome the opportunity to deliver the Government's response to the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) (Amendment) Bill 2008 and to speak more generally on the reform of the Seanad. Senator Cummins has outlined the provisions of the Bill and I will not dwell further on these points at this time.

In considering changes to the manner of election of Seanad Members, we must begin with first principles, which in this instance is the role of the Seanad. As one of two Houses in a unitary, as opposed to federal, system of government, the Seanad has two principal purposes. It provides representation for political interests that may not be adequately represented in the Dáil and it can improve the legislative process. The part of the legislative process which takes place in the Seanad allows for further consideration prior to the enactment of Bills. The Seanad's existence also allows for additional deliberation by a group of legislators who can offer different perspectives from those of the Dáil. The question that must be asked is whether the Bill would contribute to the performance by the Seanad of its intended role.

Before outlining the Government's position on the Bill I would like to discuss briefly the electoral system of the Seanad. The three Seanad Electoral Acts of 1937, 1947 and 1954, with relatively minor subsequent amendments, define the Seanad's electoral system. The design of the electoral system reflects the desire to incorporate a very strong element of vocational representation. Six Members of the Seanad are elected by the two university constituencies and 11 are nominated directly by the Taoiseach. The remaining 43 Members are elected from five panels, each of which is divided into two sub-panels comprising, respectively, candidates nominated by at least four Members of the Oireachtas and candidates nominated by registered groups in the five spheres of culture and education, agriculture, labour, industry and commerce and administration. As such, the panel system elects 72% of the Seanad's membership. Of the 43 panel seats, seven Members are elected by the administrative panel, which is composed of candidates having knowledge and practical experience of public administration and social services, including voluntary social activities. In the 2007 Seanad general election, three of the seven Senators elected from the administrative panel were from the nominating bodies sub-panel and four were from the Oireachtas sub-panel. The candidate nominated by the Association of City and County Councils was not elected but the nominee of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland was, as Senator Camillus Glynn can attest.

The 1947 Act includes a provision for the establishment and maintenance of the register of nominating bodies, which is performed annually by the Clerk of the Seanad in his or her capacity as Seanad returning officer. Section 8(2)(h) of the 1947 Act states that: "the Irish County Councils General Council and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland shall be registered in the register in respect of the administrative panel without application, and no other body shall be registered in the register in respect of that panel unless its objects and activities consist, wholly or substantially, of voluntary social services of a charitable or eleemosynary character". Since 2007, the Irish County Council General Council has been known as the Association of County and City Councils, ACCC. Notwithstanding the change in name, the ACCC continues to enjoy the right of automatic inclusion on the register and was included automatically in the 2007 register of nominating bodies. It should be noted that no other organisation enjoys the right of automatic inclusion on the register of nominating bodies. Other organisations are ineligible for inclusion unless, in the opinion of the returning officer, they have objects which primarily relate to or are connected with the interests and services of the relevant panel; they perform activities which are mainly concerned with such interests and services; or their members are representative of persons who have knowledge and practical experience of such interests and services. Section 8(2)(h) ensures that, aside from the ACCC and the AMAI as the two local government organisations, nomination rights to the administrative panel are reserved for organisations which are concerned with voluntary social services of a charitable character.

Local government plays a significant role in Seanad elections. First, the two local government associations are automatically included in the register of nominating bodies. Second, in a Seanad general election, to elect 43 panel members, the local government sector casts a significant proportion of the votes. Every city and county councillor has a vote and the remainder of the electorate is composed of Members of the incoming Dáil and the outgoing Seanad. The electorate numbers approximately 1,000, of whom 800 are county and city councillors. As such, the local government system collectively enjoys a numerically decisive position in terms of electing the 43 panel seats, which constitute more than 70% of the Seanad.

The Government opposes the Bill for three principal reasons. The Bill presupposes that an amendment to the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947 is necessary to cater for the change in the name of the General Council of Councils to the Association of County and City Councils. Such an amendment is unnecessary. The Seanad returning officer has confirmed that the ACCC is included in the annual register of Seanad nominating bodies as a matter of course. Indeed, the ACCC exercised its nominating rights at the 2007 Seanad elections notwithstanding the change in name earlier that year. Enactment of unnecessary legislation is clearly not appropriate.

The second element of the Bill is a provision to include the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA, in the register of nominating bodies for Seanad elections. The Government is of the view that it would not be desirable to make piecemeal changes to the Seanad electoral code at this time. Decisions in that regard will be a matter for the Government, having regard to the commitment in the programme for Government on an electoral commission. I will speak further about the work of the electoral commission shortly. The Government does not consider that the proposal is appropriate given that LAMA represents councillors in their own right rather than the collective interests of local authorities. As such, LAMA is distinct from the ACCC and the AMAI. As I have stated, local government interests have a significant input to the nomination of panel candidates and the election of Seanad Members. Collectively, county and city councillors are the primary shapers of each Seanad. I understand the Clerk of the Seanad has disallowed numerous applications by LAMA for registration as a nominating body.

The automatic inclusion of another councillors' body as a nominating body would not sit well with the current imperative towards retrenchment and rationalisation in public administrative structures and processes generally. We are all familiar with the national economic context. The local government sector must take an important place in the process of public service reform that is essential to restoration of our public finances and our economy generally. As Members will be aware, a dedicated Cabinet committee has been engaged in finalising the policy decisions to be included in a White Paper on local government which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government intends to publish at the earliest opportunity following completion of the Government's deliberations. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate to speculate on the likely specific contents of the White Paper. It will address relevant issues in regard to local government powers, functions and structures. The development of the White Paper will take full account of the views expressed in the extensive consultation process that has taken place, centred on the publication of the Green Paper, and will also have regard to relevant policy developments, reviews and publications, including the report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes and the report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group. The Government will bring forward robust proposals to provide for a rational, responsive and efficient system of local government in keeping with today's economic realities and fit to meet the daunting challenges that lie ahead, with structures relevant to the 21st century.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to the establishment of an independent electoral commission and identifies a range of responsibilities which the commission will be mandated to fulfil. Under the programme, the electoral commission will incorporate the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission, with enhanced powers of inspection, and will have wide-ranging responsibilities. It will be in a position to decide constituency boundaries; administer the voting registration process; run voter education programmes; advise on mechanisms to increase the participation of women in political life, including the use of additional criteria for public funding which encourages more women and lesser represented groups; and recommend revised guidelines on the declaration of donations for political purposes.

Under the programme, the electoral commission will also propose reforms to the electoral system, including making recommendations on the feasibility of extending the franchise for presidential elections to the Irish abroad; examining and making recommendations for changes to the electoral system for Dáil elections, including the number of Deputies and their means of election; outlining new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann; advising on the basis for European elections to reflect new realities of the role and influence of the European Parliament, including consideration of moving towards one national constituency and using a list system; making recommendations on the possibility of extending the franchise for local elections to those aged 16 or over; and setting minimum standards for the taking and publication of political polls within the State to ensure fairness and accuracy.

The Minister, Deputy Gormley, is currently giving consideration to setting up an electoral commission on a non-statutory basis in the first instance. Setting up such a body on a non-statutory basis would allow it, for example, to conduct research and to bring forward proposals on the establishment of the full electoral commission, including transitional arrangements for the transfer of responsibilities and functions. It could also advise on the drafting of the necessary legislation. I also understand that the Minister intends to discuss further the outcomes of the all-party group on Seanad reform with Cabinet colleagues. In this context, it is not desirable to conduct piecemeal change to electoral codes, including that of the Seanad.

Notwithstanding the Government's opposition to the Bill, I pay tribute to the role of the local government associations. As a former chairman of the general council at a time when we were also grappling with major economic challenges, I am especially conscious of the part they have played in local government. I was also national assistant secretary of LAMA in my time. Over the years, the Ministers and officials in the Custom House have maintained a close working relationship with local authority elected members through the three local government representative associations - ACCC, AMAI and LAMA. This includes regular meetings, contacts and discussions, formal and informal. As part of this ongoing engagement, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, met the three associations jointly in May of this year to discuss a broad range of matters of concern. At the meeting, the Minister indicated his intention to deepen that engagement by way of regular meetings as well as the provision of briefing for the associations on EU legislation. It is intended to have the first such meeting in the new year.

The engagement and input by the local government associations in the ongoing work of policy development concerning local government matters is also greatly appreciated. I know, for example, that the Green Paper on local government, Stronger Local Democracy - Options for Change, and the report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group have benefited considerably from the perspectives of the local government associations.

Given the national economic context, it may be a timely moment for the three local government associations to consider whether a merger would be to their benefit and to the common good. A merged organisation, speaking with one voice on behalf of local government, could give greater weight to the voice of local government and contribute to efficiency and effectiveness. The Oireachtas has provided for such a unified body to represent local government and its elected members under section 226 of the Local Government Act 2001. I say this as a staunch advocate of local government and of the local authority associations in which I have a strong background. In 1988, I was involved as chairman of the general council, with other organisations, in extensive discussions to create such a body. All involved engaged genuinely at that time under the chair and support of the Institute of Public Administration. There was constructive debate, consultation and engagement, and while some of those who were involved are no longer involved in local government, some are still involved. It was a worthwhile experience, although it did not come to fruition on that occasion.

I asked previously whether the Bill would meaningfully contribute to the performance by the Seanad of its intended role. For the reasons I have outlined, the Government holds that the Bill would not so contribute and it therefore opposes it. On the wider issue of the role of the Seanad and the contribution of the House to national life, I expect the work of the electoral commission will enhance the position of the Seanad.

I note the position of Fine Gael in regard to the future of the Seanad. That position is not shared by the Government which appreciates the work of the Seanad. At this time, it is incumbent on every component of the State to re-examine the contribution it makes to the common good. I urge the members of this House to consider how the Seanad can maximise its contribution in helping to address the difficulties we face. This surely would be the most effective way to refute those who question the usefulness of the House.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senator Doherty, by agreement.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and compliment the Fine Gael Party, Senator Cummins in particular, on bringing forward this legislation which my party is happy to support. I am sure the Senator will not mind me referring to it as largely a piece of housekeeping, which is not to disrespect the Bill which I believe to be straightforward and uncontroversial. That said, I must agree with the point made by the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, that it would not be desirable to make piecemeal changes to the Seanad electoral code at this time. Piecemeal changes are not necessary, although I query why we have waited so long for any sort of electoral reform in the Seanad, a point to which I will return.

The Minister of State, in his opposition to the Bill, referred to changes when he stated: "The automatic inclusion of another councillors' body as a nominating body would not sit well with the current imperative towards retrenchment and rationalisation". He also referred to the dedicated Cabinet committee which is examining local authorities and stated:

[I]t would not be appropriate to speculate on the likely specific contents of the White Paper. It will address relevant issues in regard to local government powers, functions and structures.

If ever there was a warning about what may be coming down the line for our local authorities, it is included in the Minister of State's speech.

My reading of what he is saying is that we cannot extend voting rights to these people because we do not know whether they will be there in six months or a year. The Minister of State will forgive me if I have picked that up wrong, but that is clearly what I am taking-----

Photo of Michael FinneranMichael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator might be picking it up wrong.

12:00 pm

Photo of Dominic HanniganDominic Hannigan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a concern in regard to the speech. In plain English, the Minister of State is saying we cannot do this now because we do not know what will happen to the powers and functions of local authorities. That will create concern. We need to see a deepening of democracy. One of my concerns is that powers are being taken away from local councillors, which I saw at first hand as a local councillor, while at the same time the Government is paying lip service to deepening democracy. One cannot have both at the same time, so which will it be? I am very concerned about the comments on this issue.

To return to the issue of reform and the legislation before us, anyone who has been a Member of this House for a number of years will know that it is lacking in credibility among the majority of the population. When we began this Seanad term in 2007, we had speeches for the first day on how the Seanad needed to be reformed.

In the past 30 years there have been a dozen reports which have referred to how the Seanad could be made more fit for purpose and more relevant and how it might reflect the composition of modern Irish society. However, the Government has done nothing to try to make the House more relevant or improve the way it operates. It is somewhat ironic that the party which is calling for the abolition of the Seanad has brought forward legislation which is designed to extend the franchise. As stated, however, the Labour Party is happy to support the Bill. It is of the view that attempts should be made to try to reform the Seanad before the final step of abolishing it is taken. At this point we are wondering if reform will ever be undertaken. The Green Party - Fianna Fáil's partner in government - has for many years referred to reforming the House, but it has done absolutely nothing in that regard during the lifetime of this Parliament. The concern is that the Government will not introduce any measure to improve the situation.

There are more things wrong than right with the House, which is an unfortunate statement for any Member to have to make. For some time the Labour Party has been suggesting the franchise should be extended. I would like it to be extended to people who are 16 years or older, regardless of whether they have had an opportunity to attend university. I do not believe we need to retain that form of elitism. I would welcome a number of fundamental changes to the way the Seanad is structured and I am disappointed that the Green Party and Fianna Fáil have not yet introduced such changes. If elected to serve in government, the Labour Party will certainly bring forward proposals in this regard. However, that eventuality may be some time in coming to pass. In the interim, we are happy to support the Bill brought forward by Fine Gael.

Photo of Pearse DohertyPearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas don Seanadóir Hannigan as a chuid ama a roinnt liom.

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with some of what the Minister of State said. It is not often that I find common ground with the Government. However, introducing change to the Seanad on a piecemeal basis does not represent the way forward. I was on my own for a long period in arguing that the Seanad should be abolished. However, Fine Gael has since come around to this view. There is something rotten at the core of the Seanad, that is, the way in which Members are elected. The electoral system for this House is elitist and apartheid in nature and belongs to a different era.

In the light of the promises we have received from the Government in respect of real Seanad reform, I was taken aback when I read this legislation. We use the term "Seanad reform," but what does it mean? There is no doubt that the Seanad could be reformed. However, it must be remembered that during the lifetime of the previous Seanad Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Independents signed up to an all-party report on Seanad reform which recommended that the number of Senators and Taoiseach's appointees be increased. The report contains a number of positive suggestions but the reform it advocates is not that which I want to see being introduced. Serious reform is required.

The legislation before the House would confer on a group which represents councillors - I have nothing against LAMA or the important work it has done in representing councillors across the State - more power in respect of the election of Members to the Seanad. Not only do councillors already hold most power in deciding who sits in this Chamber, Fine Gael now wants to give them the power to nominate those who can go before them for election.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One person.

Photo of Pearse DohertyPearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want us to move in completely the opposite direction in terms of Seanad reform. The House should be abolished, but there is no political will to take the bull by the horns and deal with the matter. Since the foundation of the State, numerous reports on Seanad reform have been forthcoming. However, they have never been acted upon. The result of the referendum held in 1979 has never been given legislative effect by successive Governments.

A number of statements have been made recently which have added to the distrust of those involved in politics. When the second largest party in the State indicates that it intends to abolish the Seanad and then introduces legislation to extend the franchise relating to nominating bodies to a group of elected members, it is obvious that such behaviour will give rise to grave mistrust among members of the public. There is a need for honest politics. The mechanism proposed in this legislation is wrong. We need to deal with the core issues by discussing how the Seanad is elected. We also need to bring democracy to the House by allowing all citizens - regardless of whether they live in the country - to vote in Seanad elections. Sinn Féin has long argued that people of the age of 16 years and over should be able to vote in Seanad elections, either by registering here or at the nearest Irish Embassy if living abroad.

We must also ensure duplication no longer holds sway. With the exception of those on the Independent benches, is there a real chance that anyone elected from one of the sectoral panels could be considered truly independent? The answer is "No." Politicians have, under the powers granted to them in the Constitution, made laws which dictate that the membership of Seanad Éireann will be elected by elected politicians. This system is dominated by the political parties and is completely and utterly flawed.

The legislation before the House would take us down the road of strengthening the inequality and lack of democracy which lie at the core of the Seanad. The reason for the distaste among members of the public for the Seanad is the duplication of work between it and the Dáil and also the fundamental lack of democracy and the fact that the House is elitist. When I was a councillor, sitting Senators used to send me neck ties, boxes of chocolates, calendars, etc. This practice continues today. Councillors from my party and others have been sent DVDs and scarves and other items. That is completely ridiculous. A Senator knows that if he or she keeps 100 councillors happy, he or she will have a job for life. It is a good job because he or she will be paid €70,000 per annum and receive a good pension. In addition, he or she will be able to park on this campus for the remainder of his or her life, regardless of whether he or she continues to serve as a Member. In reality, one does not need to represent a constituency because Senators do not have constituencies.

I agree with the comment expressed by the Minister of State to the effect that piecemeal change is not what is required. There is a need - if there is the political in this regard - for fundamental and radical change if the Seanad is to be restructured and made into a modern institution which can serve Irish society in the 21st century. I do not believe there is the will for such change among the major political parties. It is for this reason I believe the House should be abolished.

I question the sincerity of the Fine Gael Party on this issue, particularly in view of the legislation it has introduced. I have no doubt that the leader of that party which made such an issue out of abolishing the House has endorsed this legislation.

Photo of Martin BradyMartin Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senator Wilson.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Martin BradyMartin Brady (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his comprehensive contribution. LAMA is an extremely efficient organisation and does a very good job. The Minister of State referred to amalgamating various organisations and I support him in that regard. As a former trade unionist, I was involved in the amalgamation of a number of unions. I am aware, therefore, that when bodies or organisations are amalgamated, their clout and authority increase. Amalgamation is the direction we should take because scattered groups do not have as much power as one large entity.

Senators Doherty and Hannigan referred to piecemeal change. I agree with them that a piecemeal approach is not the route we should take. The Minister of State has indicated that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is giving consideration to establishing an electoral commission on a statutory basis. Such a body would discuss the issue with which we are dealing and others.

Many aspects of the Seanad must be examined in order that we might make it more relevant to the public. People actually believe we do damn all. There is a perception that we come here, collect our money, sit on a couple of occasions each week and do not discuss any matters of great importance. The Seanad is viewed, more or less, as a form of debating society. One can understand why there is this perception. We must do what we can to make the House more relevant.

The system used for electing people to the Seanad must be examined. Senator Hannigan is correct to state one needs a great deal of money in order to run for election to this House. One probably needs more money to participate in a Seanad election than in a general election. As the Senator indicated, one is obliged to give out goodies, put people up in hotels, treat various individuals to dinner and do umpteen other things. When I sought election to the Seanad, a number of people said to me, "So and so was here before you and you know he is a very generous man."

We need to find a way to alter the system which is outdated. I do not often agree with Senator Doherty but it has become a club of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". It has even developed small groups, which I can see in here, which hunt together like hounds in a pack. That should be changed.

I have no problem with the Senator's Bill. I would like to see a broader overhaul of the system. The public has a very poor perception of the Seanad because we do not get sufficient coverage from the media, and when we get coverage, it is unhelpful. As has been stated, we must take a broader view and not just cherry`-pick issues. Senator Wilson has returned. I thought he had gone on a junket.

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Brady for giving me a minute of his time. I have never sent out any ties or DVDs, put anyone up in a hotel or bought dinner for people. Being from Cavan, naturally I would not do such things anyway. I compliment Senator Cummins on bringing forward this Bill, which I support in principle. I am the Government Chief Whip, however, so I must oppose it.

As a former member of the General Council of County Councils, now the Association of County and City Councils, ACCC, I saw at first hand the excellent work representative bodies for councillors do on behalf of councillors and councils. That is true of the Local Authority Members' Association. Speaking as someone who is a member of the panel to which Senator Cummins's Bill is trying to add a candidate, I should state that I have no difficulty with the proposal. The panel is entitled to nominate a person to go forward for the Seanad election on the administrative panel and I very much welcome that challenge. It might take a few votes away from some of my colleagues on that panel. In principle I have no difficulty with it.

A number of comments have been made by Senator Doherty and I do not agree that there is something rotten at the core of the Seanad. It does excellent work and is full of well-meaning, decent and honourable people who have been democratically elected. I agree that the Seanad needs reform as soon as possible but it has a role to play in our democracy and democratic system. I want to see it remaining, although reformed as soon as possible. I compliment Senator Cummins on putting forward this Bill.

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with many of the critical comments. I have been a Member of this House for the past quarter of a century and have consistently sought reform but I do not believe the Government will bring it forward. One of the greatest disappointments for me is that every Government along the way has made such proposals but we have effectively missed the boat. There is no goodwill or support for this House among ordinary people, and fair points have been made about the position of the main Opposition party putting this proposal forward. I will support it because I do not have a problem with extending the franchise.

I agree with the criticisms and I could just as easily argue that we should have all the other changes before agreeing to one change. I could just as easily take that position. I recognise that the Bill has been put forward with the best of intentions from Senator Cummins and for that reason I will support it.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator has always been fair-minded.

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator does not appear to have shared the view of his party leader on the future of the Seanad. I do not see that he has taken a public position different from his private position.

There were a number of interviews yesterday by a learned professor who came from British Columbia to Ireland to speak about civic society. A week before that many of us were in the North discussing with our counterparts there the idea of setting up a civic forum in Northern Ireland. This is an issue of great importance to everyone and everyone has got behind it. The operation of this House as contemplated by Bunreacht na hÉireann is a civic forum. It was never meant to be a mini-Dáil and I always opposed the idea of extra powers for the Seanad. It has enough power and was never intended to pervert the will of the people as articulated in the Lower House. The role of a second Chamber is different. What we are supposed to have is a deliberative Chamber with experienced people knowledgeable in certain areas reflecting all walks of life. That has not happened. The main point is that every citizen should be a stakeholder in the Chamber and should be entitled to have a vote in some form or other in this Chamber. That can be done in different ways.

I will dismiss some issues. There is nothing wrong with the idea of local authority members electing Members of the Upper House. In democracy that is a well-used system in various places around the world. It is a distillation of democracy where the people elect one level and that level elects an upper level. There is nothing wrong with that and the Dáil elects the Government in that same order. What is wrong is 43 of 60 seats being elected in that fashion, resulting in only 1,000 people effectively electing almost all the Upper House. That is wrong.

I have never been a member of a political party, although I was, through the teachers' union, president of the largest labour organisation in this country and general secretary of the largest, oldest and most widespread all-Ireland body in the trade union movement. The natural place for me to stand as contemplated by Bunreacht na hÉireann would be on the education or labour panels, although the world knows I would not get a vote on either of them because I am not a member of a political party. There is something wrong in that respect.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is doing himself down now.

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have appealed to colleagues on all sides on the issue. The inner and outer panels should be changed. The panel where potential Senators are nominated by Members of the Oireachtas should become an election taking in members of local authorities and the outside panel should be an election by people attached to a relevant profession. The agricultural panel would have an electorate in the people representing agricultural life, such as farmers or bodies such as the Irish Farmers Association. Partners in education would vote in the education panel, trade unionists would vote on the labour panel and business people would vote on one of the two business panels. In that way we could ensure every person in the country would have a method of voting. Some large geographical constituencies could also be picked in which people could have a vote.

I may have six votes in the Seanad elections currently, which is ridiculous. To ensure there is one person to one vote, which is a basis to democracy, a graduate should decide whether he or she is to be registered on the graduate panel, the west of Ireland panel or the agricultural panel, for example, but that person should only be able to choose one. When decisions are made along these lines, we can ensure everyone gets a vote.

There is no justification in this day and age for saying people with a third level qualification are more important than the ordinary citizen and giving them a vote that is unavailable to that ordinary citizen. It is inexcusable. Putting it all together, I agree with Senator Wilson. There are hard-working and decent people who are Members of this House - I will defend that argument - but it is an unrepresentative parliamentary Chamber. It is anti-democratic and out of its time. It seems extraordinary that the only way I could have a voice here was to stand for election as part of an exclusive panel of Members from certain universities. One cannot countenance this in this day and age. The only way one could countenance maintaining a graduate panel is if everybody else in the country also had a vote. That is the line we should take.

I recognise that what I am suggesting would create a huge problem and pose a huge threat to my colleagues who were elected under the panel system. As I have said previously, I would be happy to take that decision, but I would not implement it until the election after next to allow people time to adjust to the new system and allow certain things to be done. I strongly believe the Seanad will not be allowed to continue in its current format. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, means well, but he has been completely outmanoeuvred by Fianna Fáil on this matter. It will ensure reform will not come to pass, or if it does, it will be introduced too late to have any effect. I sat at meetings with the Minister and told him this would happen and which he said would be the last to be held on the issue and that he would have a proposal to place in front of us the following month. That was two years ago. He said he would have a proposal to place before us the Christmas before last and was then supposed to have it last spring, but I do not see it coming. I understand it is next in line after the local government consolidation Bill. The decision should and could be taken.

We need to have Members in the House who will add to the discussion. I am not saying the system to which I have referred would result in the election of such individuals. I can see colleagues in the House who have expertise in various areas. I could discuss that issue, but that is not the one we need to consider. We need to consider those who send us here. The current system is unrepresentative, undemocratic and unsustainable and the Seanad will not continue in its current form. Obviously, I have failed to convince people that that is the case, but if we do not make these changes, change will be imposed on us.

Change can be managed in a number of ways. The first question one should ask oneself is what would happen if we were to do nothing. The Seanad would die on its feet. The next thing one should do is manage change. One should ask what outcomes are needed from the process and then move in that direction. There is one guiding principle for all democrats in a republic, that every person in the State should have a vote in an election to this Chamber. In that regard, I support the Bill for the reasons I have outlined. It is not a great Bill, but I will support it. Much as I criticised Deputy Kenny for what he said about the Seanad Chamber which was uninformed and not rooted in argument, at least he started a debate, which is welcome.

Photo of Mark DeareyMark Dearey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has been told many times that something will not happen or cannot be done, most recently in regard to the prospects for talks on achieving a political consensus. Unlike Guinness Light, he showed in that instance that it could be done. I do not know who is the longest serving Member; I am certainly the shortest serving Member.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is Senator Ross.

Photo of Mark DeareyMark Dearey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps my optimism has not been chastened by experience.

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am still an optimist after a quarter of a century.

Photo of Mark DeareyMark Dearey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is good to hear, as I am also an optimist. I accept the Minister's bona fides on the issue of Seanad reform and I am well aware of his frustration at how slowly it is happening. There are many wider issues to be considered, many of which were outlined by Senator O'Toole.

The first steps to be taken should include providing for the inclusion of the institutes of technology. This would amount to a fantastic process of democratisation and give a vote to a far wider group of people across a far greater range of social strata and classes and geographical spread. The current system is a complete anachronism. Even as an initial measure, the change to which I have referred would result in a more significant and daring system.

As a member for five years of a local authority - not a county council - which was in involved the rating and planning systems, I did not have a vote in the Seanad election and resented this. The local authority of which I was a member had an annual budget of €27 million and collected €13 million in rates, which were comparable to the figures for some of the smaller county councils. I found this frustrating and it was a source of resentment. When I became a county councillor in 2009, I suddenly had a new roomful of friends and others who were courting my affections. I looked the better for it during the Christmas period, with my new tie, fine pen and so on. However, I found the divide between what I had done prior to and did after the 2009 election to be false. There is a case to be made for the inclusion of members of rating authorities such as the one of which I was a member in Seanad elections. It would involve a very minor change, be one which would not necessarily detain us for long and should be included in the wider debate on electoral reform.

The electoral commission is established on a non-statutory basis. However, according to the programme for Government which was renegotiated last September, it will be non-statutory for a period during which research and public consultation can take place before it finally assumes a statutory function based on wise counsel which will be generated during the phase when it will be non-statutory. It is then that I suggest to Senators Cummins, Coghlan and Fitzgerald that this measure should be tested in the wider context of the reforms which the electoral commission will propose for examination and introduction. The need for electoral reform is pressing and the disengagement does not just have to do with the current economic position in which we find ourselves but has been continuing for many years. Voter turnout has been reasonably steady but is falling and will continue to fall until we find new mechanisms to enable people to feel they are stakeholders in the political process. One way by which this could happen would be for everybody in the country to have a vote in respect of the panel to which they are most affiliated. This is a wise proposal, but one which would have to be tested in the heat of debate within the electoral commission. For these reasons, I would rather postpone a decision on the proposals made today and consider them in the wider context of the reforms which will be examined by the commission. I put great store in the determination of the Minister to see Seanad reform delivered on his watch.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill which I will support. I ask the Minister of State and Members opposite to clarify the remarks made by the Leader at a conference held in Listowel at which I believe he endorsed the Bill and promised Government support for it in Government time. Is that the case? If it is, why is the Government doing a U-turn and reneging on its commitment?

Photo of Diarmuid WilsonDiarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was misunderstood.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Therein lies the crux that we all face as elected representative in this House. The political process has failed the people. That is what they believe. They believe we have let them down, that, in particular, Fianna Fáil in government has let them down. They also believe the Government is bereft of leadership and cannot be trusted. As such, they do not have confidence in the main Government party. We have had numerous reports on Seanad reform and numerous pseudo attempts to change the way we do business, but nothing has happened.

Politics must not be about perception, perks, the Mercedes or the pursuit of personal power or gain. It must be about advocacy and making laws on behalf of the people to create a better Ireland. That is our fundamental task.

Where is the reform that was promised? I did not agree with Deputy Kenny's suggestion to abolish the Seanad but I acknowledge he had the courage and ability to say we should get rid of it. Senator O'Toole stated the ordinary people regard this House as irrelevant. If a referendum were held tomorrow morning, the majority of people would vote against the retention of the Seanad. Senator Leyden should note that, this week and last week, we did not deal with one Government-sponsored Bill.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is terrible.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How is that a means of having confidence in a House of which we are Members? How can one have confidence in a House that is meant to be an Upper House rather than a mini Dáil? I am as guilty as anybody for creating a mini Dáil out of this House but understand that we must become realists and consider how we respond.

If we are to have confidence in one another and create an Upper House that is meaningful and has a role, we must do as I propose. Under the Constitution, the House has a very clear role. We must never forget that. I am very much in favour of the retention of Seanad Éireann.

Irrespective of what Senator O'Toole believes or says, the councillors who elect us to the majority of the panels take their jobs very seriously. They do not take Senator Doherty's remarks on board in that they are not swayed by people giving out largesse. I have never given anything to anybody. The majority of Senators do not do so. Senator Doherty's party was the very party that had a pact with another party to create a seat for itself in this House. He is talking from both sides of his mouth. Sinn Féin could not wait to do a deal with another party in order to have a Member in this House. Sinn Féin is the party that must present its ballot papers to a certain group of people to make sure they vote the right way. At least I can sit down opposite the county manager in Cork and vote for whoever I want.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am in the same position.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we want to reform the House, we should talk about all of us, bearing in mind that none of us is perfect.

I agree with Senator O'Toole that the House, as presently constituted, cannot keep going. We need to reform the manner in which we get elected. I am not a bit afraid of having change. We should have a referendum to vote on change in the manner in which all of us are elected. I refer to the six university seats and the vocational panels. Perhaps we should get rid of the Taoiseach's nominees and have a wide-ranging election, perhaps on the same day as a European election. Let us have direct election by the people and allow councillors and graduates to continue to have a vote while at the same time changing the whole system.

Let us not be afraid of change. Naval gazing and patting on the back will not get us anywhere. This House is not perfect, nor is the Dáil. No House of Parliament anywhere is perfect but we should be open to change. Let the Government introduce legislation to make change. Let us stop talking about it. Let us stop hiding and introduce change. This Bill may not be perfect but it represents an attempt to introduce change.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let the White Paper be introduced first.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment Senators Cummins and Coghlan on introducing this Bill, for which they deserve great credit. I am disappointed that a decision has been made to oppose the Bill. It would have been far better to have the Bill read on Second Stage and amended on Committee Stage. I do not accept some of the arguments put forward by the Minister of State, whom I know for a long time. Before he held the high office he know holds, he was a distinguished local authority member, chairman of the General Council of County Councillors, and a very strong exponent of local Government. I would be surprised if his speech were not produced by the permanent government.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear. We know the Minister of State's heart is with us.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a significant part of the problems we have in both Houses.

The Local Authority Members Association should be a nominating body for the Seanad. I served on that body as chairman and member for a number of years and was a colleague of the Minister of State in the General Council of County Councils for a long period. I was also a member of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland.

I agree with the Minister of State's point that the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and the General Council of County Councils are representative of the corporate bodies of local government whereas the Local Authority Members Association is a representative body for the members. I listened with interest to what the Minister of State had to say on retrenchment and rationalisation. There were suggestions in the past in this regard that came from officials in the Department. I hope we will have Ministers who will use their own knowledge, experience and discretion when the permanent government makes propositions to them and that they will do the right thing. I would not like to see any amalgamation because the various bodies serve different purposes.

I am aware that some of the discussions surrounding the reform of local government may well lead to the removal of a tier of local government. Therefore, the future of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and town councils may well feature in any reform programme. The Local Authority Members Association represents the lowest paid public servants in the country, councillors. I served as a councillor for twice as long as I have been a Member of this House. As with many other Senators, I know the volume of work done at council level and how it has been increasing exponentially, particularly since better local government was introduced some time ago.

I do not believe the arguments on retrenchment and rationalisation are in the White Paper on local government reform or what the Clerk of the Seanad decided previously is relevant to what we are discussing today.

When chairman of the Local Authority Members Association, I took up with the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, the issue of recognition of the association on behalf of its members. It was addressed by him through local government legislation. We sought to be a nominating body, not only for the Administrative Panel but also the panel I believe is most appropriate for the association, namely, the Labour Panel. I was told by the Clerk of the Seanad that without the approval and support of other nominating parties on that panel, which the Clerk felt would not be forthcoming, it would not be possible to make the decision to include us. However, we in these Houses can make these decisions. We should be making them and exercising our electoral mandate and franchise.

I welcome the extension of the debate on Seanad reform. I sometimes smile when I hear many Members seeking reform of a body that is often recognised as a much better debating Chamber than the Lower House. Many Ministers in the current Cabinet and former Ministers have said privately to me and others that they prefer to introduce legislation in this House than in the Lower House. I do not know the view of the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, who served in this House for a number of years. The Ministers make this point to me because they feel there will be more objective and higher quality debate without partisanship. We should be slow to decry the merits of this House. That is not to say that I do not agree with some of the points made by Senator Joe O'Toole in that there is room for reform.

There are many upper Chambers in many European parliaments whose Members are elected similarly to ourselves. Members of local authorities who have a strong electoral mandate and make very fundamental decisions on behalf of citizens also exercise the franchise to elect members to an Upper House. France is a notable example.