‘The Government has too much control over the Seanad for it to be effective. Political parties have too much control over the nomination and election of senators and the Seanad is used as a creche for novice politicians and/or a safety net for failed election candidates. The Seanad should be an effective check on the Dáil and Government and different strands of Irish society should be represented better in the Seanad….’
I thought your readers might be interested to know that we have submitted the findings of the public survey we held on Seanad reform to the Government working group on Seanad reform. Over 1200 people took part in the end. Above is a a textual representation of the combination of all the public responses. You can read the results in full at the link below.
Thanks a lot for your help. And thanks to your readers and everyone who took part too. Broadsheet readers made up an estimated 15% of all participants.
Alan Kelly: “I accept the motion that was passed by [the #Seanad] earlire on… will bring this message to the Taoiseach” — Gavan Reilly (@gavreilly) November 5, 2014
Back in the #Seanad, Marc MacSharry describes @PhilHoganEU as a “liar” (under privilege), won’t withdraw; water debate abandoned for 15 mins
Arts Minister Heather Humphries in the Seanad this evening
Arts Minister Heather Humphreys, who recommended John McNulty for the board of the Irish Museum of Modern Art defended her choice in the seanad today
Heather Humphreys: “Fine Gael party officials made me aware of John McNulty’s interests in serving on a board under my remit. I looked at his experience in business, in culture and in promoting the Irish language. I made the decision that he could make a positive contribution to the board of IMMA and I stand over that decision. There’s been considerable focus, and you mentioned it here this evening yourself, on the Fine Gael official involved. I don’t see any benefit out of making a scapegoat out of a party official by putting their name into the public domain.
The Taoiseach has taken full responsibility for this matter. What is most important is that the system of public appointments is being reformed. The Taoiseach has accepted that the system of public appointments is, could have been handled, and the, sorry, the Taoiseach has accepted that this appoint..has, sorry, the Taoiseach has outlined the system of public appointments that is being reformed and he has accepted that this entire matter could have been handled better. I accept that it would have been preferable to use the public appointments process and, while I stand over the appointments I have made to date.
I am fully committed to using the public appointments process in the future, in line with new Government guidelines. There have been some suggestions from members of your own party, Senator [Thomas] Byrne, that I breached the size of the IMMA board by making the two appointments. The current limit of the IMMA board, according to its memo and articles of association is 15 members. I moved to make two appointments as I believed the two candidates could make a valuable contribution and improve regional representation. I was advised by my department that there were six vacancies on the IMMA board so there was no impediment to me making the appointments. As part of Government reform plans, it is intended to reduce the size of the number of boards under my remit on a permanent basis. Legislation is needed to give statutory effect to this change. And it’s expected that this legislation will be published in late 2015. The heads of bills are currently with the relevant committee for their consideration. Since the appointments, I have met with the chair of the IMMA board and I’ve committed to working more closely with him in identifying the skills needed for the board. Indeed, I look forward to doing this with the chairs of all our cultural institutions, as part of the Government’s new appointments procedures and I am formally writing to all the chairs, asking them to outline the skill set that best suit the relevant board.”
Thomas Byrne: “As usual, I would ask the minister to answer the question that I asked and she has failed to answer the questions, yet again. That is a travesty of democracy. I want to make clear, we’re not trying to make a scapegoat of any Fine Gael official, it is the Taoiseach and you that are making a scapegoat of an unnamed Fine Gael official. You are the minister, the Taoiseach is the Taoiseach, you are responsible for this mess, nobody else. We’re trying to get to the bottom of what went on and that’s why we need to know who it was before we make any other considerations in relation to this. You’ve muddied the waters further, minister, by referring to “officials” in your speech, in the printed text. Was there one official, were there more? Were there multiple people from Fine Gael headquarters coming to ask you to put this person on the board.
You have stated that the memo of articles of IMMA require 15 members, well your own Government announced previously that there were only nine in the future, it was open to you to actually stick to that. You deliberately overrode Government, your Government policy to have only nine members on these boards, regardless of what the IMMA said. Well I put it to you that these questions have not been sufficiently answered, your chance is here, I wonder will it be taken up in the arts committee, or in the Dáil, but I think minister, you’re running out of time because really these questions are very serious, very serious allegations and accusations were made in the Sunday Independent article about you on Sunday. I read some of them into the record. I wanted to ask you questions before I or my party made assessments along those lines but, minister, you are not helping the situation. We are not going to scapegoat anybody. We want, we want answers. And we want to know did you vote in the Seanad election and did you vote for Mr McNulty?”
Humphreys: “Well, thank you, Senator, but first of all, you know, voting. The great thing about this country is it’s a democracy and when you vote, you vote in secret. And that’s the way it will stay in that respect. And I am responsible for the appointments to the board and I did that based on merit, that’s exactly it, that’s what I’m responsible for. Now I have listened closely, in fairness I have, I’ve listened closely, I’ve taken the criticisms on board and I mean that, I’ve taken them on board over the last two weeks in relation to board appointments and I acknowledge, I acknowledge that this should have been done differently and I have already moved to put a new system in place, in my department and I will be following these procedures. So it was out of this respect, out of respect to this house, by the way, two weeks ago, that I came over here, at very short notice, and I was lacking maybe on that occasion and I apologise for that.”
I was wondering if anyone could explain this image being used by the Fine Gael Seanad Campaign. I’m not sure if it’s a citizen who feels constrained by the existence of the Seanad or a Senator who could be doing something more productive if he was free.
Michael McDowell appeared on The Pat Kenny Show on Newstalk this morning to rule out a run for Europe, rail against the whip system and lend his weight to saving the Upper House.
Kenny: “Okay, so it’s just not true, end of story, put to bed – good-bye, Michael McDowell is NOT running for Europe. So let’s talk about the Seanad, which is our agenda today. The business of absolute power going to the Dail, you believe that, in the absence of the Seanad, that would be the case?”
McDowell: “If there’s only one House in our Parliament and that House is being controlled by the Whips in the way our Dail is, then there will in fact be no room for independent voices, or people to challenge the Government. And let’s take an example Pat, I mean, i don’t agree with all her views on abortion, but look what happened to Lucinda Creighton, she was effectively thrown out of her job, thrown out of her office and then told she would not be selected again as a candidate by the Fine Gael Party – in circumstances where any Congressman in The United States is free to do, and indeed any Parliamentarian in Britain is free to do, and that is to vote in accordance with her conscience.”
Kenny: “But The Whip System is there for a reason, I mean, during that particular debate, we pointed out on a number of occasions that it offered a fig leaf to those who say, ‘I’m only voting for it because The Whip is in place, I’m a loyal party member ‘. You know, it allows things to happen.”
McDowell: “That’s a cowardly approach, if you don’t mind me saying so. I mean, the Progressive Democrats , when we were in The Dail had a rule in our party constitution that nobody could be forced in The Dail to vote against their conscience. In Britain, for instance, recently in relation to the Syria Crisis, both Liberal Democrat and Tory MPs voted against the Government. So, our Whip System is the most vicious in Europe – and the consequences for breaching it are the most harsh in Europe .”
Kenny: “Even though we inherited from the British system, they have a less malign system than we have?”
McDowell: “Absolutely. People like Winston Churchill were always rebelling against his Party and changing party and the like and that was the norm.”
Kenny: “What about the Progressive Democrats, what was a matter of conscience – could you have a matter of conscience on a budgetary matter, could you have a matter of conscience on a Transport Bill?”
McDowell: “There’s a business on the rules of the party that had to be on the matter of conscience.”
Kenny: “And what might that be?”
McDowell: “Well, I mean there’s no limit to where conscience can go, but I mean we intrepretated it in a bona fide manner and two of our deputies availed of it on one occasion.”
Kenny: “When you criticise The Government for wanting this absolute power grab, even they can’t believe that they will be in government forever. So, you wonder if your logic is persuasive, why would they want to do something, they, in opposition would be crucified by?”
McDowell: “Well, I mean, they don’t believe that they would be dominant in a reformed Seanad, such as has been proposed by Fargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone – they are hopeful that they are re-elected, I don’t believe they will.”
Kenny: “Even if they are re-elected, the election after that, in the way of things, they will not be re-elected, why would they create a stick to beat themselves with?”
McDowell: “That’s a very good point Pat, I mean we have to look at the situation where Gerry Adams could be the next Tanaiste. Who knows who will be in power after the next election. And commitments and promises made by this Government about how they intend to run this Dail will not have any constitutional status. I notice in today’s Irish Times that there’s a story that they are planning to have some kind of procedure whereby before they publish Bills, they will invite people in the public to comment on them, and they will have some kind of process…”
Kenny: “Let me just explain for people who haven’t got The Times today, there will be a selection committee – so if Michael McDowell, for example, offers his views on Dublin traffic management – on which you’re not qualified, although you would have views, they will decide if you are competent enough, or appropriate enough, or experienced enough , or expert enough to participate in this consultation process.”
McDowell: “Pat, that is the greatest joke of all time – all committees in The Dail are subject to a Party Whip and if the minister doesn’t want Michael McDowell in there, at that hearing – I won’t be called.”
Curdled former YFG-er Deputy Brian Hayes brought his frankly freaky sexual ‘banter’ to bear on the Upper House last week.
Making the unelected ones look like statesmen.
Senator John Crown: “Fáilte a Aire. It is nice to see the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, again, as we spent some pleasant time here the other day. I stated that somebody should really get video camera footage of the ministerial chair during the various stages of the Seanad Abolition Bill debate. We could make a really interesting pictorial calendar for 2014 of stills featuring the various faces that appeared.”
Senator David Norris: “Some of them of the same Minister.”
Crown: “I am not given to procedural wrangling. I come from a discipline, a day job, which prides itself in being of a rather practical bent, so from time to time I have been somewhat impatient with people using the procedures of the House apparently to delay matters or introduce issues not immediately germane or relevant to the item under discussion. There is a certain sense of getting our own back on this with regard to procedure. I would be grateful for the attention of the Minister of State and the Leader of the House. The manner in which this has been conducted by those who are proponents not really of putting the question to the people but rather of abolition of the House has been procedurally suspect. The arguments are well travelled and versed but they are nonetheless valid and bear some brief repetition.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Please continue Senator Crown.”
Crown: “I beg your pardon.”
Deputy Brian Hayes: “You lick yourself every night before you go to bed.”
Crown: “The word “prat” suggests itself sometimes.”
Norris: “Will the Minister of State make that remark more loudly?”
Senator Mark Daly:”He said the professor licks himself every night..”
Hayes: “I am saying..”
Daly: “..before he goes to bed.”
Hayes: “..in this House that you are talking to yourselves most of the time.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown..”
Norris: “I beg your pardon. We are talking to ourselves, are we?”
Hayes: “You are talking to yourselves, yes.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
Norris: “I think the Minister of State should withdraw that remark.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
Norris: “We are talking to you Minister of State.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
Norris:” No, I am sorry. The Minister of State says we are talking to ourselves and there is no reason to be here. Could the Cathaoirleach reprimand him on our behalf and ask him to withdraw the remark? It is outrageous.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
Norris: “Will the Cathaoirleach not ask him to withdraw the remark “We are talking to ourselves”?
Hayes: “Sanctimonious crap.”
An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.
Norris: “I am sorry but I ask you, a Chathaoirlaigh, to ask the Minister of State to withdraw that remark, which is an insult to Seanad Éireann. Will you do that?”
An Cathaoirleach: “I did not hear what he said.”
Norris: “You did. I will tell you what he said.”
Hayes: “You insulted me. I have no regard for you.”
Norris:”He said there was no need for him to be here and we are talking to ourselves.”
Hayes: “You were insulting me the whole evening.”
An Cathaoirleach: The record will show..”
Norris: “I never said a word about you.”
Hayes: “All evening, with your nonsense.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
Crown: “Let us just hit the reset button. I am sorry but I would like to treat the Minister of State, this House, the Dáil and the process of Government with respect. I do not consider myself a politician but somebody with a real day job. I am somebody who because of the spirit of our original Constitution has found himself with the opportunity to take a position of advocacy, which I have done outside the House for many years, into the halls of our Oireachtas, as intended in the 1937 Constitution. I am sorry if I am not perhaps wise to the ways of politics and I beg the Minister of State’s indulgence in that respect.
Hayes: “But you are.”
Crown:” I believe that the way this problem has been tackled from the pro-abolitionist side has been unsatisfactory and it looks unsatisfactory. In the first instance, there were a number of amendments on Committee Stage that were never heard. I will gladly yield to the Minister of State if he wishes to make a point.”
Hayes: “I said there were ten hours during the debate when all of those issues could have been dealt with properly without the filibuster that occurred. The Senator knows that well, to be honest.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
Hayes: “With respect, at least be honest and admit that.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
Hayes: “The Senator knows that to be true.”
Senator Mary M. White: “He is being disrespectful by being on his iPad. It is the same as being on the telephone.”
An Cathaoirleach: “Senator Crown, without interruption.”
