I welcome the representatives of the National Youth Council of Ireland and compliment them on their submission. I thank them for accepting a change of time at very short notice, which we greatly appreciate. My colleagues on the sub-committee are Senators Dardis, Brian Hayes, Ryan and O'Toole. We have read the submission with great interest. I must point out that, while members of the sub-committee have absolute privilege, qualified privilege only is extended to witnesses.
Presentation by National Youth Council of Ireland.
Witnesses: Ms Marian Brattman, Ms Valerie Duffy and Mr. Dónall Geoghegan.
It is not very protective.
However, I do not anticipate any need for recourse to the law in these matters. I invite the members of the delegation to make their submission and subsequent questions can be allocated among the witnesses as they wish.
Ms Brattman
I thank the Chairman and members of the sub-committee. We welcome this opportunity to make a presentation on our submission on Seanad reform and will be as brief as possible. I will introduce the members of the delegation. I am research officer with the National Youth Council. I am accompanied by Ms Valerie Duffy, chairperson of our standing conference on youth affairs, and Mr. Dónall Geoghegan, assistant director.
By way of brief introduction, the NYCI is the representative body for voluntary youth organisations, of which there are 45 in our membership. We have two broad roles, one of which is to represent the needs of voluntary youth organisations, the other being our role as a social partner. We try to represent young people in terms of the principles of equality, participation and inclusiveness. The presentation we are making builds on the submission we made to the review group on the Constitution in 1996. Mr. Dónall Geoghegan will make our main presentation, following which we will try to answer any questions members may have.
Mr. Geoghegan
As the members of the sub-committee have seen our submission, I will not go through every detail. There are a few main points. One relates to the composition of the Seanad, on which we have made a few recommendations.
On the equality principle to which Ms Brattman referred, we believe that if one is allowed to vote, one should be allowed to stand for election. On this basis, in Dáil, Seanad and presidential elections, we submit that 18 year olds should be allowed to stand for selection and election. We would not see it as threatening the interests of anybody if that simple reform was put through. I know this is a wider issue than Seanad reform, but we have brought it forward in our submission.
We also submit that the method of selecting vocational representatives through the vocational panels should be reformed. I am aware of other submissions on this issue, on which, no doubt, the sub-committee will have some interesting discussions. We advocate the inclusion of representatives of persons not currently represented, including the most vulnerable in society. We also highlight anomalies in university representation and express what I believe to be a common view among a number of organisations and individuals - that the electoral panels should be extended to include a six seat graduates panel for the universities, institutes of technology and other higher educational institutions.
The question of representation of emigrants and people from Northern Ireland is perhaps a thorny issue, possibly one of the most difficult which the sub-committee has to deal with in its deliberations. As it is aware, work has been undertaken on this matter, including in 1995. We have expressed our concerns in relation to issues of taxation, discrimination and immigration as well as emigration. While we are not bringing forward any magic plan in this regard - there is no silver bullet to resolve it - we believe the consultation paper from 1996 on representation of emigrants in Seanad Éireann offers a way forward on the matter. It would be great if that was followed but, if not, the Government would need to work on a new Green Paper on the issue, proposing a way forward.
With regard to the functions of the Seanad, our main concern is to bring the House closer to the people, making it more accountable and relevant to ordinary citizens. We believe the Seanad has played and continues to play a very important role in framing legislation. The nature of debate in the Seanad adds substantially to the choices being made at national level in terms of legislation and policy. There are many such examples, of which I do not need to remind members of the sub-committee.
As one step towards bringing the Seanad nearer to people's lives, we have brought forward the idea of some form of annual "state of the nation" debate, in which the Seanad would review how the State and its institutions were addressing the needs of citizens. This might be in the form of an inclusive public forum, which people could attend or view on television, perhaps in a manner similar to the National Forum on Europe which has been most effective in generating interest in European matters.
We believe the Seanad could also have a role in the social partnership arrangements. The NYCI, as a social partner, plays a full part in that particular arena. The Seanad could have some role in monitoring developments in that regard and initiating a dialogue which is often lacking between the political system and the social partnership arena.
In the context of European Union affairs, we cannot state the issue any better than Senator Maurice Hayes did last year in referring to the potential to develop greater involvement of the Dáil and Seanad in EU affairs. As one way of bringing this about, we recommend that MEPs and the European Commissioner from Ireland should be allowed to attend and participate in Seanad debates, without having a vote in the House. This would allow for much greater engagement between national and European politics and policies.
The National Youth Council's final suggestion is that the Seanad be given an oversight role in EU legislation matters. This would mean that the proceedings of the European Commission and the European Parliament would be debated in the Seanad. I hope our ideas will generate some discussion.
I thank the delegation from the National Youth Council for its interesting suggestions.
I thank the council for the document it submitted which was quite comprehensive. Without wishing to sound condescending, it was one of the better submissions received by this sub-committee. The council has a continuing record of input into national policy decisions. I am sure that most members of the sub-committee have met members of the delegation to discuss various matters. I am one of those who support the view that if one is old enough to vote, one is also old enough to stand for election, irrespective of the election concerned. I also hold this opinion regarding the position of President, incidentally.
The delegation referred to the representation of vocational interests, emigrants and people from Northern Ireland. Does it believe these groups can be accommodated within the existing 60-seat Seanad? In other words, would an expanded Seanad be required?
I am not clear about the NYC's views on the Taoiseach's 11 nominees. Does it believe the Taoiseach should retain the right to nominate 11 Senators? Should specified areas of national life be accommodated within this arrangement?
I would like to discuss how the Seanad is elected. The National Youth Council seems to believe the vocational aspect of the panels should be retained. It has also been suggested that emigrants and people from Northern Ireland should be given votes, a matter referred to in the council's document. In such circumstances, how do we ensure the ordinary citizen is incorporated in the system? In other words, is the NYC saying a system of universal franchise should be used to elect the Seanad?
I am interested in the idea of a debate on the state of the nation. Senators O'Toole and Ryan may recall that the debate on the Appropriation Bill, which comes before the House each year, used to be used as an opportunity for a state of the nation address. This overall review of public policy used to continue for several weeks. The Bill is now taken at the end of term and seems to take a few hours to be passed. It is not a matter of management, but it seems to have become a matter of practice.
That is right.
People are less inclined to participate in a state of the nation address.
The final issue I would like to ask about is social partnership, something Senator O'Toole may discuss more fully. It seems the social partners increasingly want to be involved, but also that parliamentarians are decreasingly involved. In other words, many decisions are made outside the realm of Parliament in consultation with the social partners. I am not saying that is wrong, as I believe social partnership has served us very well. As parliamentarians, we sometimes believe we are outside the loop and that we are given a role post factum. The National Youth Council seems to be saying the Seanad should have a monitoring role, but I believe such a change would reinforce the view that we are being asked to consider matters after they have been agreed - after the deal has been done.
Mr. Geoghegan
Perhaps I should commence the NYC's response and others may come in to fill in the gaps. The council has recommended that the Seanad should have a role in the implementation and review of Sustaining Progress and other national agreements. It is probable that it would be much more difficult to facilitate engagement between the democratic systems and the social partnership arena during the process of negotiation. I say this because the social partners negotiate with the Government - if Opposition parties or Independent Members were involved, a dynamic might be created that might make it impossible for an agreement to come about. The decisions agreed in the political field might be contrary to those agreed through social partnership. Any increased political involvement might make negotiations more difficult. As I have said, the National Youth Council and the other social partners are in favour of much greater openness in the social partnership process, for example, in the implementation and review mechanisms. This form of engagement is also hugely important for the political arena.
We could have a system which means that people are updated during the course of the negotiations, rather than having an involvement. The Government negotiates on behalf of the Houses, but nobody knows anything about what is going on. The system suggested by Mr. Geoghegan could be introduced at the conclusion stage.
Mr. Geoghegan
I would like to discuss the way in which the Seanad is elected and ideas such as universal franchise. The NYC believes the current system, which involves vocational panels, has some merit in terms of the representation of interests. It is hopelessly out of date, however, in terms of the composition of the panels and the interests represented. The title "vocational panels" does not do it justice in terms of the interests involved.
Who looks after Joe Soap or Joe Citizen in this type of situation? The Taoiseach's nominees are appointed on behalf of the Government and the interests of the citizen are represented directly through the Dáil. The purpose of the Upper House is quite different in terms of the engagement of interests and the different form of debate. The NYC has not advocated universal franchise in the same manner as other groups which have made submissions to this sub-committee.
There is some merit in the suggestion that the Taoiseach's 11 nominees could come from specified areas of national life. I am not sure if any Taoiseach would be willing to compromise his or her ability to——
The NYC does not wish to abolish the Taoiseach's right to nominate 11 persons.
Mr. Geoghegan
No. There is room for the Taoiseach to nominate such persons, but the council does not have strong views on the matter one way or the other.
Perhaps some of my colleagues will ask more questions before Mr. Geoghegan's colleagues speak.
I have been quoting T.S. Eliot since I started my career as a public representative in my 30s and I am still quoting him now:
Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy.
I have never been a great believer in the idea that wisdom accompanies old age, as the opposite is the case in my view.
The older the Senator gets, the surer he is.
The older I get, the surer I get.
He said that in his mid-40s.
I said it in my mid-30s and have learned the hard way that it is true. I do not have an argument with the NYC in that regard.
I would like to tease out the council's views on the issue of voting activity. One of this country's peculiar anomalies is that one is allowed to go to war before one is allowed to vote. I have often wondered if the NYC has an opinion on this matter. I realise that I am abusing my position by raising this issue, but the issues of voting participation and war-making are closely related. What does the NYC think about this subject?
One could raise the age at which one is allowed to go to war.
Yes, that is what I would like to do.
One could abolish war.
Many of those who represent the armed forces do not agree with me. The National Youth Council said in its submission that the method of election to the Seanad could be reformed to provide for representatives of more vulnerable people in society. I can imagine how people could be nominated, but how precisely does the council believe the electoral system can be reformed to ensure people representative of the more vulnerable groups in society are elected to the Seanad? Does the NYC envisage that a quota system could be brought into operation? Does it imagine that poverty testing may be used? I am sure it has suggestions in that regard.
Everybody seems to be keen about another proposal, but I am not sure why. I agree with the council's view that the university franchise should be extended to all graduates. Should only those with degrees be considered as graduates, or would the NYC also like to provide for people with diplomas or other qualifications? Has it thought about this huge number of people? Why one constituency?
The delegation espouses a position, as many others do, about taxation and representation but what about the reverse, those who are taxed and have not got representation? For instance, many under the age of 18 years pay significant income tax if they are working. All our emigrants pay income tax if they are working, yet they have no representation. Is there a role for participation in the Seanad to deal with these anomalies?
Mr. Geoghegan
Perhaps I can pick up on the age question and others may come in to give their support. On the issue of voting and age, currently people in the NYCI are talking about a campaign for lowering the age of voting to 15 or 16 years. This is happening throughout Europe. There are the rumblings of change within youth organisations and national youth councils in other EU countries. For example, in some countries, 15 or 16 year olds can vote in local but not national elections. Therefore, there are some moves to lower the age of voting. That would not solve all the issues to do with representation of young people. There are outstanding issues regarding the engagement of young people in the political system. Certainly, that is a debate within the NYCI on which we have not done anything yet, but perhaps we will do so in the future.
On the issue of tax and representation which is related, 16 year olds are paying tax and eligible to join the Army, yet they do not have a vote. The issue of no taxation without representation dates back to the American——
The Boston tea party, etc.
They emptied it all into the port.
Mr. Geoghegan
It is not a convincing argument in itself. It is not the only argument we would use. We would not say, for example, that those who do not pay tax should not be allowed to vote. Those on social welfare who do not pay tax have just as much a right as a citizen of the country to exercise their franchise. It is just a factor in the debate that needs to be addressed. Ms Duffy or Ms Brattman may wish to expand on the vulnerable representation question.
We would like to hear your views.
Ms Duffy
It is important to hear the voice of young people, especially those just coming out of school, having gone though the CSPE courses. They are more politically astute and aware than they have ever been before. It is rather unfair that they are allowed vote but not to stand for election until they are aged 21 years. I would be in favour of a change in the Constitution to amend that issue. There is also an equality issue about which Ms Brattman is more familiar.
Ms Brattman
On the question of young people being eligible for election to the Dáil or Seanad at age 18 years rather than 21, while it does not go against the equality legislation it is not in spirit with it. Policy making consists of looking at structures for young people in which to participate in society, whether through schools, student councils, the CSPE course, or youth organisations. The national children's strategy is a ten year programme looking at participation of young people. We have a role to play in progressing that participation. This could be a forum for making those amendments.
This is an interesting group in that it is the first to come before the sub-committee which has the power of nomination on the Cultural and Education Panel. What is the council's experience of how it works? The National Youth Council of Ireland can nominate to the Cultural and Education Panel and I think it did so the last time. How does it operate? What is the attitude of the council's members? Do they take it seriously? It is a substantial power of nomination while the council has no power to vote and that is a bugbear for many within the nominating bodies. How does the council select its candidate? What is the view of the constituent members of the NYCI in terms of arriving at a candidate to be put forward as the NYCI candidate for the Cultural and Education Panel?
Mr. Geoghegan
That is a good question. In terms of reform in the Seanad one needs to look at what works and what does not. We go through a nomination process within the NYCI. Whenever we have nomination rights or representation on outside bodies, we put out a call for nominations among our member organisations. The 45 member organisations receive a call for nominations, we advertise and inform people at our various meetings that this is coming up. The Seanad nomination is different from most in that while we have a representative on the board of FÁS, for the Seanad we just nominate. FÁS does not represent us in the Seanad nor should it, as it has to represent the wider interest.
Is it a member?
Mr. Geoghegan
One of our member organisations nominates somebody. If there are a few, it goes to the board for decision where there are CVs, a discussion and a vote within the board and one person is selected. What we go by is their ability to bring forward the youth interest in some form or other. Their understanding of young people and youth organisations would be a factor in our decision making. Another factor would be the chances of their being selected.
There is the real politician.
The last candidate who was a member of my party got eight votes, which was unfortunate. I presume it very much depends on whether a person has a chance of getting elected. All the political parties have members on the NYCI which I welcome. Are the other member organisations irked that this is sown up by the politicians and one has no chance of getting elected unless one is a member of a political party?
Mr. Geoghegan
There would be different levels of understanding among member organisations about the nomination. The youth wings of political parties are members of the NYCI and play an important role within the NYCI, whereas some other organisations would not take as intense an interest and would not put the people forward for such a nomination. They might be interested in nominating to the board of FÁS or wherever but not for the Seanad. There would be interest among enough of our member organisations for us to say we really value it. We think it is important that somewhere youth interests feature in the process by which Members of the Seanad are selected.
Let me cut across you lest it be misinterpreted in the wider world. When you said some of your members would be interested in being nominated for the board of FÁS but not for the Seanad, that is based on the fact that you would nominate them, whereas for the Seanad they would have to go for an election process. That is just to make it clear, in case we see a headline, such as, "We would prefer to go to FÁS rather than to the Seanad."
Mr. Geoghegan
It has more to do with their area of interest.
While it is not my turn to question, in terms of developing the system, it is interesting that the National Youth Council of Ireland has taken the view of building on what is in place.
Senator Ryan raised some of the issues in which I am interested, but I am particularly interested in where the NYCI stopped on the question of vocational plans. I listened carefully to and agreed with what Mr. Geoghegan said and, as somebody who does not come through those plans, I also agree that they have something to offer. I do not support the view that they should be forgotten about, regardless of whatever other changes take place, but I thought the NYCI would have gone a step further and perhaps made the case on behalf of the people nominated by organisations like the council and who are therefore on the sub-panel of the main panel. Has the NYCI considered the idea that one way of extending the franchise would be to allow members of the nominating bodies to have votes? There is a conflict, although not a major one, in the NYCI's question about whether it is discriminating to talk about giving rights to, say, people in Northern Ireland and emigrants without giving them to everybody in this country. I am not sure that it is criminally discriminatory, whatever else it might be; it is a distinction of some description but that is a minor question. I am interested in terms of how the NYCI would see the franchise being extended in that way.
Mr. Geoghegan
We have not said whether nominating organisations should have votes. It is part of the discussion and an issue to be examined. What that would lead to is a much more thorough reform of the selection methodology which would take it out of the control of elected members of county councils and extend it to or be replaced by organisations.
In the case of sub-panels?
Mr. Geoghegan
Yes. One might say that the current system where one can nominate without having a say over who is selected is somewhat strange. To go to the opposite extreme and say only the sub-panels would select people to go forward would omit an important aspect of the selection process - the involvement of elected people at local authority level. If there can be a mix in that regard, we would be open to suggesting this but we do not have a firm position on it.
That point has been made to us in the various documentation we received, some of which is quite authoritative. Would Mr. Geoghegan be concerned that if the NYCI had the right to elect a person, it would politicise it in a detrimental way? This has been suggested to us as an argument against nominating bodies having direct elections in that it would essentially politicise them.
Mr. Geoghegan
We are probably politicised already, with a small "p", but as to whether this might have a negative effect in terms of the political dynamic within the organisation, that could happen. We are very mature in our approach in terms of anything that is party political. We deal with all Opposition and Government parties and will not jeopardise this for anything because, as a representative body, it is important that our engagement with the political system is across the board. There may be negative aspects in terms of moving to the model of creating a more negative politicising influence within the NYCI. I do not believe it would be a major factor and it does not play a part in what we have been putting forward.
It would not greatly concern the NYCI.
Mr. Geoghegan
No.
In the last local elections, a national disability organisation ran a strong campaign in which it supported a candidate who had some form of intellectual or physical disability. It was supported in the campaign by its national body. Has Mr. Geoghegan's organisation taken a view that supporting young people under 25 years in politics, or whatever age classification one might use, across all parties is something it would actively support? Fine Gael has a very young group in the Seanad, I suspect primarily because of the casualties of the last general election. Does Mr. Geoghegan believe political parties do enough to help young people get elected by helping them to get on to a ticket? Has his organisation given any thought to supporting, through a national campaign of one sort or another, young candidates throughout all parties?
Mr. Geoghegan
We have done a good deal of work in this area because we are anxious to promote young people's involvement in politics, both in terms of encouraging them to vote and standing for election. The local elections are a direct gateway for many young people into the political system. We will do some work next year, as we have in the past, to encourage young candidates to come forward. The main way we do that is by working with the political parties and in some cases we would gather information on the candidates who have been put forward, their age profile, etc. and show what we would consider good and bad practice in terms of the age profile. I am aware that women's organisations, for example, might do the same in terms of the gender divide. This is an issue in which we are very interested. On the question of whether we would go so far as to support a candidate by campaigning for him or her, I would have to say, "No". We do not do this because of the type of relationship we believe is the best with the political system, both Opposition and Government parties.
That was very interesting. We thank the representatives of the National Youth Council for coming before the sub-committee, giving us so much of their time and thank them for their thorough presentation. I am sure their thoughts will be reflected in our final report.
Mr. Geoghegan
Thank you very much.
The witnesses withdrew.
The sub-committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 17 September 2003.