The submission was brief and the précis will be briefer still. The Irish Auctioneers and Valuers Institute was founded in 1922 and now comprises an all-Ireland body representing 1,600 members and associate members with a degree entry standard for full membership. The IAVI is a member of the principal international property organisations and a nominating body for Seanad elections. It represents the property industry in Ireland and all of the national agencies are among its 500 member firms. Apart from estate agency and valuation, members of the IAVI work in property in various State and semi-State organisations. In fact, in our submission we have listed close to 50 organisations in which members of the IAVI work.
As a body with nominating powers under Seanad election legislation, the IAVI would make the following comments. On the composition of Seanad Éireann and the manner and basis of election, Seanad Éireann was designed as a vocational House but has operated, virtually throughout its existence and with only minor exceptions, as a political House. The IAVI does not envisage this position changing and questions the methodology for nominating candidates for many Seanad election panels. It is not productive that bodies such as the IAVI are asked to nominate candidates who must then seek the votes of an electoral college comprised entirely of politicians. It is extremely difficult in such circumstances for a candidate to secure election to the Seanad without the backing of the political parties. In effect what happens, with rare exceptions, is that nominating bodies are requested by politically active individuals to grant those individuals a nomination. Only a minority of nominees, we believe, have a real connection with the body which nominates them to the panel in question. Thus the vocational aspect of the original design of the Seanad no longer exists, if it ever did. If I may step aside for a moment and say Senator O'Toole is a notable exception in that regard, but occasionally exceptions do prove the rule in that he is a vocational Senator nominated by one of the teaching bodies.
It is questionable whether a truly vocational model, even if it worked, is merited in the modern economic world. Either the power to elect members of Seanad Éireann should be removed from politicians and given to the public or else the power to nominate candidates to electoral panels should be taken over completely by the political parties as it is their members who in the end dictate who is elected.
On university representation, either in its current or an amended form, the wording used presupposes that university representation will continue and does not allow for its discontinuance. We find this an odd way to carry out this type of review as it suggests the predetermination of an issue which is surely open to question. While the entry standard for full membership of the body making this submission, the IAVI, is now at degree standard and its own direct entry programme carries an honours B.Sc degree, we find the fact that six Seanad seats are reserved for graduates to be both elitist and outdated. It is elitist in that it suggests that graduates are more deserving than others of representation in a democratic House of the Oireachtas. It may have been intended that graduate Senators would balance truly vocational Senators, but the system does not elect vocational candidates and surely the justification for retaining a specified number of seats for university graduates has gone. Even within this elitism, the current system of election, where three seats are reserved for graduates of a single university with the other three being reserved for other universities, is imbalanced and undemocratic, as an examination of the votes secured by successful and unsuccessful university candidates will show.
The current system is also elitist and outdated in that it excludes graduates from other colleges. If the six seats must be preserved, there should be a single electoral college comprising all graduates in Ireland, not just those from universities. However, we believe the preservation of these seats for such an elitist grouping does not reflect the Ireland of the 21st century and is bureaucratically cumbersome and costly. We, therefore, recommend that the university seats in Seanad Éireann be abolished, making the Seanad more democratic and more representative of the common citizen.
On the nomination of Senators by the Taoiseach, in general the IAVI believes that in recent years this privilege has been used imaginatively by successive Taoisigh and sees no real need for great change. Perhaps, however, two of the 11 nominations should be at the behest of the Leader of the Opposition as the Seanad can become overly dominated by Senators from incumbent Government parties.
On the most appropriate basis for providing representation for emigrants and persons from Northern Ireland, once again this is worded in a manner that predetermines whether there should be such representation, which is surely questionable in terms of an open review. The Seanad is a costly House run and paid for by the population of the Republic of Ireland. There is an old political adage: no representation without taxation, that is, that those who pay to run a country should elect its representatives. With the exception of the Taoiseach nominating prominent people from Northern Ireland within his or her nominees, should he or she so wish, the IAVI does not believe those who do not live in the Republic should have direct representation in Seanad Éireann.
Moving to the functions of the Seanad, we have very little to say on the role of Seanad Éireann in the passage of legislation. In the view of the IAVI, the Seanad has performed well in this function. On the contribution the Seanad could make to enhance parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, with 166 elected and fully paid Dáil Deputies many of whom are hardly taxed in terms of Dáil time, the IAVI sees little need to enhance the role of a part-time Seanad and would prefer to see Dáil resources, including its elected Members, used more effectively and fully in this regard. Similarly as to the extent to which the Seanad could engage in the review of public policy, etc., the comments made previously are relevant.
Having regard to the plethora of legislation, etc., emanating from the European Union, there is a need for much greater vigilance by Members of the Oireachtas. Too often it is left to those outside the Oireachtas with a keen interest in a particular matter to see what is happening and raise the issue with the relevant Department if they wish to have any influence on the Government's response to an issue. Such individuals and organisations do not, as a consequence, feel well served by their elected representatives in this particular regard. Consultation that occurs tends to be inadequate, with insufficient openness and inclusivity. The public, the business community and other interested parties deserve better. It would enable the Government's position on most EU issues to be a considered view and truly representative of Irish interests and needs were Seanad Éireann to act as a watchdog for Ireland, keep fully abreast of EU developments, flag those developments early to interested parties in this country and encourage and facilitate full and open consultation.
I trust the foregoing views will be of use to the committee's review under the chairmanship of Senator Mary O'Rourke and we wish the committee well in its deliberations.
