Good morning, you are most welcome to the Seanad Chamber. I thank the institute for making the submission to our review group and meeting us. We have read the submission and if the delegation wishes first to synopsize it, we will then have a questions and answers session. While the main questioners will be Senators Brian Hayes and O'Toole, we can all chip in and ask questions. As Members of this House we have absolute privilege. As witnesses, the delegates have qualified privilege.
Presentation by the Institute of Industrial Engineers.
Witnesses: Mr. Patrick Dowling, Mr. Daniel Vaughan and Mr. Kevin Noctor.
Mr. Dowling
Since our initial submission we have had a council meeting and time to discuss this in more detail. Our submission has been slightly modified.
I thank the committee for giving the Institute of Industrial Engineers an opportunity to comment on the proposed reform. Industrial groups such as ours feel we have a major part to play in shaping the future industrial success of this country by assisting in policy creation. We agree that the current composition and functions of the Seanad are dated and need immediate reform.
We have made a number of suggestions and hope the committee will endorse these. Regarding the composition of the Seanad, we focused on the manner and basis of election as we felt it was most urgently in need of reform. I have been through the Seanad election process and know it quite intimately. As we understand it, county councils and Oireachtas Members have almost complete say in who is elected to the Seanad, with the exception of the university representatives and the Taoiseach's nominees. In real terms, this group has the power to elect 43 candidates. Coupled with the Taoiseach's nominations, the House has 54 politically orientated Senators from the total of 60. The institute believes this to be a little one-sided. It has too much political emphasis and contravenes the structures under which the Seanad was originally established.
As we understand it, the Seanad was designed to be a vocational body to represent various groups in industry, education, health, agriculture, labour and others. Apart from the privilege of putting forward a candidate, nominating bodies such as ours have no other power. We feel this needs to be changed. It has never been as crucial to have representatives from the Administrative, Agricultural, Industrial and Commercial, Cultural and Educational, and Labour Panels holding seats in the Seanad in order to advise the Government of the day on its decision-making and policy creation. As a recognised body with its interests firmly rooted in the advancement of industry in this country, the institute feels this needs to occur quickly.
Our recommendation is that the overall say and electing power of public representatives should be limited by as much as 50%. This would give Oireachtas Members and county councillors the ability to elect 21 Members of the Seanad. The remaining 22 seats could then be distributed among the five existing panels. The number of seats for each panel would be weighted according to the importance of that panel's role in Irish and European affairs. The representative groups on each of the panels would meet and collectively select those to represent them in the Seanad election. All eligible affiliates to each of the nominating bodies would have the right to vote. This would essentially give the nominating bodies the same rights the university panel currently holds.
We feel the election needs to be regionalised, as is the case with European Parliament elections. It is a huge undertaking to travel to all 26 counties to campaign, as Members well know. The lists of nominating bodies in each panel need to be looked at with a view to rationalising them. This area was the one to which we gave the greatest attention as it directly affects the institute and we hope the sub-committee will seriously examine the issue with a view to allowing us to have some representation in the Seanad in the future.
On the second point in regard to university representation, I wish to change my initial submission, having had time to give it due consideration. We believe this panel works well. However, it needs to be extended to all colleges with every person with a primary degree having the right to vote. This is an issue about which we feel strongly.
We also feel strongly that the Trinity College panel, in its current form, should be eliminated.
Hear, hear.
Mr. Dowling
We are also very involved in education——
I am sure Mr. Dowling means that the Trinity panel should be included with the other third level institutions.
Mr. Dowling
Yes. As a university by itself.
As an institute, we are involved in education and have our own programmes which we run with the various colleges. We feel no one university should have the right over another to have representation in the Seanad.
We believe the Taoiseach should be given the privilege to nominate. I do not mean to be too strong in this regard——
Mr. Dowling can be as strong as he likes.
Particularly having won the all-Ireland hurling final.
We are all very diffident on this side.
Mr. Dowling
We feel the Seanad should not be used as a respite for unsuccessful politicians.
With exceptions, I hope.
Mr. Dowling
Absolutely. Including the Chairman——
And my colleague, Senator Dardis.
Mr. Dowling
This is a general comment. I would say the same, regardless of what political party was in power. We feel the Taoiseach's nominees should be entirely non-political in some respects and include those who have made an outstanding contribution to society in their respective fields. Being non-political, they would be in a better position to serve the interests of the various groups they represent across a wide spectrum of Irish life.
That is an interesting argument. Will Mr. Dowling leave a copy of his amended submission? Senators O'Toole and Brian Hayes will now ask questions.
The crucial point the institute is making is that it seeks to change the balance in the electoral process. Correct me if I am wrong, but may I take it that the institute is saying the nominating bodies should not just be nominating bodies but that their membership should in some way have voting rights in much the same way as applies to the university seats? Does the Institute of Industrial Engineers propose that every paid-up member should have a vote on that panel or sub-panel and is it suggesting the same for the other nominating bodies?
Mr. Dowling
That is correct.
Mr. Dowling said he felt the nominating bodies needed to be rationalised, a point with which no one can argue until we know what he means. However, he spoke about extending these too. Does the institute propose to rationalise the nominating bodies with a view to extending the franchise further or narrowing it? What does Mr. Dowling see happening in this regard?
Far be it from me to make the case for Trinity College, but its arrangement existed with a view to getting a balance in society to represent a particular background, which it was important was represented. Is Mr. Dowling suggesting that the college should no longer get special treatment but should be treated like every other college?
Mr. Dowling
That is correct.
If such a new system was put in place, how would the institute go about making a nomination and dealing with the electorate and would it get involved with supporting candidates? What does Mr. Dowling envisage happening in this context?
Mr. Dowling
We are a nominating body on the Industrial and Commercial Panel and see ourselves as working closely with the other bodies on the panel and collectively deciding on who we should put forward for election to the Seanad. We already work closely with many of the people on the panel. In reply to Senator O'Toole's question on rationalisation, there are 52 nominating bodies on the panel. I am not saying one should look at the others and not ourselves but that we should look at all the different nominating bodies. The figure of 52 nominating bodies is huge.
Is Mr. Dowling talking about reducing it?
Mr. Dowling
Yes.
What kind of criteria would the institute operate in regard to any rationalisation? This goes to the core of the issue. Mr. Dowling will understand there are two drifts in the submissions we have received on Seanad reform: one to extend the Seanad franchise and another to maintain it as it is or narrow it. The institute seems to be going in both directions at the same time. That is not a criticism. Rather, it is an attempt to understand where the institute is at.
Mr. Vaughan
Our particular problem is that when we get a nomination, the time limit is very short. We have a council meeting every month, therefore, we had to make things happen. We get people who will look for our nomination and from this we look to see who we will invite to talk to us and tell us the reason we should give them our vote.
However, the institute does not take the initiative to go and look for a candidate. It waits for people to come to it.
Mr. Vaughan
That is generally the way it works in practice. Most of them have been political people who did not understand us as they had no background in the industry. They were not prepared to come forward and tell us the reason we should elect them. Some did and, on that basis, we decided to whom we would give our nomination.
On that basis, I am surprised the delegation did not say that the person nominated would have to be a member of the institute.
Mr. Vaughan
No.
Would the institute not go that far?
Mr. Vaughan
No. We have been fairly broad on that issue. The nominee does not have to represent industrial engineering. Rather, we want to be happy with what that person will represent.
There are 52 nominating bodies and, even if they are rationalised, there may still be 40 or 30 on the Industrial and Commercial Panel. In this circumstance, should each of the members of the bodies have a vote? In other words, one engineer, one vote; one auctioneer, one vote and so on. How many members are there in the Institute of Industrial Engineers?
Mr. Vaughan
We have about 450 members.
Even if there were one vote per member, there is no guarantee that the institute would have an engineer in the Seanad.
Mr. Vaughan
We accept that.
We understand the IAVI has 1,600 members.
And only one auctioneer in the House.
Therefore, in the new system the institute is proposing, there would be no guarantee that the experts or those who have a particularly good industrial background would necessarily come through. Does Mr. Vaughan accept this? The second problem is that virtually all the members of the institute are graduates and, under this system, would be entitled to two votes - one for their university and one for their vocational body. Is that not anomalous too?
Mr. Vaughan
At present, we give our nomination in one vote. We do not particularly see a problem with this. However, perhaps we need to know what the others are doing. We do not know all the other nominating bodies. We know some but not all. There may be dog-breeders or other groups. We would like some mechanism whereby we can get together like lobbyists to examine who we could get elected. We are wide open. Other than political people——
Would they be independent people? This is an interesting suggestion which goes to the heart of what the Seanad is all about. However, would the people concerned be party political or independent? By definition, is there not a Fine Gael group, a Fianna Fáil group and a Labour Party group of engineers? Would it not break down on party political lines like everything else in this country?
Mr. Vaughan
No matter whom one talks to, he or she seems to be involved with one party or another. Therefore, it would not bother us provided the person represented our views.
Did the institute put somebody forward in the last Seanad election?
Mr. Vaughan
We did.
Is that person a Member of the House?
Mr. Vaughan
No, but he is in the House now - it is Mr. Dowling.
He is a Member for today. Did he do a countrywide tour?
Mr. Dowling
Yes, I covered the country during the election campaign. After I received the nomination, which was quite late, I travelled to all 26 counties. I must say that when one is not an elected councillor, it is a very difficult election to fight.
Yes.
Mr. Dowling
Essentially, I stood for the Seanad election on behalf of this organisation because of my industrial background and experience, which I hoped to bring to the Seanad. That is the point we are making. Looking at the Industrial and Commercial Panel, it does not matter who was successful in getting there. Within each of the groups, there should be a core of experience - three or four seats within each panel - to advise the Seanad and the Parliament of the day on matters which are important to the country such as industry and agriculture.
When the process begins and somebody is nominated, that information comes in to the Seanad office and must be approved. That is a part of the process that most of the groups are not talking about: the Seanad returning officer must be satisfied that the person nominated has "knowledge and experience" in the area with which the panel is concerned. From what Mr. Dowling is saying, it seems that perhaps is where the bar needs to be lifted. Instead of those words, the effect of which is broad and weak, there should be a more definite criterion to ensure the person concerned has the experience required - as Mr. Dowling pointed out, not just in the engineering area but also in the industrial and commercial areas. The nominee need not necessarily represent the Institute of Industrial Engineers but should be somebody who fairly represents the area.
Mr. Vaughan
It need not be the person we would prefer but somebody we could all agree on, whom we felt would best represent our interests.
As the delegates probably know, I am an engineer - of sorts, anyway. I am always intrigued that commerce is so well represented in the Oireachtas, as are agriculture and fisheries. There is, however, huge under-representation of what I call manufacturing industry, in terms of people with experience and knowledge. Has the institute thought about the reason this is so? I am the only engineer in the Oireachtas since Seán Cleary retired.
Mr. Vaughan
The Senator was lucky to get in if he was not from the political side.
I am not even working in the manufacturing industry - I am an academic. In terms of vocational involvement from sectors of society, manufacturing industry which in many ways is the engine of economic growth is under-represented.
Mr. Vaughan
That is also our view. We do not see people from the manufacturing industry coming in to give their views; that is the reason we have made this representation.
If at the end of this process the organisation does not see the kind of radical reform it and others are looking for, do the delegates believe it should still have the power to nominate? I am not prejudging the outcome, but if radical reform is not delivered, do they still want the power to nominate?
Mr. Dowling
Absolutely.
Mr. Vaughan
There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Dowling
We would not be here today making this submission if we did not take our powers of nomination seriously.
The institute is a nominating body, but has no control over its political electorate. I can understand the frustration this causes.
The delegates are quite comfortable about the fact that this is a political institution. Because of this, if one finds oneself part of the electorate, there is the possibility that an engineer is aligned with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party. Can they envisage circumstances in which bodies are very protective of their non-political status? For example, the Irish Farmers Association may not be comfortable with having a political breakdown within the organisation. If members of an organisation are part of the electorate for this, a political House, there will inevitably be politicisation within the organisation. Is it possible that an organisation would be uncomfortable with this?
Mr. Vaughan
I do not think so. The institute is celebrating its 50th birthday in two years' time and in all that time has always used its nomination.
Has it?
Mr. Vaughan
Yes. In fact, it is amazing how we choose our nominees. The party has never mattered. We used our nomination and felt it was an honour to have it.
I can understand that in present circumstances, but——
Mr. Vaughan
Strange as it may seem, political issues never come up in our council meetings. If we are happy that a person will best represent our interests and those of manufacturing industry, we will go with that person.
Mr. Dowling
The Senator's point is an important one. When I was seeking a nomination, I sent 52 letters to the various nominating bodies. I got about 15 replies stating the body concerned would not accept anybody with any party allegiance. One must be completely independent. That is the reason we feel representatives from the various bodies need to be independent and capable of representing their various groups. Everybody has a natural allegiance towards some party.
No.
Mr. Dowling is absolutely right - it is just that some admit it.
In Senator O'Toole's case it is an unnatural allegiance.
Mr. Dowling
As mentioned, the main reason we would like to see people representing industry in the Seanad is that we strongly feel there is a need for a core of experience and knowledge. This country is dependent on industry. I work internationally with an American company, and one of the things I notice all the time is that we do not really know how to deal with American corporations, although we may think we do. We need people to concentrate, for example, on inward investment from the USA on which we have lived for the last ten years. We are starting to see it slip away and nobody seems to have any strategy for counteracting this. People working in the field could offer advice to the Government and various political figures. I am not saying we have all the answers - just that there should be a core of experience.
Is the Institute of Industrial Engineers the only organisation representing engineers in the country?
Mr. Vaughan
No.
The delegates' presentation was very impressive. I do not want to be party political, but in another forum we would be delighted to hear Mr. Dowling's views on how we could deal with the draining away of investment from the large multinationals. I have a point to make on behalf of people who have stood in elections, and I do not mean it to be a reprimand. The representatives have emphasised at great length, correctly, that there is a need for a core of experience, of the type found in their organisation, in the Seanad. Those of us who have been through and are still in public life - four of us have stood in a general election - feel we bring to the House a core of experience in public life. It is easy to dismiss those who have been spurned by the electorate at one point, but that does not take away from our sense of public service and experience.
Mr. Dowling
I do not disagree. Like everything, there must be a blend, the reason we mentioned a 50-50 situation. I have great admiration for anyone who puts his or her name on a ballot paper because it takes a lot of courage to do so. I am not taking away from it in any respect, I grew up in a political family.
I also grew up in one. We are pleased that the Institute of Industrial Engineers responded to our request and its representatives came here today. The presentation was impressive. We will reflect on the points raised when we come to our final reflections on our report. I thank the witnesses for attending.
Mr. Dowling
We thank the sub-committee for giving us the opportunity to attend.
The witnesses withdrew.