COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES (Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform) debate -
Thursday, 18 Sep 2003

Vol. 1 No. 3

Presentation by Presentation by the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland and the Teachers Union of Ireland.

Witnesses: Mr. Seán Rowley, Mr. John Carr, Mr. Billy Sheehan - INTO; Mr. Pat Cahill, Ms Susie Hall, Mr. John White - ASTI; and Mr. Derek Dunne, Mr. Jim Dorney, Mr. PeterMacMenamin - TUI.

Chairman

On behalf of the all-party committee, I welcome the representatives of the three teachers' unions. I thank them for their submissions and coming today. We deem it a great honour to have them all corralled together. Many of the faces are very familiar to me and it is to be welcomed that they are participating fully in the democratic process.

We are an all-party committee intent on Seanad review and reform. Our members are Senators Dardis, Brian Hayes, Ryan and O'Toole. As Members of this House, we have absolute privilege but witnesses have only qualified privilege, although I am sure that will not be a difficulty. We have read your submissions. We have approximately 20 minutes to deal with the presentations. I am conscious of the fact that there are three unions represented here at various levels within the hierarchy but perhaps someone will give a synopsis of the submission. The two main questioners on this panel are Senators Dardis and Ryan, although we may all interject as you are welcome to do also. We hope there will be some lively to and fro.

Mr. Rowley

I thank the Chairman for her welcome. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the review. As I am sure the members are aware, the INTO and the teaching profession in general traditionally had close association with the Oireachtas, with many members serving as Deputies and Senators, as is currently the case. The INTO has had a particularly close association with the Seanad as is evidenced by the fact that three of our former general secretaries were Members - T. J. O'Connell, Jackie Brosnahan and Senator Joe O'Toole. Also, many of our graduate members have a franchise on the university panels and exercise that franchise in very large numbers. We were involved in the recent Seanad campaigns, and much debate has taken place on the Seanad and its operations among the membership. From our perspective, therefore, the Seanad is not just a remote institution but is one in which we have a keen and active interest. We have given this matter some thought and we have views on the reform going forward. Mr. John Carr, our general secretary, will now present a synopsis of our views.

Mr. Carr

The members will be aware that our written submission addresses one of the items on their agenda, namely, the composition of Seanad Éireann and, specifically, representation on the university panels. It is our view that the current electoral base for these constituencies is too narrow. Teachers who are graduates of either the NUI or Trinity College are eligible to vote in Seanad elections while teachers who are graduates of other third level institutions are not eligible. We believe that is unfair. For example, graduates of the two biggest colleges, Mary Immaculate College and St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra, do not have votes as their degrees are awarded by the University of Limerick and DCU respectively. Graduates of the smaller colleges do have votes as their degrees are awarded by TCD.

The key point in our submission is that the franchise should be extended to third level graduates of all universities and colleges. I realise in making this assertion that two questions immediately arise. First, should the question of university representation survive this review? If the answer to this question is "Yes", how widely do we extend the franchise? On the first question, we believe in a second Chamber of Parliament. We believe the Seanad should be representative of the various sectors of our society and that in any democracy, our third level institutions play a vital leading and innovative role in terms of new ideas and free thinking. The State has been ably served by the people chosen by graduates on university panels, not least by our own former general secretary, Senator O'Toole. We also believe the university panels have enabled people not associated with any political party to be elected to the Oireachtas. In shaping the second Chamber of Parliament which is representative of society, we are supportive of the model that uses third level institutions as a constituency.

The second question of how widely the franchise should be extended needs considerable teasing out. We recommend as a starting point that the franchise should be extended to the universities not currently included and to the institutes of technology. The best way to extend equity may be to abolish the existing two panels, the NUI and the Trinity panels, and establish one graduate panel with an extended number of seats, for example, to nine.

I will conclude by making one final suggestion on the general composition of the Seanad. As previously stated, we support the concept that the Seanad should be representative of the various groups in society. We also value extending the opportunity to various groups to nominate candidates. We are a nominating body to the Cultural and Educational Panel and believe that provision should be retained.

The current panels and the number of seats attached to each need re-examination to reflect the changes in society. These panels were established on a vocational basis, which at the time represented the church view of how society should be organised on a vocational basis. We believe that today perhaps the vocational organisation of society does not hold up. Therefore, a simple solution would be to extend representation to the four social pillars by allowing each of the partners, the employers, the unions, the farming and community and voluntary sectors, to nominate, following their internal election selection procedures. By doing so, we would invite a fair representation of society today into this Chamber.

A similar arrangement might be made to facilitate groups representing the religious and spiritual aspects of our lives. Rather than such groups outside this Chamber commenting on what is happening in here, they should be represented in here on major issues of social importance. That would extend the franchise further and enable, for example, representatives of the unemployed and disadvantaged such as the St. Vincent de Paul, etc., to secure their voice in this Chamber.

I am sure other groups will make submissions proposing the extension of the franchise to include representatives of communities in Northern Ireland, our citizens abroad and non-nationals. We would like to add our voice of support to those submissions.

Chairman

Thank you. As the representatives are aware, we have a limited time to hear presentations. Do representatives of the other two groups intend to make presentations?

Mr. Cahill

Yes.

Chairman

I ask that you be brief. I am not being caustic but as we have an extremely limited time to hear the presentations, perhaps we could hear one from each of the other groups, although I am aware that perhaps two representatives of each of the groups intended to contribute. This segment is due to end at 1.40 p.m. to 1.45 p.m. to allow the next group to come in at its allocated time. The representatives might rearrange matters to allow members of the sub-committee time to ask questions.

Mr. Cahill

I thank the members of the sub-committee for this opportunity to make an oral presentation on behalf of the ASTI which represents 17,000 second level teachers. The opportunity to make this presentation is a good example of providing avenues of consultation for important groupings in society. As educators, we are conscious of the key role politicians play in a democratic society and, therefore, the more people who have an involvement in the political process, the better for the health of that democracy and society.

Under the Constitution, the Seanad is a legislative Chamber, albeit with constitutional functions regarding removal of the President and members of the Judiciary. The Seanad can delay legislation but not prevent its enactment. The ASTI believes it can serve a useful function in fostering thinking, which for whatever reason does not get full expression in the first House. This should allow for more strategic and divergent thinking, which can be constrained by the political exigencies of the first House.

There are many complex legal issues involving possible reforms of the Seanad which would require constitutional amendments, and other reforms which would not. In addition, there are issues surrounding the need to prevent conflicts arising between the two Houses. On the one hand, government by paralysis is not an option, equally, the second Chamber should not be a mere rubber stamp for the Dáil.

The ASTI wishes the following provisions to be adhered to in any reform of the Seanad. The franchise should be broadened to enable all citizens to have access through new structures. This should be done by widening the electorate of the 43 Members elected from panels. The bodies having nominating rights should be reviewed, with particular attention to fostering an inclusive society with consideration given to representation for groups such as the disabled and refugees.

The structure for university representation should be amended to include all graduates of the Department of Education and Science's recognised third level institutions, the institutions under the remit of the Higher Education Authority and the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, HETAC. This would involve extending the franchise to graduates of the other two universities, namely, Limerick and Dublin City University, and the 14 institutes of education, including the Dublin Institute of Technology.

The right of the Taoiseach to nominate Senators should be removed. The reason the Taoiseach was given the right to nominate 11 Senators was presumably to prevent conflicts from arising between the two Chambers. It should, however, be possible to create procedural mechanisms which allow for the robust scrutiny of legislation and presentation of views without impinging on the authority of the Dáil which is elected by popular vote. The more public scrutiny there is of legislation and the more analysis there is of European affairs the better for everybody involved.

While the structures developed in the social partnership process such as the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum, have facilitated influential roles for the social partners, facilitating the expression of such views within the Oireachtas could contribute to the democratic conversation which is needed in a healthy society. I thank the sub-committee for listening to our proposals.

Chairman

Does Mr. Dunne wish to speak now?

Mr. Dunne

I am conscious of the time constraint and, therefore, on behalf of the TUI, I will ask our deputy general secretary, Peter MacMenamin, to summarise our position.

Mr. MacMenamin

I welcome this opportunity. I have provided a written statement——

Chairman

We have that.

Mr. MacMenamin

——but the time available is not sufficient for me to go through it. Therefore, I will point to the highlights in it.

We agree with what has been said in terms of the extension of the university franchise to cover the graduates of all institutes at third level within the State. As the sub-committee will be aware, we have a particular brief in respect of the institutes of technology in that we represent the members of their academic staff. We have a mandate from our union to propose the extension of the current universities panel, if I may refer to it as that, to cover graduates of all third level institutes, particularly institutes of technology. We support that proposal, which has been brought forward previously.

That issue raises the question as to what is meant by a graduate of an institute of technology or any other third level institute. Under the 1937 legislation setting up the existing system, a graduate is defined as being a degree holder. However, as members will be aware, the Regional Technical College Act and the Dublin Institute of Technology Act define a graduate of those institutes somewhat differently; they define a graduate as being a person who has been through a course of study within the college in question and received an educational award other than an honorary award. That appears to the union to open up the concept of graduates to a further group. We place this consideration in the context of what the National Qualifications Authority is currently doing, which is seeking to establish a national framework of qualifications. The highest level of those at level 10 and level 9 are postgraduate qualifications, which clearly would be included. The next level, level 8, is an honours degree which would also be included. The next level is a three year ordinary degree and in the same category there is a three year national diploma. The NQAI is currently examining the designation of the three year national diploma with a view to renaming it as a three year ordinary degree.

That immediately seems to suggest that the definition of graduate would require to be examined. If it is to be examined in that sense, the union urges that such a definition should be broader than degree holders and should take account of the definition contained in the Regional Technical College Act and the Dublin Institute of Technology Act and include persons who graduate from third level institutes with a recognised educational qualification. We would extend such qualifications to include national certificates and national craft certificates to enable persons who go through an institute of technology and come out with an apprenticeship awarded by FETAC to be considered as graduates for the purposes of extending this franchise. We believe such graduates are covered by the definition of graduate in the Regional Technical College Act and the sub-committee should examine a wider definition of graduate than that previously considered for this purpose.

The final point we wish to mention is the impact of European legislation on this area, given that there is mutual recognition of third level qualifications in member states. Will this have an impact on the committee's deliberations? It is an issue which requires to be addressed as it could produce anomalies. If an Irish national gets a qualification in another EU member state and returns to live in this country, will he or she be included in this franchise?

Chairman

The Bologna process, to which you refer, was raised this morning.

Senator Dardis

I compliment the groups on coming before the committee together. It has facilitated us enormously in terms of logistics and the coherence of the arguments being made. That is most welcome. Everybody who has come before the committee recognises the need to extend the franchise. We can take that as a given. The difficulty that arises, which has been identified by Mr. MacMenamin, is the degree to which we should extend it. I have asked several groups if we should include people with diplomas or certificates. There is widespread consensus that level 7 should be the cut-off point. Are the delegations comfortable with that level? In other words, only people with basic degrees and upwards would be eligible to vote. However, there is a wider issue which was identified by Mr. Carr. The ASTI refers to broadening the franchise to all citizens through new structures. It also suggests abolishing the Taoiseach's nominees. If one permits this universal or extended franchise, why should there be a constituency for the universities?

Mr. White

While coherence and consistency is a virtue, it is not a sine qua non for those who get into the Seanad.

Senator Dardis

It certainly is not for politics.

Mr. White

Absolutely, and it should never be.

Chairman

Or for teachers.

Mr. White

Absolutely, or, even more, for teacher trade Unionists. If the purpose of the Seanad is to present thinking, that is not necessarily getting expression in the Lower House for the reasons many have advanced, coherence and consistency in the electoral system should not override the principle of trying to get people into the Seanad who will express divergent thinking and new ideas. We suggest this for some of the 43 panels. Under Article 19, it is possible to have direct election by whatever system is devised, be it a register system or whatever, to facilitate the inclusion of additional Members in a wider franchise. That franchise could be opened as widely as the committee wishes. Under Article 19, the committee could make some of the seats universal. The overriding principle is to get people into the Seanad who think outside the box, as it were.

Senator Ryan

I appreciate the thought given to this by my colleagues in the teachers' unions. We agree about the extension of the franchise. There will be debate about the extent of that extension but the principle is a given. This process has created a momentum for it, which probably means the issue will be resolved. The concept of nominating bodies being able to appoint people to the House appeals to me for many reasons, particularly in terms of groups which might otherwise be excluded. However, what about the problem of it becoming overtly politicised? Anybody who tries to pretend that voluntary or trade union bodies are not highly political bodies anyway would be extremely naive. What about the question of overtly politicising the internal operations of either trade unions or voluntary groups? Routes to politics appeal to people who have political affiliations and if it is possible to get a nomination for membership of the Seanad via the TUI, for example, there will be contenders who have intense political loyalties. Some would worry about this. What do the delegations think?

Mr. Carr

I will give an initial response. There are a number of ways of doing this. One is that a person comes to an institution, such as the Irish National Teachers Organisation, and seeks a nomination. That happens on a regular basis. People outside the organisation, defeated politicians and others come to various nominating bodies and seek nominations. The second way is that somebody within the institution seeks a nomination. The question raised by the Senator is that the outside person or the inside person may have a political leaning, is seeking the nomination on the basis of a political franchise and will take a whip on becoming a Member of the House.

These panels should be independent, as are the NUI and Trinity panels. The purpose of establishing these panels was to bring independent thought into the Chamber through the inclusion of people who would not be afraid to speak up and would not be confined by the political whips. It is important for any Upper Chamber that there would be checks and balances with the Lower House, particularly with regard to areas of legislation that might be complex and might be relevant to Members who were medical or legal experts and so forth. Our view is that we should try to retain as much independence as possible. The intention in the 1930s was that this Chamber would be representative of the people, as it were, but the political parties at the time did not want this. They were afraid the Upper Chamber would be in conflict with the Lower Chamber. As a result, we have the existing uneasy peace where many are elected on independent lines but take political whips.

We believe there must be independence in this Chamber. Whether it is through the university or vocational panels, we should endeavour in the structures to maintain as much independence as possible.

Chairman

Does Mr. Carr's organisation believe a Taoiseach should have the right to nominate Members of the Upper House?

Mr. Carr

Our organisation has not taken a view on that. We realise that the nature of the Seanad has changed and that it has now become a highly politicised forum. We have suggested structures for the social partners having representation in the Seanad, with perhaps two representatives from each group. There would be, for example, two representatives of industry from the employers' sector, two from the union sector representing the trade unions and so on to represent the farming and the voluntary sectors. That would amount to eight places in the Seanad and I favour taking those places from the existing structures. If it means taking them from the Taoiseach's nominations and reducing the Taoiseach's influence on what happens here, I would support it.

Chairman

It would be severely reduced.

Mr. MacMenamin

Senator Dardis asked a question about the level 7 cut-off point. Clearly, we would prefer an extension to include all level 7 graduates but strongly urge that consideration be given to including those with national certificates and national craft certificates. For the reasons given with regard to other issues, we believe in extending the franchise. The wider it can be extended, the more expertise will be brought into the House. People who have national certificates and those who have undergone apprenticeships bring a different expertise and mandate from the Senators elected through the existing process.

Senator Dardis

There is one practical difficulty in that if we have one national constituency, as has been advocated by some, it will be difficult and expensive for individuals, who are independents, to organise a campaign. It would open it to the political parties to be the conduit through the university seats to get into the House.

Ms Hall

I represent the ASTI. Senator Ryan said he was worried that people would choose these groupings as a political route into the Seanad. People have always had the right to abuse the system in order to further their own political careers. I cannot see how broadening the franchise would exacerbate that problem because, as it stands, it is open to those who contest the Trinity College or UCD panels to use it for their own political careers. In more recent times if Seanad candidates sought the endorsement of the ASTI, they declared themselves to be non-political. They assured the association that if they were endorsed, they would not take political whips if successful. They will always have to come back for re-election and if they sold their principles, the association would get its chance to take it out on them the next time around.

Chairman

They would get their punishment. I thank Ms Hall for her contribution and the delegations for coming. We are honoured that you took the time and trouble to come here, given the positions you hold. We will bear your views in mind when we reach our final conclusions.

The witnesses withdrew.