I welcome Dr. Galligan to the Chamber and apologise for the unavoidable absence of the Chairman, Senator O'Rourke. Senator O'Toole will be present shortly. Our proceedings are informal and we thank Dr. Galligan and Dr. Ward from Galway for their submission. We particularly welcome somebody from Queen's University. As we have read the submission, perhaps Dr. Galligan can talk around it. This will be followed by questioning, beginning with Senator Hayes. I must advise Dr. Galligan that while Members of this House have full privilege, she only has qualified privilege.
Presentation by Gender Balance.
Witness: Dr. Yvonne Galligan.
Dr. Galligan
Why is that?
We hope we never have to establish it. We can say what we like about Dr. Galligan but she cannot say what she likes about us or anybody else.
Dr. Galligan
It is a terrible pity I do not have full privilege because I will be saying many nice things. I would like, on my own behalf and that of Dr. Eilish Ward, to thank the sub-committee very much for the opportunity to make a presentation. Dr. Ward sends her apologies as she is unable to be with us due to illness.
What motivated our submission in the first place was our concern and analysis over a long period of the issue of gender equality in politics, political life and decision making. This affords us a special opportunity to raise the issue of the lack of women's representation in politics in general and the Seanad, in particular. That was the motivation underpinning our submission. Our basic view is that in the context of Seanad reform, gender equality should inform and guide whatever considerations are given to its reform. There are two key messages involved. The first is that if we are serious about gender equality, we should consider that the principle of equal opportunities should be one of the principles that underpins Seanad reform. Our second key point is that in operating or giving effect to equal opportunities, temporary special measures may be required to bring about a gender balanced Seanad.
Ireland's record on women's political representation in the Upper House, currently standing at just under 17%, is lower than in four EU member states that have Upper Chambers. It is broadly similar to women's representation in the House of Lords and higher than in the Upper Chambers in France and Italy. While Ireland is on the lower half of the scale, it is not at the bottom, which gives a little comfort. Ireland's low record on women's parliamentary presence has been commented on in international circles, specifically by the United Nations, which has encouraged the Government to adopt temporary special measures. The aim should be to have a 40:60 gender representation in the Seanad and, ideally, a 50:50 gender representation. This subject is not new in terms of reform of the Seanad. It has been raised on other occasions and we have referred to those in our submission.
Equal opportunities is the fundamental basis for this reform and temporary special measures in some form will be needed to give effect to it. Our submission outlines three broad scenarios that cover a number of possibilities and we are aware that they will not necessarily be those that will find favour or be discussed. However, we tried to anticipate what would be the most conservative form of Seanad reform, the most radical form and then something in between. That led to us coming up with these three different scenarios.
Our first scenario is that there would be no structural change but there would perhaps be a widening of the franchise. We have three specific recommendations in this regard, the first of which is that university seats have women and men candidate panels with the election outcome being gender balanced and determined by the highest number of votes on each panel. The second recommendation in this context is that, if the Taoiseach's nominees were to be retained, they would be gender balanced for ten - five women and five men - and that the 11th be a female appointment to assist the redressing of gender balance that may come from the Seanad sub-panel elections. Our third recommendation in this regard is that the sub-panels used to elect Senators would have gender panels within them and with election on a 40:60 ratio or even a 50:50 ratio, if that was agreed, from the gender sub-panels. That was our first scenario.
Our second scenario covers the prospect of universal direct franchise, in effect, an election by the people to the Seanad. We suggest that some form of quota or balanced gender ratio be applied to the final outcome, going along with the guidelines of a minimum 40:60 gender balance ratio. The reason we talk about a 40:60 ratio to such an extent is it is already part of policy for State boards and, therefore, not something new in the making of public policy. Under the conditions of universal direct franchise, for a 40:60 gender balance ratio to work, each Seanad panel, sub-panel, regional list or whatever form in which the elections were to take would have to have equal numbers or almost equal numbers of male and female candidates - an issue in itself.
Our third proposition is that, if the panels were reconfigured, how would all this play out? If the panels were reconfigured, we would suggest that the National Women's Council should be constituted as a panel from which Senators would be returned in the same way as other panels are constituted and Senators returned from those. Underlying all of it would be a quota based on a 40:60 ratio of women to men to be applied to all panels.
Obviously, our broader reforms are very open to refinement as the deliberations of the sub-committee unfold. They have one requirement in common, namely, a considerable increase in women's candidacies for Seanad seats. We believe this will not be a problem if the reforms seek to operate on the basis of equal opportunities for women and men. We point to the gender balance effected in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly because both are underpinned by the principle of equal opportunities as well as democratic representation. They are a testament to the success of this strategy. We reiterate that the basic principle of equal opportunities and the basic operating system of temporary special measures must inform any initiatives to make the Seanad a parliamentary Chamber for the 21st century. We are very happy to support and continue to support the Seanad in its work.
I thank Dr. Galligan for her paper. We very much appreciate that she is present and has contributed to our review. She mentioned at the end of her presentation that, under the gender equality issue in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and, to a lesser degree, the new House of Commons after the Blair Government in 1997, a substantially larger group of women were elected to the Assembly and both parliaments in Edinburgh and London. Can I put it to her that this was not a result of institutional change within the electoral system but because the Labour Party decided to introduce specific targets in many constituencies that made a dramatic difference? Someone told me that female members comprise 25% of the parliamentary Labour Party in Britain. Were the examples Dr. Galligan gave of the Welsh and Scottish cases not brought about more by internal party change than by institutional change within the parliaments or the Assembly?
Dr. Galligan put forward three interesting options and used the phrase "temporary reforms". What is her option? If she had to come down in favour of one of the three options she gave the sub-committee, which would it be? We would be interested in hearing what it is.
Dr. Galligan
Regarding the Senator's first proposition that it was not a process of electoral or institutional reform but a party strategy, we must separate the Welsh and Scottish cases from that of the House of Commons. The reason for this - the Senator is correct in what he said - is that the increase in women's representation in the House of Commons was the product of the Labour Party's all-women short lists. That is very true. However, the process in Wales and Scotland was a lot more complex. It was not just a case of the Labour Party being committed to gender equality. It was in the setting up of these new parliaments and quasi-independent political systems for election to them that a huge debate took place around the representation of women which was underpinned in both cases by the adoption of the principle of equal opportunities. For example, the basic document that led to the setting up and Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament was produced by a group called the Scottish consultative group or Scottish consultative forum. This consultative report had four basic principles on which a Scottish Parliament would run, one of them being equal opportunities.
That is when more women are involved. The problem is achieving a greater representation of women in parliament at the beginning. I accept that there were fundamental revisions of Standing Orders in both assemblies, but was it not the case that, to get more women to run for both parliaments, institutionalised quotas or targets were put in place?
Dr. Galligan
What also happened, especially in the Scottish case, was that a new electoral system was put in place. It was through it that the outcome we have today was delivered.
It was a combination of constituencies and national lists.
Dr. Galligan
That is right. The Labour Party did not have all-women short lists but there was the concept in both Wales and Scotland of twinning whereby, in the constituencies, the Labour Party would put forward and agree on a male candidate for one constituency and a female candidate for a neighbouring constituency with similar features and socio-economic profile and hold the two selections together. Interestingly, the Labour Party got most of its members in the two assemblies through the constituency system and did not use the list top-up system. The other parties, such as the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats, used the top-up list system to increase their women's representation. While I agree with the Senator substantially, I also say refinements were in operation.
Which of the three models she presented to the sub-committee would Dr. Galligan prefer and argue for in terms of increasing the 17% participation rate of women in this Chamber to a much greater level of 50% as she outlined?
Dr. Galligan
We would go with our most radical proposal in that regard which is widening the franchise and not having Senators returned via the panel system.
One man, one woman, one vote with female and male panels.
Dr. Galligan
It depends on the electoral system chosen. There might be regional lists or other lists which would enable equal representation among candidacies of women and men.
Has Gender Balance conducted any work with our elected female colleagues in the current or previous Seanaid? Has it discussed with them the process of election and how difficult it is for women to get elected to this House and, if such discussion has taken place, what lessons are to be learned?
Dr. Galligan
That discussion has taken place many times with female Senators and Deputies and also with women who aspire to being Senators and Deputies. The lessons to be learned are that political parties must show a commitment to this issue. That is most important. The current electoral system, in terms of PR-STV, which can operate in one constituency in the case of presidential elections or by-elections, does not necessarily discriminate against women candidates per se. It is clear that list systems afford the most effective opportunities for the election of women to chambers.
Our Chairman, Senator O'Rourke, who is Leader of the Seanad and currently unavailable - I hope I am not misquoting her - is vehemently opposed to any formalised gender proofing. Male Senators are, possibly, less opposed. The Progressive Democrats expressed the view that we should have a national list system which includes a 50-50 break. The Green Party has brought forward something similar. From what Dr. Galligan has said, I take it that would, in her view, be a reasonable outcome.
Dr. Galligan
We would favour such a scenario.
If we had such panels for men and women, would men vote for men and women vote for women?
Dr. Galligan
I do not think it matters so long as there are candidates for whom people can vote.
One could say that using the National Women's Council as a way of putting forward candidates is as elitist as some other aspects of Seanad elections.
Dr. Galligan
We bring forward that suggestion in the context of there being a retention of the panel system regardless of its construction.
Can the National Women's Council currently nominate?
Dr. Galligan
No.
The NUI and Trinity currently have five men among their six candidates and no politician should ever pretend there is no self-interest involved. It is not just in terms of gender that there is an imbalance in political representation, there is an enormous imbalance in terms of class. Huge segments of society are excluded. If we were to introduce a quota system as proposed, why would it only be done on gender grounds? If it were not done in that way, we would end up with a very complicated set of proposals. I believe, given my politics, that class is even more an issue in terms of discrimination than gender. Poor women are doubly victimised: they are victimised as women and even more victimised by their poverty. Poverty is very much more a female than male experience. Why would one argue for quotas in terms of gender and not argue for quotas in other areas such as the disability sector, etc., which are quite clearly under-represented? If we were to include a number of other quotas would the system not become incredibly complicated?
I speak as a member of a political party with 40% female membership in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am not trying to be sanctimonious, I am trying to figure out if there is anything peculiar about the Labour Party. It may have something to do with the fact that we run single candidates in most constituencies. Therefore, if there is a reasonable amount of female participation in the party there is a much better chance that the only running candidate will be female and that presumably means that those who vote Labour cannot discriminate between gender. I wonder about the intellectual basis for a gender balancing exercise which would not apply to other areas of under-representation.
Dr. Galligan
We could have a long dialogue on this issue. My brief response would be to highlight Senator Ryan's remarks that class is not gender-blind. There is also in class a gender dimension. When we advocate that there be equal representation of women and men in the Seanad or any other elected institution or body, we are not speaking about them all being middle class or elite women. We are talking about providing opportunities for women from all walks of life, all backgrounds and all social strata to represent their communities, just as men currently represent their communities in the Dáil and Seanad. If this is an issue of class, it applies equally to men.
We invite Dr. Galligan to take up the issue in greater detail with Senator Ryan outside the Chamber as, unfortunately, we have run out of time now.
Dr. Galligan
I would like to reiterate that we are very strongly wedded to the principle of equal opportunity being part of the fundamental principles guiding reform of the Seanad and that in order to bring about gender equality we must put in place temporary special measures. I wish the sub-committee every success in its deliberations. Thank you.
Thank you for your input.
The witness withdrew.
Presentation by the Disability Federation of Ireland.
Witnesses: Mr. John Dolan and Mr. Niall Keane.
I welcome Mr. Dolan and Mr. Keane from the Disability Federation of Ireland. The sub-committee is comprised of Senators Brian Hayes, O'Toole, Ryan and myself. I apologise on behalf of our Chairman, Senator O'Rourke, who is unable to be with us this afternoon. We have read your submission and would be grateful if you could elaborate on it for us. The main questioners will be Senator Ryan and me. I will ask Senator Ryan to start. I remind delegates that whereas Senators have absolute privilege, witnesses have only qualified privilege. We can say what we like about them but they may not say what they like about us, although we might welcome that. Perhaps Mr. Dolan would like to throw in the ball, so to speak.
Mr. Dolan
Thank you for the welcome. I will ask Mr. Niall Keane, a member of our board, to introduce our presentation.
Mr. Keane
Before I begin I apologise that Mr. John Saunders, our chairman, was not available to attend. We welcome the opportunity to expound and expand a little on our submission which focuses on three key points. One is that we believe the Seanad electoral system and make-up do not reflect the original intention of the Seanad as a more vocationally representative Chamber. We want to propose a change towards a model which enables such participation and which signals the size and importance of the disability sector in any participative process. We want to stake our right to be in the Seanad and have such participation. With this in mind, I ask Mr. Dolan to go through the salient points of our submission. Then, through the question and answer format, we can expand a little.
Mr. Dolan
The core of the submission has about five or six pages with supporting documentation. As mentioned, because of how groups engage with this process, we have not been prescriptive as regards how things should happen but rather have tried to deal with it broadly. We would welcome being able to engage in thought processes further down the line because ours is only one of 150 or 160 submissions which are equally valid.
At the heart of where we stand is that we are completely taken by the fact that we have a representative democracy which was hard enough won. Now 100 years on we are well placed, through the Seanad, to weave more strongly into the two Houses of the Oireachtas the more participative ongoing strand of society reflected through community and voluntary organisations. We make that case strongly in terms of the disability sector.
Representative democracy is well understood and accepted. We set out in our submission to try to deepen participative democracy. The social partnership process, of which Members of the Oireachtas are often critical because it takes place outside of the House, in a sense tries to bring those elements right into the Oireachtas, through this House particularly, and to have an interdependency between both Houses. Clearly, the buck must stop somewhere and decisions must be made.
There is a richness in the community and voluntary sector that can go some way towards dealing with the general alienation people feel with regard to politics and parliamentary politics. We have set out in the submission that more and more people are becoming disengaged from the political process. Something along the lines we suggest could go a substantial way towards drawing people, groups and organisations back into the Oireachtas and giving them more of an ongoing stake in what it does and how it deals with issues.
There is often a gap between the good intention of work done in the Oireachtas - legislation - and the measures employed to bring it about. Sometimes in the operation people find that the good intention did not go the distance because it did not take account of various factors such as groups and experience in life. One way to circumvent this is to have the voices of those groups and interests directly in the Oireachtas rather than the present panel situation where people elected onto them at best operate as a proxy. With the exception of Independent Senators, the rest of the Members of the Seanad are driven largely in a party political way. One is likely to hear in the Seanad the same voice or accent that one will hear in the Dáil . Without naming anybody, I point out that the university panel gives a different voice, as do some of the Taoiseach's nominees. The electoral system involves local authority members and when we look at the way in which they vote we see it is strongly whipped. Clearly, we get the party aspect coming through.
We have a growing number of Independent representatives coming into the Dáil. On reflection of these people and their backgrounds, they might more organically have come through a reformed Seanad to bring their interests and voices to the Oireachtas. In terms of party political politics, the Seanad, through the kind of reform mechanism that we set out, could and would still be a good nursery for people who might go on - obviously associated with various parties - to run in general elections. The Seanad could still act validly as a source for membership of the Dáil. We need electoral colleges that go beyond the people who happen to be elected as councillors, as is the present situation.
I thank and welcome the delegation. We all appreciate the effort put into the presentation and submission by the Disability Federation of Ireland, and other groups, for which the reform of the Seanad cannot have been at the top of the agenda. We are grateful that so much effort and thought has been put into this submission.
I have been an Independent representative most of my life and it was only in 1999, four years ago, that I joined the Labour Party. I have not been changed by that decision. I have not been made more silent, as Senator Dardis can testify, nor have I been constrained in any way. Some parts of this debate on Seanad reform have been clouded by this belief about the various parties. People behave differently in the Seanad whether a member of a party or not. If people are pushed into a corner on a voting issue they vote in a particular way but the Independent university Senators overwhelmingly vote with the Opposition. They do not always do so but that is the nature of adversarial politics.
I would like us to move away from the party issue for a moment. Parties do not exist as far as the Seanad is concerned. Ballot papers for the Seanad and legislation dealing with it do not mention parties. Many of the things to which people aspire for the Seanad are already provided for. However, parties will always find a way to intrude because they are concerned with getting people elected to the Oireachtas.
I am very interested in the witness's reference to electoral colleges. Does he see the colleges as groups of organisations or as members of the organisations? My concern is that if it is left as groups of organisations, far from encouraging participative democracy, one would in fact give enormous influence and power to, perhaps, the chief executives of a number of organisations. While I have great regard for people who work as employees in the voluntary sector, I do not regard that as very participative. On the other hand, if one gives a vote to the members of those organisations, there is no way of keeping party politics out of it, however much one might wish to do so. We cannot keep party politics out of the university elections for the Seanad. Although people do not vote for party politicians most of the time, they have regularly done so on occasions, electing people such as Jim Dooge, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, Mary Robinson, Conor Cruise O'Brien and, in recent times, myself.
Of course, they preferIndependents.
No, I believe they prefer me. I was elected ahead of Senator O'Toole this time and joined the Labour Party group.
We should stop reflecting on the position of Senators and allow the witnesses to proceed.
My point is that one cannot de-politicise politics. Has the delegation considered how these colleges would work? I am genuinely interested in the idea, but I am concerned that, for example, in an organisation such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society, one could have a Fianna Fáil clique and a Labour Party group contending for votes. I would not like to see that happening.
Mr. Dolan
We certainly do not wish to keep politics out of the Seanad. It is more a matter of issues not being driven by the concerns of party politics. It is only to be expected that the general level of public support for political parties is likely to be reflected in any organisation. I agree with the Senator's point that the Seanad operates and behaves differently. My core point, before I come to the question of electoral colleges, is that there is not a great sense of the people elected on the administrative, educational or other panels having come from the relevant sector and being, in a sense, the property of that sector.
Does Mr. Dolan want that to occur?
Mr. Dolan
I believe it would have great value. On electoral colleges, I take the point about the need for care as to how this would be arranged. We have not prescribed any specific way to do it at this early stage in the process, but I fully accept the Senator's point that it needs to be done carefully.
If the argument is that those elected on the various panels do not come from the relevant groupings, is it not the case, despite Mr. Dolan's argument in favour of getting away from party politics, that the latter would be supplanted by a new form of interest within the very groups on behalf of which he is articulating? For instance - I speak as one elected on the Cultural and Educational Panel, for which I qualified as a teacher - on the basis of the elimination of party politics as envisaged by the witness, would that not simply involve the replacement of one form of vested interest by another, whether through panels for teachers, lawyers or whatever?
Mr. Keane
May I take up that point? It is amazing that regarding the educational panel, the Senator should focus on teachers and lawyers when, in fact, there are also parents, students and those who are representative of the real interest. The issue is that there should be representation of interests, rather than just parties. That is the point Mr. Dolan was making. Perhaps, to some degree, nobody is independent - one is never independent of one's electorate in that sense. However, we find that, in some way, the wish to participate or, shall we say, the aspiration of a wider vocational and interest representation ends at the nomination stage. The groups which nominate are not the electorate and have no further participation.
If one was to use the very unkind term "gerrymander", one would see that, from councillors onwards, everything focuses right down into the elected political party. That is democratic politics and we have to have it. However, the balancing view which the second House could give should represent the interest levels directly. The social partnership, for example, is not a bad model as a platform from which to begin. Obviously, further work is needed to get the proper mechanisms in place. Senator Ryan mentioned that he had not changed his views - perhaps they coincided with those of the Labour Party in the first place.
I am far to the left of the Labour Party.
Mr. Keane
I was referring to the views which the Senator represented. We are focusing particularly on the disability sector.
On the disability sector, perhaps the Senator who made the greatest possible difference in that regard was former Senator Crowley, who was appointed by the then Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds and had been a lifelong member of Fianna Fáil. He went on to champion the issue of disability and made a huge difference across a range of issues. Was that not an example of how the party political system can produce people to articulate the very issues with which the witness and others are concerned?
That leads to another question: from the delegation's point of view, would it be just as good to have a specified position in the Taoiseach's 11 to be available to a nominee from the disability college, or should there still be an electoral system from which a nominee comes forward?
Mr. Dolan
In short, my answer to the Senator's first option is, "No". The opportunity which arises is in the context that a general election and Seanad election will normally occur at intervals of one to five years. It is somewhat like a photograph, on which everything is then predicated.
There could, of course, be a fixed term for the Seanad.
Mr. Dolan
Yes, but it would still be for a period of time. During that time, there are people who participate through groups and organisations in civil society, engage with issues, "get their hands dirty" and are involved. It is a matter of finding a way to draw that constituency into a House of the Oireachtas, where it can express its own accent, voice and direct experience. I am not sure which way the auditing and accounting Bill has gone, but it is on the move anyhow.
It is all Senator O'Toole's fault.
It is a great legislation.
Mr. Dolan
I am sure it is. We came to be aware of it through involvement in the community and voluntary sector regarding the White Paper and the commitment in the programme for Government regarding the old charities legislation, arising from the Costello report of some 14 years ago. People tend to think of auditing and accounting in the context of the private sector - the for-profit sector. If there were some people in this House who came from another sector of society which needed accounting, auditing and regulation but represented not-for-profit organisations, the issue would be more likely to be picked up and better articulated as a result of that constituency being present.
That comes back to Senator Ryan's contention that that spectrum of views, expertise and self-interest is already represented in the Seanad.
Mr. Dolan
If so, it is by accident rather than good design and I believe it is overridden to some degree. Senator Ryan is perfectly right. The overall electorate and citizenship are political in various hues and that will be represented. On the Seanad Administrative Panel, for which some of the disability organisations have a nomination, that nomination may go to a councillor who has no interest in disability issues and that interest does not need to be followed through in the House. In fact, many Senators and Deputies have a very genuine and active interest in disability issues, but there is no "by right" representation.
The inclusion of a nominee, by right, in the Taoiseach's 11 would again relegate us to a proxy and a hope. There must be a mechanism which can really reflect the ethos of the Seanad as providing some different form of Chamber, other than becoming just a sub-committee or echo chamber of the Dáil. With the changing face of society, different groups and sectors have emerged. Agriculture, for example, has decreased in numerical strength, if not in value. The needs and rights of other sectors of society are now recognised, particularly people with disabilities, their parents and families. Perhaps some form of direct representation of these groups would mean that the interest would be represented, rather than people being elected having been nominated by interest groups. The present system leads to a degree of dilution.
Many Members of this and the other House are parents of disabled persons and very adept at making cases that need to be made. I wish to ask another question arising from that observation. How would the DFI introduce greater participation on the part of certain groups in the broadest form of civic society? Does it favour a weighted voting system? Would it like each affiliate member of the DFI, or each person who is a paid-up member, to have a vote? How would it extend this system to ensure the greatest possible plurality of opinion when it comes to voting?
Mr. Dolan
It comes back to the question asked by Senator Ryan. We have not thought out or prescribed a system in any great detail. Our intention at this meeting was to come to an agreement about what was worth doing. Any decision about the technical means of achieving our aims is a secondary matter, bearing in mind some of the pitfalls that have been laid out. The fact that electoral colleges exist in the form of university panels shows that it is not beyond the wit of people to——
We are interested in hearing how the DFI would like to achieve its aims.
Mr. Dolan
We have not set out any specific systems as we are more interested, at this stage, in setting out our broad rationale and intent. Our aims can be met in a number of ways. One can go down the organisational route, or one can allow members of the public - this is off the top of my head - to select interests that correspond to various panels on which they can vote. One can go beyond the members of organisations in that sense.
Let me ask a quick question. I listened to what the delegation said about the reason for getting the voice across. Which does the DFI believe to be more effective - to have one person in the Oireachtas arguing its case, or to make its point here by lobbying people and making them aware of the issues of the day? The DFI would have to engage in lobbying even if it had somebody in here. Regardless of how people on the outside view it, I believe a good parliamentarian who is briefed on an issue is often far better at getting something done than somebody who happens to be a true believer on the issue.
Mr. Keane
They are not mutually exclusive; one can have both. One could ask the reason we should not have just ten politicians and many lobbyists.
I ask Mr. Keane not to make any judgment in relation to my question. I am simply trying to get information. The sub-committee will reach its conclusions at the end. I ask Mr. Keane not to come to any conclusion as to which I think is better. I simply want to know what the DFI's perception is in order that we can move this process forward.
Mr. Keane
Our perception is that one needs both and that one may engage better in both. Senator Brian Hayes asked how we could do this. We deliberately refrained from having a single answer, as there are five or six possible responses to the question about the mechanism that can be used. The real question being asked by the Senator is, "Can there be a mechanism for doing this?" The answer is, "Yes, there can." Disability has been included as one of the pillars of social partnership and we have devised a mechanism to make it truly representative. That is what can happen.
I hope the delegation does not misunderstand the sub-committee. We are questioning our guests so seriously because we take them so seriously.
We need to get information.
Mr. Dolan
It is a benign interrogation.
We are exploring the delegation's views, which are shared by many. We are trying to work out a feasible way of doing what the delegation wants.
We are trying to engage in a fact-finding mission, which will help us to reach certain conclusions which we have not yet considered.
Mr. Keane
I hope my answers were not interpreted as prickly. Mr. Dolan and I are not wilting flowers in answering questions and trying to give information.
Mr. Keane should not worry, as neither are we.
I thank Mr. Keane and Mr. Dolan for their thought-provoking contributions, which will receive full consideration and reflection from the sub-committee as it seeks to reach its conclusions.
Mr. Dolan
The heads of members of the sub-committee must be spinning, as they are spending a full week listening to various groups. It is obvious that work has been done which we appreciate and acknowledge very much. Senator Ryan mentioned that the relationship between civil society and the Oireachtas was not the first item on our agenda, which is true, but in one way it is the most important. As this is the first time we have appeared before an Oireachtas committee, it is appropriate that——
The DFI is not the first group to have said that to the sub-committee during the course of the week.
Mr. Dolan
We will be returning next week to discuss an education Bill. This happens to be the first meeting we have attended. We were invited to a number of meetings but did not attend because other groups were covering the same ground. I mention this to mark the occasion. I thank the sub-committee.
The witnesses withdrew.