It is undemocratic because if 900 people in Albania were entitled to elect three quarters of the Members of a House of Parliament there, we would condemn such behaviour as totalitarianism – whether it arose under a dictatorship or a communist regime – and we would be right to do so.
If the Senator believes my comments are focused in any way on local authority members he is wrong. Others will inform him that I defend them all the time and I am of the opinion that they do excellent work. I am utterly supportive of local authority members. I believe they are treated badly, are not afforded enough respect and are not given enough authority or adequate budgets.
Let us consider the position of Senators Mansergh and Ó Murchú who were elected from the Agricultural and Cultural and Educational panels, respectively. There are two ways to be nominated to those panels, one of which, as in the case of Senator Ó Murchú, is to have one's name put forward by bodies such as Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. I am in favour of this, but there is another way to gain entry to the panel, namely, to be nominated by four Members of this House or the Lower House. There are, therefore, two groups of people who can be nominated to the Cultural and Educational Panel. Why would it not be possible to have those nominated by Members of the Oireachtas elected by members of county councils, as is currently the case? A total of 50% of the Members of the panel would, therefore, be elected by the local authorities and there would be what I term the "distillation" of democracy which could be justified because the other 50% would be elected by properly registered members of the various nominating bodies such as Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann. In the case of the Agricultural Panel, people who were not nominated by Oireachtas Members but were put forward by the various nominating bodies would be elected by the registered members of those bodies.
If we followed the approach I advocate, we would involve a huge number of ordinary people and, as a result, every fisherman or farmer would have a vote on the Agricultural Panel, every trade unionist would have a vote on the Labour Panel, etc. This would ensure that people throughout the country would be involved in electing the membership of the Seanad.
Unlike many of my colleagues, I support the idea of Taoiseach's nominees. I do not want us to have, as is the case in Washington, a second House which can run into gridlock or one which can subvert the will of the people as articulated in the Lower House. The Seanad's role is one of modification, consolidation, of dealing with topical issues and of providing added value.
It is important that we should extend the franchise. Everyone on the Independent benches is in favour of extending the franchise on the Universities Panel. There is no argument about that. If all that emerges from this debate is consensus about that single point I will not be surprised but I will be disappointed. I do not believe there will be any changes other than that which I have outlined.
I wish to highlight a point missed by the previous speaker but which I hope others will bear in mind. It is true that it took a constitutional amendment to facilitate what I and Senator Leyden have proposed. The constitutional amendment of 1979 gave the Government power to extend the voting franchise on the Universities Panel to other colleges or universities. The position is, therefore, that what we are proposing can now be done. By couching matters in those terms, it appears we are saying that there were no constitutional amendments in respect of the other suggestions I have put forward. There is a good reason for that, namely, that constitutional amendments are not required in this regard. All that is required to extend the vote is a change in the law. Voting on to the other panels is not restricted by the Constitution in the same way it was on our panel. That is why a constitutional amendment has never been required.
We are talking about giving the House relevance by extending the franchise. There are many other steps we could take, but I believe we should listen to what people have to say. It has been stated that we should seek more power or influence for the House. That is not necessary because the constitution of this House, should we choose to use it, contains enough power and influence. Any Member who wants to make a point can do so – an individual, a member of a party an Independent representative or whoever. It would be wrong for this debate to become lost in attempts to increase levels of power and authority, because they are not needed.
It is correct to state that as long as people are not able to vote to elect Members of this House, they will not have the same interest in its affairs as they do in those of the Dáil. The Cultural and Educational Panel, the Agricultural Panel, the Industrial and Commercial Panel, the Administrative Panel and the Labour Panel are all representative of Irish life. Should one wish to do so, one could extend the voting franchise to every member of the population in some form or another under one of those categories. Even if one did not wish to do so and wanted to preserve the vocational nature of the electoral process by restricting it to the registered members of the nominating bodies, a huge number of people would be entitled to vote. In terms of the Labour Panel, 750,000 people would be enfranchised if the approach I have outlined was adopted. There is no difficulty in extending the franchise. It would give new life to the House and I request that it should be done.
I would love to see a situation arise where farmers and fishermen would be entitled to vote on the Agricultural Panel, where musicians and teachers could vote on the Cultural and Educational Panel, etc. So much could be done, while maintaining the importance of local authority members by allowing them to elect people on the inside panel. Of the 43 elected Members of the House to whom I referred earlier, 21 or 22 would, therefore, be elected by one or other of the methods to which I refer and a further six Members would still be elected by the universities. The number of people on the register of the National University of Ireland is well over 100,000, while there are almost 50,000 people on the Trinity College register. There are approximately 150,000 people who are entitled to vote on the Universities Panel, which is quite an extensive franchise.
In my opinion, it is wrong and elitist and helps to preserve a sort of cadre in society to see university graduates as being above and beyond and more important and special than other members of the population. It is open to any Member to state blithely – they are in a position to do so because they know they will not be affected – that the vote should be extended to every third level graduate. However, this merely maintains the environment of exclusivity. Why can people state so easily that the vote should be given to people who have graduated from a third level college or university, but that it should not be given to anyone else? The case must be made that there are people in every walk of life who may not have attended university but who should have an input into what we are doing in this House. I ask Members to give serious consideration to this matter. I would like to see the Seanad electoral process develop in the way I have outlined.
Should the people be asked to voice their opinions on this matter? I believe they should. The Leader of the House will have to play an important role in trying to raise the stature of the House in terms of its relevancy because we are somewhat behind the game in that regard. This House was never intended to be a place where one could deal immediately with issues that might arise on a particular day. There is a difference between issues of the day and topical issues. General issues of the day should be discussed here, not issues which may arise on the morning of a sitting. That is an extremely important point.
It is a special feature of this House that, although Members are divided, in the main, into party groupings, there is a less confrontational approach. There is no argument against extending the franchise in the university sector. Equally, there is no argument against widening the franchise to those who are not university graduates or Members of the Dáil or Seanad or members of local authorities. That should be taken on board in moving forward and looking at a different form of election in which the people would have an involvement and the House a greater relevance.
There are other points I would like to make, but I am conscious of my time limit and have concentrated on the core issues. By extending the franchise we would also raise the involvement and interest of ordinary people. We would do ourselves a huge favour, even if this Seanad did nothing more than bring about that change. I ask for an open debate on the matter. As an indication of credibility, I suggest that Senators begin by considering what changes are appropriate in their respective electoral panels. Those who focus on one particular panel are simply taking the easy way out.