Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 May 2014

Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) (Amendment) Bill 2014: Second Stage

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd. It is appropriate to say, in the presence of a Louth Minister of State, that when one crossed the Louth border on counting day, 6 October 2013, there was a large area all through Meath and Kildare and down through the Dublin constituencies that ended quite close to Killarney, to which was added Galway and Donegal to give the constituencies of the 634,000 people who voted confidence in this House. That was remarkable, given the range of political opinion in the Dáil and elsewhere that was against the continuation of this House. In that context, having such an endorsement of the Seanad by the public, against all the odds and against the opinion polls, how do we develop the House in the way in which public opinion so strongly supported?

In presenting the Bill, which is the fifth one I have introduced, I thank the Bills office, the Leader's office, the Seanad office, Professor Eoin O'Dell in Trinity College Dublin, who gave important legal advice, and my assistants Dr. Charles Larkin and Ms Ursula Ní Choill. One of the statements I used most in the debate about the future of this House was to dispute the one by Lord Edward Fitzgerald and quoted by John F. Kennedy in the famous speech which is commemorated at the bottom of the stairs: "Leinster House does not inspire the brightest ideas". That is why Lord Edward Fitzgerald went to live in Carton. I live near Carton and come in here every day. Leinster House does inspire the brightest ideas. I have never come here on any one day when I did not learn something or was not inspired. Parliament has a huge role to play, and maybe, based on events of recent days, an increasing role, as it appears that many in the permanent Government are dysfunctional and require the intervention of Ministers and the Taoiseach in certain Departments. We have a vital role to play. That vital role was expressed in the debate by the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins. Blocking legislation is not what the Seanad is about. Improving and enhancing legislation is the key contribution we make to the legislative process. At the time Senator Maurice Cummins made his contribution, the House had proposed more than 600 amendments, and we have not slowed down much since then.

We have a House which was endorsed by the public in a referendum against all the odds.

Others Bills have come from Senators Katherine Zappone and John Crown and the Government. In this Bill we seek to move the process of reform forward and to retain and enhance the Seanad as public opinion indicated so recently.

The Father of the House, Senator David Norris, is indisposed. In a sense, this is Hamlet without the prince. However, he asked me to pass on his regards and this statement:

First of all, let me say there should be full reform of the Seanad and I believe this Bill to be an important part of such reform. Of all the groups within the Seanad the university seats have played the most significant role. They are the most democratic and least elitist because one does not have to be a graduate to stand for election. This will be equally true if this Bill is passed. Anyone from the education and cultural panel would have the right to stand for the education seats. No one would be denied this important right. The Government's reaction to this Bill will be a true test of their sincerity in addressing reform of the Seanad. I am very grateful to Professor Barrett for giving me this opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

We are proposing to create eight seats on the cultural and educational panel, four more seats for the universities and institutes of higher education, and four seats for educational and cultural representation. The advice we have from Eoin O'Dell of Trinity College Dublin is that this is constitutional. It maintains the voice of small groupings and keeps room for non-party participants in the political process. It fills the void left by the absence of a cross-bench tradition in the Seanad. It keeps the Parliament open to important segments of society, which we found significant during the referendum. In all the college debates we found that young people overwhelmingly wanted the Seanad kept. They aspired to fill the university seats later in their careers. We found decidedly strong support in Dublin working class areas. Places where all five Members of the Dáil campaigned for a "Yes" vote had a 68% "No" vote, including Dublin Central and Dublin South-West. There is a strong wish to have independent voices in the House.

I will be speaking in Belfast this evening. We found that Northern voters in the Seanad election were somewhat annoyed that they were about to be deprived of their vote for Leinster House and the Oireachtas in a referendum in which they had no vote, because the register used in the referendum was the Dáil register. I believe that is why the Donegal constituencies voted "No". The people there have strong connections with Northern Ireland. People in the North got their friends, relations, neighbours, people in the places where they spend their holidays and so on to vote "No". These were all important segments which, among others, wanted the House to be retained and developed.

We believe the Bill is constitutional. Article 18.1 states: "Seanad Éireann shall be composed of sixty members, of whom eleven shall be nominated members and forty-nine shall be elected members." Article 18.4.1° states:

i Three shall be elected by the National University of Ireland.

ii Three shall be elected by the University of Dublin.

iii Forty-three shall be elected from panels of candidates constituted as hereinafter provided.

Article 18.7.1° states "five panels of candidates shall be formed in the manner provided by law...". We provide by law for one of those panels which, we believe, could create the cultural and educational panel to which I have referred. The panels are listed in the article. Article 18.10.1° states "Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Article elections of the elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be regulated by law".

We hope the Bill we are proposing goes forward with the Bills proposed by the Government and Senators John Crown and Katherine Zappone. It should go for consideration as part of the overall package of reforming the House.

One difficulty we see with the proposals being examined in the franchise section of the Department is the creation of a constituency with up to 870,000 voters. This corresponds to the election of 40 Dáil Deputies. It would be an immense constituency. Our fear is that the independent voices - the young people who run for election who have recently graduated and so on - would be unable to face the expense of such a large constituency. For example, Carlow-Kilkenny has five seats for approximately 105,000 voters and, therefore, we estimate a 870,000-voter constituency would be of such a size as to elect 40 Dáil Deputies. We believe this will be a major deterrent.

If the political parties take over the two university constituencies, the great contribution that has been made since the beginning by the university seats will be lost. Let us consider the tradition of Mary Robinson and Owen Sheehy-Skeffington's opposition to corporal punishment in schools, as well as William Bedell Stanford's attempt to promote North-South trade in the 1940s when we had customs barriers and so on. The liberal agenda, personified by Senators David Norris, Mary Robinson and so on, will be lost. The essence of this House will be lost if the political parties take over this immense constituency. I cannot see many others being able to afford to run. The former Trinity College provost John Henry Bernard discussed this when he went to see Arthur Griffith in 1922 and it was agreed by Mr. de Valera in the 1937 Constitution. The liberal voice and the non-majoritarian voice has served this country well. It helps to maintain vital Northern Ireland links as we configure what Ireland will look like in future, as well as better relations between the two parts of Ireland. These are improving all the time. The loss of the two university constituencies would prove the case the Government was making in the October referendum in respect of the Seanad being composed of Fianna Fáil lite, Labour Party lite and Fine Gael lite. There would be no independent voice or unique role such as that played by those who have taken the university seats. If we allow that to happen I believe we would seriously damage the Seanad and not live up to the spirit and aspirations of the people, some 643,000 of whom endorsed the House last October.

Senator John Crown

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I have great pleasure in supporting and seconding Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill. I believe he, more than any of us, represents the epitome of the intention of the Seanad - that is, to bring expertise unencumbered by the discipline and requirements of political party membership into the halls of Parliament where it can be brought to bear in areas of special interest.

In truth, one has to wonder, had there had been more people like Senator Barrett tramping these corridors in the past decade or decade and a half, is there a chance we would have found ourselves with a greater critical mass of expertise in economic, financial, banking and commercial matters in the House? Would the Government have been in a stronger and better position to analyse, diagnose and correct the problems that have caused such pain to so many people in the country? It is primarily for this reason that I became vehemently supportive of the notion of Seanad reform as opposed to Seanad abolition. These were the two options I put in my election leaflet in 2011. I stated the Seanad, as constituted, was unsustainable and that it needed to be either abolished or reformed.

As a Member of this House, it strikes me that we need to give the whole reform agenda a good go, because we have a real opportunity here. When one considers the problems and dysfunctions that have beset the Dáil, it is clear how difficult they will be to fix. By having the entirety of our generally mandated and generally enfranchised electorate electing politicians on the basis of geographical constituencies, there is an inevitable tendency for those politicians to be mostly concerned with representing their constituency, which they do very well. The system means, however, that we have a deficit of people in the Lower House who are elected with a specifically national outlook, but it is from this available group that our Ministers must be selected. As it happens, we often get very good Ministers. Sometimes, however, looking across the spectrum of people who have occupied the positions over the years, one would have to say that some of them were rather inexpert when they were appointed. I am not looking at the Minister of State when I say this. He is very expert.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

I am smiling because I agree with some of the things the Senator is saying.

Senator John Crown

It is for these reasons that I espoused a very fundamental reform of the Seanad which, if it had been enacted, would have given us one nationally elected Chamber based on universal franchise. It would have afforded an opportunity for people who are not heavily politically partisan in their orientation and involvement to come in greater numbers into the Chamber. Realism dictates that the reform I have espoused will not happen. Likewise, it is very unlikely that the similar and very high-quality reform espoused by Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn will be enacted. This is because all the power to enact changes in the law and Constitution rests in the hands of a very small number of people, in an inner sanctum at the Cabinet table. In fact, that is the very problem we were hoping to address by way of the reforms we have proposed.

Having said that, it is good that we have an array of options available in order to keep the reform agenda alive. Those of us who urged a "No" vote in the referendum to abolish the Seanad have since taken criticism because no reform has occurred. In fact, the Bill produced by Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone, my Bill and now Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill have all been put before the House at various points. We have done our bit to honour our commitment of working for reform of the Seanad. In that vein, I am strongly in favour of Senator Sean D. Barrett's proposal advancing and forming part of the Government's consideration when it examines the possibility of Seanad reform. Against a background of referendum fatigue, we are cognisant that all three of the proposals that have been brought forward, as well as the Fianna Fáil proposal, could potentially be enacted on the basis of legislation without the requirement for any referendum-authorised changes to the Constitution.

I enthusiastically support Senator Sean D. Barrett in his endeavours and am proud to second his proposal. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the results of the referendum last October. It might be putting it too strongly to say that people voted overwhelmingly in support of the Seanad, but certainly they voted against all expectations, not for retention of the status quo but for a reformed Upper House. Every indicator of opinion at the time showed there was a great hunger and appetite for reform. Merely making some small changes will not be adequate, but any changes are none the less welcome.

Senator Cáit Keane

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Teach. I thank Senator Sean D. Barrett for the statement he delivered from the father, or prince, of the House, Senator David Norris. I wish him well in his recovery. I compliment Senator Sean D. Barrett on keeping the debate alive by putting this proposal on the agenda today. The question of when the Seanad franchise will be extended has been one of the most talked about issues in recent months in the context of political reform. It has been 21 years since the establishment of the University of Limerick and Dublin City University and even longer since the referendum was passed allowing for the extension of the third level franchise. It is a great shame that no move has been made to implement reform in this regard before now. What we are seeing are only baby steps, but after 21 years it is good to see something.

Back in March we debated the general scheme of the Government's Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill in this House. The public consultation which followed on from the publication of those proposals has closed. I look forward to what the Government comes up with when it collates all of the submissions it has received, its own proposals and the Bills introduced by Senators John Crown, Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone and Senator Sean D. Barrett. If this House is noted for one thing, it is its capacity to improve legislation. It is only by listening to what people here are saying that the Government will come up with something better.

There is, of course, a great deal to be done and it is not a simple task. Whenever Government tries to do something within the confines of legislation rather than the Constitution, it is working to some extent with its hands tied behind its back. The Seanad was established under the Constitution and if we are to change it by legislation, it will only be changeable in certain elements. Every Member of this particular Seanad has already seen some changes about the place. It is notable, for example, that most of the 11 Taoiseach's nominees are not members of either party of government. That change was a one-day wonder, forgotten about quickly like every piece of good news. There is more to be done, but one cannot do everything in one day.

Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill recommends extending the university franchise to all third level institutions but with a different methodology for the traditional university seats. He also proposes splitting the cultural and educational panel into two separate panels. My concern is that by treating the new third level institutions to be included in the franchise differently, there might be a view that they are somehow yellow pack, in contrast to the "real" universities. That is not something I want to see happening. All the third level institutions should be on the same footing.

I welcome the fact that the institutions listed in the Senator's Bill correspond more or less exactly with the list contained in the Government proposal. We all support the objective of extending the third level franchise but, as I said, I have concerns regarding the Senator's proposal to split the cultural and educational panel. Education is not something that need be narrowly defined. An industrial and cultural panel is also an educational panel and should include third level graduates. I am not suggesting that the Senator is proposing that any particular panel be deemed to be lesser than any other. However, assigning the newly enfranchised institutions to a panel separate from the older universities might lead to problems.

My understanding of the technical provisions of the Bill is that there would be a two-year lead-in before the electoral arrangements would become operational. This approach would effectively rule out any change before the next Seanad election, which I suspect is not the Senator's intention. Will he clarify this?

Regarding the proposal to break up and reconstitute the panels, I see no problem with that being done by way of legislation. A question arises, however, in respect of the designation of universities as returning officers under the existing provisions. Would legislation on its own be sufficient to effect the changes envisaged in Senator Sean D. Barrett's proposals without altering the theory, so to speak, of the returning officer? I suggest we could replicate legislation from Article 33 of the Free State Constitution to establish a cross-party or non-party system for representation of important interests and institutions in the country, but that is a matter for another day.

Will the Minister of State indicate when the Government intends to publish its legislation on foot of the consultation process that recently concluded?

The franchise is being extended to the remaining third level institutions and this means that an additional 73,000 people will have a vote.

I have a great deal more to say on the matter but time is against me. I thank Senator Sean D. Barrett for introducing the Bill but I must point out that there are many types of intelligence which it fails to contemplate. I would like all forms of intelligence, and not just that contemplated by a university education, to be represented. There are certain types of intelligence which are more important than that which comes from an academic education. I will not list them all now but will instead wait until a later date to do so.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I compliment Senator Sean D. Barrett on introducing the Bill and welcome the Minister of State. Fianna Fáil published its own Seanad reform Bill and remains committed to it. However, we will be supporting the Senator's Bill because we are anxious to ensure that the issue of Seanad reform remains on the agenda. We are happy to work with other Members in this regard and to find common ground with them.

Senator Sean D. Barrett outlined his reasons for bringing forward this legislation. I am of the view that the Bill raises a number of fundamental questions. For example, its provisions will not affect the number of university seats - currently six - in the Seanad. The Government has already agreed to enact a law, pursuant to a referendum held some years ago, to extend the franchise. Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill would ensure that the franchise would be extended even further and that seats would be added. In that context, the fact that the division of the existing cultural and educational panel into two new constituencies in order to provide for the election of four Members of Seanad Éireann from the educational constituency of the cultural and educational panel by the holders of degrees from third level institutions other than the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin, suggests ten Senators would be elected by those with third level degrees. There will be those who will immediately shout that this smacks of elitism.

Whereas people might criticise the existing panel structure in terms of the fact that county councillors elect 43 Members of the House, I have always argued that there is a degree of extended democracy in this regard in that the Seanad electorate of councillors are elected by the people. Those councillors have a mandate and members of the general public have every opportunity to question them on that mandate at the end of every five-year term. However, they do not question them during that period. In other words, once a councillor is elected and given a mandate, he or she can make up his or her own mind as to the decisions he or she will take while pursuing his or her duties as a councillor. One of those duties is to elect Members of the Seanad. This is an important democratic function. I accept that the existing structure is flawed but it is not as deeply flawed as some might suggest. There appears to be an impression that councillors are somehow irrelevant and that their being responsible for electing Members of this House is undemocratic.

If the Bill is accepted, ten Senators will be elected by those who have third level degrees. That is a significant step to take and I will be interested to hear the Government's response to the proposal. Fianna Fáil has two primary aims when it comes to its proposals for the Seanad. The first is that it should be a check on Government power and scrutinise national and EU legislation. The second aim is that representation in the House should be broadened in order to provide a voice for groups which are not heard in Dáil Éireann. In that context and if Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill were accepted, a number of items of existing legislation would require amendment. One of these is the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (Charter Amendment) Act 1965 (No. 1). The Bill points out that the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland was incorporated under letters of patent dated 11 February 1784, which is a long time ago. The Bill states:

The professional interests for the purposes of the cultural constituency are hereby defined as—

(a) law, and

(b) medicine, including surgery, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and pharmaceutical chemistry.

Will Senator Sean D. Barrett indicate why those particular categories are included? Is the aim to bring graduates from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland into the mix to which the Senator referred?

Under the new section 90 which the Bill proposes to insert into the principal Act, it is stated:

A member of Seanad Éireann for the educational constituency may voluntarily resign his or her membership of Seanad Éireann by notice in writing to the Chairman of Seanad Éireann who shall announce such resignation to Seanad Éireann at the next meeting thereof.

However, the Bill is silent as to how the resulting vacancy should be filled. I have often argued that whenever a vacancy occurs in the Seanad - and irrespective of the side of the House on which it occurs - the Government of the day effectively decides how it is filled. Under the current by-election rules, the vote relating to a vacancy is confined to Members of the Dáil and Seanad and, inevitably, the Government of the day will have a majority. I was re-elected to the House on that basis in a by-election held in 2010. I was the nominee of the then Government and even though the other parties put forward their own candidates - and unless my colleagues had deserted me - my election was a given. It was not my election but rather my nomination that was the achievement in that instance. I wonder whether Senator Sean D. Barrett has given any thought to changing the process relating to by-elections to Seanad Éireann. Perhaps the Bill could be amended in order that when vacancies arise, the relevant voters might be asked to elect replacements. I am of the view that this would be a much more fair and equitable way to proceed.

That to which I refer could also be extended to county council elections. I have never been a fan of the notion that the party in power takes responsibility for nominating replacement candidates. I have always been of the view that we should re-adopt the British model which we previously abandoned in this regard. Under that model, by-elections are held in particular wards or districts in order to fill local authority vacancies rather than their being filled internally.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I welcome the Minister of State and commend Senator Sean D. Barrett for taking the initiative by introducing this Private Members' Bill. This debate is part of a bigger process whereby we are discussing Seanad reform on an ongoing basis. It is very worthwhile to have technically well drafted and comprehensive Bills before us when considering that issue. I do not support the principle behind this Bill but I am in favour of the idea that we should discuss alternative models in the context of how we might implement the decision taken by the electorate in 1979 to ensure that graduates of all third level institutions might elect Senators. It is extremely important, therefore, that we should be presented with different models before we develop a final plan as to how we might proceed.

It is welcome that the Government has given a commitment to implement the 1979 amendment to the Constitution by broadening the electorate relating to the university seats. It has suggested the establishment of one six-person university panel. The Labour Party Senators made a proposal in respect of Seanad reform to the Parliamentary Labour Party in which we called for the latter. Very importantly, however, we also called for reforms to the five vocational panels. I absolutely agree with Senator Sean D. Barrett that - as he has pointed out on many occasions - there should not be a single, stand-alone reform in respect of the six university seats and that there must be broader reforms in respect of the other seats in this House. We can make significant changes to the five vocational panels by way of legislation and without further constitutional amendment. We have debated this matter on many occasions and we all accept that there will not be a further referendum on Seanad reform during the lifetime of the Government. As a result, some aspects - including that which relates to the Taoiseach's 11 nominees - cannot be altered in the next two years. It is clear, however, that amendments to the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts 1947 to 2006 could be introduced - without the need for a constitutional referendum - in order to allow changes to be made to the composition of the five vocational panels which are provided for under Article 18.7 of the Constitution.

The Labour Party Senators proposed to the Parliamentary Labour Party that a panel should be established in respect of the six university seats and that those who will hold those seats in the future should be elected by the graduates of all third level institutions. I will return to that matter in a moment. We also suggested that the method of election relating to the other panels be changed in order to ensure universal suffrage. We are still pushing this in Government circles because the proposal in question is hugely important.

Each person entitled to vote - we are open as to whether this should be as per the local, European or general election register - would have a separate vote for candidates on each of the five panels and university graduates, rather than having an additional franchise, could opt for a vote on the university panel instead of one of the other panels, in order that they would have the same number of votes as everybody else but would have the option for voting for the university panel.

In accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution, we recommended that one panel could be reserved for election not by universal suffrage but by city and county council members so as to preserve the current valuable link between local representatives and government. It is proposed that this be preserved for only one panel, perhaps the Public Administration Panel. We also recommended some provision for gender balance on the panels by extending the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act to require nominating bodies to select at least 30% of their candidates from each gender. Further, we suggested that the panel vote could take place on an all-Ireland or regional basis, in line with the European constituencies so that the electorate and those elected would be of a very different composition to those in Dáil elections. A real concern at Government level, which I believe is a justified concern, is that there would not be duplication in a Seanad elected through universal suffrage with the Dáil. In other words, we should not seek to simply reproduce the geographical representation of the Dáil. There are ways we can get around this while allowing for universal suffrage.

I have outlined what was proposed in detail because that is the method of reform which I favour and that has been agreed upon by the Labour Party Senators group. It is for this reason I could not support the proposal put forward in Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill, although I believe it has some merit. It certainly makes us think about how we can best ensure representation for university graduates. I am grateful also to the board of Trinity College Dublin which supplied all Dublin University Senators with a copy of its submission on 7 April to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill is based on one of the models put forward in the Trinity College Dublin submission, which again is very valuable in that it makes us examine closely how best to ensure representation for graduates of all universities.

The Trinity College Dublin model suggests that extending the single six-person panel to graduates of all the universities will be problematic for a number of reasons. The Government needs to take this on board. Again, Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill would address this issue. It is suggested by Trinity that the single six-person expanded constituency currently proposed by Government to replace the two current constituencies of NUI and Dublin University would be extremely difficult to administer, would have significant financial implications and would discourage some eligible candidates from running for election, while weakening the relationship between elected Senators and their constituency. As a Dublin University Senator, I have some sympathy with this view. There are some pertinent points put forward by the Trinity College Dublin board. On a practical level, based on the last census of the number of graduates in this country, there would be 750,000 citizens entitled to vote for one six-person panel. This would be an enormously difficult electorate to administer for only six seats. Again, Senator Sean D. Barrett has taken this on board in his Bill. On a practical level, there is likely to be more than 45 candidates put forward. In the previous election, there were 19 candidates on the Trinity College Dublin ballot paper and 26 on the NUI ballot paper. In terms of what is proposed, graduates from 80 institutions would be entitled to vote in a new expanded constituency.

I commend Senator Sean D. Barrett for bringing forward this Bill. On behalf of this side of the House, I hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed to the next Stage. I do not believe it appropriate that we would divide on this. All of us appreciate that there are merits in the proposal. It is vital we would all have an opportunity to examine alternative models for implementing the decision of the people in 1979 and the decision of the Government to ensure that graduates of all third level institutions would be entitled to vote in Seanad elections. The model put forward by Senator Sean D. Barrett is but one of the models put forward in the Trinity College Dub;om submission, which I would urge colleagues to read. I can supply a copy of it to those who do not have one. Trinity has also put forward other alternative ways in which graduates of all the institutions would be able to elect Senators. The Government should closely examine whether the six-person panel is the best method. I look forward to further engagement on this issue.

Senator David Cullinane

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd. I commend Senator Sean D. Barrett for bringing forward this Bill and allowing us to again discuss the future of the Seanad. Since the referendum of October 2013 we have not had any real reform of the Seanad, which is what people voted for when they went to the polls in the Seanad referendum.

I will not be supporting this Bill. Prior to, during and since the referendum campaign I have been at pains to point out that from my perspective, there is something rotten at the core of the Seanad. What is rotten at the core of the Seanad is how we are all elected, from those elected by city and county councillors through the various panels to the university panels elected by third and fourth level graduates and those appointed by the Taoiseach of the day. I see this as an affront to democracy. For the Seanad to have any future, be representative of the people and be inclusive, we must have a one person, one vote system. The reality is that 99% of the population of this State cannot vote for Senators. This being the case, how then can we expect the public to have any faith or interest in what the Seanad does or in the Senators who represent them? That is not to take away from the good work done by many Senators, including those in my own party and all parties and none and, including those appointed by the Taoiseach on this occasion and by previous Taoisigh.

It was universally accepted during the course of the referendum campaign that the Seanad in its current form had to go. It was also universally accepted that the Seanad in its current form is elitist, undemocratic and unacceptable. I fail to see how retaining the university panels and extending the franchise to additional university graduates is in any way removing the elitist nature of the Seanad. It deepens and copperfastens it and makes it worse. To accept this legislation as a step forward would be for us to not acknowledge that there is something rotten at the core of the Seanad, namely, how we are elected. I cannot go along with half measures or proposed changes that do not deal with the real issue at the heart of the Seanad.

The Minister of State will be aware that Sinn Féin called for the future of the Seanad to be a matter for discussion by the Constitutional Convention, which has completed its work. In my view, the Constitutional Convention did a very good job and came up with solid proposals for the Government to put to the people by way of referendum. There were many issues with which the previous Constitutional Convention was not able to deal because of its remit and the timeframe involved. Given the success of the recent Constitutional Convention - everybody from all parties and none agrees it was a success - there is scope for a second Constitutional Convention to consider the range of issues which could not be considered by the previous one, including reform of the Seanad. I have no doubt that the majority of citizens on a Constitutional Convention would support a one person one vote system.

We also need to ensure consideration is given to the future of the Seanad in an all-Ireland context. Again, there appeared to be universal acceptance across all parties and none, with a few exceptions, that those resident outside the State, including the Irish diaspora and those living in the North of Ireland, should be able to vote in Seanad elections. This means citizens who live outside this State will have an opportunity to have an input into decision making in this State. Many people would argue that extending the vote in general elections to the Irish diaspora might be a step too far. However, giving them a vote in Seanad elections is a matter worthy of consideration.

There are a number of ways in which we could change the panels.

By their nature, the sectoral panels have not worked. Let us be honest - they have been hijacked by the political parties. Is there any Senator who has not been elected by his or her own party? There has not been a single Independent from the city and county council route - they have all come from the political parties. This will be the case as long as the system remains as is. We could have sectoral panels with a one person, one vote system. The constituencies could be geographical, albeit not as large as those in the European Parliament, which many view as being too large. Instead, we could have four or five geographical constituencies.

Much needs to be done and we cannot accept the Seanad remaining as is, because to do so would be to ensure the continuance of what was wrong. Tinkering around the edges will not be enough. I am sorry that I cannot support Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill. I commend him, as he has pushed for genuine reform of the Seanad. He views the Bill as something that would be of value to the State, but it would not, as it would reinforce the Seanad's elitist element, which should be removed.

I am not just focusing on the university seats, as the way in which I was elected should also be scrapped. It should be a one person, one vote system across the board as opposed to the affront to democracy that is the way in which we are currently elected.

Senator Jim Walsh

This is another in a long line of Private Member's Bills on Seanad reform. The most important element, and one that should be addressed, is that reform of the Seanad should concentrate in the first instance on its powers, functions and remit. The electoral system for the vocational panels should then come under scrutiny. I do not fully subscribe to many people's dismissal of the current system. We elect our county and city councillors to undertake responsibility for a range of functions in their local areas that involve the management of the spending of billions of euro of taxpayers' money and the control of 30,000 to 40,000 staff, yet people suggest that we should not empower them to elect the Upper House of the Parliament. This is the system in other countries as well.

Over the years, this House has included many fine representatives who contributed significantly to debates and the legislative process. Many went on to senior positions in government. The Minister of State was my opposite number in this House on communications, energy and natural resources while Fianna Fáil was in government, if I remember correctly.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

That is right.

Senator Jim Walsh

He has been promoted. Quite a number of members of the Cabinet have taken that route. I do not agree with the denigration, but the disconnect with the public needs to be addressed.

Besides this Bill, Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone have published one, Fianna Fáil has published another and Senator John Crown has published yet another. Elements of each Bill could enhance the electoral process, and I would not be against that. However, if there is to be any change in the composition of the Seanad, the most urgent system crying out for change is the abolition of the 11 Taoiseach's nominees. There should be no Senator who is not elected. The system of appointments was introduced almost 80 years ago-----

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Brennan)

Why?

Senator Jim Walsh

-----to ensure a Government majority in the House. I was not a Senator at the time, but my colleague, Senator Paschal Mooney, was when a Government came to power without an election in 1994. For the three following years, it functioned effectively without a majority in this House. That Seanad responded responsibly to all legislation and debates. Now, when Opposition Members raise issues, Government Members feel obliged to support the Government simply because of party loyalty and the Whip system. The tyranny of the Whip needs to be removed from this House and, at the very least, diluted significantly in the Lower House. In this regard, I am pleased that one Member who, due to his own conviction and conscience, voted against the abortion Bill introduced by the Fine Gael Government has now had the party Whip restored to him. This will be a salutary lesson to many people, particularly in Fine Gael but also in the Labour Party, who struggled with their consciences.

Senator Denis Landy

That is not a matter for this debate.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Brennan)

It is not relevant.

Senator Jim Walsh

It is very relevant. It is about the removal of the Whip in its current form.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Brennan)

Political-----

Senator Jim Walsh

It is also about removing the system of Taoiseach's nominees. Groupthink does not serve us well. It happens in respect of economic issues when, due to party loyalties, people do not oppose something. Many Members in the Minister of State's party will regret that they did not show Deputy Walsh's levels of courage and conviction.

It will not happen under this Government, but I suggest that a group of former politicians, finely balanced from a political perspective, should examine the reports and Bills on Seanad reform and draft a blueprint on how the House should be structured. It should not be left to the current Minister or people in his Department, as it would be a political exercise. However, it will not happen under this Government. I have been a Member for 17 years, and this Government is certainly the most totalitarian that I have ever experienced. That is regrettable.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

What about Charlie Haughey?

Senator Jim Walsh

He would be put in the ha'penny place by some of the things this Government has done since getting into power.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

No.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Brennan)

Tá an t-am istigh.

Senator Jim Walsh

If the Minister of State doubts this, he will discover that I am correct if he does a little canvassing between now and Friday week. The people of Drogheda will inform him.

Senator Cáit Keane

Wishful thinking.

Senator Denis Landy

They have been giving out about Fianna Fáil on the doorsteps.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I congratulate Senator Sean D. Barrett on introducing this Bill, which has commenced a discussion and caused us to consider alternatives. The opinions expressed today have been interesting. One of the first Senators to contribute was Senator Cáit Keane, who referred to the Taoiseach's nominees. I tend not to agree with Senator Jim Walsh, but not agreeing is what we are here to do. Normally, the system of nominees has been used to present the House with members of the Taoiseach's own party. This time, the Government already had a majority in the Seanad. Although four of the Taoiseach's nominees were from the Labour Party, the others were neutrals as far as he could tell. That one has since joined Fine Gael is a different matter.

By the way, I welcome the Minister of State. He is a regular attendee and a good listener.

The reason I am speaking is that having been here for 20 years, I believe the House does great work. It is competent to do so. It does some of its best work when there is no Whip. What strikes me most of all is when somebody stands up and says "I believe in this but am going to vote the other way because I am told that is what I have to do". I would love to get rid of that. There must be a way to do so.

As Senator Jim Walsh reminds us, from 1994 to 1997 the Taoiseach's nominees stayed the same despite the change of Taoiseach. For once, the Government did not have a majority. The five of us in the university seats had the balance of power, which is a powerful thing to have. The legislation that came through during the period was very good. Part of the reason is because there was no Whip. This would be a stronger House if we had more Independent Members as opposed to Members who are obliged to take the Whip. If one looks at the university seats in more recent years, one sees people like Mary Robinson and Senators David Norris, John Crown and Sean D. Barrett. These are people who would not easily have been elected in a constituency. From that point of view, it has worked very well.

The reason I mention Senator Sean D .Barrett's Bill in particular is that there have been a number of other Bills. Senator Katherine Zappone's Bill, which I supported, has been passed in the House. Fianna Fáil has a Bill, as does Senator John Crown, whose Bill has gone through. Each Bill provides us with an opportunity to consider alternatives. The Bills consider whether we can have change in the House without another referendum. The Taoiseach is unlikely to show any enthusiasm for another referendum. As such, Senator Sean D. Barrett has provided for change in his Bill without the need for another referendum. It leaves the six university seats in place but provides for seats for the other higher education institutions. If we get that sort of legislation through, it will strengthen the Houses and democracy. The current form is not working. Senator David Cullinane has said the Seanad in its current form must go. It will not go easily, but we can make changes now. Perhaps it is only tampering, but it is to do something which strengthens the House.

I welcome Senator Sean D. Barrett's proposal. We desperately need the Government to respect the will of the people and provide them with meaningful Seanad reform. They are not getting that at the moment. The way the Government is approaching reform is slow and wrong. The Government Bill on Seanad reform - the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill - will merely reform arrangements for six Members elected by institutions of higher education. That is all it will do. That Bill means that 90% of the 60 seat Seanad would be left unreformed. The Government Bill will also maintain a Seanad electoral system whose underlying principle appears to be "one councillor, five votes". This is the part that really gets me. I would like to think that almost everyone who gets a visit from a canvasser in the next week before the local authority elections will ask candidates if they are in favour of having five votes where citizens have no vote, unless they are university graduates. I ask each elector to say that to everyone who knocks on his or her door to look for a vote in the local authority elections. That change must take place. I am a believer in the university seats and in extending the franchise to all other third level colleges.

By appointing people who were not party-political hacks, the Taoiseach showed that he could follow up. The House has done great work in the past and can continue to do so. I hope the Minister accepts the legislation to get it to the next Stage, even if changes must take place on Committee Stage.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

I dtosach, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le Senator Barrett as ucht an Bhille seo a chur faoi bhráid an tSeanaid. Cé nach bfhuil an Rialtas ag glacadh leis an mBille, tá sé tábhachtach go mbeidh díospóireacht leathan againn agus gur féidir le Seanadóirí ó gach taobh den Teach a dtuairimí a nochtadh. Tuigeann muid go léir gurb é tuairim muintir na hÉireann gur cóir go mbeadh an Seanad beo anseo i gcónaí agus chun sin a chinntiú go dtiocfaidh athrú air. Go háirithe, caithfimid féachaint ar an gceist seo. We are currently engaged in a process of reforming arrangements for the election of Members of the Seanad, particularly by the institutions of higher education in the State. Debate leads to better policy and Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill provides us with a chance to examine alternative approaches. This can only enhance the policy-making process.

The Government does not agree with the proposal which is at the centre of the Bill. The proposal is to increase the number of Members of the Seanad elected by the universities and institutions of higher education by reducing the number of Senators elected from four of the five vocational panels. The Government has already set out its approach to electoral reform. The general scheme of a Bill to implement the 1979 constitutional amendment to extend the right to vote to graduates of other colleges was approved by the Government and published for consultation on 14 February 2014. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, outlined to the House on 11 March 2014 the provisions contained in the general scheme and heard the views of Members of the Seanad on its contents. That session was productive and there were useful contributions and observations from all sides.

Today's Second Stage debate is about the Bill Senator Sean D. Barrett has placed before us. The Bill would result in the retention of the two university constituencies in their current form. The University of Dublin - Trinity College - and the National University of Ireland would continue to elect three Senators each. The Bill proposes that the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts be amended to provide for a reduction in the number of Members to be elected from four of the five vocational panels and the introduction of a new educational constituency. Four Senators would be elected from this new constituency comprising graduates of those institutions of higher education not included in the current university constituencies. The new educational constituency would be formed within the cultural and educational panel which would increase in size from five to eight seats.

To provide for this, three of the other panels - Agricultural, Labour and Industrial and Commercial - would each lose one seat. The Administrative Panel would be unchanged. With four of the eight seats on the Cultural and Education Panel to be elected by higher education graduates, this panel would also effectively lose one seat. The revised composition of the Cultural and Educational Panel would, therefore, be as follows; four seats would be elected by the newly-formed educational constituency comprising the University of Limerick, Dublin City University, the institutes of technology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and other colleges recognised by the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland; and the four other seats would be elected from what is described as "the cultural constituency". As a result, the education element of the Cultural and Educational Panel would have a predominant emphasis on higher education, which although important, is only one part of a much broader education sector. The combined educational and cultural representation in the Seanad, when the current university Senators are included, would rise to 14. This would be greater than for the other vocational sectors. The Agricultural Panel would have ten seats, a reduction of one; the Labour Panel would now have ten seats, also a reduction of one; the Industrial and Commercial Panel would have eight seats, again a reduction of one; and the Administrative Panel would be unchanged with seven seats.

The approach in the Private Members' Bill before us is not consistent with the provisions contained in the general scheme of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill approved by the Government and published in February.

The general scheme is part of the legislative process to implement the 1979 amendment to the Constitution that provided for the reorganisation of the existing university constituencies and the extension of the franchise to other institutions of higher education in the State. The 1979 constitutional amendment relates specifically to the six university Senators. It looks as though the Bill goes beyond the parameters envisaged in the amendment. Instead of amending the existing university constituencies, the Bill proposes a reorganisation of the vocational panels. It does not, therefore, adequately address the 1979 amendment. Passage of the Bill would result in the retention of inequalities. The two existing university constituencies, although substantially different in terms of their size, would continue to elect three Senators each. While the right to vote in Seanad elections would be extended to graduates of other institutions of higher education, this would be at the expense of the current vocational panels and lead to a diminution in their representation. Therefore, one sixth of the Seanad would be elected by institutions of higher education under the Bill. This raises the question of whether the composition of the Seanad would reflect the intention of the drafters of the Constitution, who provided for six Senators to be elected by such institutions.

The Government's approach provides that each graduate would have one vote in the election of university Members. This is a matter of principle underpinning the general scheme of the Government's Bill. It would bring a greater element of equality to the current system, under which a person who is a graduate of both NUI and Trinity College Dublin can vote in each of the constituencies. The Bill we are discussing would preserve the present arrangements and potentially enhance the existing inequalities. Based on the Bill as presented, a graduate could potentially vote in what would become three university and higher education constituencies if they had a degree from a college in each of the constituencies. I note that there is a prohibition on a candidate seeking election in more than one of these three constituencies.

There are a number of significant differences between Senator Sean D. Barrett's Bill and the Government's Bill, which provides for a six-seat constituency for institutions of higher education to replace the present NUI and University of Dublin constituencies. All holders of a qualification at ordinary degree level or equivalent would to be entitled to register to vote in the constituency. There would be a single register of electors, with every voter having only one vote no matter how many qualifications he or she holds. There is provision for an updated nomination process to require 40 instead of ten assenters to support a nomination or, alternatively, payment of a deposit of €900. As a further measure, new arrangements are proposed for the filling of casual vacancies. These are to be modelled on the replacement candidate provisions for European Parliament elections.

As well as being forwarded to the Seanad for consideration, a copy of the general scheme was sent to the Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht for the consideration of the committee. Copies were sent to the 81 institutions of higher education, inviting their views. The general scheme was also published on the Department's website in order for the wider public to make submissions. The 21 submissions received have been published and I note that one of them was from Senator Barrett. I also acknowledge that other Members of the House have made submissions, and these are welcome.

In parallel with the consultation process, there are practical issues that must be addressed. Aside from questions of policy, the modalities of voter registration and the running of elections will give rise to particular administrative challenges, especially given the scale of change to the electorate that is envisaged. A technical working group has been established, chaired by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which includes nominees from the Department of Education and Skills, the National University of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, the Irish Universities Association, Institutes of Technology Ireland and the Higher Education Colleges Association. The group has met on four occasions and has provided important and useful input. All of this work is progressing well and represents a better and more focused opportunity for reform.

I would like to address some of the technical provisions contained in section 6. I refer to the new sections 88 and 89 of what would become the amended Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts. The sections deal with the compilation of the register and the appointment of a returning officer. The Bill provides that each institution retain its own register and that the returning officer be selected by the presidents of the institutions.

The provisions envisage a two year lead-in time before the new electoral arrangements would become operational - as described in the Bill, "the year second next after the commencement of this Act". This approach would rule out any change before the next Seanad general election. The Government's scheme has been published with the intention of progressing it as soon as possible. This, we believe, is a more ambitious approach to implementing reform.

The Private Members' Bill is definitely welcome. It seriously adds to the level of debate and interest, but we believe it contains too many provisions as it is presently constituted. The Government has set out its own position. However, the Bill before us offers an alternative approach to representation in the Seanad from the so-called other institutions of higher education in the State that the Government does not agree with. We believe that it would create more problems than it purports to address.

Along with some of my colleagues, I have been a Member of Seanad for five years, since 1997. Therefore, I can say that at every debate the input from all Members, but particularly from university Senators, has always been enlightening, interesting and informative. They have made and continue to make a very significant contribution to public debate, and indeed to explaining the political processes. They are often interpreted in an independent and intellectual way, and they do put the issues out there, which is welcome.

I send my good wishes to Senator David Norris, like other Members of the House. I have not been here since he was in hospital, but we wish him well. I also thank Senator Sean D. Barrett for increasing the range of ideas and opportunities through this debate.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I liked the words used by the Minister of State when he described our contribution as being always "enlightening, interesting and informative," and I wrote them down. I thank him for his response and I also thank my colleagues here for their contributions.

In a personal sense, I have made 59 new friends since I joined the other Members of the Seanad three years ago. That is why the place has been endorsed by the public and that is why it is important that the Seanad goes forward in the way in which the Minister of State aspires for it. I am afraid the proposal of a single mega-constituency would allow the political parties to take over the university seats. As he said, having an alternative is absolutely vital. We need people who are not involved in political parties and we need representation of minorities. As he said, we need expertise, and I am afraid we would lose it if we had 870,000 voters in a mega-constituency. I thank him for the courtesy that he always shows us in the House and for his regular appearances here.

The Minister of State's speech as originally circulated, although I think it was corrected afterwards, stated: "The combined educational and cultural representation in the Seanad, when the current university Senators are included, would rise to 14," but it later states: "one sixth of the Seanad would be elected by institutions of higher education." That means the number would be ten and not 14. That is the kind of technical matter that we will be discussing as the debate advances.

I will thank the speakers in the order in which they addressed us. Senator Cáit Keane stressed the importance of keeping this debate alive and mentioned our role in consultation and improving legislation. There is no yellow-pack university, but we have given all institutions of higher education a constituency in this legislation, which is important.

With regard to Senator Paschal Mooney's comments, in our constituencies it is important to have by-elections. The Government proposed that there be a list system and that the next person on the list be selected. I opposed that proposal in European elections as well. By-elections play an important part in the electoral process. One of the observations I sent to the Minister, to which he referred, was that there should be by-elections for the Seanad, rather than a system in which the next person on a list is chosen to fill vacancies. That is a fault with the European elections that should not be adopted in Oireachtas elections. It might also run into constitutional problems.

I thank all contributors for their views and shall finish with one minute outstanding. I again thank, most sincerely, everybody in the House. I value this House hugely. Everything that I have proposed here, and in the Bill, is to ensure this House continues to expand and help Ministers and the Taoiseach in the governance of the country, for the reasons I have mentioned. We have played a fantastic role since 1922 and since 1937. Long may it continue. I hope the independent university Senators are not lost, because I value them, just as the Minister does.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 4.50 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.