Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Oct 2024

Vol. 303 No. 5

Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill 2024: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Darragh O'Brien)

I am pleased to bring the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill 2024 before the House today.

There are three main components in the Bill. First, it proposes a significant extension of the franchise for electing the six university members of Seanad Éireann to graduates of designated institutions of higher education in Ireland who are Irish citizens, have received a degree from a designated institution and are aged 18 years or more.

Second, it amends the system for electing the six university members. These members are currently elected by graduates of the National University of Ireland and Trinity College Dublin through two three-seat constituencies; the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin constituencies. This Bill proposes the establishment of a new six seat higher-education constituency.

Third, the Bill provides that the National University of Ireland will be the central registration authority responsible for maintaining the register of electors. The central registration authority will appoint a chief registration officer. There is provision in the Bill for a registration officer in each designated institution of higher education who will be required to assist the chief registration officer in the provision of information they hold so that an applicant’s claim can be verified.

Senators will recall that the issues being addressed in the Bill before us today were previously discussed during the debates on the Private Members Bill sponsored by Senators Byrne, Casey and Cassells. That was the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill 2020. I commend my colleagues on the work that they did on that and indeed for the debates we had at that time. During those debates I was clear that the Government was not opposed to the general aim of the proposals in the Private Members' Bill. However, at the time I highlighted the importance of ensuring that the Bill covered all the main elements that would be expected in a legislative electoral code. The Bill before us today does exactly that. Of course, since the publication of the Private Members' Bill, the Supreme Court delivered an important judgment in a case brought by a graduate of the University of Limerick, seeking an extension of voting rights to the Seanad university elections to graduates of third level institutions other than Trinity College Dublin the National University of Ireland. In its judgment the Supreme Court determined that sections 6 and 7 of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act, 1937, which provide for the election of members of the Seanad by certain university graduates are unconstitutional, as they are not consistent with Article 18(4)(2) of the Constitution. The requirement to extend voting rights to other third level institutions beyond the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin was established by the Supreme Court judgment. The Bill I am bringing forward addresses the issues raised by the Supreme Court. I want to briefly elaborate on the provisions of the Bill.

Part 1 of the Bill, that is sections 1 to 5, addresses preliminary and general matters.

Part 2, sections 6 – 26, provides the detailed legislative basis for the new higher education constituency, along with establishing the franchise for the new constituency and detailed provisions around the registration of electors.

Section 6 provides for a new higher education constituency which will elect six members and be comprised of the designated institutions of higher education as defined by the Higher Education Authority Act of 2022. It also provides that a person can vote more than once in an election in the higher education constituency. Part 2 also sets out the eligibility criteria for being registered as an elector.

Section 7 provides that a person must be an Irish citizen who has reached the age of 18 and received a degree from one of the designated institutions. Sections 8 and 9 propose the governing body of the National University of Ireland and propose that as the central registration authority it will keep a registration of electors for the higher education constituency. The first register of electors will be published on 1 April 2025. Sections 10 and 11 in part 2 provide for a chief registration officer and a registration officer in each of the designated institutions.

Sections 12 to 19 set out the detailed requirements for compiling and maintaining the register of electors. That includes a submission of claims to be on the first register of electors and detailing the information required by a claimant. There is a provision for the chief registration officer to share the information received in a claim for the purposes of verifying the particular submitted, including with the relevant designated institution and in the case of identifying particulars with the Minister for social protection. The chief registration officer is empowered to request further information from an applicant for the purposes of verifying eligibility.

Sections 20 to 23 provide for the reimbursement of expenses arising from the preparation and revision of the register. It also provides for it to be an offence to use the register for non-electoral or non-statutory purposes, for the establishment of a database of information relating to persons entitled to be on the register of electors and for the sharing of information by the chief registration officer with the designated institution, with the Minister for social protection, other Government Ministers or specified bodies. Information would be shared to assist with maintaining the accuracy of the register of electors.

In Part 2, sections 24 and 25 also provide for the establishment of an advisory committee to advise the chief registration officer as to his or her functions. The final section in Part 2, section 26, provides for a role for An Coimisiún Toghcháin in relation to the register of electors, including that it may undertake research and may make recommendations.

Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill include amendments to the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act of 1937. In Part 3, sections 27 to 29 include an amendment to the Social Welfare Consolidations Act of 2005 to ensure that the NUI can process personal public service numbers, PPSN.

Part 4, section 30 sets out the amendments in relation to the conduct of by elections in the period between 21 March 2025 and the date of the first general election with the higher education constituency.

Part 5, sections 31 to 40, provides for the nomination of candidates and the filling of casual vacancies in the higher education constituency. It provides that the nomination of a candidate in the higher education constituency will require the assent of 60 persons who are registered electors in the constituency or the payment of a deposit of €1,800. It also provides that where a casual vacancy arises in this constituency the vacancy will be filled using a replacement candidate list similar to what is in place for filling vacancies to the European Parliament.

Part 6, sections 41 to 45, provide for expenditure by candidates at Seanad elections in the higher education constituency. This part amends the Electoral Act of 1997 to provide for reimbursement of electoral expenses up to the value of €13,750 to a successful candidate or indeed an unsuccessful candidate whose number of votes at election exceeds one quarter of the quota.

Section 43 provides for the insertion of a new section into the Electoral Act of 1997 to provide that the limit of election expenses which may be incurred by a candidate is set out at €55,000. The Bill's Schedule consists of 34 rules and sets out the registration rules for the higher education constituency. It also concludes the process for an annual revision of the register including the publication of an electors list in January of each year, and the entitlement for any person who is not on the list to make a claim to be registered, as well as setting the date for publishing the list of claims and the process and deadline for making objections. The register will be revised by 31 May, with annual publication on 1 June. Importantly, there is provision in the rules to allow designated institutions to submit claims on behalf of and with the consent of persons they have awarded a degree to.

This Bill brings about significant reform of the process for electing Seanad university Members. It represents a significant expansion of the franchise for electing the six Members in question and, crucially, it addresses the issues raised in the judgments of the Supreme Court last year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Niall Blaney)

I thank the Minister. Before I call the next speaker, I welcome the deputation from Stormont to the Public Gallery. The members of the committee on health are very welcome - Ms Liz Kimmins, MLA, chair, Mr. Danny Donnelly, MLA, deputy chair, Ms Linda Dillon, MLA, Ms Órlaithí Flynn, MLA, Ms Nuala McAllister, MLA and Mr. Colin McGrath, MLA. I hope our visitors enjoy the proceedings. I call on Senator Byrne who has 15 minutes.

Senator Malcolm Byrne

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I too welcome delegation from Stormont who have arrived for an important discussion on electoral reform of this Chamber.

There is nothing politicians like to talk about more than electoral reform and changes to the operation of politics and so on, but this is a piece of reform that is long overdue. I doubt there are a few in this House that would even remember the referendum in 1979 on the seventh amendment of the Constitution which provided for changes that would allow an expansion of the franchise for university graduates. I thank the Minister and his officials for working on this, but it is wrong that the State failed to act on the decision of the public in the referendum over this long period of time. Year after year governments failed to take action. The Minister referenced the Bill that I and colleagues brought forward in this House. It is a pity Tomás Heneghan had to take a case as far as the Supreme Court to force the Government to take action on that. I commend him on so doing, but it is critical we now enact this legislation and do it before this Oireachtas concludes. It should be seen, I hope, as part of a broader and more fundamental reform of the Seanad. It should not just be seen as one element and there are other things I would love to see happen to reform the House, but this specifically deals with addressing the question of the university graduate panels.

I welcome that we are moving to a single six-seat panel. This might be more appropriate on Committee Stage, but we might have some debate about where the Bill talks about the institutions being designated institutions under the Higher Education Authority Act. I am concerned, for instance, that those who hold degrees from the National College of Ireland or some private institutions that award level 8 degrees recognised by the State may not be included within this. It may also be appropriate to debate whether graduates of universities in the North could be included as part of this legislation as well. I appreciate there may be some complications to doing that, but it is certainly something worthy of consideration. I welcome that it will streamline much of the process when it comes to the management of this election because one of the difficulties for the NUI and Trinity has been maintaining the databases of electors. It has always been my view that if people are graduates they should opt in and request their ballot because it will reduce cost to the State.

I noticed a particular innovation, which is the introduction of the list system for casual vacancies. The Minister will be aware there is a vacancy in this House already. There would be an enormous cost for holding that election for what would be a short term in the House. It should be considered, but for democracies it is important people are represented. I am supportive of the Bill on this, though I wonder whether it signals something. I am aware the Electoral Commission is considering whether we look at moving towards a list system rather than holding by-elections more generally. Obviously with the European Parliament and local elections we effectively operate a list system in that parties nominate replacements. We do not do so with the Dáil or Seanad. We are seeing it introduced in this legislation and it makes sense. We can debate it in more detail, but I wonder whether it is a signal from the Minister’s Department that it is something that will also be considered there.

This is a fundamentally good piece of legislation. It is, as I said, long overdue. I hope that in his response the Minister gives the House a commitment that insofar as he is in a position to so do we will ensure this legislation is enacted before the end of this Oireachtas. I appreciate there are decisions above his pay grade with regard to that, but it is one of the urgent pieces of legislation we need to get through to ensure we finally see the extension of the franchise. I would like to see it in place for the next Seanad elections because we should look to include graduates of UL, DCU and the technological universities and other institutions. I appreciate that may not be possible and realise there is a quite a bit of administrative work covered in this legislation. If it is not in place for the next Seanad elections I ask that it be in place for the ones after that.

I again thank the Minister and his officials for their work on this Bill. I will certainly be supporting it on behalf of the Fianna Fáil group.

Senator Tom Clonan

I thank Senator Mullen for letting me lead off. The Minister is very welcome to the House. I am that rare commodity in that I am a Trinity Senator, even though I am from Finglas. I am very proud to be a representative of that august institution here and very grateful to have been elected.

I voted for Seanad reform in the last referendum. Sad to say, I was a teenager in 1979, believe it or not, so I remember that referendum, which led to a constitutional amendment expanding the franchise to all graduates of higher educational institutions within the State. Notwithstanding the fact I am one of three Trinity Senators I welcome the expansion of the franchise. It is high time and it would be useful if, in the near future, the recommendations of the Manning report for more broad reform of this Chamber were implemented.

I want to speak to the Minister about the probably unintentional exclusion of the private and independent colleges from the franchise, which Senator Byrne mentioned. Senator Byrne referenced the National College of Ireland. I am thinking of institutions like Griffith College, Dublin Business School and City Colleges. Many graduates of these sit in both Houses and have made a huge contribution to Irish life. They are fully accredited by Quality and Qualifications Ireland and were accredited by its predecessors HETAC and the NCEA, so it is probably an unintended omission that they are not included in the legislation. However, graduates of those institutions comprise about 10% of our overall graduate population, so it would be useful if we could include them in this legislation. I intend to table some amendments in that regard. They are not very extensive or lengthy. Maybe it would be useful if I sent them to the Minister and his officials in advance so they could have a look at them. I hope he will accept them. It is about the principle of extending the franchise so it goes to all graduates and not just graduates of publicly-funded institutions like Trinity, UCD, UL or the technological universities.

I wanted to say something about our experience as a family of a private college student. My son Eoghan, who is 22, is in his final year studying applied social sciences at Dublin Business School. He has restricted eyesight. His fine motor function is very compromised. He is in a wheelchair and has an assistance dog. He has a brilliant personal assistant, Andressa, who goes in with him. He has to absorb the entire syllabus cognitively because he cannot take notes. When he is writing essays he has to recall his arguments. He has to speak his arguments to the scribe who writes them down.

He has to construct the structure of his essays and continuous assessments internally. If he is going to quote the literature, which he must do, he has to recall that himself. It is extraordinary. He also has dysarthric scanning speech. Dublin Business School has done everything in its power to assist and support him through his third level journey.

At the beginning of that journey, we learned that the funding available to disabled students through the Higher Education Authority was not available to him, even though he had applied for this course in good faith through the Central Applications Office. We got the place and were delighted as a family; we could not believe it that our son was going to university. Then we learned that the HEA would not provide the funding because it was a private college. We appealed to the then Minister, now Taoiseach, Deputy Harris. We had a very brief phone call and he said the principle was that the supports should follow the student and should not be confined to the institution. He changed the rule and Eoghan was then able to go to university, and all disabled students are able to attend those private colleges. It is the same principle here. It was an unintended exclusion. If the principle is access to education for my son and his supports, then the principle should also hold in respect of access to the franchise. It should not be confined to the institution.

Before we got those supports in place, I had to attend Eoghan's lectures with him. You can imagine how embarrassing it would be to have your dad with you in college. I was also lecturing in TU Dublin and that is when I discovered the great value of Dublin Bikes. I would go to some of Eoghan's lectures with him and support and assist him, and then I would hop on a bicycle and cycle over to TU Dublin to do my lectures. I found the standard of his lectures far superior to mine, so that was a bit of a wake-up call. In that experience, the private colleges are actually very diverse. Lots of students who cannot get into university by the traditional route will go through the fee-paying route. They are not silos of rich, privileged kids. There are actually lots of kids from non-traditional backgrounds. It is very diverse and it would be a shame to have them excluded. I am going to submit some amendments and I hope the Minister will be able to accommodate some if not all of them. It makes sense. I thank him again for bringing this legislation forward.

Senator Rónán Mullen

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome this reforming legislation but I am reminded, as I have so often been, of a story. There are different versions of it but it is about the old man in Connemara. Some tourists stop the car and ask for directions to Dublin. After scratching his head, he says: "To be honest with you, I would not start from here at all." Frankly, when I look at this legislation, if it is to be called reforming legislation, a Bill that simply extends the franchise for university graduates to elect Seanadóirí to include other institutes of higher education is not really the reform of Seanad elections that we need. When the referendum to abolish the Seanad failed, it was taken to mean that the people voted to keep the Seanad but they wanted it reformed. We would all agree with that. Somewhere then, the idea went about in the ether or in the imaginary that because we had one referendum, we could not have another. That is nonsense. Proper reform of the Seanad, both in how it is elected and in respect of its functions, would necessarily require the joint approach of a constitutional referendum, to recast the way the Seanad is elected in a way that is not unwieldy, and legislation that would implement it. That is not happening here. The Government is taking a minimalist approach within a minimalist approach by simply seeking to reform the way the university Seanadóirí are elected, and that only because it has been pressured into doing so by a Supreme Court judgment.

The Seanad needs to be reformed in terms of its purpose, how it operates and its scope, and in terms of how it is elected. We saw this year, in the intervention of a number of Senators, including myself, on the controversial referendum proposals from the Government and on the hate speech legislation, the vital role the Seanad can play in asking questions and bringing to public attention problems with legislation and Government policy that were not fully ventilated in the Dáil. If there was ever a year when the Seanad proved its worth, this was it. It is to the credit of Senator Chambers on the Government side that she also enabled the possibility for full and thorough scrutiny of that controversial legislation colloquially referred to as the hate speech legislation, showing that is was not just a group of Independents. That was the Seanad at its best, in my view. For it to continue to do that kind of work, we would need to see much less emphasis on the party Whip system. Since the Seanad cannot ultimately frustrate the Dáil's intent anyway, and can only delay legislation, there is no reason there would not be a culture where Senators on all sides were fully free to critique, think about, muse, reflect on, propose and vote for amendments to legislation, not on the basis of party diktat but on the basis of whether the ideas being proposed were good or not. I would like to see that reform spirit more present than it is now.

On how the Seanad is elected, I freely admit and have always said that I do not think it is a good idea in this day and age that graduates would have access to votes that citizens without degrees do not. I think of my own mother and my late father, who went to college, and many other people who had so many good ideas about policy and legislation but were simply deprived of a vote because they were neither elected representatives nor university graduates. That is anachronistic. There is all sorts of bogus modernisation going on around here, but if we were serious about modernisation it would be a good idea to adopt the principle that every citizen should have a vote for the Seanad. Anything else is a disgrace.

I have been proposing for years that it would be a good idea to elect the Seanad by way of a list system. Citizens all over the country could vote for the party or group which represents the ideas that they want and the seats would then be divvied out proportionally. It would be an open list system so that people voting for the Fianna Fáil group, the Labour group, the Christian democrat group or whatever could nominate within that list whom they wanted to get the seat if there was a seat to be got.

Senator Malcolm Byrne

Is a new group being formed?

Senator Rónán Mullen

We could have the human dignity alliance, we could have Aontú, there are lots of good people and good parties around. Having said that, the university constituencies provide the ground that is there to be hurled and I am very happy to have been enabled by the voters four times now, and I hope there will be a fifth, to hurl that ground, for all the flaws in the system.

I would ask the Minister to clarify a couple of things. Maybe they were already clarified in his speech; I am sorry I was delayed on the way over. Is it automatically the case that this coming election will not take place under the new system and that it cannot but be that this new system will only apply to the election after the next?

In my 17 years in the Seanad I have had lots of dealings with the National University of Ireland and I am very pleased that they are to be appointed as the chief body responsible for this registration. I have encountered nothing but competence and courtesy from the National University of Ireland and its staff. It is not that long ago that the very future of the National University of Ireland was in question. That institution has more than proved its merit and worthiness over the years. Certainly its team is more than equipped to implement this new legislation in a conscientious and effective way. I would ask, though, whether it is intended that people who are currently registered to vote on the TCD and NUI panels will be required to take a fresh step. I would think it better that people not be disenfranchised, even temporarily, by any step required by legislation or administration. It should be the case that those who are already registered on the Trinity and NUI panels would be automatically on any new register that would be established, and that the register would be built up from there, involving a proper and well-resourced Government information campaign to graduates of all the higher institutes of education to get on the register so that the vote will be maximised.

Will it continue to be the case that election to this new higher education panel will continue to be by postal vote and registered post?

I want to ask about the status of graduates who are Irish citizens and received degrees over the years that were either delivered or partially delivered by a recognised university. For example, a person night have a degree that was in some way delivered by Trinity or the National University of Ireland but in some way was validated by a university elsewhere, outside of this jurisdiction. Will such Irish citizens be enfranchised or capable of being enfranchised, under the new system? Those are the issues.

I am glad to see this reform is taking place. I commend the graduate who brought us to this point at least by bringing a case that met with the approval of the Supreme Court. One could argue, having regard to the wording of the Constitution, that it was a case of judicial activism that led us to this point but perhaps it was a case of virtuous judicial activism because the people did vote to enable the widening of the constituencies in 1979. It is passing strange that that was never implemented in legislation, regardless of whether there was a constitutional obligation to so implement. I must say, and I am still thinking of that old man in Connemara, this is not where I would be starting from if I was talking about reforming either the purpose of the Seanad or the means of electing any part of same. I would hope that this, therefore, is but a temporary measure on the way to what I think would be quite an enlightened system. A list system would not compete with the Dáil, in that if you were voting on a national list system you are not getting between the people and their locally elected Deputies. You do not necessarily have to elect the Seanad at the same time as a Dáil election. It could really be an opportunity to give a more powerful and interesting Seanad into the future building on the achievements that are already there. I ask the Government to open its mind to the great possibilities that are there using a list system or otherwise.

Senator Maria Byrne

I thank the Minister for coming here to discuss this all important Bill. I welcome Tomás Heneghan and congratulate him on his action in the Supreme Court last year. I say that because for many years I have felt that the university panel should have been expanded to other third level institutes.

I must declare that I have a vote from NUI. When I graduated after gaining a master's degree, Senator Mullen was one of the first people to tell me that I am entitled to a vote and explained how to go about registering.

Senator Rónán Mullen

How altruistic of me.

Senator Maria Byrne

It is good to include third level institutes and graduates. I welcome the fact that NUI will become the overarching body and will register everybody.

I agree with Senator Mullen that the people who are already on the register should be transferred over but a publicity campaign is necessary to let people know because many people have gone through the system, graduated and may not be aware that they are entitled to a university vote, once this legislation is enacted.

When I think of the lobbying that went on for many years, I wish to pay tribute to a former colleague, Mr. Diarmuid Scully. He is a former counsellor in UL, is a graduate of UL and was a lecturer in UL. He went on to be involved in electoral reform around the directly-elected mayor process. In his earlier days as a member of the council, he was one of the first people who started shouting about the fact that graduates of UL and other institutes should have a Seanad vote. I think of him and the many others who were involved in that issue and believe that the decision made last year was the right one. As for the A list, will we have an A list and a B list similar to the position in Europe at present? Also, how do people get involved? Do they need to be nominated? Can people put themselves forward? How do they get on the list?

I agree with what Senator Malcolm Byrne said about some private institutes. Many of them are recognised in the State. They are level 9 degrees even though they were granted by a private institute. I think of places like Griffith College and Marino College that often fall between the stools in terms of support because they are private institutes. I ask the Minister to consider this matter.

This is a good news story and is the right way to go. However, I am disappointed that the provision will not be in place for the next Senate election but understand the reason. I believe that the provision should be implemented as soon as possible and that the Bill should pass all Stages, possibly under the current Government, because the people who graduated from all the different universities and third level institutes have fought for such recognition for a long time. It is a good news story today and I thank the Minister for bringing forward this Bill on Second Stage. I conclude by wishing the Bill every success.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I welcome the Minister to the House. The Supreme Court recently found that the laws limiting the electorate for the Seanad university panels are unconstitutional so the Oireachtas must legislate to expand the franchise. I commend Tomás Heneghan and FLAC on taking this landmark case to the Supreme Court. The judgment represents an opportunity for much-needed root and branch reform of this House. We need root and branch reform of the Seanad.

Sinn Féin fundamentally believes that the majority of the Seanad should be elected by the public, including Irish citizens in the North and overseas. Indeed, Sinn Féin, myself and other Senators, including Senators Higgins and McDowell, worked tirelessly to produce this report on Seanad reform as part of the Seanad reform implementation group. The group worked tirelessly to fully reflect the range of reforms recommended in the Manning report. The resulting report and draft legislation would fundamentally reform this House into a more representative and diverse Chamber.

The Supreme Court ruling marks an opportunity for full root and branch reform of the Seanad. Regrettably, the opportunity has been missed. We will not settle for piecemeal reform. We are willing and able to work with the Government to implement this legislation. This Bill is on the Order Paper and takes the form of the Seanad Bill 2020.

In 2018, the group worked tirelessly for seven months. We engaged in good faith with the then Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who established the group to advise the Government and implement the proposals of the Manning report. The group worked tirelessly to produce a report. The then Taoiseach set out the terms of reference for the group which are as follows:

- To consider how to implement the recommendations of the Manning Report ... in the context of the acceptance of the overall principles of the recommendations of the Manning Report, to consider whether any specific variations on its recommendations are desirable or necessary;

- To consider and prepare any recommended amendments to the legislation as proposed by the Manning Report;

- To provide in its report the complete text of a bill to implement the group’s proposals;

- To consider and make recommendations for any phasing of implementation of the Bill’s proposals; [and]

- To submit the group’s final report by ... October 2018.

We did all of that. I was totally committed to that process, as was Senator Higgins and the chair of the group, Senator Michael McDowell. It is scandalous that the Government has reneged on its commitment to reform. It is also scandalous because we worked tirelessly for seven months in 2018 in good faith and the chairperson presented the report to the Taoiseach only for the report to be dismissed so coolly in the Dáil.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Coolly.

Senator Fintan Warfield

This was by a Taoiseach who you would swear did not set out the terms of reference. You would swear he did not even write them. I have the transcript of the debate on 13 February 2019, in which Deputy Varadkar answered questions tabled by Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Brendan Howlin. Most jarring of all is the then Taoiseach's response.

He starts outlining constitutional problems with the group's report. Even though he has set out terms of reference to explore how we can legislatively change and reform the Chamber, he starts muddying the waters with constitutional issues. I quote the transcript of his contribution in the Dáil:

A further problem relates to the panels themselves, which, I understand, derive from a papal encyclical in the 1930s and which do not represent the 21st century. There is no panel dealing with science and technology, for example, but there is one which ... [relates to] administration.

Then he says it is open to any party that wishes to do so to bring forward the legislation, as if he has had no involvement at all in this whole process. This is from a man who signed off on the terms of reference.

We should be dealing with the Seanad Bill 2020. That Bill would radically reform elections to the Seanad. It includes the very proposal we are discussing, to have a single six-seat university constituency of all graduates from across the island. It would also provide that 43 seats would be filled by election across five vocational panels and that 28 seats would be filled by election by the people of Ireland, including Irish citizens from the North, who would be able to register on their vocational panel of interest. The Bill to achieve what we are discussing, therefore, is that which was developed by an all-party group set up by the Taoiseach. That is the Bill we should be discussing.

I also regret that Irish citizens who are graduates of Queen's University, St. Mary's University, Ulster University, Stranmillis University College and the regional colleges across the North are not included in this Bill. I would like to see the Bill amended in that regard.

I have nothing further to say other than to express my disappointment. This Bill is a bit of a cop-out from a Government that has always been unwilling, and a previous Government that was unwilling, to deal with reform. The current Government has been dragged kicking and screaming into this proposal by a Supreme Court case, and I commend Tomás Heneghan on taking the case. I believe he wrote to all of us. He urges us to oppose this Bill. He says the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case urges us to oppose the Bill. He asks if we want to send a message that there is something uniquely qualifying about a college degree that makes some people more worthy of holding a right to vote in Seanad elections than others across the island. He concludes that this is the moment when Seanad voting rights must be extended to all and that there will be no better opportunity than the one that faces us today. The Government seems to have missed the opportunity to genuinely reform the Seanad. It reminds us, if we were in any doubt, that this Government has no interest in Seanad reform. To be truly honest, this Bill should be scrapped and we should be discussing the Seanad Bill 2020. That is the Bill that would ensure that the majority of seats in this House are filled by election by the public, and that is what should happen.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

We need to be clear about what is in front of us. It would be misrepresentative to present it either as the reform we need of the Seanad or even as a first step towards that reform. What we have now is not the beginning of a path to reform; rather, it is the latest play in what has been a litany of blocks, delays and obstructions put in the way of Seanad reform by governments for a long time, but in particular by the c current and previous Governments and the two parties that have worked together in them. Being really clear, the plan consistently has been that the Government obstructs, delays and then obstructs again. It is only because it has run out of road, thanks to the case that was taken to the Supreme Court - and, with others, I commend Tomás Heneghan and FLAC on taking that course - and because of that running out of road on obstruction and delay that we now see the latest move, which is to dilute. It is an attempt to put forward the weakest possible proposal, the absolute minimum, that the Government has to put forward because the Supreme Court made it do so. It sends a very poor signal out to the public. It sends a message of a Government kicking and screaming into the tiniest fragment of reform and a minimalist approach that is completely out of step with the spirit and, indeed, the results of every time we have asked the public to vote on the Seanad and on Seanad reform.

When the public were asked and given the opportunity in 1979, they voted for expansion to the extent offered and sent a clear signal for wider expansion. When the public voted to keep the Seanad after an incredibly cynical attempt to abolish it, they voted for reform. The message was absolutely clear. Those of us who went door to door campaigning during that time will tell the Minister, and the articles in the papers and the opinions people had will too, that consistently the message was that those who voted to keep the Seanad voted for the idea that we should - and this was the actual slogan of the campaign - open it, not close it and that we need to broaden the franchise so every citizen has a say. It was very interesting.

Let us think about those two referendums. Many of the people who voted in 1979 and the people who voted in 2013 did not have a vote in Seanad elections. They were voting on an institution in respect of which they were denied a vote and saying they actually see the value of what happens in the Seanad, have an interest in the Seanad and want a say in what happens in the Seanad. At a time when a cynical Government was quite happy to abolish and remove the Seanad - and I know the Minister may not have been part of that, but it was the Government of the time - the public-----

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I campaigned against abolition.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Exactly. I am aware of that. That is why I am acknowledging that. The public said they care about the Seanad and want a say in the Seanad. That was the mandate from 2013.

As a result of that, there was a brief acknowledgment. There was the Manning report, which was initiated to look to the ways in which we can widen and open the Seanad, make it more inclusive and ensure that people have a say in it, and the excellent recommendations brought forward in that report, with the group chaired by Maurice Manning. Then there was the next stage, which came later. On the wave of believing the Government parties, including the parties in government now, which all said they supported the Manning report, I and a number of other Senators, on our first day in the last Seanad, in 2016, came in with a Bill to deliver on the Manning report. We came in good faith to say we believe in the principle of Seanad reform and in the principles put forward by this expert group in the Manning report. We were putting forward legislation that would deliver on it. That was when the delay and the obstruction came in. That Bill was obstructed, and we were requested instead, with again that basic presumption that the principles of the Manning report, which my colleague, Senator Warfield, read out, were given as accepted and as a starting point, to work on an all-party basis to see what kind of legislation we could bring forward that would deliver the principles in the Manning report.

Those principles are really important. They include the principle that the majority of seats in this House should be filled by election by members of the public and the principle that every person in this State should have a say and a vote in respect of the Seanad and that there should be enfranchisement of those in the North as well. Those were among the principles in the Manning report. We went in good faith and formed the Seanad reform group, again at the request of the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, with, of course, the support of Fianna Fáil, which was supporting him in government and in the previous Oireachtas.

We formed the group. Senators Warfield and McDowell were on it. Let me be clear. There were a number of other Members from other parties across the House who were on it too, including Senator Cassells who contributed very well to that committee. We took it seriously because we take the Seanad seriously and we take the public seriously. We took seriously the mandate to deliver on the Manning report. We produced, in a very tight timeframe, a report and legislation that would deliver a vote for every person in this State; contribute to enfranchisement of Northern Ireland; deliver on the 1979 requirements to widen the university franchise; and broaden the qualifications under which one could vote under that. We did it within the constitutional remit without the requirement for another referendum because the mandate was what we could do within the Constitution.

Our reform Bill would fundamentally and in principle ensure each person would have a vote, recognising that the public have something to say. The public have something to contribute in terms of the Seanad and a thematic vote. It would have allowed each individual member of the public to identify one of the thematic panels and be able to exercise a vote on that. For example, someone who is passionate about an issue in education could register and vote on the education panel and make a contribution, and similarly if someone had something specific related to agriculture. Thematic expertise sits in this Chamber. It is meant to be thematic expertise, not a kind of a subgeographical piece. The public also have thematic interests and expertise, and should be enfranchised to express it by voting for the Seanad.

I will move to the future. Our report and legislation were completely obstructed and blocked by Government. The Government was taken to the Supreme Court by Tomás Heneghan, who was clear that the spirit of the case he took was not just about the letter of the law in the 1979 referendum but the spirit of the 1979 referendum, again reflected in the 2013 referendum, that there should be votes for all in the Seanad. All should have a say. We should be opening this Chamber, not closing it. The public gave us an active trust in allowing the Seanad to continue because they believed that the work mattered and they wanted a say in it, so we could and should be true to that by ensuring they have a vote. That is the minimum. Instead, what we have here is a less than minimalist approach to Seanad reform.

I will go through some of the specific concerns with this legislation. It is important to place it in that fundamental context, which is that it is not enough, it is not adequate and it is an insult to the public to give such a patchy and piecemeal small reform.

Regarding the dilutions, there are issues. Section 7 provides that a person may be awarded an ordinary bachelor’s degree level 7 or higher. Our cross-party report suggested that a person would only need a requisite qualification from a university or higher education institution, and it could be a level 6 or even level 5 qualification that would qualify persons. This would at least widen the qualifications further and increase the pool of who could vote. I supported the idea of a six-seat constituency or single constituency and that was also reflected in our legislation.

Section 9 repeats some of the same errors of the 1937 Act, such as the failure to provide for a supplemental register prior to the Seanad general election. Many recent graduates are prevented from voting in elections. For example, those who graduated in autumn 2019 were ineligible to vote in the 2020 election the following spring due to the lack of a supplemental register.

We also have concerns about section 12 whereby current electors must indicate their preference to be included in the new register. This could lead to a large-scale disenfranchisement where a large number of electors may not be included. What is the rationale for doing that, rather than amalgamating the two registers that exist – the NUI and the University of Dublin registers – and allowing for future and additional registration?

Regarding the membership of the advisory committee in section 24, we highlight that universities are made up of far more than their management. As regards appointing people to be representative of one or more institutions of higher education, there should be a provision that somebody should be nominated by trade unions or other non-management bodies, such as a university senate, for example, the student unions or university fellows. These are the graduates rather than the commercial management of an institution. They should have a say in what is a matter of public good and public duty and reflecting their rights and responsibilities as graduates.

We also urge there be a role for the Electoral Commission in conducting Seanad elections. I note that this was one more point in the delays. We were told not to worry because the Electoral Commission will deal with it. When the Electoral Commission legislation came through, there was no mandate at all in respect of Seanad reform, and our amendments to introduce a mandate on Seanad reform were resoundingly rejected. It seems an extraordinary oversight to have a new Electoral Commission and not give it a clear role in Seanad reform and potentially the expansion of Seanad reform in terms of the research needed. However, I do not believe that research is needed; I think the work is already done, and it is in the Seanad Bill 2020. The Electoral Commission surely should have a responsibility in respect of these issues.

Regarding the nomination of candidates and the filling of casual vacancies, this is an area where I will be strongly opposing the proposal. At the moment, it means that the system for filling casual vacancies for six seats is different from the system employed for the other 214 Members of the Oireachtas. I will give a summary. There are questions regarding Article 18 of the Constitution, which states that the 49 Members of the Seanad shall be elected Members. What is proposed instead is a partial replacement system. With absolute respect to Senators McDowell and Mullen, there is a proposal that if, for example, I vacate my seat, one of their preferred substitutes would take my place. We have a question. It is an example of how, while we spent months in detailed work looking at the international comparators, producing detailed reports, talking about how Seanad reform could be delivered and producing the Seanad reform Bill 2020, the Government simply went into a box and came out with this. There is no reflection of the Manning report in this Bill. There is no meaningful reflection of previous research that has been produced. There are serious concerns that betray a lack of proper scrutiny in areas such as the replacement system, the potential disenfranchisement of those who would be removed automatically from the register and backsliding.

We are potentially seeing it becoming harder to run for the Seanad. The cost in a general election for the Dáil is a €500 deposit whereas the proposal here is to have a deposit equivalent to the deposit for running for the European Parliament. That will disenfranchise people further and create an obstacle for those who should and are able to run. The fact we have so many people running in the NUI and Trinity panels, that there are always so many candidates, is a reflection of the frustration of those who wish to offer their service to the Seanad but are blocked from doing so in the panel system. All of those who offer expertise outside of the party system are forced through the channel of just six seats, while 43 seats on the panel system will remain out of reach for the general public.

They will remain an area of thematic expertise in which the public are told their votes and opinions are not wanted and their say does not matter.

I acknowledge the centenary work of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, in which we commemorated 100 years of the Seanad a couple of years ago. I was clear then and am clear now that the next 100 years of the Seanad need to be a century in which we see the franchise meaningfully widened so that every person in the State and, indeed, on the island who is a citizen has a say in the Seanad and a vote that is reflected in a voice he or she elects to this House. The next 100 years need to be more democratic. I worry that this Bill replicates not only the elitism of a panel that is narrowed to graduates, but also the exclusionary practices, for example, automatic removals from the register and the creation of obstacles to those who may wish to register to vote or run in Seanad elections.

It is an insult. It is not a first step, but a last delay. We will continue to press for Seanad reform. The Seanad Bill 2020 has passed Second Stage. It is currently the furthest advanced Bill on this matter. Instead of the requirement to listen to the Supreme Court being all that guides his actions, I plead with the Minister to revisit this area, revert with something meaningful and show that he has listened to what the public said from 1979 to 2013.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before I call Senator McDowell, I welcome our guests from the United States, Mr. Bill Leahy and Ms Diane Dunn, who are accompanied by Councillor Avril Cronin.

Senator Michael McDowell

I welcome the Minister, although I will have a few words for him later.

The 2013 proposal on the Seanad’s abolition was produced like a rabbit out of the hat at a Fine Gael president’s dinner as part of Enda Kenny’s defence of his leadership, which was then under challenge by Deputy Richard Bruton. The proposal took his own party by surprise and the arguments in favour of abolishing the Seanad centred mainly on a false claim that the referendum, which would cost approximately €15 million, would save the electorate €25 million annually. In the course of that referendum campaign, Enda Kenny cynically threatened that, if his abolition proposal were defeated, his Government would not reform the Seanad. This was a shameful low in constitutional history. The then Taoiseach stated that if the people voted to keep the Seanad, he would leave it exactly as it was and unreformed. He said that the Seanad was underperforming at the time and threatened the people that, if they kept it, he would keep it as an underperforming Chamber. Shame on him.

Once the people spoke at the ballot box, though, he changed tack completely. He stated that he understood the Government had received a wallop and he established the Manning commission. That working group was tasked with making proposals, which it did. Senator Higgins has dealt with them. They were elaborate proposals, but their gist was that every Irish citizen, regardless of whether he or she had the benefit of a third level degree, should have the same right to participate in the choosing of the Upper House and that no one, due to a lack of educational opportunity, the deliberate choices he or she made to pursue a noble career that did not involve third level education or being unable to get employment and instead spending his or her whole life as a dependant, should be told he or she was a second-class citizen.

In 2016, the outgoing Fine Gael-Labour coalition was, after a protracted negotiation, replaced by a minority Fine Gael Government, supported by Fianna Fáil through a confidence and supply agreement. Katherine Zappone, a former Member of this House, insisted that implementation of the Manning report be included in the programme for Government as a commitment of that Government. The leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Micheál Martin, sharply criticised Enda Kenny for establishing the Manning working group as a box-ticking exercise because he realised that, once its report was furnished to that Cabinet, the Cabinet would not consider it. It was never even tabled for consideration at Enda Kenny’s Cabinet table. Deputy Martin stated that the then Government clearly wanted any substantive reform kicked away until the next government and did not want to discuss anything of significance. He believed that we needed to introduce direct elections for the Seanad, but that it was unlikely there would be any reform before the following general election.

Although the new programme for Government adopted in 2016 committed to the implementation of the Manning report, no steps were taken in pursuit of that commitment. Enda Kenny was replaced by Deputy Leo Varadkar in 2017. When pressed to deliver on the Government's commitment, Deputy Varadkar told this House on St. Brigid's Day 2018:

A Programme for a Partnership Government commits us to pursue the implementation of the report. I am happy to do so ... [a] committee should be established with an eight-month mandate to consider the Manning report and develop specific proposals to legislate for Seanad reform. It is proposed that this committee will comprise Members of the Oireachtas with the assistance of outside experts ... The proposed timeframe is to facilitate changes that will be used to elect the Members of the Seanad after the next one.

Shame on him, as we will come to his U-turn later. He also stated: "There could be universal suffrage using the panel system allowing people to choose which one suits them best." He envisaged a major public information campaign, stating: "People will have to decide for which panel they wish to register, with the most important principle being that one can only have one vote and so can only join one panel." He said that, as with the Ceann Comhairle's position in Dáil Éireann, the selection of the Cathaoirleach should be done by secret ballot, but such a move is being frustrated right now and his party has done the exact opposite. All of these commitments were made to this House on 1 February 2018.

In due course, the implementation group was established and I was made its chairman. I pay tribute to Senators Higgins, Warfield, Cassells and others who participated in good faith and, within a tight timeframe, produced a powerful report. Appended to it was a Bill prepared at the expense of the Department of the Taoiseach by a professional parliamentary draftsman. I just want the Minister to know that all of this happened. The Bill had 100 sections and five Schedules. The Minister can imagine my shock and dismay that, when we furnished the report within time and I went to the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar’s office in early 2019 and sat down in his office with him, he told me privately that he had no interest whatsoever in the proposal. He said that he was an opponent of the existence of the Seanad and that he had always been an abolitionist. I told him that he had got us to sit for eight months and provided us with a draftsman and that we, in good faith, had done the work, only for him to say that the most he could promise us would be a free vote in the Dáil and that the Government would not back the Bill. Shame on him. This revelation shocked me greatly.

There was another election in 2020 and Deputy O’Brien became the relevant Minister. On his first outing in this House, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, stated:

I was proud to argue for the retention and reform of this House in 2013, and was very pleased that the Irish people shared our view of the importance of a second Chamber in our democracy ... The importance of Seanad reform was a key part of the message in that campaign.

He also said that he welcomed the detailed work we had done.

Through his Minister of State, the Minister announced to the House that he was going to put together a group of all three Government parties to determine what to do. I stood up in the House and said I would take that undertaking in good faith.

The result was that absolutely nothing was done.

This Bill is badly drafted and is going to cause serious problems. The most obvious one is that if NUI graduates have to reregister and have to be written to in order to notify them of that, given that most of the addresses are already out of date, it will collapse the NUI electorate even further than it is today. The Bill needs to be reformed. It is a disgraceful Bill. It is everything that Senator Higgins said about it. It is an insult to this House and the Irish people.

I want to put one final point on the record of the House regarding the Tomás Heneghan Supreme Court decision. The Government sent the Attorney General to the Supreme Court to say he would need five years to legislate on this matter and it only gave him two. That is the clearest evidence that there is no appetite to reform Seanad Éireann and that we have been cynically deceived by every party leader in the present coalition and the previous coalition in respect of their real intentions. They want to keep this House as it is now - a rubber stamp.

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Darragh O'Brien)

I appreciate the contributions of Senators Malcolm Byrne, Tom Clonan, Maria Byrne, Rónán Mullen, Fintan Warfield, Michael McDowell and Alice-Mary Higgins. I have immense regard for Senator McDowell, as he knows. I should put on record that I campaigned against the abolition of this House in 2013 - the referendum was in October 2013 - and my party campaigned against its abolition. I know many Fine Gael Members also did so because they disagreed with the then Taoiseach and the job he wanted done. More importantly, the Irish people disagreed at that stage and voted to retain the Seanad. Since then, there have been reports, including the work done by Senator McDowell. I cannot comment on meetings he had with the former Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, but Deputy Varadkar has always been on record as being an abolitionist, so I am not sure whether that conversation with him came as a big surprise to the Senator.

Senator Michael McDowell

The Minister is throwing him under the bus now.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I am not. He has been on record as-----

Senator Michael McDowell

It is easy to do at this stage.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

From my perspective, the Bill is a genuine attempt to bring about the start of the reform of the Seanad and deal with the Supreme Court judgment. Senators mentioned the programme for Government and I discussed this with Senator McDowell a number of years ago when we met virtually during Covid. The programme for Government, Our Shared Future, does not make an explicit commitment to the issue of Seanad reform. I respect this House. I had the honour of serving in this House for five years. I see the benefits of a bicameral system and an active Seanad. We have seen that in this Seanad term with the legislation that I have brought here, including the 25 hours of debate in the House on the planning Bill, and the Seanad has had a value on many other pieces of legislation.

I wish Senator Clonan's son, Eoghan, all the very best in his studies. What this legislation will do, as all Senators will know, is extend the franchise further. I have taken on board the points raised. Several Senators mentioned the private universities but that is not something that will be included in this Bill. I expect the House will debate it and I will look at the amendments that are tabled. I assure Members that when amendments are tabled, we will certainly look at them in a constructive way. On the planning Bill, which passed the Dáil last night, amendments that I made on Report and Final Stages made reference to matters that were raised in the Seanad. I have done that regularly on legislation that I brought forward, and I have had the honour of sponsoring over 30 Bills and bringing them through these Houses. I have also initiated legislation in the Seanad.

I will try to deal with the questions asked. In response to Senator Maria Byrne, the higher education constituency will be in place for all Seanad elections after 21 March 2025, so the next Seanad election will be under the current structures and criteria and these changes will not apply to the next Seanad election. Voting will be by postal vote.

There will be a requirement for reregistration. I listened to Senator McDowell say that if one were to write out to seek to get people to reregister, many of the addresses would be invalid and people might have moved on. In that case, I would question the validity of the current register.

Senator Michael McDowell

Yes.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I know there have been difficulties. Senators Mullen and Byrne and others commended the NUI on the work done. As the central registration authority, they are the right people to do that. We have an opportunity to get the Seanad register up-to-date and in a modern format once and for all, but it will require reregistrations. All those on the existing NUI and University of Dublin registers who meet the eligibility criteria will be contacted to confirm whether they want to be added to the register for the new higher education constituency. They will also be informed that their entitlement to vote in the upcoming Seanad election still stands. This is something we can look at on Committee Stage. I expect there would have to be a public information campaign around this, on top of writing out to people. I know there have been previous issues with electoral registers for the Seanad. It is something we will certainly look at.

I want to move this legislation forward as quickly as possible. Even though some may believe it to be imperfect, it is the most significant step forward. Even for those who say the Bill is an insult and disgraceful, and they can use all the emotive language they wish, the fact remains it is the single biggest reform of the Seanad in decades. It might not be something that some Senators agree with but if we want to reform the Seanad further, it is certainly a step in the right direction. To anyone who opposes the Bill, one could say that we can try to work constructively together on Committee Stage. There is also the idea that I do not have permission from the Government under the programme for Government to bring forward proposals to extend the franchise to the North of Ireland. I know that former Senator Manning, who is a superb individual, did a significant amount of work, as did other Senators. I ask the Senators to look at the legislation that is in front of them.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

The Seanad Bill 2020 is also before the House. I want it acknowledged that it is on the Order Paper and in front of the Houses.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I did not interrupt the Senator once. I sat here and listened to her full contribution, as I have done on many occasions on many different pieces of legislation and on many different issues. I never interrupt the Senator.

All that I am saying to the Senators who right now, on Second Stage, feel they should oppose this legislation is that if they oppose it, they are effectively opposing the road to Seanad reform. Whether this is imperfect or not extensive enough, and I respect that view, it is a step in that direction through extending the franchise.

I say honestly and openly that I will look at the amendments that are tabled on Committee Stage, be they from the Government or the Opposition. I ask Senators for their co-operation. If at all possible, I would like to move this forward on Committee Stage quite soon. There has been a request in the House that we try to expedite this legislation in the current Oireachtas term. I do not know how long the current term will last - that is above my pay grade, as someone said.

I respect the points that have been raised, and even those who are supporting the legislation have acknowledged there are people who feel it should go further. However, the Bill is as it is right now. It is in response not only to the Supreme Court judgment but also, as I mentioned in my opening contribution, to the work that has been done by many Senators.

I did not oppose the Bill that was brought forward by Senators Malcolm Byrne, Pat Casey and Shane Cassells. As Minister, I said honestly at the time, back in 2021, that the programme for Government did not have a commitment to extend it further at that stage.

That is just the reality of it. I would have been operating outside of my remit. I am being honest with people about that. The Senators are all legislators and have been here for a long time. We can throw the baby out with the bathwater, or we can move forward together on Seanad reform. That will be a basis on which an Oireachtas of the future can move further, for which I have been an advocate in the past, both as a TD and as a Senator. I respectfully ask Senators to reflect on that.

I seek Senators' co-operation in moving to Committee Stage shortly. We will contact the Leader of the House in that regard. I look forward to further engagement during the debates on Committee and Report Stages. I hope Senators have seen, through my attendance in the House as the senior Minister in the Department, how seriously I take this issue. I thank my franchise team for the work they have done. We in this Government have done a lot on the issue of franchise. We have established the Electoral Commission on a statutory basis, a commitment that was in the programme for Government, and that will now stand for future generations. While some do not believe this reform goes far enough and I have listened to the debate, it is a significant step forward, and if Senators want to take a significant step forward together, I ask them not to oppose the Bill. I will look openly and constructively at amendments that are tabled. I assure the House of that. I have taken detailed notes of contributions made by colleagues during this debate and I will certainly reflect on them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I thank the Minister and Senators for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to the Committee Stage proposal and any amendments Senators will bring forward.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Senator Malcolm Byrne

Next Tuesday.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 15 October 2024.

Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 1.12 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 2.35 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 1.12 p.m. and resumed at 2.35 p.m.