Before we start, I welcome a guest of Senator John McGahon, Ms Aisling Nolan from Celbridge, County Kildare, who is here from St. James's Hospital. I also welcome the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and thank him for being here.
Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill 2024: Committee and Remaining Stages
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3
Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order. Senators will be able to speak to the section. I will go through the amendments before we move to the section. Amendments Nos. 2 to 11, inclusive, have been ruled out of order as involving a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I am going to speak a little. I was going to suggest a different grouping but that is academic now, given the amendments that have been ruled out of order. Those amendments spoke to some of the key aspects of this section. As I understand it, this Bill is going to the Dáil next. That our amendments have been ruled out of order gives the lie to the indication and promise we were given during the most recent session that amendments would be looked at and engaged with.
Is the Senator speaking to section 3?
I am talking about the amendments that have been ruled out of order and the definitions of categories in the Bill. Perhaps I can clarify matters with the Leas-Chathaoirleach. All of the amendments that have been ruled out of order were to page 6, which is section 3. Is that correct?
Amendments Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
Do they all relate to section 3? That is what I understand.
That is correct.
I will speak to section 3 and the definitions contained in it. We indicated the issues we saw with the section through the amendments we proposed. While our amendments have been ruled out of order, our concerns and issues remain and can be expressed. Our amendments have been available to the Minister. We are being constrained by the limits to what is allowed to be put forward. Even the smallest change can be interpreted as including a charge to the State. The Minister is not so constrained. The points that are being made about this section by me and others are crucial to the effective operation of the Bill. If we were to go to Report Stage, the Minister might come back with amendments to reflect some of the principles that he thought were valid and useful to strengthen the Bill. At a minimum, I would expect similar amendments initiated by the Government to appear in the Dáil to reflect what the Minister committed to. He suggested he would be very open to amendments on how the Bill might be improved and strengthened.
One of the issues that was discussed at length as part of the Seanad reform implementation group related to the fact that certain seats are reserved for graduates. The definition of "graduate" is quite open and wide, constitutionally speaking. I remain of the view that we need to widen the Seanad and ensure that all persons, regardless of whether they are graduates of any institution, have the right to have a say in what is almost half of the legislative process in Ireland. Substantial work is done by the Seanad. At a minimum, it seems to me that the opportunity should be taken, in respect of the university seats, to go with as wide an interpretation as possible. That would reflect the spirit of the 1979 referendum. I have suggested the inclusion, alongside the word "degree", of "diploma or certificate". You are a graduate if you receive a diploma or certificate. A graduate is not solely someone who receives a degree. I suggested removing the phrase "of at least bachelor degree level" from the definition of "degree" and widening the entitlement to vote. That is another possibility of how widening could be done while staying true to the language in the Constitution in respect of those six seats for graduates.
Amendment No. 3 is an alternative to amendment No. 2. It explicitly suggests that advanced certificate level would be a more appropriate bar than bachelor degree. A higher certificate level is suggested under amendment No. 4. If the higher certificate level is felt to be too low, amendment No. 5 proposes the option of "a level 6 qualification awarded within the National Framework of Qualifications established and maintained under ... the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training Act) 2012". This alternative sets the bar to a wider space. It goes to the fundamental principles of enfranchisement. We have recently celebrated 100 years of the Seanad and Vótáil 100, in recognition of women's access to the franchise. It is frustrating when people see the slow and incremental extension of the franchise. It is happening in tiny pieces and step by tiny step. At this point, more than 100 years into the history of the Seanad, we could be moving at a little bit of a faster pace.
I would be surprised if Members of the House or the Minister would suggest that persons who do not have a bachelor's degree or higher are somehow not capable of making a decision as to who might be a suitable representative for the public in the important work the Seanad engages in, including the scrutiny and initiation of legislation and the examination of that legislation, in particular on thematic grounds, which we see through the panels.
The university seats are somewhat of an anachronism from another time. The situation is similar to what happened with votes for women. We saw things change bit by bit. Only women with property and women over a certain age were entitled to vote. The change came slowly. The same was true of the franchise for men. There was a slow incremental change in the assessment of who could be trusted with the vote. We finally came to the understanding that anybody over 18, woman or man, who is a part of, and a citizen of, our State should be given the right to a vote to elect representatives to Dáil Éireann.
The incrementalist approach should not then be reintroduced here. It should not be introduced either in terms of an inadequately ambitious piece of Seanad reform that only addresses six seats and not the other 43. Even within those six seats and within the definitions set out here under section 3, it is a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a graduate. I have in absolutely good faith set out three or four alternatives as to how, within constitutionality - again, this has been tested in our implementation group and we had the legal advice and everything else on it - there can be a widening underneath that term of "graduate" to include those with diplomas or certificates at level 5 or level 6, rather than, as currently constituted, being effectively confined to level 7. I would like if the Minister could address those points in his response.
I also suggest that he should address the issues that would have been addressed under amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, which referred to the level of qualification and the interpretation of what constitutes a relevant institution of higher education. We suggested a widening of the institutions as opposed to what is there currently. The institutions of higher education, which are validated by Quality and Qualifications Ireland, would allow for a widening of which institutions may be considered while nonetheless ensuring those institutions are meeting a standard of quality and are credible institutions for inclusion. Amendment No. 7, in subsection (e), referred to "an institution of higher education with delegated authority from QQI under Section 53 or Section 55 of the Qualification and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012". These tools, which already exist, allow the Minister or his Department to appropriately ensure they are properly regulated institutions of higher education. They should be brought under the definition of institutes of higher education so that we do not see what we have seen during the long battle for recognition of our now technical universities, our institutes of technology, the University of Limerick, DCU, DIT and many other higher education institutions. They have waited far too long to be recognised as higher education institutions for these purposes. Indeed, this legislation has come about on foot of a successful challenge to the Supreme Court by the graduates of these institutions. Let us not leave out a whole other category of higher education institutions and leave their graduates having to battle for this right alongside other graduates. As I say, the battle for the citizen who is not a graduate will continue subsequent to this Act. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to widen that point. Amendment No. 6, which Senator Warfield and others have co-signed, was a proposal and again an opportunity-----
We are speaking on the section, not on the amendment.
I am speaking on the section. These are all issues that could be addressed in this section. I have not spoken about a single issue which does not relate to the categorisation of the designated institutions of higher education. To be very clear, I am looking here at line 16. While my proposal - my specific amendment - may not be in order, my opinions regarding the definitions and their inclusions or exclusions are entirely valid in the context of the section on which we are speaking.
I note that an opportunity is being missed to promote inclusion for all of the institutions of higher education across the entire island of Ireland in the definition of "a designated institution". It would send a signal on one of the principles in the Manning report. I refer to the principle of seeking to ensure citizens within Northern Ireland, Irish citizens within Northern Ireland in particular, would have the opportunity to engage electorally. It is something which has been given lip service by a number of parties within this Oireachtas. Here was an opportunity to perhaps put it at least partially into effect. I hope the Minister will address these issues in his response and reflect them in amendments that may come through in the Dáil. Indeed, he could have done so on Report Stage in the Seanad if we were having such a debate here.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I will speak specifically to this section. I refer to the case of the National College of Ireland, NCI, which Senator Clonan and I raised on Second Stage. This also applies to a number of other private colleges that are offering level 8 programmes. The challenge with this legislation is that as a result of its enactment, only the graduates of those institutions that are designated by the HEA will have a vote. That is certainly very welcome. The issue we raised was specifically with regard to the NCI but also applies to other institutions. The problem is that the HEA has not yet developed a process by which NCI and others can be designated. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI, which is similar in many ways to the NCI as a not-for-profit, is a designated institution under this Bill. Its graduates will be able to have a vote as a result of this legislation but graduates of NCI, in very similar circumstances, will not. The problem under the HEA Act is that the HEA does not yet have a process of designation for the NCI. We have been raising this regularly with the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, but it has not moved. There is a need within this legislation - the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, was certainly constructive in his comments on this matter during the Second Stage debate - to look at level 8 graduates from other institutions. We spoke about it more broadly, including, potentially, graduates from the North but I acknowledge that would be more difficult.
I am somewhat concerned that things like this get ruled out because of the idea that they are a potential charge on the Exchequer. I get that Standing Orders have to be applied but when we talk about extending the franchise, I wonder if somebody is counting the number of stamps or the cost of printing a few ballot papers. I totally understand the need for this when we are talking about looking to change tax and budgetary policy. With all due respect, I do not think somebody in the Department of housing, which is rightly investing billions in housing and in other areas, is saying that extending the Seanad electoral franchise to a number of individuals will be regarded as a cost on the Exchequer. If anything, widening the franchise is something that is worthy.
I hope that in his response, the Minister will address constructively, as he did when he raised this with us before, how those other institutions and their graduates may end up getting a vote, particularly in light of the similarities between the RCSI and the NCI and given that under the HEA Act a process of designation has not been developed. I get that this will not be in place for the next Seanad elections but I would certainly like the franchise to be sufficiently expanded in time for the Seanad elections that will take place in 2029 or 2030, which is probably what we are looking at here, to include graduates of those institutions. If a proper designation process is not put in place, however, we do not see a path to that happening.
Can it be clarified which amendments have been ruled out of order?
All of the amendments in section 3; namely, amendments Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive. We are speaking on section 3.
The Senator can still speak to the definition of higher education institution.
Do all co-signatories not get a letter to say their amendments have been ruled out of order or is it just the first name?
I imagine they should have. I was not in charge of the ruling on that. Yes, they would have.
I just got my post and I did not get a notification about it being ruled out of order on the basis of cost to the Exchequer.
I would welcome the Minister's comments. Can the Minister comment on our proposals?
Yes, I can.
The Minister can have the floor, if the Chair is happy with that.
I am sorry, the next speaker is Senator Clonan.
I welcome the Minister. I note that all the amendments have been ruled out of order. I also note that we are at a particular point where nobody knows what is going to happen in the next couple of weeks. I know the Minister's time is limited in terms of getting this through.
Members, including Senator Malcolm Byrne, spoke at length about the graduates and the institutions that would be inadvertently excluded from this. We had a very constructive exchange and in the Minister’s response, I certainly felt that he agreed with the principle of expanding the franchise to all graduates, not just to particular institutions. I will take that in good faith. I have faith that the Minister will, using whatever discretion he has and in whatever time is available to him, incorporate our concerns into the drafting of the final stages of the legislation. I hope his officials will assist in that.
If and when this Bill is passed, the franchise will be very large. To echo what Senator Byrne said, we would be looking at in excess of 1 million voters registering for a postal vote to elect six university Senators. It would almost be like a presidential race, given that the electorate will be so huge. At the same time, a place like Finglas, where I grew up, has a population of 40,000, which is not far off the constituency of the Trinity panel. Imagine if Finglas had three Senators. I note that in this most privileged constituency, the turnout is relatively low, so it is a major privilege to be able to vote and stand for election from the university panel. With regard to what we said last week, I would favour broader reform and I voted for reform in the last referendum. Senator McDowell spoke at length about the report being prepared with the assistance of people like Senator Warfield and noted that, in time, whatever the composition of the next Administration, it would look at this.
I again note that all of the amendments have been ruled out of order. While I do not want to beat the thing to death, I trust in the Minister’s good faith to incorporate some of our concerns, using whatever discretion he has at this point.
We had a good Second Stage debate. I reiterate that what is being proposed and brought forward by the Government in this Bill is the most significant reform of Seanad Eireann in decades. For some, it might not go far enough but it is also a response to the Supreme Court judgment. I have supported the Seanad and I campaigned against its abolition. I believe in Seanad reform. However, to speak to Senator Clonan’s point, we have to be aware of the timeframes that remain in the context of the lifetime of this Oireachtas. That does not in any way, shape or form stop any future Government from building on the reforms and the extensive expansion of the franchise when this legislation passes.
The expansion of the franchise comes under section 3 and also strays into section 7, which extends the constituency beyond the designated institutions. I will deal with section 3 first. I do not rule amendments out of order. The Senators know it is not down to me and I have no input into that. If we look at the current position, there are 177,000 people on the registers for the NUI and Trinity constituencies. The census data from 2022 indicates there are over 900,000 Irish citizens living in Ireland who have completed an ordinary bachelor's degree or higher. While not all of these will immediately be included through the designated institutions, there are also a good number of graduates outside the State who will become eligible. Therefore, we are going to see a significant increase in the register of electors.
As Senator Clonan said, it will be one of the largest constituencies, certainly on the scale of a large European constituency, although not that of the constituency for a presidential election. I believe we have to build that on a staged basis, to be frank, and we have to build the infrastructure to be able to do that. We have spoken about the registration authorities and the challenges there will be with the electoral register itself. There is not a lot of time to do this. Even though it will be for the Seanad election after next, there is not a lot of time to get this right. On Second Stage, I responded to Senators regarding how we would go about preparing the register of electors and letting people know that the franchise has been extended, which is important.
I will refer to one of the many items of legislation that we passed in the Seanad that also did not have the assent of the whole House. Senators can go back and check the record to see who voted for it. The Electoral (Amendment) Act established an Electoral Commission on a permanent basis. It provides the perfect vehicle for further review and proposed reform, not just of this institution but of others. For the first time ever, we have a permanent Electoral Commission in place that is fully staffed, with a chief executive, a chairperson and a board. That was another very significant electoral reform that this Government brought in and it was not supported by everyone in the House. With regard to the expansion of the franchise around qualifications beyond that of at least bachelor's degree level and also of including more institutions, the role of the Electoral Commission in its post-electoral event reviews, which already cover Seanad elections, and its role regarding the Seanad register and its processes, will support this further consideration and ensure that what we are doing in this Bill can be appropriately built on in the future.
Most of the Members present today were here for Second Stage. I spoke of the programme for government and what was within my remit to deliver. There was no agreement in the current programme for government, Our Shared Future, to further expand the reform of the Seanad. Nonetheless, the reform in this legislation is the most significant reform of the Seanad in decades. I would say to Members who are looking at this - I am being constructive and it is not a criticism in any way, shape or form - that if they want to reform the Seanad, they must vote for this legislation. We can build on that change in the next Oireachtas because we have the architecture in place to ensure that happens, in particular the Electoral Commission.
The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will be taking over from me for about 15 minutes. I will be back after that. I will conclude on this point. With regard to future designations through the HEA Act, as referenced by Senator Malcolm Byrne, 16 institutions are currently designated under the HEA Act, which provides a pathway for further institutions to apply for designation. The point the Senator made, which is valid, is that within the parent Department, that has not been set forward yet. Nonetheless, the Act permits for that to happen and for further designations. Therefore, other education providers may be designated following an application for designation if they meet certain conditions following an assessment process undertaken by the Higher Education Authority. The conditions and designations will be made by regulation by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I understand work has been begun by the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, and, again, the architecture is there for that to happen. That work is under way. It will allow for the further designation of other higher education institutions that are not currently designated, although that is not within my gift.
I ask the Minister to allow an intervention. He might raise this with the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, and ask that he supply to me and other Members of the House an update on that process, particularly as it is critical in the context of this legislation.
Senators have raised this issue which we have also discussed on Second Stage. I certainly will write to the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan, engage with him and ask that he update the Seanad on the progress that has been made on the conditions of designation and where the draft regulations are. Senator Clonan has raised that, as have Senators Byrne and Higgins. We will respond through the Seanad Office. I will write formally to the Minister, Deputy O'Donovan.
What about the question on the level of qualification?
I have addressed that. The Bill I have proposed and the extension of the franchise is as per the definitions in the Bill. I cannot extend that further at this stage. I have said I believe the Electoral Commission and, indeed, a future government, will be able to build on this most substantial reform of the Seanad and to build on the reform should this legislation pass. I think the Senators will see the urgency with which we have approached it. I thank the Seanad for enabling us to do that because I want to get this Bill into the Dáil next week.
Minister-----
I will be back in. I promise. I thank the Senators for their co-operation. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, is here and I will be back in about 15 or 20 minutes and I will be happy to address any further questions then, if that is okay.
I thank the Minister. While we wait for the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, to come in, I welcome Councillor Anne O’Sullivan, her mother and all the people from Tralee, who are most welcome. They are guests of the Minister, Deputy Foley. I hope they enjoy their day in Seanad Éireann and going to the Dáil too. I look forward to seeing them in the Visitors' Bar later. I thank them for being here.
The Leas-Chathaoirleach is buying.
I thank Senator Byrne. Do Senators wish to speak on section 3?
It seems to me that the reason for the narrowness of the interpretation of "graduate" relates largely to the size of the constituency that will already flow from the definitions put forward in section 3 but, of course, the Seanad Bill 2020 addressed this issue. We will have a situation where six seats will be elected by a potential constituency of up to a million electors, as was highlighted by the Minister - the figure he suggested was around 900,000 - while 43 seats are elected by a constituency in the hundreds. That is a clear inequity. As I said, I do not see why it is not actually the case that you do one and then the others. To do both is not just more democratic and enfranchising and the right thing to do, it is also the practical thing to do. As our legislation set out, it was within the Constitution to allow that graduates would have the opportunity to elect a candidate from the graduate panel to a seat, but that they would also have the option to instead vote on one of the other thematic panels. That would bring about a situation whereby those 900,000 electors would not, in all likelihood, all be voting on the NUI constituency. Rather, many of them who care about one of the other important thematic areas, be it education, labour or agriculture, would choose to instead use their one vote – it would be one vote per person, which is a fundamental democratic principle – in one of the other panels, thereby distributing better and leading to a more equal sense of franchisement in voting, rather than 900,000 being pooled into just six seats and a few hundred having an opportunity to elect the other 43. This is extremely relevant to the Minister’s point in response to my request for widening the definition of "graduate" to say that it is not actually the case that it needs to be such a huge constituency. There were many practical measures and the most practical measure is to provide multiple places where the vote can be spent.
I will come back to the Minister. I have relevant amendments later but he mentioned the Electoral Commission. I think the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, promised us previously that these issues of Seanad reform would be addressed by the Electoral Commission. It was given a mandate for European elections, Dáil elections and local elections, however, with a very notable absence of responsibility in respect of Seanad elections. My many amendments to introduce a mandate for working on Seanad reform into the Electoral Commission were rejected by this Government. We are told not to worry because the Electoral Commission is there but the Government made an explicit choice to close off many of the main areas of work we need on Seanad reform from the mandate given to the Electoral Commission. There are some amendments slightly expanding that within this Bill but they are extremely narrow. If there is any sincerity about using the Electoral Commission to engage in Seanad reform, then I expect my amendments to expand the brief of the Electoral Commission and give it permission to work on Seanad reform will be accepted by the Government or, if not accepted, will be mirrored by the Government in the Dáil.
I thank the Senator for that contribution. To follow on from the Minister’s points, Senators are aware that we could draw the line at a number of places and cover a wide variety of educational qualifications but, given that we have already made such significant change to the constituencies, I believe it is prudent to hold the qualification level to what is currently in place. It is a matter that can be considered at another time, given that An Coimisiún Toghcháin has broad-ranging powers, roles and responsibilities in terms of its research function but also in its post-electoral event reviews. The opportunity is there and this covers Seanad elections. Its role on the Seanad register of process will be given further consideration and ensure that what we are doing with this Bill can be appropriately built on in the future. This is an important part of that reform process and the Minister has outlined that too. It is important that we continue on that trajectory for reform. The points the Senator has raised are valid, as are the suggestions and proposals in her own Bill, but the responsibility and remit of An Coimisiún Toghcháin to carry out post-electoral event reviews affords us an opportunity to look at additional changes that could be made into the future.
Obviously, I am raging that the amendments have been ruled out of order on the basis of cost - so much for the idea that you cannot put a cost on democracy - but my annoyance and anger does not have any impact on the fact they were ruled out of order. The Government brought forward a Bill that failed to bring about a root-and-branch reform of the Seanad and that also excluded so many graduates. It excluded graduates from the North, which was something we tried to address. If the Government brought forward a good Bill, we would not have needed to amend it from the floor, but the Bill excludes graduates in the South as well as those from Queen's, Ulster University, St. Mary’s University College and the regional colleges in the North.
On cost, the Seanad reform implementation group did address cost at great length. It is the Constitution that requires the Seanad to be elected by a postal vote and therefore in order to mitigate against those costs the Seanad reform implementation group recommended that ordinary post be used for the election. According to the report, it is a safe and effective means for the delivery, and it is significantly less costly than the use of registered post, as currently required by statute for the universities panels. The Seanad reform implementation group did not go about its work without considering the cost. There is also the financial benefit to An Post from the increased electorate that would be associated with each Seanad election. It would provide a significant financial boost to An Post.
I am obviously extremely disappointed we cannot discuss our amendments around Northern universities and colleges in the North. My primary political objective has always been the unification of Ireland, the political independence and sovereignty of our country, and territorial unification. This was a chance for the Government to make a meaningful change to include citizens who have university degrees in the North of Ireland and that chance has been missed.
I do not blame the Seanad Office for the fact we cannot discuss that the Bill was tabled without the inclusion of certain universities and colleges in the South and with the exclusion of colleges in the North. That is the blame I place on the Government. That is in addition to the fact I really believe we should be here discussing the Seanad Bill 2020.
I want to make a number of points on the section related to the definitions in the Bill. I welcome this long overdue legislation to reform part of the Seanad. The Minister has been quite clear, as has the Minister of State, that this is a process. This is not the end of what Seanad reform will be but it is a significant stepping stone.
I am fortunate enough to have voted in the 2009, 2014 and 2019 Seanad elections. I was elected in 2009, 2014 and 2019 and in the Seanad elections in 2011, 2016 and 2020. I have had the opportunity on three occasions, as a councillor, to vote in a Seanad election. I too am a graduate of the University of Limerick and if I was not fortunate enough to have been a member of Waterford City and County Council at that time I would not have been able to exercise a franchise in Seanad Éireann. It is right and appropriate that the franchise is being extended to those universities, and now technological universities, that have not had the opportunity for their graduates to take part in Seanad elections.
I know there are a lot of points that people will make that the Bill does not go far enough, should extend here or go further there, but the legislation before us is significant in and of itself. This House is a really important Chamber. My father is a former Leader of this House and campaigned to keep the House at that time when the referendum took place. We have a really important role in checks and balances to legislation that go through. Of course, we debate these things. I am not, as a Government Senator, saying that this is the be all and end all and the end of Seanad reform. It is not and we need to do more. That will fall to the next Government but I want to ensure this Government plays its tangible role in progressing this legislation and that is why I am supportive of the Bill.
I am one of many who campaigned to retain the House. At that time I did not realise I would later become a Member of the House. I have witnessed the House in operation up close and realise the great, invaluable work we do under the radar, but also the huge, unfulfilled potential. Naturally, I welcome any reform. Reform comes drippingly slow.
The irony is not lost on me that we start to reform the most democratic cohort of the Seanad first. The reality is not lost on me either that it is the result of a High Court challenge where the Attorney General had to appear before the High Court and explain why he is not reflecting and upholding a judgment. I would not be in the mood for back-slapping for this singular reform, although I welcome every reform particularly in here because it happens so slowly.
The Bill has such potential to be generous and to give graduates the vote, to go North and South with the votes and reach out to as many constituencies as possible. This is a step in the right direction.
On the bigger point, I regret to say as a member of a party in government, the Government has flunked an opportunity to be the first Government, after consecutive Governments' paralysis turning their backs on this. If I was to do this again I would definitely go into Government; we got the best green deal ever. I know where the Minister of State stands on this in a private capacity and I know the position he is in today where he has to uphold a Government policy and I respect that. He is doing that very well. It is one thing that got away from the Greens, that we did not insist on proper, substantial reform of these Houses as a red-line issue. I know we tried very hard. This is a step in the right direction but it is being precipitated by the court forcing our hand. I am sure people will believe it when they see it and believe in action and not words. I hope the next Government will be the first one to transform this House. This House not only has such potential. It has exciting, real and transformative potential which will serve our people and democracy to a much bigger, more positive effect.
Much of what happens in here does so under the radar. I am privileged to have introduced so many Bills and one of those Bills is going through the House, successfully, this afternoon. I know we all hear that this House is less adversarial but an example of the teamwork on that Bill, the cross-party support and the collaboration that happens in this House I am told does not happen to the same extent in the Lower House.
It is with a sense of irony we are doing what we are doing today. It is a shame there is not more substantive reform and we are picking on the one and only area where people have a franchise. As previously said, that electorate could go up to almost a million, while a cohort of less than 1,000 - three figures - have so many ballot papers in their hands. This Bill is missing a message. It is not connecting with the public in that sense and to be truly connected and be truly more effective the public must have a greater sense of participation and ownership of this wonderful House.
Hear, hear.
I thank the Senators for their contributions. To respond to Senator Warfield specifically, the Minister has no role in ruling on amendments. The issues he raised, and that all three Senators raised during their contributions, are very similar. We agree reform was somewhat forced on us but it is an important step forward. This Bill will result in a significant expansion of the electorate in Seanad elections which is an important step forward.
I agree with Senator Cummins about looking at the positives from this and the opportunities we can derive from this. In response to Senator Martin who made an impassioned plea for reform of the Seanad, and I know all of the Senators are in agreement on this, we now have An Coimisiún Toghcháin to better inform what shape that reform might take and make this Chamber a more powerful force for our democracy and protecting our democracy at a time when it is under threat from all angles and from outside forces. That is critically important and at a critically important time.
It is important also to state we are coming to the end of a cycle of government and there was not a commitment to Seanad reform in this programme for Government. It is a three-party Government and we agree on a document through engagement, collaboration and consensus but I hope that when the political parties head out and draft their manifestos there will be a reference to meaningful Seanad reform.
That could be enabled through the work of An Coimisiún Toghcháin and the work it will do after electoral events and through its research programme to help inform our decision-making. I reiterate that this is a very positive step forward, as the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has said already.
Question, "That section 3 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Amendment No. 12, in the names of Senators Hoey, Moynihan, Sherlock and Wall, has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
SECTION 6
Amendment No. 13, in the names of Senators Clonan and McDowell, has been ruled out of order as there is a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Amendment No. 14, in the names of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, and amendments Nos. 22 and 61 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, line 28, after "entitled" to insert "and registered".
Amendments Nos. 14, 22 and 61, and indeed some other amendments that will be ruled out of order, relate to the transitional arrangements for the creation of the new register and the danger that its creation may lead to the disenfranchisement of many who are currently entitled to vote. It would be a really poor reflection on us, in light of the demand for the expansion of the franchise from about 1979 and including 2013, which demand has been so inadequately responded to in this legislation, if we ended up with backward steps.
Amendment No. 14 is a very small one. It relates to the transitional arrangement for moving from the status quo, with two separate university constituencies and hundreds of thousands of graduates currently registered to participate in elections, to a new higher education constituency. Our concern is that the Bill does not provide a mechanism for current voters to transfer their data automatically to the new register. The Bill instead proposes the tearing up of the current register and the taking away of votes from all those currently on either the Trinity register or the NUI register so as to start from scratch. In the first instance, the Bill will effectively disenfranchise the 200,000 individuals currently registered to vote in a parliamentary election in the hope they will seek the opportunity to register again. Our amendments propose a very different approach. Amendment No. 14 would see the registration of all qualified graduates on the current register. This is our preferred option and it is the appropriate one.
Issues have been raised regarding the clarity of the register and who is currently on it. The argument was made on Second Stage that there are many addresses out of date and so forth, but that is also true of the register for Dáil and European elections. With other registers, we do not have the practice of disenfranchising everybody and then requiring them to go through the hoops again. We talked about wanting people to have faith in democracy but there is nothing like the sense of disenfranchisement felt by a person expecting to vote who is told he or she has been removed from the register. That is now going to happen to tens of thousands, given the way the Bill is currently set out.
On the idea that some data on the register are out of date, as mentioned on Second Stage, I have proposed several amendments. When we come to them, they will be ruled out of order, but they are directly relevant. I set out a variety of mechanisms to deal with the issue. My preference, and what I believe is the democratic thing to do, is to transfer all who are on the current register to the new register. Amendment No. 14 simply allows that anyone entitled to vote would be allowed to do so through inclusion on the new register. One would not be transferring people's data without their permission but simply ensuring the new register included all those entitled to vote according to the old register. Consider the concern that there are many out-of-date entries. We know many addresses and so forth are out of date, but the fact that one address is wrong does not invalidate the register.
Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 all address the same point, which concerns the circumstances that apply even if one does not want to ensure everybody is automatically entitled to be included on the register. What is the excuse for not including those who have voted in the past three elections, or, if data protection is a concern on the basis of the time period for three elections, the past two? I am referring to persons who, within the period covered by any data protection laws, or within the past 12 years, have provided their details to Trinity or the NUI and who have indicated they have voted. These are active voters. Those who voted in the last election, whom I also include, used their votes during the Covid pandemic, when it was extraordinarily difficult to do so. They had to go out during a global pandemic, find a witness and send in their forms, thereby showing great and unusual commitment to utilising their votes. Again, the idea that all those persons should be automatically removed from the register is an insult to them. In some cases, they made an extreme effort to use their votes in the last Seanad election. At a minimum, it seems that those who vote in the next general election, or the one that is likely to be prior to the coming into operation of this Bill, should be automatically included on the register. If there is an issue with being clear on what will happen, there should be none with retaining data on those who will exercise their votes in the next election and with ensuring they are automatically included on the register of electors as eligible to vote.
I refer to three elections, two elections and one election because doing so, while it addresses the question of out-of-date information, ensures those who use their votes will not be cut from the register or have additional obstacles placed in their way. This relates to amendment No. 61.
Amendment No. 61 addresses one of the problems we have with the register. With regard to the register for NUI graduates, it used to be the case that there was automatic enrolment. There was a streamlined process whereby all graduates, except those who opted out, were included. In the early 1990s, around the time of the introduction of free education, when there was a great widening of the cohort attending university, notwithstanding that some will argue we still do not really have free education, you had to choose to add yourself to the register and go through a process in that regard. I do not know whether this was coincidental or just unfortunate timing. The change affecting enrolment means that while so many people in their forties, fifties and sixties - I came in just at the very end of it – were automatically included, many younger graduates are less represented on the register because they have a more cumbersome process to add themselves to it and thus gain access to a vote. Amendment No. 61 is very small and practical; however, by replacing "may" with "shall", it would require universities to automatically send the chief registration officer the details of newly qualified graduates, with their consent, for the purpose of including them on the electoral register.
Again, it is streamlined process whereby the universities would have to ask their graduates if they wished to join the register of electors for the Seanad election, and if so, there would be a wholesale transfer to the chief registration officer of data for all those who have consented. Again, it makes it a less burdensome process for persons to gain access to their vote. If we believe, which I do, that it is a public good to have as many people as possible voting and participating in decision-making, we should try to make that process as easy as possible. We have seen that the more cumbersome process, as faced by current graduates, has led to a lower level of registration, certainly in the case of NUI voters, than previously when we had a more automated system of transferring newly qualified graduates.
There two more amendments on this theme. On amendment No. 22, as I said, and I have been very clear, I believe the better thing would be to transfer all those who are on the current NUI and Trinity registers. If not, I have suggested options to include those who have voted in the last one, two or three elections. At a minimum, there should be a responsibility that all those on the current register would be explicitly contacted, not simply through an information campaign - we, or the State, have their addresses - informed that they need to transfer to the new register and given the opportunity. As I said, a general information campaign and so forth is not sufficient. There needs to be an explicit invitation to the new register. Otherwise, what we will have during the Seanad election after this legislation is enacted is a large number of people who expect to use their vote who discover they are not on the register. Nobody becomes more disaffected with democracy than the person who finds themselves with a vote taken from them, except perhaps, for those who are never given a vote at all, which is the wider public in terms of the Seanad. I think I have covered amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 22 is about the contact point. Amendment No. 61 is about the automated process for individual universities to engage with the chief registration officer and facilitate their graduates in accessing their franchise.
There is also an important point regarding an amendment that was ruled out of order, and it is very unusual, which is the fact there is no supplementary register. A supplementary register in this instance may be particularly important when so many persons may find themselves removed from the register and realising they need to add themselves only when an election is called or about to be called. Under the current system - again this was a very easy issue to fix - we have an anomaly whereby those who graduated in September 2019 were not entitled to vote in the election of spring 2020, because it is almost a once-a-year opportunity which does not abide by the graduation process. For example, those who graduated this September will in all likelihood not be able to vote or register to vote, or have an opportunity to do so, in the election that might take place in early 2025 or spring because there is no supplementary register. It is a real gap. New graduates almost need an 18-month run-in to get the opportunity to vote in a Seanad election. Again, it seems to be a small issue that could be fixed. This is an opportunity to fix it. It is an issue that will be especially pertinent because we know that people will be very frustrated when they realise they have been removed from the register. If we do not at least have a supplementary register they can be directed to, there will be large-scale frustration and disappointment that is completely avoidable in respect of the first Seanad election that will take place under this new system.
These are practical suggestions. I have given multiple options. I ask the Minister would look to them when he is in the Dáil. We do not want a message of disenfranchisement to come out alongside what the Government would hope to be a first step forward. It would be a pity to have a step backward attached to that.
I thank the Senator. First, there are no provisions here that would lead to a reduction in the franchise. This is about increasing the franchise. I will address the points the Senator raised.
A reduction in the register is perhaps a better way to put it.
I will address the subject of the register too. Senators have raised many times, both here and from my time in the Seanad, and still raise issues about the current register, its efficacy and how up to date it is. While it has improved, what the Senator is seeking is a wholesale transfer of that data from one register to the other. I will address that. I thank Senator Higgins and other Senators for bringing forward the amendments. I understand the intention of the amendment is to ensure the existing electors in NUI and the University of Dublin constituencies are included in the new register. It is important to remember, however, that the higher education constituency is a new constituency, not a merger of existing ones. Therefore, it is not effective, nor do I believe it is appropriate, to simply transfer and add the existing electors from NUI and Trinity College to the new higher education constituency register, because it is a brand-new constituency. I will talk through it. Every single person who is registered will be written to and there will be a public advertising campaign around it.
The good thing is there is sufficient time too because we are legislating for the Seanad election after the next one. That helps us to create a register. There are many people on the register who might not want to be on the register either. There are all those various things. It is up to people to register. If I transfer over or merge two existing constituencies, that is not done anywhere in that sense. I get the Senator's point. I hope I will be able to assure the Senator that it is not going to be the case where we would see thousands of people drop off the register. If anything, it will be the other way round and significantly increase the number of people who are able to vote. This new constituency, as the Senator knows, will be open to degree holders from 16 different institutions, many of whom are new to the process and, as graduates, thankfully, they will now have the first-time opportunity to register. Over time, as other institutions become designated, and I addressed this in previous amendments tabled by Senators Clonan and Malcolm Byrne, Irish citizens who hold degrees for these institutions will also be eligible. All will join the register on the same footing.
Amendment No. 14 was put forward. I say this respectfully, it misinterprets the purpose of the overall section, which is to provide for the new higher education constituency, and takes the reference to "every person who is for the time being registered" as referring to those registered on the current register of electors in one of the two constituencies. That subsection, however, is setting out the future situation and refers to the register of electors for the higher education constituency. Communications will be crucially important in this regard, in particular informing all of those who are eligible of the process and how and what they need to do to engage. As part of preparations on an administrative basis, NUI is engaging with institutions, especially with Trinity College regarding the existing electors. Our understanding from the National University of Ireland is that correspondence is planned for early December, in line with the expectations that the website and the form will be available.
Regulations will also need to be made regarding the prescribed form as provided for in this Bill. NUI and Trinity College will co-ordinate to ensure a consistent approach. Information will be available on the relevant website and through other communication channels in advance to make sure people are aware that the correspondence is coming to maximise the impact. The correspondence will inform those on the current registers of changes and when those changes will take effect, particularly noting that the next Seanad election will be on the basis of the current rules. Existing electors will then be asked to confirm that they wish to be included in the electoral register of the new higher education constituency, which is important too. They will also be asked to indicate if they are an NUI and-or a Trinity graduate for the purposes of by-elections in those constituencies in the interim period. As I said on Second Stage, this will be supported by a public information campaign as well because we are talking about a very significant constituency of citizens. It will not just be letter writing. We have already started the preparatory work. The two universities have already done that. It is a new constituency. While I understand the point the Senator is making, the idea of taking two existing constituencies and merge the data that is in there is not the appropriate course of action. I fundamentally disagree with that approach.
A supplementary register would be a completely new departure for the Seanad and would add significant extra work for the central registration authority and the designated institutions, which are already new to this process. We will not be bringing in a supplementary register as part of this. An Coimisiún Toghcháin has an existing remit for post-electoral events, which already covers Seanad elections. The new role for an coimisiún that is being provided here in reviewing the registration process is important too. An coimisiún has already done reviews of the referendums, as the Senator knows, as well as the local and European elections. It will do likewise for the Seanad and will review the Seanad elections after they have taken place.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to require the chief registrations officer to take the step of engaging with existing electors. I hope I have assured Senator Higgins that this is already part of the plans for the implementation of the new process. The chief registrations officer will have the duty to prepare and revise annually the register of electors. The first new register of the higher education constituency will be published on 1 April 2025. The requirement is for this to be an accurate register of those who are qualified in the new constituency on 23 January 2025. We have a good lead-in period to get this right and we will get it right.
As I have said, to help to ensure the accuracy of the register, all graduates will be contacted to inform them that the next Seanad will be elected on the current rules because it is important for people to know that, to inform them of the changes we are making and to ask them to confirm they want to be on the new register. That contact is critical in ensuring existing electors understand the changes that are coming and how they will be affected, including how their data will be processed under the new proposals or processes that will be brought in. For example, Trinity College graduates' information will be shared with and processed by a different body from the one they have engaged with up to now. This contact is appropriate and necessary to ensure that those details are up to date on the new register and that addresses no longer in use or names of people who are deceased are not taken onto the new register. It is very important that this is done. Given that there are people who feature on both existing registers, this step will help to bring clarity and minimise the risk of duplication that would come from adding both electoral rolls together. It also ensures an efficient operation for by-elections for vacancies arising in the next Seanad. I do not propose to accept these amendments. It is up to the Senators to decide if they wish to press them.
I thank the Minister for his comments on amendment No. 22. As I said, it is not something that is contained within the Bill. I will take the bona fides of the Minister regarding the intention in respect of contact. That is going to be crucial.
As the Minister will be aware, the other amendments and proposals we have made in this area were not solely for the full transfer of the NUI and TCD registers. I also made proposals in respect of the transfer of those who have voted in the last one, two or three elections. I still believe that should be considered. I suggest that a full transfer for inclusion in the new register would be advisable. Given that those who voted in the last Seanad election and those who will vote in the forthcoming Seanad election may be seen as having indicated that their information is up to date - they are engaged and active voters - I suggest that they should not be asked to go through another process. That they are already actively engaged in the register should be sufficient. Those who voted in the last election voted during Covid when it is was extremely difficult to exercise the franchise. I still believe that those who may be about to vote in the pending Seanad elections should be automatically included. We disagree on that, and that is fine.
I also disagree with the Minister in respect of the supplementary register. There is a reason we have a supplementary register in respect of referendums, Dáil elections and European elections. The Seanad is an outlier in that a supplementary register is not offered. Again, a supplementary register is a sign from the State that we value people's participation and that we want to make sure we give every opportunity to people to participate electorally. There is a reason we have those supplementary registers - it is about sending a signal of encouragement and support to people to join in collective decision-making through an electoral event, even where they may not have been previously on the register. I believe the same principle - the same reasons we have a supplementary register for other elections and referendums - applies in respect of Seanad elections. I urge the Minister to look at this issue.
We will come to the electoral commission later. The Minister has made great reference to it. Sadly, our attempts to have Seanad reform included in the electoral commission's original mandate were rejected. The narrowness of the commission's remit in respect of the Seanad is notable. It is looking to post-electoral events and the conduct of the register, for example, but it is not being given a mandate in respect of Seanad reform or the expansion of the franchise, or the next steps that could be taken in respect of Seanad reform or a widening of the franchise. It is perhaps not accurate to suggest it will be coming with these proposals. At present, the commission's remit is narrowly confined to whether the elections were conducted correctly and whether the registrations are taking place correctly. That is the narrow remit we have in front of us.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, have been ruled out of order as there is a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21, inclusive, have been ruled out of order as there is a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendment No. 22 has already been discussed with amendment No. 14.
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 8, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(4) During preparations under subsection (3), the central registration authority shall contact all persons registered as electors in the former National University constituency and former Dublin University constituency to seek consent for their inclusion in the first register of electors.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 23 has been ruled out of order as there is a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Question proposed, "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
I have spoken to the issues already and I will not repeat them at length. My concern relates to the proposals I put forward on carrying forward those who are currently on the register, such as those who voted in the past one, two or three elections. As I said, the Minister and I disagree on that matter and I am noting that.
Question put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 24 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12
Amendment Nos. 25 to 28, inclusive, have been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 25 to 28, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
These are the same principles. I believe in how it is worded that it could be carried through in that persons who had registered to vote would be considered as having made a claim to register to vote in the new higher education constituency. While I recognise it is a new constituency, it is not simply a matter of merging the two but, rather, that as the beginning point for the new constituency those who have registered to vote prior to next January would be considered to have made a claim to vote, provided that person had voted in two of the previous three electoral events occurring in either constituency. As I say, it is bad practice. There are 200,000 people in the constituency. Even if we look to those who actively voted in the NUI constituency, we are looking at 30,000 to 40,000 persons who exercised their vote. To be clear, this is 30,000 to 40,000 persons who have exercised their vote as recently as 2020 who are going to be removed from the register. It is probably one of the largest removals of persons from a register we have seen and I urge there be reflection on what it is to take 40,000 active voters off the register. It is removing from them a vote they currently have and requiring them to seek that vote again. It is quite a substantial number. As I said, I am not speaking even of all those who are on the register, as I am in one of my other amendments. I am speaking about those who voted on the last occasion, in the situation of a global pandemic where they had to make considerable effort to exercise that franchise and vote. Creating an additional obstacle or additional registration requirement for those who are already active voters is a poor way to start what we hope to be an expansion of those participating in Seanad elections. This is taking 40,000 active voters off the field with respect to the NUI constituency. I cannot speak to the exact numbers who voted in the Trinity constituency, but I imagine they are roughly equivalent. It is a bad decision. It would be good to include those who voted in the last Seanad election, but at an absolute minimum those who vote in the next Seanad election should be considered as making a claim for inclusion in the new register. That fact could be communicated to them and if they did not want to be on the new register they could choose to opt out. The key point is it should be made as easy as possible and we are making it unnecessarily difficult for persons to retain their vote for the university seats in this House.
We have discussed this. The Senator and I are not going to agree on this at all. We are not removing anybody. We are actually informing people how they are going to register for a new constituency and register for what is effectively a new era in Seanad elections. We are going to back that up by writing to everyone on the register, having a public information campaign, getting data updated and all the various things. I do not want to repeat myself, because I know what the Senator said. She and I will not agree on this one. She has tabled her amendment in all sincerity. I am very confident about how this will work because we have a good lead-in time. One of the benefits of that, we hope, will be to stir further interest in those elections and provide an opportunity for people to engage again with the new constituency and electoral register. There will be a lot of activity in respect of the correspondence sent to electors, but also the public information campaign. There will be opportunities for existing Senators at that stage, as well as for prospective Senators. I am not saying it requires a shot in the arm or anything like it, but this affords an opportunity for a new departure, and maybe new momentum around it too, to get people to engage with the register. I genuinely believe that and this is the best way to do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 29 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14
Amendment No. 30 has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Just by way of explanation, all the subsequent amendments pertaining to all the sections from Senator McDowell and I all refer to the same principle of including extra institutions. I do not intend to speak to them as I spoke to the Minister about it earlier and last week. I take in good faith his assurance they will, with whatever discretion they have, seek to include those graduates.
On what Senator Higgins was saying, the migration of the Trinity and NUI panel votes would of course be very advantageous to us because it would preserve the constituencies that elected us. I take on board what the Minister has said about this being a brand new constituency, however. The inclusion of DCU, from which I have two degrees, and the Technological University of Dublin, where I taught for 20 years, both of which are on the north side, delights me.
Under the GDPR and the rules and regulations, if a person registers as an elector on the Trinity panel, is it permissible to migrate their personal data to a brand new constituency? I do not intend to address any of our other amendments.
I thank the Senator. He raises a very good point. We have already gone through the details on the central registration authority and the ability it will have to share data for the new register. The point the Senator has raised about a data holder in Trinity being allowed to transfer their data across en masse without people assenting to that - although they will know about it - is a very good point. That could be problematic. In addition, there are people, whether we like it or not, who are on the register but do not want to be on it. They need to be afforded an opportunity to decide whether they want to be on the new electoral register as well. I agree with the Senator and am glad of his positive remarks too. I really believe this is an opportunity to re-energise this, correct the register to improve its accuracy and get prospective electors engaged to register on the electoral register, and we will support that. As I said earlier, there is already work ongoing between the universities and I have read that into the record of the House. They are well prepared. We have a good lead-in time to get this right and we will get it right.
I have been reminded of one amendment, namely, amendment No. 61, which may have fallen between the stools when the Minister was addressing the others. It will be coming up shortly. One area that does not arise is the idea of the automatic transfer. This is no longer about the NUI or TCD constituencies, but whether, for all the institutions covered by this new constituency, the practice will be what was the practice previously, whereby there is opportunity for automatic enrolment upon graduation.
My amendment No. 61, for example, would suggest that on graduation, with the consent of the students, the relevant institute would transfer the names of all those who have graduated and who have consented to be included in the register. I think that would lead to a higher level of registration. As I said, that is with consent, so it is within general data protection regulation, GDPR, compliance.
It has generally been shown that students still have an attachment to the institution so, for example, the point of graduation or immediately prior to that is the best time in terms of registering. This is something that would facilitate that. That is amendment No. 61, which the Minister might recall from earlier. The word in the Bill is "may". I have suggested the word "shall" because it would be good practice. We know that where universities took that responsibility for asking their graduates whether they wanted to avail of their Seanad vote and then transferred them to register, we had much higher levels of registration. The Minister addressed the other points, so we will not go back over them.
This one is very important because it is a perfect opportunity for people once they have graduated to engage and be part of that. We will facilitate that and that will happen. When someone graduates, they will be asked whether they want to be added to the register at that stage. We will have their data, and they will be added. That is for the future, post-establishment of the new constituency. That will happen.
I thank the Minister. I welcome that. I wish Senator Clonan the best of luck in the 2029-2030 Seanad elections when Technical University, TU, Dublin and Dublin City University, DCU, will be included. I would also remind him that-----
I will be a shot in the arm, being the young energetic Senator that I am.
-----the National College of Ireland is also a northside institution now, so hopefully it will be designated by that stage as well.
I would certainly agree with the Minister in terms of the register of electors. Most universities are even moving to that situation now whereby they are ready to encourage people and ask them as they sign up to graduate whether they would like to be added to the register. In the future, it will be a relatively easy proposition. I certainly imagine any of those who are on existing registers are enthusiastic enough about it. Even recently, the National University of Ireland, NUI, was electing its chancellor and in those circumstances, those who were eligible to vote had to apply to be able to seek a vote. Indeed, there was no cost to the Exchequer because people had to pay for their own stamp to send the ballot paper back in. There will be a bit of proactivity in this regard.
There is also enough of a lead-in period to have an information campaign around this new sixth seat. It could re-energise the whole university panel. I think we will see a debate. In fact, we could probably see hustings around the country involving some of the candidates.
It is a great opportunity for candidates.
It is, so I have no doubt that will start to happen. What is being proposed makes sense, but it is the supporting campaigns of information and so on that will be critical.
It could be said that Senator Byrne's contribution was the commencement of the hustings already.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 in the names of Senators Clonan and McDowell has been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24
Amendment No. 32 is in the name of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 15, to delete lines 20 and 21 and substitute the following:
“(a) 3 persons from amongst persons nominated by each designated institution for that purpose;
(b) 1 person from amongst persons nominated by student unions of each designated institution for that purpose;”.
I will be brief because we have a number of amendments to get through. The Bill specifies four persons "nominated by each designated institution". Of course, "nominated by each designated institution" and by the corporate leadership of a designated institution is not necessarily the same as ensuring we have representation from those who make up the electorate or those who are in the constituency. As I said, I made two suggestions, one of which was that there would be two persons nominated by the institution, one person nominated by the students' union of the designated institution and perhaps one by the trade unions representing staff. That would allow for a more holistic representation for a higher education institution from all those constituent parts, that is, the staff and students as well as the administration of an institution. That is amendment No. 33.
Probably more crucial, and if not worth considering here then in the Dáil, is amendment No. 32, which suggests that among the four persons nominated by a designated institution, at least one person would be nominated by the students' union of a designated institution for that purpose. Again, when we look to the institutions, the electoral franchise is not the property of the institutions. It is the students themselves. The students who will become the graduates make up the constituency. In some cases, of course, the students' union contains the graduate students' union. When the Higher Education Authority Act was coming through, the importance of ensuring student representation was recognised and that a students' union representative brings something different to the table on the boards of our higher institutions rather than those chosen solely by the administration of a higher education institution. I was very glad that the then Minister, Deputy Harris, accepted the principle and agreed to the inclusion of a students' union representation on the boards of the higher education institutions. It would be a good and consistent decision to say that among the four who are coming from each designated institution, at least one of those would be a students' union representative. Again, those are the students. They are the franchise holders, effectively, or future franchise holders. Amendment No. 32 is practical, and it is also consistent with the positions the Government has taken with regard to the HEA Bill.
I have some sympathy, but the question here is around the purpose of the advisory committee. The purpose of the advisory committee is not to advise on higher education policy more generally. It is on the functioning of the register of electors and how this electorate is constituted. It is also critical to remember that it is electing Members of the Seanad. They are not representative of any sector in the sense that they are not representative of students. It is slightly different as well, in that we are looking here at graduates. I have no problem with a student being potentially included. In many ways, however, it could be that graduate representatives are probably more appropriate because, if you like, they are the people who are going to represent the electorate in this regard.
It is important, however. With any advisory committee or anything else, it is around the competence of those who are sitting on the committee. The question is around what they are being asked to advise. It is to advise the chief registration officer on the performance of his or her functions under this Part and the Schedule. The key question is really around those who are appointed and that there is as broad a range as possible in terms of backgrounds. Certainly, I would anticipate that some of those who will be appointed will be people with a knowledge of electoral law, for example. There may be a need, as per our last discussion, for people to have a knowledge of marketing and how to encourage people to get on a register and so on. It is important that there is diversity within it in terms of a gender balance and geographical balance, which will be critical.
This applies even where the nominees come from designated institutions, not just geographically but in terms of the type of institution the nominees are selected by. I looked at this section in the context of proposing a potential amendment but I am always reluctant to be too prescriptive because there may be particular requirements with regard to certain appointments.
I respect where Senator Higgins is coming from. Regarding the HEA legislation, I would have been supportive of increased student representation because of the function that is there. What is more critical is the competency of those who are going to be appointed. Part of it would be the process by which the persons are nominated by each designated institution. For example, will it be the case that every designated institution can put forward one name or several names? What are the criteria that will be used? Will there be a balancing of those nominated by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and the two other persons? It will be critical to look at this new advisory committee’s full remit and what it is going to be doing. Will it simply be looking at how the elections are conducted or will it have the broader remit of ensuring people get on the register, advising An Coimisiún Toghcháin and looking not just at the conduct of our elections but encouraging people to vote, as well as the research that is done around that? What will be critical is teasing out some of the terms of reference of this committee. It is on that basis that the competencies of those who should be appointed is a key issue.
I thank Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn for tabling amendments Nos. 32 and 33 and I thank Senator Byrne for his contribution. The amendments seek to amend section 24, which provides for the advisory committee to be in place to advise the chief registration officer on the performance of his or her functions under the Act, as outlined by Senator Byrne. The matter of appointing the ordinary members of the advisory committee is covered by section 24(5). Two persons shall be nominated by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage shall nominate two others and four members shall be appointed from those nominated by designated institutions of higher education.
Amendment No. 32 proposes to include a requirement for one of the members to be nominated by the student unions of each designated institution. Amendment No. 33 proposes to include a requirement that one member be nominated by student unions of each designated institution and that one member be nominated by trade unions representing staff employed by each designated institution. Under the provisions of the Bill, nominations will be put forward by the designated institutions as they deem appropriate. That is the right way to do it, and Senator Byrne articulated it well. As such, there is scope for the inclusion of persons nominated by student unions and trade unions among those put forward by designated institutions. It might be for each of them to look at what skill set they want, what viewpoint they want and what advocacy group they want in order to ensure that the bases are covered and that they have the required expertise, knowledge and experience.
I understand the Senators’ intent. No one would be opposed to a student or graduate being nominated, as Senator Byrne said, but it is best not to impose limitations on the process. It is important that designated institutions have autonomy in deciding which candidates are best suited for nomination as ordinary members of the advisory committee. I would imagine many will draw from the existing community, whether that is students or staff employed in the university. As I said, I appreciate the motivation behind the proposed amendments. However, I am genuinely satisfied that there is sufficient scope and flexibility in the provisions of the Bill to allow the relevant institutions to nominate the most suitable candidates for membership of the advisory committee. In addition, it will be open to both relevant Ministers - the Minister for housing and the Minister for further education - to make appointments. The provisions of the Bill in this regard are not in any way restrictive. As a result, I do not propose to accept either of the amendments.
There probably are key competencies that students can bring in terms of what will or will not be effective in encouraging persons to exercise their franchise. I doubt there is any marketing expert who can compare with what the student unions often have to bring in terms of engaging that constituency. Sadly, this is an area in respect of which a signal is needed centrally because without that kind of national signal, I doubt that many of the higher education institutions will, in fact, nominate a student. I hope that some will. In the case of the HEA board, we know there was a decision to send a signal that there should be such a representative so we did not simply have to wait and see. Some institutions did look for and support student representation but other institutions really had to be pressed to do so, and it was similar in regard to trade union representation. That is fine. We hope the same outcome will come about but we disagree in terms of the approach. I will press amendment No. 32.
I wish to be helpful. The priority is to ensure that the advisory committees give a voice to as broad a spectrum of opinion as possible. This is open to any Minister at a given time. If it were to come to pass that none of the designated institutions did this or it appeared that one part of the community was excluded, although I do not envisage that happening, both Ministers have two nominations each, so it can be rebalanced if that were required. However, I am confident that the provisions as proposed will allow for an unrestricted nomination process that will genuinely give rise to a variation of representation in the membership of the committee.
I thank the Minister. I think we have the same intent. Nonetheless, I will press the amendment.
I have sympathy with Senator Higgins in the context of where she is coming from. Again, this is not prescriptive. For example, there is no requirement that it shall include a nominee of employers’ representatives or particular grades of staff, whether academic or non-academic. It comes back to the core question around competencies. I disagree with Senator Higgins on one point. I think higher education institutions have been particularly good at promoting student participation and student inclusion, and their record is generally quite strong. Student unions may not always agree with the decisions of the university but the engagement in the participation process has greatly improved. As the Minister outlined, the record has often been that where gaps are discovered, Ministers tend to fill them. When there was no student representative on the HEA, the then Minister of Education, Deputy Micheál Martin, filled one of the posts with a student representative. Similarly, the Minister, Deputy Norma Foley, recently ensured that a student would be appointed to the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment for the first time.
What is probably more critical is the issue of graduates because this is about a voting system for graduates of institutions, who are a much more disparate group. One of the questions that we have not really addressed is that while there will be many graduates within the State, an issue that is already facing the NUI and Trinity panels is the number of graduates residing outside the State.
The question of how we engage with those people is going to be an issue for these elections. It is going to be particularly exciting. I agree that there are students who could potentially be excellent on the marketing and advertising side, but this is an advisory committee and I do not agree that we should tie anyone's hands. We must focus on its role and function, in particular the fact that it is about graduates. That is what is critical.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, to delete lines 20 and 21 and substitute the following:
“(a) 2 persons from amongst persons nominated by each designated institution for that purpose;
(b) 1 person from amongst persons nominated by student unions of each designated institution for that purpose;
(c) 1 person from amongst persons nominated by trade unions representing staff employed by each designated institution for that purpose;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 34 is out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Section 24 agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26
Amendments Nos. 35, 38 and 39 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 16, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“(d) the level of participation in elections in the Higher Education constituency, including the collection of quantitative and qualitative data in relation to voters and their preferences,”.
Again, I will be quite brief because we still have a number of amendments to get through. The amendment relates to what the Minister has been discussing, namely, the potential role of the Electoral Commission. The role as initially envisaged did not have sufficient focus on Seanad Éireann. In this Bill, the remit is still quite narrow. The amendments provide three suggestions for how we might widen the remit of the Electoral Commission. One relates to not just looking to the registration or the electoral events but to looking explicitly at the level of participation in the elections, including the collection of quantitative and qualitative data about voters and their preferences.
We suggest including in page 16: "The Commission shall, after each electoral event to which this Act applies, prepare and publish...a report on the administration of [it and so forth]. We also suggest in amendment No. 39, "measures to increase the level of voter registration in the Higher Education constituency, including a mechanism for...automatic enrolment". We have discussed the issue outlined in amendment No. 39 but amendment No. 35 is at the core of what we propose, namely, the idea that we would give a remit to the Electoral Commission to look at the level of participation and to actively encourage wider participation.
I am conscious that my amendments Nos. 36 and 37 have been ruled out of order, but they also offer something that is clearly missing from the Bill, namely, a mandate for the Electoral Commission to look to those next steps. The Minister seemed to indicate that the next steps in Seanad reform may emerge from the Electoral Commission. However, the commission has not been given a mandate to look at policy or legislative options to widen the electoral franchise. Neither does it have responsibility to look at the steps that might be taken to ensure we achieve the ultimate goal of universal suffrage for Seanad Éireann, so that every person would have a vote and a say in the election of this House. The implementation of the Manning report was formerly a policy of both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the previous Oireachtas. The Minister has signalled that it is his intention that the Electoral Commission will contribute to further reform, but the remit in the Bill is still quite narrow.
I have some sympathy with the idea of An Coimisiún Toghcháin conducting research on who votes, but it is probably going to be slightly more challenging in Seanad elections given the nature of the electorate. For instance, An Coimisiún Toghcháin has already started to conduct qualitative research. Both in the local and European elections and during the referendums in March, somebody was conducting surveys on behalf of An Coimisiún Toghcháin in my local polling station in Gorey, County Wexford. I have a lot of sympathy with what Senator Higgins says, so that we can ensure research is carried out. I am quite certain that An Coimisiún Toghcháin would do it.
I have one question to put to the Minister on resourcing to ensure research is carried out. This is going to involve significant work in the coming years. If we are to carry out quantitative and qualitative research, we need to have people who are able to do it, so that it is not just a case of it being commissioned. I imagine An Coimisiún Toghcháin would do it, but I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of the research being included as part of the legislation.
I thank the Senators for the amendment and their contributions. The amendment seeks to amend section 26, which provides for the role of An Coimisiún Toghcháin in regard to the register of electors, including the research it would undertake, and provides that it would make recommendations. It also provides for reporting requirements by the chief registration officer to An Coimisiún Toghcháin. The section requires An Coimisiún Toghcháin to publish a report within two years of the commencement of the legislation, based on the research carried out by it on the register.
The amendments in this group seek to assign a research role to An Coimisiún Toghcháin and to outline areas where it could make recommendations. They are listed in the amendments and Members know what they are. In respect of each of the amendments, it is important that we reflect on the provisions of the Electoral Reform Act 2022, which I spoke about earlier. Under sections 64 and 66 of the Act, An Coimisiún Toghcháin is assigned research and advisory functions on electoral policy and procedures. As part of these functions, an coimisiún may conduct research and make recommendations for legislative or policy changes in respect of electoral matters. This includes conducting research and making recommendations in respect of the issues raised in the Senators' amendments.
Furthermore, increasing voter turnout and participation in our democratic process is a key interest of An Coimisiún Toghcháin. The provisions set out in the Electoral Reform Act, along with the provisions in section 26, provide ample scope for an coimisiún to carry out appropriate research and to make recommendations in respect of all electoral matters.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to ensure an coimisiún will publish a report on the administration of elections held in the higher education constituencies. I am happy to confirm that this is already provided for under the Electoral Reform Act 2022. Section 68 of the Act provides for post-electoral event reviews to be carried out by An Coimisiún Toghcháin following all elections and referendums, including Seanad elections. I hope that satisfies the Senators.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 have been ruled out of order, as they are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 16, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(2) The Commission shall, after each electoral event to which this Act applies, prepare and publish (in such a manner as the Commission may determine) a report on the administration of the electoral event concerned.
(3) Where the Commission prepares a report under subsection (2), the report shall be published and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and a copy of the report shall be provided to the Minister no later than 6 months after the electoral event the subject matter of the report.”
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 16, line 38, after “register” to insert “including measures to increase the level of voter registration in the Higher Education constituency, including a mechanism for the automatic enrolment of qualified new graduates of designated institutions in the register of electors”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 40 has been ruled out of order because it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
Section 26 agreed to.
Sections 27 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 have been ruled out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.
Question proposed, "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
I will be very brief on the section to discuss those amendments. I will come to the issues with section 40, but these were technical amendments on the key issues in section 40 which concern the new proposals for a replacement list system. This is a fundamental problem with the Bill which I really urge the Minister to address. It is a fundamental step back for democracy. We know that, under the Constitution, all university Senators must be elected. The list system as proposed would allow for a situation where if I had somebody on my replacement list who was not able to step into a role and I stepped down causing a casual vacancy to occur, somebody on one of the other Senators' replacement lists could in fact be chosen.
As I said and with absolute respect to other Senators, the people I choose and the people my constituency mates, Senators Mullen and McDowell, choose to have on the replacement list may be very different. It is certainly not a reflection of my voters nor does it give that electorate a chance to choose again if the replacement list system is brought in as proposed. These were technical amendments because I genuinely urge the Minister to examine section 40. It will be a fundamental problem with the Bill. We do not have to discuss them but I draw the attention to these technical amendments because they would facilitate changes to section 40.
I wish to speak briefly because I am conscious we are out of time. I know An Coimisiún Toghcháin has been asked to look more generally at the issue of list systems rather than by-elections. I raised with the Minister the question of whether list systems will apply more generally and whether it is his view it should apply more generally, whether to other Seanad elections or indeed to Dáil elections in the same way as it applies in European elections.
In the Seanad reform implementation group, I had an amendment drafted that all those elected on the panels in the case of vacancies would be selected by a list system but is the Minister conscious of any constitutional concerns that exist in terms of the replacement list for the universities when in fact, Bunreacht na hÉireann specifically says that a Member should be elected by the universities?
To add another specific concern on section 40, there is a question of who is electing in terms of the Oireachtas. There is also the fundamental question of allowing the full constituency to have the opportunity in relation to a by-election or a casual vacancy. There is also the fundamental question of who is eligible for consideration for election and that is where a situation arises where you have a narrowed pool of persons considered, including persons who were not selected by others. As I said, the idea of taking all of the replacement lists of the all the Senators is the issue. I raise it now because unfortunately, I understand this Bill will be guillotined.
Does the Minister wish to respond to that?
I will respond when we are discussing section 40.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34
Amendments Nos. 43, 47 and 50 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 23, line 19, to delete “60” and substitute “8”.
Amendments Nos. 43, 47 and 50 all relate to the fact we are making the bar for the person standing for election to the Seanad higher. As I say, the electoral process is not just those who vote, it is those who stand. The bar has been raised to a different degree so instead, I suggest a reversal to the current status. It should not be harder for someone to run for the Seanad elections than it is currently and under this Bill it will be. As I say, rather than 60 I suggest we use the current figure of eight nominators and rather than 60 we have ten statutory declarations. In terms of the deposit, currently you need ten nominators or eight nominators, this Bill proposes you need 60 nominators and the deposit required will be raised from €500 to a figure of €1,800, which is a deposit that may be prohibitive for many persons. I do not believe we should make it harder for persons to participate as candidates in the Seanad election.
Hear, hear.
Similarly, I note again in relation to section 40, it is a disservice to democracy that we deny the opportunity to persons to put themselves forward for election in the case of a casual vacancy or by-election. These are backward steps for democracy and it is deeply regrettable they are in the Bill.
Hear, hear.
These are not requirements that are too difficult. If you are not able to get 60 names to assent to your nomination, and I appreciate we want to encourage people to run, but 60 is not a huge number to get when we are talking about a potential electorate of up to 1 million. While we want it to be as broad as possible, if somebody is serious about contesting an election they will be either able to raise the necessary funds to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, or be able to contact 60 people to do it.
The fear and one of the concerns I have, and I say it to the Minister in the context of looking at the European elections and some of the others where this is a factor that has been raised by voters, is when we look at the length of some of the ballot papers, part of it is the ease with which some people are able to get on a ballot paper. Yes, we want to encourage people to get involved with the political process but this does not prevent them from doing it. It requires them to do a little bit of work, either to fundraise for the necessary funds or to find 60 people in order to put their name forward.
I encourage the Minister to look at the minimum number required in other areas to allow somebody to run. The danger is that if we make it too easy, there will be people who will just decide I will stick my name in for the laugh on that. Indeed, you then have a situation where you have a ballot paper that is a metre and a half long. We already know one of the challenges when voting for the university panels is there already are quite a number of candidates who are standing who may not be known. It is not entirely unreasonable and I say respectfully, candidates should have a minimum requirement to show they are serious about running. Sixty is not an unreasonable number; if anything I would probably set it a little bit higher.
I thank the Senators for the amendments and I think we have struck the right balance here. In summary, section 34 requires the nomination of a candidate to the higher education constituency to be either, as outlined in the Bill, assented to by 60 persons who are registered electors in that constituency or the payment of a deposit of €1,800. We have to value our electoral process too in the sense that we have people who are motivated to run and put their name forward because we want to have representatives here who will represent the electorate in that constituency. There is a balance to be struck there. There is no hurdle put in by the provisions that are here.
These are absolutely appropriate provisions and amendment No. 43 proposes to reduce the number of assenters required to secure a nomination from 60 to eight people. That could be your family if they all went to one of the universities. Setting it at 60 is the appropriate level. Amendment No.47 is consequential on No. 43 which seeks to reduce the number of statutory declarations required from assenters from 60 to ten. As I mentioned, the Bill provides for the requirement that a candidate's nomination be assented to by 60 electors or the payment of an €1,800 deposit. It is worth nothing these thresholds are the same that apply to the nomination of non-party candidates for election to the European Parliament. Earlier today, we discussed that the constituency itself will be pretty similar to the Dublin European constituency.
We have provided the same requirements for someone to be listed as a candidate in these elections along that line because there are genuine issues right now not just with the length of ballot papers but also the length of ballot papers led by the number of candidates. The Electoral Commission is looking at that very thing right now.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and my apologies to Senator Warfield. I know the Senator wanted to get in but, unfortunately, I am bound by the order of the House.
As it is now 3 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the Seanad of this day: "That amendment No. 43 is hereby negatived in Committee; the Government amendments undisposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Schedule, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House; Fourth Stage is hereby completed; the Bill is hereby received for final consideration; and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put and declared carried.