Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I begin by commenting on the comments of Deputies Shane Ross and Catherine Murphy. Deputy Shane Ross mentioned insiders and Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to patronage. They were talking about the manner in which the Seanad is elected in part by Deputies, Senators and local authority members. They include themselves, as Deputies Shane Ross and Catherine Murphy are part of that electorate. If a Labour-Party-aligned elector votes for a Labour Party candidate, it is democracy, not patronage. The same goes for all other parties and independent candidates when they vote for themselves. In a general election to the Dáil where there is a universal franchise, the majority of voters vote along party lines rather than for independents, and that is their choice. It is democracy, and that is reflected in democracies all over the world. Multi-seat constituencies in the Dáil, the Seanad and local authorities provide voters with a choice as to which candidate to choose, be it a party representative or an independent person.

3 o’clock

It is not undemocratic. As well as being in their interest, it is disingenuous of independent representatives to say it is.

Neither is the manner of indirect election to the Seanad undemocratic, unique or unusual. We have it in the Dáil in how we elect the Taoiseach, and in county councils in how they elect their mayors. In Israel, for example, the parliament also elects the country’s president. If one is going to use indirect election, then there should be full coverage of the electorate. The county council franchise for the Seanad elections is properly equal. Councillors are elected not just by every citizen but by every resident. All of the country votes for councillors, who in turn elect the Seanad. The same cannot be said of the university representatives in the Seanad. Its electorate is partial, comprising graduates of only some of the universities, namely the National University of Ireland and Trinity College Dublin. To eradicate that main inequality in the electoral system, the Government should broaden the university Seanad franchise.

I am favourable to other Seanad electorate reforms but I am not sure whether it should be elected in the same manner as the Dáil. For example, elections to the German Senate are decided by local government. It is good to maintain the tie between the Seanad and local government. The Constitutional Convention should consider what is the best electoral process for the Seanad - for example, whether it should be directly or indirectly elected. All political parties, with the exception of Fianna Fáil, campaigned to abolish the Seanad in last year’s referendum. I do not believe they have taken on board the fact that the mere existence of the Seanad is of value to our democracy. Many of the voters who voted to retain the Seanad did so on that basis. People informed me last year that they wanted the Seanad to keep an eye on the Dáil. Their number one issue was not whether it would be reformed.

Another issue that emerged during the referendum campaign, as well as in today’s debate, is how we find new business for the Seanad. Its constitutional function is to legislate and, in that way, it plays a vital watchdog role over the Government. The whole idea is that legislation should go through two parliamentary processes to give longer time for scrutiny and more time for controversial aspects of it to come into the public domain. That is an important role, similar to that of the President’s. We do not need to find extra business for the Seanad, as that role in itself is fundamental. I am wary of this idea of trying to find business for the Seanad.

It is not true to say the Seanad has never been reformed. Most recommendations of the 12 reports on Seanad and general constitutional reform, with the exception of the 2004 report, have been implemented, including the extension of the franchise. Originally, the Seanad’s franchise was much narrower. It was first extended through the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947, while further modifications were made in 1954 and 1972 legislation. A proposal that could be further examined is Article 19 of the Constitution, which allows for the substitution of election by panel with election by vocational body or institution. The question of who decides nominations for Seanad by-elections could also be examined, as this is done by law and is not prescribed in the Constitution.

See this speech in context