John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

My party's position is that it would have been preferable to have universal suffrage for the whole of the Seanad, in other words, that there would not even be a university panel and everybody would be directly elected.

The conclusions of the report represent a reasonable balance. However, the universities, as a separate constituency, still present a difficulty. The only defence for university representation is the contribution made by university Senators over an extended period. We must ensure that when election to the Seanad is by universal suffrage, nobody has two votes, for example a vote as a graduate or a county councillor as well as a vote under universal suffrage.

How does one deal with representation of smaller parties in a system of direct election? The only way that can be done is by having, as the report suggests, a national constituency of 26 people, whereby a party that receives 4% of the vote will get a seat. If one divides the county into four constituencies, similar to the European constituency, the threshold becomes much higher and it is much more difficult to have representation from a cross-section of the smaller parties.

It is totally indefensible in circumstances where the universities are entitled to membership that a decision by constitutional referendum 25 years ago should not be implemented. It is not possible to defend that. Obviously every graduate and everybody at level 7 at NFQ, as recommended in the report, should have a right to vote. I have problems about how this option will be offered. When one graduates from university, will one be asked to opt for the university constituency or universal suffrage? This would be quite problematic also in terms of putting the question to the people in a referendum of whether to increase the membership of the Seanad from 60 to 65 Members. The report explains the reason for that — the Cathaoirleach has to be returned automatically; the Taoiseach has to hold the balance of representation, as well as nominating Members from the Unionist and Nationalist traditions in the North; and there must be a balance between directly elected members and the members elected by county councillors. The report is reasonably conservative but I can see it being problematic if one asks people to increase the membership of Seanad Éireann from 60 to 65 Members. More than one question would be put and I agree with Senator Quinn that a composite proposition should be put to the electorate to embrace all the aspects. This is relatively complicated because of the number of references in the Constitution to Seanad Éireann. We are not dealing with only one article but with a multitude thereof.

I am pleased that it was recommended that disability groups, emigrants and other such groups should be represented in the Taoiseach's nominations. The committee spent considerable time examining the possibility that emigrants should have the right to vote in Seanad elections. I have always been of the view that emigrants should have the right to vote not only in Seanad but Dáil elections. I accept that is extremely difficult to organise, but other countries do it. Obviously, the question of representation and taxation and the cut off point for the number of years one is out of the country impinges on this, but it should be possible to organise it. Having listened to the evidence of the distinguished former ambassador, Mr. Seán Donlon, who outlined how difficult it would be to organise, I have had second thoughts as to how to register an electorate. It is reasonable to suggest that the Taoiseach would nominate representatives from the emigrant community.

The central issue is how the people connect with Seanad Éireann and in my view the only way is to give the electorate a direct say in choosing the Members of the Seanad. The democratic deficit is evident in elections for the European Parliament where there is a direct election. That is a major flaw. I am not saying that county councillors who elect the Members of the Seanad are not representative of the electorate. Of course they are representative of the electorate and comprise a reasonable electoral college. There are electoral colleges in other jurisdictions. However, the nominator should be the electorate, in other words the nominating body should supply the electorate. If the electorate are the county councillors, they should become the nominators and the report suggested that the backing of ten councillors would be required to secure a nomination to contest the election. It is reasonable that there should be a rolling renewal. As far as I am aware, most second chambers have that system, where Members serve a fixed term. If the Seanad election is held on the same day as the European elections, one will have a higher turnout and one is likely to erode the umbilical chord between the Seanad and the Dáil. It is generally perceived, although I do not subscribe to it, that the Members of the Seanad are either here as part of the Dáil crèche or as the Dáil retirement home. Serving a fixed term would rid us of that perception.

The original policy of the Progressive Democrats was that the Upper House would be demolished.