Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Seanad on the Seanad Bill 2013. I recognise and acknowledge the work that has gone into the preparation and development of the Bill. It is a comprehensive Bill and many of its proposals are innovative and deserving of detailed consideration in their own right. I note that the Bill was preceded in September 2012 by the consultation paper, "Radical Seanad Reform Through Legislative Change", and that the Bill reflects proposals in that paper and submissions received during the subsequent consultation phase, as Senator Quinn said.

It has to be acknowledged also that the Government has set out its own stall on the Seanad in the programme for Government. We promised in the programme for Government that the question of abolition of the Seanad would be put to the people by referendum and it is our intention to do so in the autumn of this year. The Taoiseach confirmed this again in the Dail only days ago, when he indicated that the constitutional amendment Bill to decide the future of the Seanad would be brought forward in the current Dáil session. I can confirm that the Bill will be discussed by Government next Tuesday.

All sectors of Irish society will be heading into a period of more intense debate over the coming months on the future of the Seanad. I am sure we can all agree that the debate should be well informed and respectful of all points of view. Without prejudice to the outcome of the referendum, this Bill is to be welcomed as making an important contribution to the debate. I would like to take the opportunity today to draw attention to some of the features of the Bill that have caught my eye and to make some initial comments on them.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out measures designed to achieve greater gender equality in any newly constituted Seanad. It is fair to say that there is a growing consensus in recent years that strong measures need to be taken to encourage the greater participation of women in politics at all levels. As the House will know, the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 set down ambitious targets in this respect. At the next general election, political parties will have to select at least 30% women and 30% men candidates or face losing half their State funding. Seven years from the general election where this provision first applies, this will rise to 40%. Therefore, I welcome the objective in the Seanad Bill 2013 to promote gender equality.

However, I would have some concerns about the approach proposed. The way I understand that it would operate will mean that some candidates who have a higher number of votes than others may find themselves not elected because of the need to meet the male-female quorum within a particular constituency. I believe the decision should be left to the voter.

Part 3 of the Bill sets out in very clear terms the role envisaged for any future Seanad. This role embraces existing functions and some new ones. The need to repeat in primary legislation the roles that are already assigned to the Seanad in the Constitution seems to me to be unnecessary and would need to be considered further. The additional functions proposed are wide-reaching and varied. They include a role in the scrutiny of draft legislation from the institutions of the European Union and the scrutiny of statutory instruments. A role is also envisaged in the area of public interest inquiries and the holding of debates on issues of national importance on foot of petitions signed by 1,000 people. These are all significant proposals that will generate interest and debate.

That said, I feel that some aspects may need to be teased out further. For example, I would have some concerns about the proposed role in regard to the scrutiny of statutory instruments. Generally, most statutory instruments take immediate effect, subject to being rejected later by the Houses of the Oireachtas, so there is already a role for both Houses. This facilitates meeting deadlines, often in regard to EU requirements. I would be concerned, therefore, about putting in place procedures, however well intended, that might lead to delays or an excessive workload on the Seanad in meeting those deadlines. In section 25 of the Bill, a role is proposed for the Seanad to inquire into the necessity for legislation, although I would have thought they already had this power. In section 26, the Seanad will be enabled to react to a petition of 1,000 signatures, but who will be eligible to sign a petition and how will those signatures be verified?

On electoral reform measures, which make up Parts 4 to 8 of the Bill, there are also a number of interesting proposals, including the widening of the nomination process. A scheme of popular nomination, in which the verified support of 500 persons will secure a nomination for a specified constituency, is proposed. There is also the proposal to widen the electorate to include not alone all local government electors living in Ireland, but also people resident in Northern Ireland who qualify for Irish citizenship and Irish passport holders living abroad. Of course, these proposals reflect the wider debate of extending the franchise to Irish people living abroad for the whole range of elections and referendums. As the House knows, this has been the subject of much consideration and deliberation over the years, here in the Seanad, in the Dáil and in other fora.

As politicians, we have a natural affinity for considering these issues and, for some, perhaps change has not come about quickly enough.

We all know people whose family members have moved abroad and would like to maintain real contact with events in Ireland by having a say in elections. This, however, has to be balanced against the need to ensure that any decisions for change are fully teased out. In general, the extension of voting rights would require careful consideration of a range of complex matters. There are issues of principle such as the extent of influence that voters who are not resident in Ireland should be allowed to exert. Not everyone shares an opinion on this and possibilities would need to be explored in detail. There would also be practical issues such as ensuring the integrity and security of the ballot and the cost of implementing any new arrangements for widening the electorate.

In my contribution in the Seanad last March on the Seanad Electoral Bill, proposed by Senator Crown, I outlined some of the general reforms that this Government has already introduced. I will not go over these in detail again today but simply point to the ongoing work of the members of the Convention on the Constitution which in the coming months will consider the Dáil electoral system and giving citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in presidential elections at Irish embassies or otherwise. It would be appropriate that their views too be taken into consideration as part of the debate on the issue of extending the right to vote to a wider population.

While the detail of the Bill is for another day, several aspects struck me that may need further clarification and consideration. Section 31 of the Bill provides that all persons living in Northern Ireland who qualify for Irish citizenship may be part of the Seanad electorate, yet section 35(d) seems to add a further requirement that such a voter would also need to be registered to vote in Northern Irish elections before he or she could vote in the Seanad election. Section 31 also provides that all persons holding a valid and current Irish passport and who reside outside the State may be part of the electorate. Is it intended that these voters surrender their passport, as implied in section 36(c) of the Bill, in order to be included in the proposed register of electors? Section 52 deals with Seanad election expenses but does not seem to address the expenses of those standing in the university constituencies. Section 63 deals with casual vacancies but does not seem to address the situation where the person who would fill the vacancy is no longer available for whatever reason.

More generally, I would question the practicality of the provisions for the postal ballot. Measures are proposed which are largely based on the existing model but if the electorate is widened would that model continue to work? Section 50 provides for the issue of ballot papers on a particular day or on different days but the electorate involved will have increased enormously. Some 156,000 people are registered to vote in Seanad elections. The proposals in the Bill would see this initially increasing to over 3 million. I say these things not to find fault with the Bill but to underline the fact that proposals, wherever they come from and whatever one's point of view, need to be fully teased out before making their way on to the Statute Book from the legal point of view and that of practical implementation and operability.

I take this opportunity to note the proposals on Seanad reform from Senators Zappone and Quinn. I agree with what Senator Quinn said in his contribution regarding the need for political reform and in particular Dáil reform, which will happen. I hope that the Bill and the ideas in it continue to play a role in stimulating people to consider and debate the issues over the coming months. Senator Crown's contribution with his recent legislation will play an equal role in generating debate. This is an important opportunity for the Irish people to reflect on these matters in advance of deciding the future of this House in a referendum that will be held later this year. The people ultimately will decide. That is the spirit of tolerance behind the Government's decision to approve Second Stage of this Bill today.