Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister back to the House. He has returned to the House unbowed from his visits prior to the referendum, but I have not been able to figure out his personal views on the future of the Seanad. I mean this as a compliment to his Chinese traits of inscrutability. We are now presented with the heads of a Bill to extend the franchise in Seanad elections. I am bemused by those on the Government side who are lauding this wonderful initiative and saying that after 35 years it is wonderful the Government is doing this wonderful thing. It raises the question of why successive Administrations did not implement the 1979 constitutional amendment. Through various Governments of different hues and colours, the matter was never on the radar.

I have to be somewhat cynical in my response to this latest initiative that it perhaps might not have been taken by this Administration but for the fact the people took a decision last autumn. Senators Zappone and Quinn, who are in the House, should continue to bask in the reflected glory of that wonderful democratic achievement. Has the Government been brought kicking and screaming to the table in regard to this initiative in that it had to be seen to be doing something in response to the people's decision last autumn? That then begs the question as to why previous Administrations did not bother implementing this. Despite the fact the Minister has set up a technical working group to look into the ramifications of the decision taken by the Government, does he have any views on how this will pan out?

The Minister referred to expanding the electorate for the university seats from 150,000 to 800,000 as a challenge. I think that is under-stating the reality of the situation facing this Administration when it comes to setting the parameters and logistics of dealing with this initiative come the next election as 800,000 is a lot of people. The Minister said this will make it more democratic but I am not so sure. I am sure the university Senators will outline what the turnout has been, notwithstanding the fact Senator Keane quite correctly identified a problem of registration in that many people ignore the requests to update their addresses, etc. That means a considerable number of third level graduates do not participate in the election.

On the positive side, if all 800,000 people vote, although they will not, it means that there will be very few households in this country which will not be aware of the impact of the Seanad elections in that a voting form will be sent to quite a significant number of households. That must be a good thing from the point of view of the profile of the Seanad in that more people will empathise with it and with what it does.

One of the main issues which arose prior to the referendum was that people did not empathise with this House. There is a variety of reasons for that not least - I return to my favourite theme - the continuing studious ignoring of the workings of this House by the major media organisations. The only time they come to this House is if they think something exciting will happen, such as the Government being defeated on a motion, as it was recently following Senator Quinn's initiative. The press Gallery was agog with excitement and anticipation but we rarely see members of the press. I appreciate they watch the proceedings of this House on their monitors, so I am not suggesting for one moment that they must be physically present to pick up on things. However, what annoys me about the printed and electronic media is that they tend to ignore the legislative programme this House pursues on a daily and weekly basis, notwithstanding our remarks on the Order of Business today about the lack of same currently, but I suggest that is only a temporary aberration.

What I find very frustrating is that Senators on both sides prepare their contributions and Ministers who come to the House testify on a regular basis how impressed they are with the standard of debate and the manner in which Senators go about their business and yet much of this is ignored. If I was to make any plea, it would be to the print and electronic media, especially to "Oireachtas Report" on RTE with which I have taken issue on more than one occasion, that on the odd occasion, they would look beyond the banter on the Order of Business and take extracts from some of the main business in the House as it pursues its legislative role. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources Deputy, Rabbitte, said on one occasion that "Oireachtas Report" was watched by drunks and insomniacs because of the outrageously late hour at which it is transmitted.

How does the Minister envisage making this election with an electorate of more than 800,00 more democratic?

It will impose an enormous cost on candidates. Will a free leaflet, litir um thoghchán, be sent to every voter courtesy of the Government, as happens with general elections? That is essential and that would have to be done. The Government will have to bear that cost because otherwise it will make a fool of the concept of democratisation of the Seanad election in this instance. If one of the major obstacles to members of the public putting themselves forward for election to the six university seats is finance, there will be nothing democratic about that. That would be similar to the American model and that would mean that those who have the most money will be able to run in elections because there will be no cap on expenditure. Currently, there is no such cap. While there are regulations governing how and where candidates procure money and how they spend it, there is no cap on the amount they can spend. There will be a cost. Will we end up with a two-tier system? I am treading on dangerous water but university graduates might have more money in their pockets than those who have not attended university. There must be a larger percentage of graduates and there could be a two-tier system under which those with the most money win the seats.

My second concern relates to the branding of the new seating arrangement. Since the foundation of the State, the NUI and, in particular, TCD have been an integral part of the electoral process under the old Seanad and the new 1937 Constitution. There are reasons for this. Both the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and the Fianna Fáil Government that succeeded it in the 1930s must have felt there was a value nationally to having a TCD brand. Senator Barrett and others during the lead up to the Seanad referendum referred to what they believed to have been the cutting off of the franchise from those of a Unionist persuasion on this island. I am again a little concerned that if the brand disappears under the new arrangements, this may lessen rather than strengthen the ties between the Unionist community in the North and the rest of the island, which would be detrimental to the ongoing relationship between the South and the North.

There has been a great deal of criticism of the fact that while the institutions in the North are working and the institutions in the North and South are working effectively together and there is a strong rapport between Ministers on both sides of the Border, when one filters down to ordinary life, citizens are experiencing an increasing ghettoisation of Northern Irish society. More peace walls have been built since the Good Friday Agreement than prior to it. It is becoming increasingly difficult rather than less difficult to reduce this ghettoisation according to people who operate on a cross-community basis to whom I have spoken. In other words, Nationalists are shopping and socialising in their own community while Unionists are doing the same. This is an issue that both Governments must face. I wonder if the TCD brand is abolished whether there will be less input by those of a Unionist persuasion into southern Irish politics than might the case if it was retained.

I acknowledge this is a complex issue and many questions still have to be addressed about how election to the university seats can be made more democratic. It is a huge challenge for the Government parties. Having taken the step they have taken, how will they see it through? It is vitally important, whatever system is agreed on by the technical group, that additional expense is not placed on candidates who put themselves forward for the university seats and that the Government will take steps to ensure the election is resourced. The Minister referred to setting up the register of electors and the process. It is essential that no financial obstacles are put in place of those who wish to put themselves forward as candidates.

It is essential that no financial obstacles are put in the way of the candidates who wish to put themselves forward. The Minister, as a Deputy, is not expected to canvass an electorate of 800,000. Under the current system, we are not expected to do it in order to be elected. I do not see why this burden should be placed on people in order to satisfy some public perception, or so the Government can be seen to do something in response to the people's decision of last year. It is not enough simply to put a spin on this and to do it as a PR exercise. It involves serious thought on how it will pan out.