Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I compliment Senator Barrett on introducing the Bill and I welcome the Minister of State. Fianna Fáil published its own Seanad reform Bill and remains committed to it. However, we will be supporting the Senator's Bill because we are anxious to ensure that the issue of Seanad reform remains on the agenda. We are happy to work with other Members in this regard and to find common ground with them.
Senator Barrett outlined his reasons for bringing forward this legislation. I am of the view that the Bill raises a number of fundamental questions. For example, its provisions will not affect the number of university seats - currently six - in the Seanad. The Government has already agreed to enact a law, pursuant to a referendum held some years ago, to extend the franchise. Senator Barrett's Bill would ensure that the franchise would be extended even further and that seats would be added. In that context, the fact that the division of the existing cultural and educational panel into two new constituencies in order to provide for the election of four Members of Seanad Éireann from the educational constituency of the cultural and educational panel by the holders of degrees from third level institutions other than the National University of Ireland and the University of Dublin, suggests that ten Senators would be elected by those with third level degrees. There will be those who will immediately shout that this smacks of elitism.
Whereas people might criticise the existing panel structure in terms of the fact that county councillors elect 43 Members of the House, I have always argued that there is a degree of extended democracy in this regard in that the Seanad electorate of councillors are elected by the people. Those councillors have a mandate and members of the general public have every opportunity to question them on that mandate at the end of every five-year term. However, they do not question them during that period. In other words, once a councillor is elected and given a mandate, he or she can make up his or her own mind as to the decisions he or she will take while pursuing his or her duties as a councillor. One of those duties is to elect Members of the Seanad. This is an important democratic function. I accept that the existing structure is flawed but it is not as deeply flawed as some might suggest. There appears to be an impression that councillors are somehow irrelevant and that their being responsible for electing Members of this House is undemocratic.
If the Bill is accepted, ten Senators will be elected by those who have third level degrees. That is a significant step to take and I will be interested to hear the Government's response to the proposal. Fianna Fáil has two primary aims when it comes to its proposals for the Seanad. The first is that it should be a check on Government power and scrutinise national and EU legislation. The second aim is that representation in the House should be broadened in order to provide a voice for groups which are not heard in Dáil Éireann. In that context and if Senator Barrett's Bill were accepted, a number of items of existing legislation would require amendment. One of these is the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (Charter Amendment) Act 1965 (No. 1). The Bill points out that the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland was incorporated under letters of patent dated 11 February 1784, which is a long time ago. The Bill states:

The professional interests for the purposes of the cultural constituency are hereby defined as—
(a) law, and
(b) medicine, including surgery, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and pharmaceutical chemistry.

Will Senator Barrett indicate why those particular categories are included? Is the aim to bring graduates from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland into the mix to which the Senator referred?
Under the new section 90 which the Bill proposes to insert into the principal Act, it is stated:

A member of Seanad Éireann for the educational constituency may voluntarily resign his or her membership of Seanad Éireann by notice in writing to the Chairman of Seanad Éireann who shall announce such resignation to Seanad Éireann at the next meeting thereof.

However, the Bill is silent as to how the resulting vacancy should be filled. I have often argued that whenever a vacancy occurs in the Seanad - and irrespective of the side of the House on which it occurs - the Government of the day effectively decides how it is filled. Under the current by-election rules, the vote relating to a vacancy is confined to Members of the Dáil and Seanad and, inevitably, the Government of the day will have a majority. I was re-elected to the House on that basis in a by-election held in 2010. I was the nominee of the then Government and even though the other parties put forward their own candidates - and unless my colleagues had deserted me - my election was a given. It was not my election but rather my nomination that was the achievement in that instance. I wonder whether Senator Barrett has given any thought to changing the process relating to by-elections to Seanad Éireann. Perhaps the Bill could be amended in order that when vacancies arise, the relevant voters might be asked to elect replacements. I am of the view that this would be a much more fair and equitable way to proceed.
That to which I refer could also be extended to county council elections. I have never been a fan of the notion that the party in power takes responsibility for nominating replacement candidates. I have always been of the view that we should re-adopt the British model which we previously abandoned in this regard. Under that model, by-elections are held in particular wards or districts in order to fill local authority vacancies rather than their being filled internally.