Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and I commend Senator Barrett on taking the initiative by introducing this Private Members' Bill. This debate is part of a bigger process whereby we are discussing Seanad reform on an ongoing basis. It is very worthwhile to have technically well-drafted and comprehensive Bills before us when considering that issue. I do not support the principle behind this Bill but I am in favour of the idea that we should discuss alternative models in the context of how we might implement the decision taken by the electorate in 1979 to ensure that graduates of all third level institutions might elect Senators. It is extremely important, therefore, that we should be presented with different models before we develop a final plan as to how we might proceed.

I welcome the fact that the Government has given a commitment to implement the 1979 amendment to the Constitution by broadening the electorate relating to the university seats. It has suggested the establishment of one six-person university panel. The Labour Party Senators made a proposal in respect of Seanad reform to the Parliamentary Labour Party in which we called for the latter. Very importantly, however, we also called for reforms to the five vocational panels. I absolutely agree with Senator Barrett that - as he has pointed out on many occasions - there should not be a single, stand-alone reform in respect of the six university seats and that there must be broader reforms in respect of the other seats in this House. We can make significant changes to the five vocational panels by way of legislation and without further constitutional amendment. We have debated this matter on many occasions and we all accept that there will not be a further referendum on Seanad reform during the lifetime of the Government. As a result, some aspects - including that which relates to the Taoiseach's 11 nominees - cannot be altered in the next two years. It is clear, however, that amendments to the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts 1947 to 2006 could be introduced - without the need for a constitutional referendum - in order to allow changes to be made to the composition of the five vocational panels which are provided for under Article 18.7 of the Constitution.

The Labour Party Senators proposed to the Parliamentary Labour Party that a panel should be established in respect of the six university seats and that those who will hold those seats in the future should be elected by the graduates of all third level institutions. I will return to that matter in a moment. We also suggested that the method of election relating to the other panels be changed in order to ensure universal suffrage. We are still pushing this in Government circles because the proposal in question is hugely important.

Each person entitled to vote - we are open as to whether this should be as per the local, European or general election register - would have a separate vote for candidates on each of the five panels and university graduates, rather than having an additional franchise, could opt for a vote on the university panel instead of one of the other panels, so that they would have the same number of votes as everybody else but have the option for voting for the university panel.

In accordance with Article 19 of the Constitution, we recommended that one panel could be reserved for election not by universal suffrage but by city and county council members so as to preserve the current valuable link between local representatives and government. It is proposed that this be preserved for only one panel, perhaps the Public Administration Panel. We also recommended some provision for gender balance on the panels by extending the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act to require nominating bodies to select at least 30% of their candidates from each gender. Further, we suggested that the panel vote could take place on an all-Ireland or regional basis, in line with the European constituencies so that the electorate and those elected would be of a very different composition to those in Dáil elections. A real concern at Government level, which I believe is a justified concern, is that there would not be duplication in a Seanad elected through universal suffrage with the Dáil. In other words, we should not seek to simply reproduce the geographical representation of the Dáil. There are ways we can get around this while allowing for universal suffrage.

I have outlined what was proposed in detail because that is the method of reform which I favour and that has been agreed upon by the Labour Party Senators group. It is for this reason I could not support the proposal put forward in Senator Barrett's Bill, although I believe it has some merit. It certainly makes us think about how we can best ensure representation for university graduates. I am grateful also to the board of Trinity College which supplied all Dublin University Senators with a copy of its submission on 7 April to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Senator Barrett's Bill is based on one of the models put forward in the Trinity College submission, which again is very valuable in that it makes us examine closely how best to ensure representation for graduates of all universities.

The Trinity model suggests that extending the single six-person panel to graduates of all the universities will be problematic for a number of reasons. The Government needs to take this on board. Again, Senator Barrett's Bill would address this issue. It is suggested by Trinity that the single six-person expanded constituency currently proposed by Government to replace the two current constituencies of NUI and Dublin University would be extremely difficult to administer, would have significant financial implications and would discourage some eligible candidates from running for election, while weakening the relationship between elected Senators and their constituency. As a Dublin University Senator, I have some sympathy with this view. There are some pertinent points put forward by the Trinity board. On a practical level, based on the last census of the number of graduates in this country, there would be 750,000 citizens entitled to vote for one six-person panel. This would be an enormously difficult electorate to administer for only six seats. Again, Senator Barrett has taken this on board in his Bill. On a practical level, there is likely to be more than 45 candidates put forward. In the previous election, there were 19 candidates on the Trinity College ballot paper and 26 on the NUI ballot paper. In terms of what is proposed, graduates from 80 institutions would be entitled to vote in a new expanded constituency.

I commend Senator Barrett for bringing forward this Bill. On behalf of this side of the House, I hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed to the next Stage. I do not believe it appropriate that we would divide on this. All of us appreciate that there are merits in the proposal. It is vital we would all have an opportunity to examine alternative models for implementing the decision of the people in 1979 and the decision of the Government to ensure that graduates of all third level institutions would be entitled to vote in Seanad elections. The model put forward by Senator Barrett is but one of the models put forward in the Trinity submission, which I would urge colleagues to read. I can supply a copy of it to those who do not have one. Trinity has also put forward other alternative ways in which graduates of all the institutions would be able to elect Senators. The Government should closely examine whether the six-person panel is the best method. I look forward to further engagement on this issue.