Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I dtosach, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le Senator Barrett as ucht an Bille seo a chur faoi bhráid an tSeanaid. Cé nach bfhuil an Rialtas ag glacadh leis an mBille, tá sé tábhachtach go mbeidh díospóireacht leathan againn agus gur féidir le Seanadóirí ó gach taobh den Teach a dtuairimí a nochtadh. Tuigeann muid go léir gur é tuairim muintir na hÉireann gur cóir go mbeadh an Seanad beo anseo i gcónaí agus chun sin a chinntiú go dtiocfaidh athrú air. Go háirithe, caithfimid féachaint ar an gceist seo. We are currently engaged in a process of reforming arrangements for the election of Members of the Seanad, particularly by the institutions of higher education in the State. Debate leads to better policy and Senator Barrett's Bill provides us with a chance to examine alternative approaches. This can only enhance the policy-making process.

The Government does not agree with the proposal which is at the centre of the Bill. The proposal is to increase the number of Members of the Seanad elected by the universities and institutions of higher education by reducing the number of Senators elected from four of the five vocational panels. The Government has already set out its approach to electoral reform. The general scheme of a Bill to implement the 1979 constitutional amendment to extend the right to vote to graduates of other colleges was approved by the Government and published for consultation on 14 February 2014. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, outlined to the House on 11 March 2014 the provisions contained in the general scheme and heard the views of Members of the Seanad on its contents. That session was productive and there were useful contributions and observations from all sides.

Today's Second Stage debate is about the Bill Senator Barrett has placed before us. The Bill would result in the retention of the two university constituencies in their current form. The University of Dublin - Trinity College - and the National University of Ireland would continue to elect three Senators each. The Bill proposes that the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts be amended to provide for a reduction in the number of Members to be elected from four of the five vocational panels and the introduction of a new educational constituency. Four Senators would be elected from this new constituency comprising graduates of those institutions of higher education not included in the current university constituencies. The new educational constituency would be formed within the cultural and educational panel which would increase in size from five to eight seats.

To provide for this, three of the other panels - Agricultural, Labour and Industrial and Commercial - would each lose one seat. The Administrative Panel would be unchanged. With four of the eight seats on the Cultural and Education Panel to be elected by higher education graduates, this panel would also effectively lose one seat. The revised composition of the Cultural and Educational Panel would therefore be as follows; four seats would be elected by the newly-formed educational constituency comprising the University of Limerick, Dublin City University, the institutes of technology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and other colleges recognised by the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland; and the four other seats would be elected from what is described as "the cultural constituency". As a result, the education element of the Cultural and Educational Panel would have a predominant emphasis on higher education, which although important, is only one part of a much broader education sector. The combined educational and cultural representation in the Seanad, when the current university Senators are included, would rise to 14. This would be greater than for the other vocational sectors. The Agricultural Panel would have ten seats, a reduction of one; the Labour Panel would now have ten seats, also a reduction of one; the Industrial and Commercial Panel would have eight seats, again a reduction of one; and the Administrative Panel would be unchanged with seven seats.

The approach in the Private Members' Bill before us is not consistent with the provisions contained in the general scheme of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill approved by the Government and published in February.

The general scheme is part of the legislative process to implement the 1979 amendment to the Constitution that provided for the reorganisation of the existing university constituencies and the extension of the franchise to other institutions of higher education in the State. The 1979 constitutional amendment relates specifically to the six university senators. It looks as though the Bill goes beyond the parameters envisaged in the amendment. Instead of amending the existing university constituencies, the Bill proposes a reorganisation of the vocational panels. It does not, therefore, adequately address the 1979 amendment. Passage of the Bill would result in the retention of inequalities. The two existing university constituencies, although substantially different in terms of their size, would continue to elect three Senators each. While the right to vote in Seanad elections would be extended to graduates of other institutions of higher education, this would be at the expense of the current vocational panels and lead to a diminution in their representation. Therefore, one sixth of the Seanad would be elected by institutions of higher education under the Bill. This raises the question of whether the composition of the Seanad would reflect the intention of the drafters of the Constitution, who provided for six Senators to be elected by such institutions.

The Government's approach provides that each graduate would have one vote in the election of university Members. This is a matter of principle underpinning the general scheme of the Government's Bill. It would bring a greater element of equality to the current system, under which a person who is a graduate of both NUI and Trinity College can vote in each of the constituencies. The Bill we are discussing would preserve the present arrangements and potentially enhance the existing inequalities. Based on the Bill as presented, a graduate could potentially vote in what would become three university and higher education constituencies if they had a degree from a college in each of the constituencies. I note that there is a prohibition on a candidate seeking election in more than one of these three constituencies.

There are a number of significant differences between Senator Barrett's Bill and the Government's Bill, which provides for a six-seat constituency for institutions of higher education to replace the present NUI and University of Dublin constituencies. All holders of a qualification at ordinary degree level or equivalent would to be entitled to register to vote in the constituency. There would be a single register of electors, with every voter having only one vote no matter how many qualifications he or she holds. There is provision for an updated nomination process to require 40 instead of ten assenters to support a nomination or, alternatively, payment of a deposit of €900. As a further measure, new arrangements are proposed for the filling of casual vacancies. These are to be modelled on the replacement candidate provisions for European Parliament elections.

As well as being forwarded to the Seanad for consideration, a copy of the general scheme was sent to the Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht for the consideration of the committee. Copies were sent to the 81 institutions of higher education, inviting their views. The general scheme was also published on the Department's website in order for the wider public to make submissions. The 21 submissions received have been published and I note that one of them was from Senator Barrett. I also acknowledge that other Members of the House have made submissions, and these are welcome.

In parallel with the consultation process, there are practical issues that must be addressed. Aside from questions of policy, the modalities of voter registration and the running of elections will give rise to particular administrative challenges, especially given the scale of change to the electorate that is envisaged. A technical working group has been established, chaired by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which includes nominees from the Department of Education and Skills, the National University of Ireland, Trinity College, the Irish Universities Association, Institutes of Technology Ireland and the Higher Education Colleges Association. The group has met on four occasions and has provided important and useful input. All of this work is progressing well and represents a better and more focused opportunity for reform.

I would like to address some of the technical provisions contained in section 6. I refer to the new sections 88 and 89 of what would become the amended Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts. The sections deal with the compilation of the register and the appointment of a returning officer. The Bill provides that each institution retain its own register and that the returning officer be selected by the presidents of the institutions.

The provisions envisage a two year lead-in time before the new electoral arrangements would become operational - as described in the Bill, "the year second next after the commencement of this Act". This approach would rule out any change before the next Seanad general election. The Government's scheme has been published with the intention of progressing it as soon as possible. This, we believe, is a more ambitious approach to implementing reform.

The Private Members' Bill is definitely welcome. It seriously adds to the level of debate and interest, but we believe it contains too many provisions as it is presently constituted. The Government has set out its own position. However, the Bill before us offers an alternative approach to representation in the Seanad from the so-called other institutions of higher education in the State that the Government does not agree with. We believe that it would create more problems than it purports to address.

Along with some of my colleagues, I have been a Member of Seanad for five years, since 1997. Therefore, I can say that at every debate the input from all Members, but particularly from university Senators, has always been enlightening, interesting and informative. They have made and continue to make a very significant contribution to public debate, and indeed to explaining the political processes. They are often interpreted in an independent and intellectual way, and they do put the issues out there, which is welcome.

Finally, I send my good wishes to Senator Norris, like other Members of the House. I have not been here since he was in hospital, but we wish him well. I also thank Senator Barrett for increasing the range of ideas and opportunities through this debate.