Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome former Senators, Dr. Maurice Manning and Mr. Joe O'Toole, to the House again. I thank the Leader for organising the debate which follows the debate on Seanad reform that we had on 5 May, and in particular on the findings contained in the report of the working group on Seanad Reform. I commend both of them on producing the report. We all share in the hope and expectations expressed by Senator Cummins that this would be the last report on Seanad reform. I very much welcome the announcement that there will be an implementation group established in early course which is long overdue. It will be quite an achievement to get a Bill through the Oireachtas before the general election even if the implementation group is set up very quickly.

Like Senator Darragh O'Brien, I am concerned that the Taoiseach is meeting the Dáil leaders today. I hope that Seanad group leaders will be met but it is not a matter for either former Senator present. Clearly, it would be important that the Seanad group leaders also meet the Taoiseach to discuss a timetable for reform. I also agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Cummins on the status of the Seanad, the importance that should be ascribed to the Seanad and that priority should be given to the work of the Seanad.

Senator Cummins and myself, on the previous occasion, spoke at length about the procedural changes we have made to the workings of the Seanad. We spoke about the initiatives we have taken. For example, public hearings were held with interested groups and bodies on matters of public interest. We have produced some excellent reports through the initiative. Most recently, we produced a report on farm safety and the previous reports dealt with lifestyle changes to prevent cancer and the human rights of elderly persons. We have produced a whole range of different reports through the new forum of the public consultation committee. As Senator Cummins has said, we have also held a series of debates with MEPs and we have made a number of changes to the way in which the Seanad works. All of those aspects are hugely important.

I very much hope that the current Seanad will have some representation on the implementation group. Others have spoken on the matter. Indeed, I have spoken previously about the lack of representation by serving Senators on the working groups. Having said that, and as I pointed out previously, very few former or serving Senators made submissions to the working group even though clearly it was open to anyone to do so. I made a submission on behalf of Senators in the Labour Party and I went through the submission in more detail on the previous occasion we debated this matter. Now that we are coming back again, and in light of the publication of a draft Bill which seeks to implement the recommendations in the report, I might refer to some of the changes we proposed that I think might be stronger, in some ways, than some of the provisions in the Bill.

In general, the Bill and the recommendations in the report would lead to a hugely improved and more democratic Seanad. We may disagree on some of the detail but, in general, the principle of extending suffrage for the Seanad is a hugely important issue. There is agreement across the House on the need to do so.We can debate to what extent it should be extended, for instance, whether it should be extended to our diaspora or beyond the general election register to the local election register as proposed by the Labour Party group, and I have no doubt the implementation group will also consider these issues.

I have stated on a previous occasion that the report somewhat glossed over how universal suffrage for the 30 seats would work in practice. Looking through the Bill, more detail is clearly available, but there is still some issue about university Senators, which Senator Cummins raised. The issue is whether it is to be based on the existing register for the current institutions initially and for it then to be extended to all higher level education institutions. I am not clear on the point and I could not quite make it out in the Bill so I would be grateful for clarification on it.

I raised a particular issue the last time and, looking at the Bill, it is still an issue for me. The report recommends, on universal suffrage, that individuals who elect to register will choose the vocational panel of their choice and that university graduates may choose to remain eligible to vote on the university panel or transfer to one of the vocational panels. My concern is that such an approach could skew the panels. Looking at section 8 of the draft Bill, I am concerned that it could lead, in the first instance, to very uneven numbers of electors or voters across the panels, which would be a fairly obvious consequence. There might be 100,000 people opting to vote on the arts panel-----