Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In other areas the Government has said that it wants to change the law and change things significantly, has sought the permission of the public in a referendum, and at the time has modelled what it proposes to do. It does not seem to be unreasonable that the Government, however one defines it in the current reality, would get together its preferred choice of Seanad reform and would make the necessary constitutional and legislative proposals that would bring that about . That would address the complications of having to put all of our citizens in as voters for one vocational panel or another or for having to implement a postal vote or all of the issues that have been touched on today.

I regret that neither the Manning report nor the report of the Seanad Reform Implementation Group, which was constrained in what it could do, gave more consideration to a more fundamental reform of how we elect the 43 Members to the panel seats. I would go further and say even the 49 seats, if the university seats are counted, and perhaps even the full 60 seats, if the Taoiseach's nominees are counted. I told the Minister previously during a debate on the proposed electoral commission that we need to look into the possibility of a list system in Ireland or, more specifically, what is called an open list system. Reform of the Seanad would give us an opportunity to introduce such a system in a limited way. I have always been of the view that while one of the great strengths of our system of electing Deputies is that it allows great engagement between candidates and the local voter, that is also its great weakness, because in our system, people do not always vote for ideas because they vote for people. We have spoken a lot about the clientelism that has bedevilled Irish politics. Were we to show some kind of curiosity about how we can improve our electoral system, it seems obvious that we would look to see whether a list system could be used to elect most Senators, if not all the Seanad, so that we could begin to have some kind of a balance between the exigencies of getting elected locally, which involves one skill set, and the possibility of electing people on the basis of ideas, where the primary focus would be the panel on which they run.

One has only to look at the types of politicians who get elected in other jurisdictions where they have a list system to see that there are very different patterns and, I would say, to a large extent, a greater diversity. Having said that I was in an airport recently when I heard a German MEP tearing strips off a hapless Aer Lingus official about the fact that she was not willing to accept his diplomatic passport. He said that it was a disgrace, that he had had the diplomatic passport for 30 years, that he had the telephone number of the Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, and that he wondered whether he should call him. I realised that it was not just because of their virtue that Irish politicians would not do such a thing but because they are not elected on a list system and they would be conscious that there would surely be somebody from Ahascragh or Celbridge listening to them, even if they were boarding a flight in Hong Kong, and they could do themselves some electoral damage. The list system does allow certain problems to come into it, such as a certain sense of entitlement and disconnection, but I believe the open list system would allow voters to vote for particular candidates within a party list while voting for their preferred list. This would preserve the right of voters to vote for their preferred candidates while also ensuring a purer form of proportional representation, with all parties, particularly smaller parties, represented proportionately.

Senator Higgins and others might be interested to note that the international academic evidence shows that list systems lead to 7% more women on average being elected. Open list PR is in operation in various forms in Austria, Belgium, Croatia and the Czech Republic. Most importantly, the open list system limits the ability of political parties to rig their candidate list in favour of favoured insiders, and it strongly protects the representation of smaller parties and minority viewpoints. The open list system achieves greater diversity among groups that get representation and provides the possibility of changing the position in the list so that it is not an elite group proposed by party head office. I believe this would ensure a much greater openness in how the Members of the Seanad are elected, and that is our ultimate aim, which I think is shared by most people. I see no reason that such a system could not be implemented within the current panel system and constitutional framework.

I wish to comment briefly on the representation of the university panels. Of course, I support the broadening of the franchise to all graduates. This could have been done by an Act of the Oireachtas any time in the past 40 years. I do not agree that there should be a number of small constituencies. I would certainly prefer a six-seat national constituency, but if I am honest, over the years that I have been canvassing votes, I have found myself having to apologise for the fact that university graduates get to elect Senators and non-university graduates, such as my own parents, do not. I do not think we can stand over that anymore. We know the origin of the university seats, and Senator McDowell's grandfather distinguished himself in political life as an NUI Deputy, if I am not mistaken, and latterly as a Senator, if my memory serves me well.