Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this Second Stage debate. It has been a very informed and wide-ranging debate so far. I thank Senators Byrne, Casey and Cassells for introducing the Bill, which enables us to debate and consider the relevant issues around extending the franchise of the universities panel of Seanad Éireann to all citizens of Ireland who are over the age of 18 and hold an appropriate third level qualification from an Irish institution of higher education.

Before I get into the body of my response, it is important to say that we have a robust, if somewhat imperfect, democracy. This House contributes greatly to that, largely due to the people who are elected here. We must defend and stand up for our democratic structures and those who choose political life as a vocation. It is also important to note that the diversity of both Houses, and councils around the country, is not reflective of the diversity of wider society. It took a Taoiseach's nomination to put forward Senator Eileen Flynn, who has already made an immense contribution to this House. We need more of that diversity within our democracy at every level - at local level and in both Houses.

The proposal is set against a background of Seanad reform and it is important that this Bill is considered in that wider context. I welcome the rich contributions of all Members who have spoken this evening. As Senators will be aware, Seanad reform has been on the agenda for many years. Despite numerous reports over the years, we have not succeeded in achieving all-party agreement on substantive reform of the Seanad. There have been many reports on Seanad reform, dating as far back as 1943 and most recently in 2018, but none of these programmes has led to radical reform.

Since the defeat of the 2013 referendum to abolish the Seanad, two key reports have been published. These reports included recommendations for the extension of the university franchise at Seanad elections to graduates of other institutions of higher education in the State. The first of these reports was published in 2015 by the working group on Seanad reform, under the chairmanship of Dr. Maurice Manning, a former Senator, who has been mentioned here this evening. The main electoral reform recommendations of that report were that the majority of Seanad seats should be elected by popular vote in a one person, one vote system; that this principle should be extended to include Irish citizens in Northern Ireland and those living overseas who hold a valid Irish passport; that provision should be made for online registration for voters and the downloading of ballot papers; and that there should be a greater role for the Seanad in the scrutiny, amendment and initiation of legislation.

The second report was published in December 2018 by the Seanad reform implementation group, which was established under the chairmanship of Senator Michael McDowell, who did an incredible job, and had cross-party membership. This group's main term of reference was to consider how to implement the recommendations of the Manning report, and whether any variations to those recommendations were needed. In addition to this report, the group published an accompanying Bill to implement its proposals. One of the features of the implementation group's report was the lack of consensus among the group. The report set out different statements of positions from members of the group who had dissenting views. These ranged from re-examining the constitutional provisions with regard to the Seanad, with the aim of achieving more meaningful reform, to having an electorate composed only of residents in the State.The group's report highlighted the difficulty in achieving consensus, where there is a variety of views on complex and multifaceted issues.

While Programme for Government: Our Shared Future does not make an explicit commitment on Seanad reform, as has been highlighted, it is recognised across all parties that there is a need for substantive change. The issue of the university franchise, which has been outstanding since the seventh amendment to the Constitution in 1979, is among those we must address as part of Seanad reform. On this basis, the Government is not opposing this positive Bill. I am happy to work with the Senators on progressing the intent of this specific legislation next year. I have spoken to the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, on this issue with a view to bringing forward proposals to the Cabinet in due course on Seanad reform following agreement with the coalition partners by 2021. The issue of the university franchise will be explicitly dealt with within that. I know that the Senators will play an active role in ensuring the intent of this legislation is kept alive in next year's measures. On this basis, I hope this Bill can be adjourned on Second Stage and this work can be allowed to proceed following the completion of our electoral commission plans. The Senators can, of course, move forward with the Bill in the future if they believe that sufficient progress is not being made within a specific timeframe.

The Government's immediate goals with regard to a general electoral reform Bill are set out as a substantive reform agenda in Programme for Government: Our Shared Future. I am prioritising these electoral reform commitments and my Department is finalising the general scheme of an electoral reform Bill to give effect to these commitments. The Bill will provide for the establishment of an independent statutory electoral commission; provide for the modernisation of the electoral registration process; introduce new regulatory provisions to ensure transparency in online, paid political advertising; and facilitate the holding of electoral events during Covid-19-type restrictions. These significant reform measures are the result of the culmination of many years of work, and I am determined to deliver them as a matter of priority.

The plans to establish an electoral commission are at an advanced state within my Department. In accordance with the commitment in the current programme for Government, it is intended that an electoral commission will be in place by the end of next year. My Department is working to meet this commitment and is confident that it can be met.

On the modernisation of the electoral register, I know that the register is a matter close to the hearts of Members. It has been mentioned here this evening. This area has been in need of reform for some time. The modernisation of our electoral registration structures is well advanced. Through the electoral reform Bill, my Department proposes to create the legislative framework for the introduction of rolling, or continuously updated, registration; the simplification of forms and the registration process, including an online option; a single national electoral register database; and a move to a system of verification using PPS numbers.

With regard to the regulation of online political advertising, the electoral reform Bill will provide for the compulsory labelling of online, paid-for political advertisements commissioned for, and during, electoral periods. It will provide for the clear display of specified information, or a link to that information, in a transparent and conspicuous manner. In doing so, it will apply similar but enhanced requirements for online political advertising during electoral periods to those that apply to traditional poster-type advertising.

The last reform issue that will be included in the electoral reform Bill is the provision for legislative amendments to electoral law to facilitate the holding of polls during times of Covid-19-type restrictions. Measures include holding a poll over more than one day to facilitate social distancing at polling stations and providing appropriate arrangements for special voters. We are mindful that a significant election took place in recent days in the United States during a Covid-19 event.

Having outlined my priorities for electoral reform, I would like to return again to the Bill that is before us, which deals with the university franchise at Seanad elections. While it is a short, four-section Bill, and on the face of it might seem straightforward, it is a complex proposal and a number of questions arise. Apart from how this proposal will fit into any overall reform of the Seanad, many issues need to be considered in detail. Section 6(1)(c) of the Bill appears to give the Minister the power to address many of these issues by way of making regulations. However, this may not be the most appropriate way to proceed, and it may be more appropriate to address these issues in the Bill itself. While l do not propose to outline every detail that would need to be addressed, I will point to a number of issues in the Bill that require more analysis and consideration.For example, there appears to be no clear definition in the Bill of what is meant by "institutions of higher education in the State", which is the term used in Article 18.4.2° of the Constitution. This would have to be defined. Detailed consideration would have to be given to what third level qualifications should be recognised as confirming a right to vote. Should it be a degree and a diploma from an institution, as set out in the Bill? If that is the case, then should a holder of a certificate from an institution also be granted a right to vote or should only the holders of a degree be permitted to register? A related question arises about what type of appeal process should be in place for determining whether a qualification is adequate. Would there be a difficulty with third level courses undertaken in Irish institutions of higher education by Irish citizens but where the awarding authority is not Irish? These are not straightforward questions. They are complex and need to be teased out further.

At present, there are two university constituencies of three seats each, both of which have their own register of electors. With a widening of the franchise and the proposal in the Bill that there should be a single higher education constituency, should each institution hold its own register or should there be one centralised register? How would the logistics of managing the electoral register work in practice? At the very least, consultation with these institutions of higher education would be necessary.

I have also some questions about a returning officer for the proposed new higher education constituency. There is no provision in the Bill for a returning officer. Who should fulfil that role? Should there be a single returning officer for the entire constituency, and who should that person be? The Constitution provides that Seanad elections must be conducted by postal ballot. Extending the franchise as is proposed would lead to a significant increase in the number of postal ballots. This would certainly present logistical challenges, although not insurmountable, and careful planning and adequate resources would be required. I note that no costings accompany the Bill, and there is no doubt but that there would be an additional cost to the Exchequer to implement these proposals. An assessment of these costs must be carried out. The point about what price we put on our democracy was well made. That is important.

In conclusion, these questions and issues are not exhaustive. I raise them not to find fault with the Bill but to demonstrate the range and complexity of the matters that would need to be addressed in detail before the Bill could be advanced further. That is both from a legal point of view and from the point of view of practical implementation and operability. These are issues that must be considered and addressed in the coming months as part of Seanad reform measures, subject to Cabinet agreement in 2021. I welcome the debate that has taken place. It has been very useful and I give a commitment that we will work collaboratively to advance the reforms that we all agree are absolutely necessary.