Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan. The proceedings on this matter will be taken at the end of the first round of speakers.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill 2024 before the House. There are three main components in the Bill. First, it proposes a significant extension of the franchise for electing the six “University” members of Seanad Éireann to graduates of designated institutions of higher education in Ireland who are Irish citizens, who have received a degree from a designated institution and who are aged 18 or over.

Second, it amends the system for electing the six university members, currently elected by graduates of the National University of Ireland and Trinity College Dublin through the two-seat constituencies. The Bill proposes the establishment of a new, single six-seat higher education constituency.

Third, the Bill provides that the National University of Ireland will be the central registration authority responsible for maintaining the register of electors. The central registration authority will appoint a chief registration officer. There is provision in the Bill for a registration officer in each designated institution of higher education, who will be required to assist the chief registration officer in the provision of information they hold so that an applicant’s claim can be verified.

Deputies will be aware that the Supreme Court delivered an important judgment in a case brought by a graduate of the University of Limerick seeking an extension of voting rights at Seanad university elections to graduates of other third-level institutions other than those of Trinity College Dublin and the National University of Ireland. In its judgment, the Supreme Court determined that sections 6 and 7 of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937, which provide for the election of members of the Seanad by certain university graduates, are unconstitutional because they are not consistent with Article 18.4.2 of the Constitution. The requirement to extend voting rights to other third-level institutions was established by the Supreme Court judgment. The Bill I am bringing forward addresses these issues.

I will now elaborate on the provisions in the Bill. Part 1 of the Bill, that is, sections 1 to 5, inclusive, addresses preliminary and general matters. Part 2 of the Bill, that is, sections 6 to 26, inclusive, provides the detailed legislative basis for the new higher education constituency along with establishing the franchise for the new constituency and detailed provisions around the registration of electors.

Section 6 provides for a new higher education constituency, which will elect six members and be comprised of the designated institutions of higher education, as defined by the Higher Education Authority Act 2022. It also provides that no person can vote more than once at an election in the higher education constituency. Part 2 also sets out the eligibility criteria for being registered as an elector. Section 7 provides that a person must be an Irish citizen, have reached the age of 18 years and have received a degree from a designated institution, or from institutions which have been dissolved and have had their functions transferred to a designated institution.

Sections 8 and 9 propose that the governing body of the National University of Ireland is to be the central registration authority and that it will keep a register of electors for the higher education constituency. The first register of electors will be published and come into effect on 1 April 2025.

Sections 10 and 11 in Part 2 provide for the appointments of a chief registration officer and a registration officer in each designated institution. Sections 12 to 19, inclusive, set out the detailed requirements for compiling and maintaining the register of electors. This includes the submission of claims to be on the first register of electors and detailing the information required by a claimant. There is provision for the chief registration officer to share the information received in a claim for the purposes of verifying the particulars submitted, including with the relevant designated institution and in the case of identifying particulars with the Minister for Social Protection. The chief registration officer is empowered to request further information from an applicant for the purposes of verifying eligibility to be on the register of electors.

Sections 20 to 23 provide for the reimbursement of expenses arising from the preparation and revision of the register; for it to be an offence to use the register for non-electoral or non-statutory purposes; for the establishment of a database of information relating to persons entitled to be on the register of electors; and for the sharing of information by the chief registration officer with a designated institution, the Minister for Social Protection, other Government Ministers or specific public bodies. Information would be shared to assist with maintaining the accuracy of the register of electors.

Part 2 in sections 24 and 25, also provides for the establishment of an advisory committee to advise the chief registration officer in relation to his or her functions. The final section in Part 2, section 26, provides for a role for An Coimisiún Toghcháin in relation to the register of electors, including in undertaking research and making recommendations.

Parts 3 and 4 include amendments to the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937. Part 3, sections 27 to 29, inclusive, includes an amendment to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to ensure the NUI can process PPSNs. Part 4, section 30, sets out the amendments with regard to the conduct of by-elections in the period between 21 March 2025 and the date of the first Seanad general election with a higher education constituency.

Part 5, sections 31 to 40, inclusive, provides for the nomination of candidates and the filling of casual vacancies in the higher education constituency. It provides that the nomination of a candidate in the higher education constituency will require the assent of 60 persons who are registered electors in the constituency or the payment of a deposit of €1,800. It also provides that where a casual vacancy arises in the higher education constituency, the vacancy will be filled using a replacement candidate list system similar to what is in place for the filling of vacancies in the European Parliament.

Part 6, sections 41 to 45, inclusive, provides for expenditure by candidates in the higher education constituency’s elections. This Part amends the Electoral Act 1997 to provide for the reimbursement of election expenses up to the value of €13,750 to a successful candidate or to an unsuccessful candidate whose number of votes at an election exceeds one quarter of the quota. Section 43 provides for the insertion of a new section into the Electoral Act 1997 to provide that the limit of election expenses which may be incurred by a candidate be set at €55,000.

Part 7, section 46, provides for the necessary amendments to the rules for the counting of votes set out in the Third Schedule to the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937. These are consequential to the provisions in the Bill relating to the reimbursement of a candidate’s deposit and-or election expenses where the candidate is either elected or where the number of votes credited to the candidate exceeds one quarter of the quota.

The Bill's Schedule consists of 34 rules and sets out the registration rules for the higher education constituency. This includes the process for the annual revision of the register. The register will be revised by 31 May, with annual publication on 1 June. Importantly, there is provision in the rules to allow designated institutions to submit claims on behalf of and with the consent of persons to whom they have awarded a degree.

This Bill brings about significant reform of the process for electing Seanad university Members. It represents a significant expansion of the franchise for electing the six Seanad Members in question and, crucially, it addresses the issues raised in the judgments of the Supreme Court last year. I commend this Bill to the House.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, the Government has missed a huge opportunity with this Bill. It has taken what the Supreme Court found and interpreted it in the narrowest of ways. Seanad reform has long been talked about, but the Government has done all the talking and taken no action. Let us be honest; it only moved on this Bill because it was bounced into it. We in Sinn Féin are not in a position to support this legislation as it stands, and we will be pushing it to a vote.

Mr. Tómas Heneghan, who took this case, is also opposing this. He actually wrote to me this morning stating as much. I commend Mr. Heneghan on pursuing the issue in the first place. As he states in his letter, rightly, the legislation still excludes the majority of people from voting in the Seanad. Government appears happy to continue to leave the Seanad open to ridicule and the accusation of being completely undemocratic. It has done the bare minimum here. It has fumbled an opportunity for meaningful reform. Even as it stands, this Bill does not do what it should have. It still excludes some voters who should have been included.

Amendments were submitted on Committee Stage in the Seanad to include other graduates and other degree holders. Sinn Féin proposed that it also include graduates from higher level institutions in the North. The amendments were both ruled out of order because they would put an additional cost on the Exchequer. Graduates from Queen's University Belfast, Ulster University, St. Mary's University College Belfast and other graduates from regional colleges across the North have all been left behind here.

The Bill drafted by the Seanad Reform Implementation Group was introduced in the Seanad back in 2020. The Government could have chosen to progress that Bill if it was serious about delivering real Seanad reform. It would have radically reformed elections to the Seanad. It included the proposal, which we are discussing here, to have a single six-seat university constituency for all graduates from across the island. It would also provide for 43 seats that would be filled by election across five vocational panels and that 28 seats would be filled by election by the people, including Irish citizens from the North who would be able to register on their vocational panel of interest. I believe that is the Bill we should be discussing here today. We should be making the Seanad accountable to the people. Instead, Government is ignoring the calls that have been there for decades. It is turning its back on the democratic norms. It smacks of elitism. It is gatekeeping on the part of the Government.

This Government has wasted a lot of time and effort with reports that lie on a shelves, as well as many soundbites regarding Seanad reform. However, it has been found wanting when it comes to proper action. When speaking in the Seanad on this issue of reform back in 2018, former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said:

When we talk about renewing Irish politics in a general sense, or reforming the Seanad to give a specific example, it can often feel like Groundhog Day. It seems like we are condemned to do the same thing over and over, often repeating the same mistakes, with little or nothing changing ... [I believe] we have an opportunity to break that cycle.

Here we are now, six years on, and it appears on the face of it that this legislation will not break any cycle. We are still having the same tired conversation, with statements of intent coming from Minister after Minister. Very little has changed, and it is guaranteed very little will change with this Bill. The best thing this House could do is reject this legislation and demand the progression of the 2020 Bill. That would be the right thing to do. That would be far more reflective of what the people want to do. It is really disappointing that the Government is going to persist with this Bill despite a far more comprehensive Bill that is ready to go. That would be a Bill on which we could all agree. I underline again our disappointment in the Government's approach to this issue. I hope that whatever Government follows after the next election can do much better when it comes to reform of the Seanad. I think we agree we do need to do better.

I will finish with a question from Mr Heneghan’s letter, which I think is very relevant:

Throughout Irish history some politicians have left behind extraordinary legacies as members of the Oireachtas. Will your legacy be one of supporting the exclusion of millions of Irish people, north and south, for voting in the Seanad elections based solely on the fact they do not hold college degrees? Or will ... [you be the one] that stood up and pushed for fairness?

It is the Government's call, and the record will show that it was on the wrong side and acting in the interests of the elites and not in the interests of democracy.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under the Constitution, the national Parliament consists of the President, the directly elected Dáil and an indirectly elected nominated Seanad. The Dáil is the paramount body on proposals for legislation, public expenditure and taxation. The Seanad has specific delaying and deliberative functions.

In terms of their respective roles, the Dáil is stated, in Article 15.1 of the Constitution, to be the House of Representatives. While the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is vested in the Oireachtas as a whole, the Dáil has two additional important constitutional functions which are not shared with the Seanad. The function of holding the Government accountable is vested in the Dáil by the Constitution and it is the body the Government is made responsible to, under Article 28.4. The second constitutional function for the Dáil alone is the control of supply and scrutiny of public expenditure. The Seanad, by contrast, is substantially a legislative chamber, albeit with a constitutional function when it comes to the impeachment of judges and the President.

The national assembly, which met in the Mansion House in January 1919, had just one chamber, Dáil Éireann. Three years later, the 1922 Constitution created a Seanad to sit beside the Dáil. Both the Seanad and its nomination procedure were intended to ensure representation at parliamentary level from the southern unionist minority in the newly created Free State.

Although it was abolished in 1936, the 1937 Constitution reinstated the Seanad. The framer of the Constitution, Éamon de Valera, provided for membership from three sources. First, there were representative panels from which candidates were nominated. For the panel election, the electorate is very limited, consisting of TDs who are incoming, outgoing Seanadóirí and members of county councils and borough councils. Second, there are six Members elected by graduates of some universities and, finally, 11 nominees of the Taoiseach.

In the referendum in 2013, the people rejected a proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann by a narrow margin: 51.7% against and 48.3% in favour. The main argument deployed in that campaign against abolition was that a "No" vote would create a mandate for reform of the second chamber. Some Members of the then Seanad published a 30-page blueprint for Seanad reform, entitled "Open It, Don't Close It". In short, there was much discussion about how a more effective second chamber might be created in our bicameral system. Of course, like many reform momentums, the enthusiasm for change fizzled out soon thereafter.

The next Seanad that will be elected in the next couple of months will look and act very much like today's Seanad and the Seanad that has existed for decades. I believe that there is an important role to be played by the Seanad. I believe that it is a role that can be much stronger and more meaningful than the role provided for in the 1937 Constitution.

I want to put on the record the excellent and nationally important work done by many exemplary Senators down the years, both in their insightful and impactive review of legislation that was passed by the Dáil and also in initiating many landmark proposals themselves.

The central question is, however, why have two chambers of parliament. There are generally three reasons put forward for that. The first is to consolidate a federal structure, such as the United States or the Federal Republic of Germany. Obviously, that does not apply here. The second is to have a check on the popular principle embodied in a popularly elected house. If one reflects, that particular modality was ably demonstrated by the House of Lords in the United Kingdom hindering the Boris Johnson proposals post Brexit, including his proposal to prorogue parliament itself. The third argument that was put forward for an upper house is a political philosophical one that justifies bicameralism because of a need to represent citizens as a civic society socialised by the smaller constituent communities which citizens form to which that citizen belongs. On this argument, the majoritarian principle of an elected unicameral system is undemocratic in a pluralist society because minorities are under represented or not represented at all. Each reason assumes a different institution make-up for each house, not a duplication of the first house by a second house, and I would argue for a much more radical reform than the tweaking that is proposed in the Bill that the Minister of State has brought to this House today.

The distinguished political scientist, Michael Laver, summarised the shortcomings of our current Seanad as "arising from the fact that it is dominated by the Government, lives in the shadow of the Dáil and the rules for choosing its Members are bizarre and anachronistic." The vocational panels used to nominate the majority of candidates for election are certainly out of sync with modern Ireland. As far back as 2002, the then All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, in its seventh report, stated:

We share the view that the vocational element of the present arrangements [are] ... in practice ... meaningless. Moreover, we would not support any attempt to revive it in a modernised form. Interest groups already have ample opportunity to make their views known in other fora and in direct dialogue with the government. Furthermore, the virtual impossibility of defining fair and objective criteria for the selection, and the relative weighting, of those groups and organisations which might be entitled to nominate representatives to an elected second chamber, is apparent.

That was 22 years ago and nothing has happened since. It is still as anachronistic as was suggested then.

Can Seanad Éireann have a larger and more modern and appropriate role in Ireland in 2025 and beyond? I believe that it can but it will require much more fundamental change than is proposed in this Bill and I believe the Government and the Minister know that full well. The Labour Group in Seanad Éireann has asked that a constitutional convention be established to consider fundamental change. It is now clear that will fall to the next Oireachtas and the next Government to pursue or, if history is any guide, more likely, to ignore.

Political reform should always be on our agenda and seldom is. I spoke last week at a conference on the tenth anniversary of the Bill that I introduced in 2014, the reform of the FOI Act. That was part of a suite of measures, FOI reform, whistleblowing legislation, ethics legislation, regulation of lobbying, etc. Reform seems to have vanished from the political agenda since and that is a fundamental mistake.

The will to substantially change the status quois difficult to muster. I know that. The forces against change from those who are already benefiting from the status quois very strong indeed but, in truth, the Minister of State cannot come into this Chamber and honestly say that one category of our citizens who happen to have a degree are entitled to have better representation in the national legislature than other citizens who happen not to have a degree. How could that be in any way democratic or acceptable? As I say, the original justification in the 1930s of de Valera, and if one reads de Valera's speeches at the time he made it clear he was against a second chamber altogether, was that he wanted a second chamber with university representation from Trinity College because otherwise, he thought, there might be no unionist voice in the fledgling parliament of the new State. Let us not be anchored in the 21st century in that thinking. Hopefully, the measure for which the Minister of State will undoubtedly muster a majority to get through the Dáil and Seanad will be eclipsed in the next Dáil and Seanad by much more far-reaching reform proposals but, in truth, I have my doubts.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fundamental tenet of this Bill, which is to continue the exclusion of people who do not have degrees in terms of electing the Seanad, is completely and utterly wrong and indefensible.

It is outstanding really that this Government feels comfortable bringing forward such a Bill. It is antidemocratic, elitist and archaic. There was nothing in the Minister of State's speech that defended the exclusion of people without degrees from voting. Where is your rationale for that? You are coming into this Chamber seeking to exclude the population who do not have degrees from voting in Seanad elections and you have given no justification for it whatsoever. In the more economically deprived parts of my constituency, such as Darndale, which if anything need greater representation and input into the civic process, the percentage of the population who have a degree is at about 1%. In small areas with populations of about 350 people, you can pinpoint that there are about four people with degrees. Everybody else in that area is not to be represented in the Seanad and is not to get a vote in Seanad elections. We can contrast that with areas in my constituency that are more affluent. In the most affluent areas, under this Bill large numbers of the population will have votes in the Seanad.

The Government can say it is extending it and, therefore, it is better. On foot of the very good work done by Tomás Heneghan in taking this case along with FLAC, the Government is being forced into making minor tweaks and concessions. However, it is actually bringing a Bill to continue excluding people simply on the basis of whether they have a degree. What is the rationale for that? Why does this Government think people with a degree have more of a right to representation in the Seanad and a vote in Seanad elections than people without a degree? I do not believe you could possibly put forward any explanation or rationale for it. I do not believe that most people in government could really believe that; who in their right mind could? Everybody makes a very valuable contribution to this society and democracy, whether they have a degree or not. Tomás Heneghan in his correspondence to TDs wrote that he has a degree and that members of his family who worked very hard to put him through education do not have a degree. He asked why they would be excluded from having a vote. Why would anybody in this society who plays an utterly crucial role but happens not to have a degree be deprived of a vote in our Seanad elections? There is no rationale for that whatsoever. It is utterly indefensible, elitist, discriminatory and archaic and has absolutely no place in a modern Irish Republic. The point was made, which is debatable, that there was a rationale for that in the 1930s. It was an attempt to ensure there was unionist representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas and was seen as a mechanism for doing that. To be fair, there was a decent rationale for it. That was a hundred years ago yet somehow the Government is trying to repeat it now.

I want to quote what the current Tánaiste told the Dáil ten years ago, in 2014, when he was introducing the Seanad Reform Bill 2014, legislation similar to the Seanad Bill 2020. This would have given the vote for Seanad representation to everyone. It would not have limited it to degree-holders. On this I agree with the Tánaiste:

The Bill we introduce today addresses the most important element of reform which is possible immediately. This is to open up the Seanad to all citizens. ... We could make our entire Parliament representative of the direct will of the people. ... The people demanded reform ... and we have the duty and ability to deliver it. [Good words from the Tánaiste.] To fail to act, or to do the minimum possible and move on to other issues, would be an act of political arrogance which would reinforce the growing public disillusionment with the failure to reform Irish politics.

He put it very well. Here were are ten years later and the Tánaiste and the rest of the Government are not acting on his words or his initiative in 2014 but are seeking to exclude people from representation in the Seanad and keep that exclusion going.

These tweaks are in no way an excuse not to bring forward the urgent reform we needed. I also want to say that the Seanad does play a very valuable role in our democracy. That was upheld by a small majority of people in the referendum just over ten years ago. They had their say on it. Absolutely running through that referendum campaign and vote was the need for extensive reform. There was no one saying the status quowas the way to go. Here we are more than ten years later seeing small tweaks to the status quo. Successive Governments have been obstructing and delaying the changes required here. If Tomás Heneghan and FLAC had not taken their successful court action, I do not think we would see any proposals being brought forward here. It should not take a citizen going to the Supreme Court for the Government to make changes that have been obvious for decades. In 1979, the public voted to expand the eligibility for the Seanad. That is not only the year the Pope visited, it is the year I was born. Tomás Heneghan was not born in 1979, I can tell you. Many of those who voted to keep the Seanad in the 2013 referendum do not have a vote in Seanad elections and after today they still will not have a vote. On the back of the 2013 referendum we had the working group on Seanad reform. The Manning report was published on the back of that. It made recommendations that the majority of the Seanad Members would be elected by popular vote. The Seanad Bill 2020 took on board its recommendations, yet we see these piecemeal measures coming forward today. Why not instead use the opportunity imposed by the Supreme Court decision to bring forward a timeline for meaningful change and reform? I urge the Government at this late stage to withdraw these tweaks and as quickly as possible in the next Oireachtas to bring forward meaningful change and stop excluding such a large part of our population from their democratic say simply on the basis of who holds a degree. It is completely and utterly indefensible.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will wait a minute before calling on the Minister of State. There is another group of speakers indicated who are not here. I know they have been caught unawares because the debate has moved quickly. I will proceed to the Minister of State in the next minute or two if nobody comes in.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. There is very little I can disagree with in anything they have said.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So you are not proceeding.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will say the point critically here. We are at the end of a political cycle and we can see the quietness around Leinster House today. This is a three-party coalition. There is no commitment in the programme for Government on Seanad reform. It is not there. Critically from all of our perspectives, it is important as we look towards our manifestos for the upcoming general election to include provisions for meaningful Seanad reform. On the point that Deputy Howlin made about ongoing engagement around meaningful political reform, we cannot stand still. It has to continue. We have to progress and keep up with changing times. That is hugely important. I agree wholeheartedly.

To address some of the specific points, Deputy Mitchell spoke on the expansion of the franchise to more voters and to qualifications beyond bachelor degree level. At present there are about 177,000 people on the registers for the NUI and Trinity College constituencies. The census data from 2022 indicates that over 900,000 Irish citizens living in Ireland had completed an ordinary bachelor degree or higher degree. Not all of these will be immediately included through the designation of institutions.

A high number of graduates outside the State would also be eligible. While we do not know how many of these people would choose to engage, even on current terms the Bill will result in a significant expansion of the electorate in Seanad elections. It is sensible to enable this initial expansion, putting in place the necessary processes and structures, while holding other aspects as they are, including the qualification, which is being retained at degree level.

Several Deputies mentioned the word "elitism". People who have been elected to the current Seanad represent communities from disadvantaged backgrounds as well. If we look at the work that was done to expand the technological universities, people such as myself got a degree from a relatively poor background, and that opportunity is now afforded to far more people through the expansion of technological universities and access to third level education. I disagree, therefore, with the suggestion it is elitist. There are greater opportunities than ever before for people to participate in our third level system, which is important to note.

I do not disagree with the points Deputy Howlin made about the mandate for reform of Seanad Éireann, and I wholeheartedly agree that the role of Seanad Éireann could and should be strengthened. He brought in brilliantly the context of why we have two Chambers but only one tier of local government. These are questions with which we all have to grapple politically. I thank Deputy Howlin, given this will be probably the last opportunity I get to do that, for the level of debate he has consistently brought to this Chamber for many years. His voice will be missed here.

It is important to have that wider role of civil society reflected in our political system. The notion of the constitutional convention is a sound one and I reiterate that we all need to include it in our manifestos for the upcoming general election. That is critical.

I also agree with the points raised by Deputy O'Callaghan. We need to keep in mind the fundamental point that political reform should always be on our agenda. It is vital that we keep in front of that.

I think I have addressed the main points that were raised. I accept that Deputy Mitchell has indicated that her party is going to vote against the Bill. As far as I understand, there are not any Opposition amendments on Committee Stage, but I accept her party's decision. The Bill is a step forward. It is not ideal or exactly what was demanded when the referendum was rejected narrowly in 2013, but I would like us all to embrace it in a spirit of accepting that it is a step forward. With An Coimisiún Toghcháin now in place, its research capabilities afford us an opportunity. The work now lies with the next Dáil to move further on Seanad reform.

I thank the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage for their examination of the general scheme of the Bill during pre-legislative scrutiny. We have considered and responded to the committee's recommendations. When a Private Members' Bill on this very issue, the franchise for electing university Members, was being debated in the Seanad, I highlighted that while the programme for Government, Our Shared Future, does not make an explicit commitment on the issue of Seanad reform, I accepted that the issue of the university franchise, which has been outstanding since the seventh amendment to the Constitution in 1979, is among those that should be considered as part of any reform of the Seanad. On that basis, the Government did not oppose the Private Members' Bill.

The Bill before us today, therefore, is aimed at significantly expanding the franchise for electing the six university Senators. It responds to the Supreme Court rulings of last year that found sections 6 and 7 of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937 to be unconstitutional because they are not consistent with Article 18.4.2° of the Constitution. These rulings require the Oireachtas to extend the franchise for electing the six university Members to one or more additional institutions of higher education for any Seanad general election to be held after 31 May 2025. While the court judgment allows for a period to remedy the problem, there is an urgency to putting this legislation in place in good time before 31 May 2025.

I believe that the Bill represents a positive reform of the Upper House. It proposes a significant expansion of the franchise for electing the six university seats. Irish citizens aged 18 and over and holding a degree from a designated institution of education will be eligible to register to vote, and that is a significant expansion. While some may favour wider reform, as I absolutely do, the priority at this moment is the urgent action required to respond to the Supreme Court judgment in order that legislation on electing Members to the six university seats will be compatible with the Constitution. This will ensure such Senators are legitimately elected.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The division will be taken tomorrow, immediately prior to Committee Stage of the Bill.