Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this very important motion. Deputy Coonan wondered about the wisdom of today's debate and argued there are more important issues to be addressed but his Government felt this matter was important enough to put to a referendum and included it in the programme for Government. Little has happened 12 months after that referendum. I sat here most of the afternoon listening to the Government Deputies and I was interested in what they had to say. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan indicated he had two votes for the Seanad but he actually may have ten votes if one considers there are five panels. There are people on the street who do not have one vote in Seanad elections, which shows how ridiculous is the process.

Since the defeat of the referendum to abolish the Seanad, there have been a number of proposals to radically reform it which have come from all sides of the House, inside the Seanad and outside Leinster House. Unfortunately, the Government appears to have gone in a different direction from its position of wanting to get rid of it altogether to leaving it exactly as it is. We wanted the Seanad radically reformed rather than kept was it was. What has happened to the Taoiseach's proposed reforms a year after the referendum? He indicated he would work with others and some Deputies argue that he is doing so. My understanding is that people were summoned to one meeting in Government Buildings to discuss the issue, and that was almost a year ago.

Our motion proposes reform of the Seanad by increasing representation of women and broadening the franchise to allow representation of Irish citizens in the North. An Irish citizen from the North ran for the most recent by-election to the Seanad, Ms Catherine Seeley, although she was not elected. She could not vote for another candidate or herself, which indicates how ridiculous that election was. We would like to see Members of the other Chamber elected through direct elections involving all registered electors. I would include people over 16, as we saw recently with the Scottish referendum on membership of the United Kingdom how people aged 16 and over had a vote and were capable of using it.

There are 17 European countries with second chambers and the members of these chambers in Belgium and Poland are elected by direct elections. Spain had a dictatorship until fairly recently so it is a fairly new democracy, and it directly elects 80% of its second chamber. Spain came through a difficult period in getting into a democratic process and some, particularly those in the Basque region and other areas, might argue it still has a bit to go in this regard. Half of the members in the Czech second chamber are elected by universal franchise. There have been proposals by others, including the Government, to broaden the franchise and include all those who are third-level graduates. This does not go far enough and there are proposals to include broader representation from community groups, including people involved in sports, arts, the Irish diaspora and so on. All that would achieve, without reform of the electoral system, would be to make the system more representative in a token fashion, as it would not fundamentally address the question of how people get inside the four walls of the Seanad.

In its response to the rejection of the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, the Government proposed to give all third-level graduates a vote in Seanad elections. This would be an improvement but we could not accept it as a meaningful attempt to genuinely reform the second Chamber. It cannot be seriously considered as an attempt by the Government to address its own commitment in the wake of the rejection to radically democratise the Seanad. There is only one meaningful way to create a truly democratic republican second Chamber. We live in a republic, and although I would like to see it extending to Ballycastle, this is as much as we have for now. If we are to have a proper democratic republican second Chamber, we must allow full and inclusive voting rights for people on this island right up to Ballycastle, across to Derry and taking in all the citizens of the country, as well as the Irish diaspora.

Deputy Coonan and the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, wondered about potential expense, as it costs €6.50 per envelope in the electoral process. Other governments can work out such matters in allowing their diaspora to vote and people here queue at embassies to vote in elections in their native countries. People could also go to regional centres, and there is nothing to stop us doing that in Boston, London, Leeds, Liverpool or anywhere else. If people cannot go to embassies or centres to vote, other mechanisms could be established to allow people to vote. The Minister also labelled our motion a wish-list but I do not see anything wishful, fanciful or way out in space about asking for democratic rights or that the Upper House should be truly representative of the people who elect it. That should not be beyond us. We should make these changes.

This issue should be passed to the Constitutional Convention, as some of the Government Deputies indicated, which is to be welcomed. Some Government backbenchers seem to be ahead of Ministers in this regard, as they have argued it should be passed to the Constitutional Convention for consideration so it can formulate genuinely democratic proposals and we can have a broader discussion, involving society and community representatives. Unfortunately, the Taoiseach and others around the Cabinet table have blocked such efforts to date. I call on the Government to honour its commitment and reform Seanad Éireann.

I asked a member of the public who visited Leinster House approximately a year ago what she thought of the Seanad. She told me the plasterwork of the ceiling was very decorative and the chandeliers were fantastic but she did not have much else good to say. When people see the Seanad on the television, they can see chandeliers and fancy plasterwork. Unfortunately, the Seanad is meant to represent people and it is not doing that. It must be changed and the Government must honour its commitment. It got an answer from the public on whether it should be retained but the public wants it radically changed.

See this speech in context