Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

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.

See this speech in context