Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There has been progress as well as disappointments in terms of political reform which falls under the brief of the Minister of State. Prominent among the disappointments is the failure to hold the promised referendum on the right to vote at 16, particularly when we look to the 16 year olds who are leading the world today. It is extremely unfortunate that that referendum was not held last June as promised. There are many other such issues to which I could refer.

The Taoiseach should be present in the House for the discussion of Seanad reform to answer questions and engage with Senators on the issue. The report we are discussing was specifically requested by the Taoiseach. It is an initiative he put forward and a promise made in the programme for Government. He should be here to answer our questions. I will presently turn to some of the inconsistencies in his statements on this issue, but let us first take a step back and address the question of the mandate that exists.

We are not simply brainstorming possible solutions in pursuit of an ideal form of Seanad reform. The report was based on a clear mandate with very serious origins. A majority of those who voted in the 2013 referendum chose to retain and reform the Seanad. The referendum was not limited to the few members of the public who currently have the opportunity to vote in Seanad elections but, rather, was decided by all of the public. As the Taoiseach acknowledged, the voters in that referendum did not endorse thestatus quo; they wanted reform. A previous referendum in 1979 was also incorporated in the report of Maurice Manning and reflected in the legislation brought to the House. The proposal in the 1979 referendum - which is of the same vintage as the Taoiseach - was approved by 92% of voters. They created a constitutional imperative for the expansion of the university franchise. There is a significant mandate for that expansion. There is a mandate from the 2013 referendum for reform.

The Manning report involves an aggregation of all previous work on the issue, carried out on a cross-party basis. The programme for Government, for which the Taoiseach has ultimate responsibility and to which the Minister of State must adhere, includes a clear commitment to implement the Manning report rather than discuss it.

This 25th Seanad exists by the grace of the Irish public and has a mandate to reform. On the first day it met, Senator McDowell and I, along with nine other Senators, brought forward a Bill to implement the Manning report. We were asked by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, not to progress further with the Bill because the Government wished to engage on the issue. We were explicitly told that such was the commitment of the Government on this issue that the Office of the Taoiseach wished to engage on and lead the process of implementing the Manning report. In a spirit of good faith, we agreed to engage in a process and form a committee. Several Senators who are present were members of the committee and sat for many hours on it. In line with the explicit terms of reference we were given relating to how to implement the Manning report and what small changes, technical or otherwise, might be necessary in order to deliver effective implementation, the committee produced a new Bill. This is not a Bill put forward by 11 Senators; it is legislation drafted by a committee put together by the Government and which reached cross-party agreement. We did not reach a consensus; we reached agreement. I and many others sat in a room and voted on the content of the Bill, sometimes paragraph by paragraph. There other elements which I would have liked to have included, but I did not win every vote. Similarly, there are elements which Senator Warfield wished to have included. However, the committee reached agreement.

There has been much reference to four alternative reports. To be clear, they are four supplementary documents, one of which puts forward the view of an individual who wants the Seanad to be abolished rather than reformed. Another addresses additional issues. The committee took seriously its terms of reference and the content of the programme for Government regarding implementation of the Manning report. As such, additional ideas for constitutional reform were included under those supplementary annexes in order that they could be considered once the long-overdue and mandated necessary steps emanating from the constitutional imperative delivered in 1979, the referendum in 2013 and the programme for Government had been addressed.This idea that it is ambiguous and impossible is not true. I must challenge the Minister of State on what I believe was a disingenuous opening statement when he spoke about a conservative estimate of 53 million people.