Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is why I have a couple of notes of caution and expansion regarding how we need to be more ambitious about this and similar legislation. Along with 11 other Senators, I introduced a Seanad reform Bill on my first day in the Seanad in 2016. I did that because I was passionate about it. I know Senators Byrne and Cassells, who also served on the Seanad reform implementation group with me, are also passionate about this matter. We brought forward that Bill in 2016 on the first day the last Seanad sat. We were implored to set that legislation aside and to engage in a cross-party process which would involve all parties, all of which would put forward representatives.That is why I have a question regarding an explicit commitment. There was an explicit commitment in the last programme for Government, which committed to implementing the Manning report. We engaged in that process and we set aside our legislation. We worked for many months, and we hear the sincerity expressed by Senators Cassells and Warfield when they speak about it. There was major and genuine engagement and co-operation to produce that Seanad reform Bill. It did not contain everything we all wanted, but it was agreed cross-party. It was agreed as the starting point and as legislation which everyone stood over that had emerged from a cross-party committee. It was requested by and sent to the then Taoiseach. It was then ignored.

As I think was mentioned by Senator Cassells, after it was ignored it took a year for the relevant Minister to engage. The legislation was also dismissed by the then Tánaiste, who really rolled back on the very basic principle of the Manning report. The part on which he rolled back and on which he expressed questions concerned whether we want to take any power away from councillors and if we really want to have the public vote happen. That was the part which was questioned and that is why I am concerned. While I believe in the absolute sincerity of the Senators proposing this legislation regarding the university franchise, I know for a fact that there are those in government now and who were in government previously who actively opposed the extension of the franchise to the wider public.

I am interested in steps forward, but those steps forward cannot be into a cul-de-sac. This cannot be something that gets framed as Seanad reform, following which we are then told there was Seanad reform, and the issue then gets parked for another 30 or 40 years. I am supporting this Bill on Second Stage and I am genuinely delighted that there are Members across the House who are passionate about this issue. I will, however, be seeking to widen the ambition of this legislation and to amend it on Committee Stage to ensure arrows and pointers are built into this legislation to ensure the widening of the franchise. I refer to the other 43 seats and how they might be approached. It will be crucial for me that the other aspects of that agreed cross-party Bill are either included or are set on a hard timeline, because there must be steps forward.

When we talk about first steps, we need to be not just walking but running at this stage. I was concerned about what will happen when the proposed electoral commission comes to be, something so many of us supported and I was among the many who called for it. I do not want it, however, to decide that it will lead with only university panels. I want the electoral commission and it is a good idea that there would be a separate committee to look at it. It will need to look, though, at all those other issues which were mandated in that agreed Seanad reform legislation. That is vital.

I do not want us to miss the biggest train moving through this area, the electoral commission, because we are taking small steps. This concerns raising our collective ambition and delivering on reform. It is unfortunate also that one of the smallest measures, the measure which the Government has the most control over, regarding the 11 senators, cannot be changed without a referendum. Our committee, however, recommended that the Taoiseach's 11 nominees be used to insert a diversity of voices into the Seanad. We actually had a step backwards, however.

The last few Governments had nominated five independent Members representing a cross-section of society. Those Members did not necessarily come only from NGOs, but also from business, the arts and the area of children rights. I do not want to disparage any Member who was nominated. There had been a precedent, however, that five of those 11 senators would come from different perspectives in society, but that was reduced to one Senator in this Seanad and that is regrettable. I am delighted that the one selection is Senator Eileen Flynn, who is making an excellent contribution to this House. It is a loss, however, that there is only one such Member and not five. If six Members are affected by this, then that will represent 10% of the House and that will not be enough. We need universal suffrage. I want all graduates to be able to vote, but I also want all citizens to be able to vote. Our proposals were clear. They do not cut across or conflict with the Dáil.It is a very different purpose. It is not a geographical but a thematic House. It is, in the end, constitutionally in terms of money, legislation and so forth, subject to the other House. There is no danger of replication or overlap of powers in that regard. The work put in by Dr. Maurice Manning and others and the resulting legislation was entirely constitutionally compatible. It was expertly drafted. It was agreed, it exists, it is on a shelf in the Taoiseach's office, and it is widely available.

I echo what Senator Warfield said. Let us have the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, bring forward that legislation. I am sure Senators Byrne and Cassells, if they saw momentum coming around that agreed collective legislation that addresses those issues they are addressing, would support that.