Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 13 mandates, as a function of the commission, that the commission would review and implement the proposals of the Seanad reform implementation group and the Manning report. Yesterday we enumerated the long process and the fact that in 1979 the public voted in favour of the expansion of the university franchise by an overwhelming majority. Again in 2015 in a campaign with the message “Open it don't close it” in relation to the Seanad, the public, including all those who do not currently have a vote in the Seanad - the vast majority of citizens do not have any say in who sits in this Second Chamber – very strongly chose to retain the second Chamber and chose to support a campaign clearly run on the message of reform rather than removal. I do not have to revisit what an extraordinarily cynical campaign it was, namely, the campaign to abolish the Seanad.

The Seanad has made an extraordinary contribution in terms of legislation. I need only look to the large number of Private Members’ Bills from the Seanad that have become law, the large number of amendments that are made in the Seanad, and the contribution that is made. Certainly in the time I have been here I have seen the contribution of the Seanad over the last two Oireachtas. The idea that saving a few quid would be the argument for why we should not have that part of the democratic process, the Oireachtas scrutiny of legislation, was very cynical. It was rejected by the public. The public appreciated the thematic perspective and the additional scrutiny the Seanad can provide. The public also expressed, by voting for the retention of the Seanad, that it wants a say in and has opinions on the Seanad. It sent a very strong message that it wants to be part of deciding what happens in the Seanad.

That promise of reform was made in the last Oireachtas. The very first day we brought forward proposals, we sat in the cross-party implementation group. Senator Gavan’s colleague, Senator Warfield, was there, as was Senator Cassells. Senator McDowell acted as chair for that implementation group and we produced legislation that was ready to go and delivered to Government. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, chose to park it. I need that to be made clear when people say Senators do not want to vote for or move this. Senators worked hard for eight months on that. The mandate of that implementation group was implementation of the Manning report which was itself developed with a cross-party group and independent chair. It put forward clear proposals for the reform of the Seanad, namely, reforms that can happen without need for a constitutional referendum.

We are a millions miles past time for action on this, and past the cynicism on it. The fact that nowhere in this electoral reform Bill is there even an arrow or a breadcrumb trail towards any intention to act on this is exceptionally cynical and disappointing.This single issue is raised again and again. It is around enhancing democracy. The proposals we put forward would mean that every person in Ireland over the age of 18 would get an opportunity to vote in a Seanad election. The public is not simply geographical in its thinking and concerns. People are not simply thinking in terms of Galway, Carlow or Mayo. Education is an area on which members of the public may be passionate about and may choose to act on. Agriculture is another area. Under the proposals we had, each person would be able to choose one of the thematic panels most relevant to him or her and be able to vote in that panel. That would be empowering. For example, those concerned with organic farming may be a minority in every single county but they may well constitute a sufficient constituency throughout the State to be able to elect a representative to speak about their concerns in this Chamber and to bring that perspective to legislation on agriculture. I could give multiple examples.

This is a missed opportunity to have the public more engaged, interested and excited by the decisions being made and to feel more empowered. This would enhance trust in democracy. These are good proposals. This legislation would have dealt with the issue whereby graduates have a privileged situation in terms of voting. It would have meant that graduates would still only have one vote, the same as any other person in the State, although without a constitutional referendum, we cannot remove the fact graduates have a different vote. They would simply have six places to choose between when deciding how to use their votes versus five. We would be back to a principle of one person, one vote.

The legislation represented a compromise. I would have liked it to be more for the public but in fact the legislation put forward still gave a voice to councillors and local representatives. It simply did not give the monopoly that now exists where 43 Members of this House are elected by just over 1,000 people. In a by-election that drops to just a few hundred. There would still be that space for the representation of councillors, probably more than I would have liked, but that was the kind of compromise that everybody in that implementation group made to come up with legislation that could be agreed and voted on in majority by everybody in that committee. We came up with proposals. We all made compromises. We moved other ideas that we had into appendices. We agreed to bracket them in favour of doing our core central task, which was to implement the Manning report.

The commission should be moving that forward. Amendments Nos. 13 and 21 look for the Seanad reform implementation group and the Manning proposals to be furthered and reviewed if necessary. It allows that they may be reviewed or changed and then implemented. Amendment No. 21 relates to the issue of Seanad reform included in the provisions for an electoral commission and that it would conduct constituency reviews in reviewing constituencies for election to Seanad Éireann. Amendment No. 24 relates to that core issue of reforming the Seanad. We see the notices of Seanad 100. It would have been something if in the centenary year of the Seanad we put down a marker for its future. That is an opportunity that has been missed.

Amendment No. 24 seeks to provide that when preparing a report under subsection (1)(a)(iii) that the commission would have regard to any alterations in the electoral franchise for a constituency of Seanad Éireann and any alterations to the criteria by which a Taoiseach may nominate a person as a Member of Seanad Éireann. This is around preparing the legislation for a time in which we have a reformed Seanad so that the electoral commission is empowered in advance to fulfil the functions it needs to in terms of an open Seanad election.

I refer to a situation where criteria might be applied – again not to dictate but to inform the Taoiseach’s decision in regard to the appointment of Members of Seanad Éireann. There has been a slight backward step where it was the practice that there would be an attempt to ensure diversity from society but we only have one Member appointed in that manner in this Seanad as against five Members in the previous Seanad and, indeed, in the one before that who were appointed as representatives of under-represented groups in society.

Amendment No. 35 mirrors section 48 of the Seanad Bill 2020 in that it seeks to establish an electoral register. In the case of this legislation, it would be mandated by the electoral commission. One of the fundamental proposals and reforms put forward by the Manning report was the recommendation to expand the franchise at Seanad elections to include Irish citizens in the State, Irish passport holders abroad, and true to the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, persons from Northern Ireland, and also to expand the range of graduates who would be able to vote, giving effect to the 1979 referendum result. It is extraordinary that has not been acted upon. This would enable members of the public to participate in Seanad elections in a way that had not been permitted before now.

This amendment allows that if a Seanad electoral register is set up there is a tangible first step in the reform process and on the widening of the register, in that we will already have the building blocks in place to set up a process of voluntary enrolment for persons who wish to vote in Seanad elections. The committee heard significant testimony in that process of our implementation hearings. Much of the scaremongering about numbers have not proven to be the case. We have seen in the case of Mexico and elsewhere that voluntary enrolment reaches those who are engaged, feel committed and have a genuine connection to the political debates at hand.

Amendment No. 36 is one I hope the Minister of State will accept because it is the absolute minimum in terms of promises that have not been delivered. This amendment leaves aside all of those concrete provisions that I am proposing and simply asks that there would be a report within 12 months of the passing of this Bill outlining, if not this, then what will be done. If we are not dealing with it in the Electoral Reform Bill what is being done to reform the electoral franchise for the vocational panels of Seanad Éireann? What is being done to move forward on the electoral franchise for university constituencies? What are the criteria that may inform the decisions that might be made by a Taoiseach when nominating Members to Seanad Éireann under Article 18?

Some of the proposals we have made are only advisory but that there would be considerations to gender balance, diversity and the representation of minority groups. I have already spoken about the vocational panels. I fully support the implementation of the seventh amendment of the Constitution to give all graduates a vote. The group proposed to lower that to diploma level. However, it cannot be done in isolation. We need to look to the wholesale reform and that suite of measures.

Amendment No. 44 seeks to ensure the provision that a registration authority may enter the name of a person on the pending electoral list for the register of electors of a constituency in Seanad Éireann if the franchise was to be extended. This is incorporating a reform we hope for and laying the groundwork, giving appropriate mandates to the electoral commission in that regard. This seeks to mirror the provisions in respect of pre-registration for younger people in regard to Dáil elections, which is a positive move although I would like to see the vote at 16 being delivered. Pre-registration is a positive measure and the same measures should be afforded in regard to the Seanad. I say that as somebody for whom few people of that age would vote because due to the nature of my constituency, they need to be graduates. That is an unfortunate situation.

That is the last amendment in this suite of measures. The Minister of State has been here for three or four debates on Seanad reform. He knows the frustrations that exist.It is 100% sitting on Government in this regard. Government Senators have put forward proposals for reform, and the Minister of State has heard the cross-party proposals that we brought forward together as well. The ideas are there. This is not some impossible conundrum. Everybody knows what needs to be done. Not progressing this will be a disgraceful mark against the Government in the centenary of the Seanad. Let us try to have the next 100 years for the Seanad look something more like an inclusive, democratic and exciting expression of the public's thematic interests and concerns, and of the passion the public showed in how they voted in 1979 and 2013. Let it be very clear that we have heard the public in that regard. I urge the Minister of State to ensure that within this year, the centenary year, we see progress on Seanad reform.