Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to reply to the various points that have been made. I agree that graduates should not have a privilege over others to vote. The proposals we put forward from the implementation group sought, as far as possible without constitutional referendum, to ensure we would widen university franchise to all graduates, not just those with a degree but those with a diploma as well. That was widening it as far as is possible within the requirement on graduates in the Constitution. However, as was well put by Senator Gavan, there is a big elephant in the room when it comes to widening the franchise. I have a constituency of 100,000 and I have supported the proposal that there would be a single and large constituency of all graduates with any diploma. However, graduates of whatever level are entrusted with the opportunity and responsibility to choose between potential public representatives in this Chamber, whereas other members of this public who may not have a degree or diploma but who have great relevant experience, expertise, insight, opinion, view or perspective are not entrusted or given the opportunity to choose between potential public representatives in the Seanad. They are required to have a councillor or other person vote on their behalf, which is phenomenally patronising, disempowering and inequitable. We need to address the issues of the graduate constituency but it is no good widening that while still having a situation where a huge number of people in this State will never be able to choose between seven candidates who might be very different in what they offer. The 15 different voices that might put themselves forward on the educational panel may have radically different things and expertise to offer to the debate. That they would not have the opportunity to choose and participate in thematic discussion in the State is not acceptable. I am bearing in mind that the proposals, to a larger degree than I would wish, still preserve the fact that there is a particular perspective that comes through from councillors but it also ensured that every member of the public would be asked their views in respect of the constitution of Seanad Éireann.

To simply suggest that there is a busy agenda ahead of the commission and that this is something that might be on its research agenda is not good enough. Let us be clear; this is not an abstract topic or something that comes up now and again. This is half of the legislative process in the Oireachtas and five of the ten Stages of legislation between these two Houses. It matters who is here and who elects who is here. It should be centre stage in the electoral commission's agenda. To say it might be a research topic down the line as if it is an academic exercise is not enough; it needed to be signalled here.

I am particularly concerned with the Minister of State's response to amendment No. 36 because it did not talk about the commission but about the Minister coming back. The answer was that it is really the commission that will be doing things. On the one hand the Government has not put Seanad reform on the agenda of the commission and on the other hand we are hearing that the Minister will not do anything about it either because there is an electoral commission now. We cannot have a situation where we are not having cake and also not eating it whereby it is not on the electoral commission's agenda because the Government chose not to put it on the electoral commission's agenda and it will also no longer be on the Government’s agenda. I am not okay with the idea that I will be sitting here hearing Ministers say they will not say anything about Seanad reform forever because we have an electoral commission and it is its area when the Government has chosen to reject amendments that made it the electoral commission's business. If the electoral commission is not doing it, and if it is not required to do it, then it remains for the Minister of the day to come up with proposals for what will come forward. If we put that electoral commission as a box where we will park political responsibility for Seanad reform, that does not fly and it is a cop-out that is not acceptable. The Government has chosen to not use the electoral commission as the tool to progress this and it cannot abdicate responsibility to a future potential research agenda that the electoral commission might independently take. It is a political decision in moving forward on Seanad reform.

I recognise that there are three parties in government and I know and acknowledge that the Minister of State's party would like to see this reform progressed. Former Senator Grace O'Sullivan was also supportive of the implementation report but I will be clear that the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Varadkar, is the one who blocked it. It will be the Government’s responsibility and it will be clearly named as obstruction by political parties in government if we do not progress on Seanad reform. There will be no acceptance from anybody in this House of a suggestion that somehow there is a new long finger in the research agenda of the electoral commission.