Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Exactly. I am aware of that. That is why I am acknowledging that. The public said they care about the Seanad and want a say in the Seanad. That was the mandate from 2013.

As a result of that, there was a brief acknowledgment. There was the Manning report, which was initiated to look to the ways in which we can widen and open the Seanad, make it more inclusive and ensure that people have a say in it, and the excellent recommendations brought forward in that report, with the group chaired by Maurice Manning. Then there was the next stage, which came later. On the wave of believing the Government parties, including the parties in government now, which all said they supported the Manning report, I and a number of other Senators, on our first day in the last Seanad, in 2016, came in with a Bill to deliver on the Manning report. We came in good faith to say we believe in the principle of Seanad reform and in the principles put forward by this expert group in the Manning report. We were putting forward legislation that would deliver on it. That was when the delay and the obstruction came in. That Bill was obstructed, and we were requested instead, with again that basic presumption that the principles of the Manning report, which my colleague, Senator Warfield, read out, were given as accepted and as a starting point, to work on an all-party basis to see what kind of legislation we could bring forward that would deliver the principles in the Manning report.

Those principles are really important. They include the principle that the majority of seats in this House should be filled by election by members of the public and the principle that every person in this State should have a say and a vote in respect of the Seanad and that there should be enfranchisement of those in the North as well. Those were among the principles in the Manning report. We went in good faith and formed the Seanad reform group, again at the request of the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, with, of course, the support of Fianna Fáil, which was supporting him in government and in the previous Oireachtas.We formed the group. Senators Warfield and McDowell were on it. Let me be clear. There were a number of other Members from other parties across the House who were on it too, including Senator Cassells who contributed very well to that committee. We took it seriously because we take the Seanad seriously and we take the public seriously. We took seriously the mandate to deliver on the Manning report. We produced, in a very tight timeframe, a report and legislation that would deliver a vote for every person in this State; contribute to enfranchisement of Northern Ireland; deliver on the 1979 requirements to widen the university franchise; and broaden the qualifications under which one could vote under that. We did it within the constitutional remit without the requirement for another referendum because the mandate was what we could do within the Constitution.

Our reform Bill would fundamentally and in principle ensure each person would have a vote, recognising that the public have something to say. The public have something to contribute in terms of the Seanad and a thematic vote. It would have allowed each individual member of the public to identify one of the thematic panels and be able to exercise a vote on that. For example, someone who is passionate about an issue in education could register and vote on the education panel and make a contribution, and similarly if someone had something specific related to agriculture. Thematic expertise sits in this Chamber. It is meant to be thematic expertise, not a kind of a subgeographical piece. The public also have thematic interests and expertise, and should be enfranchised to express it by voting for the Seanad.

I will move to the future. Our report and legislation were completely obstructed and blocked by Government. The Government was taken to the Supreme Court by Tomás Heneghan, who was clear that the spirit of the case he took was not just about the letter of the law in the 1979 referendum but the spirit of the 1979 referendum, again reflected in the 2013 referendum, that there should be votes for all in the Seanad. All should have a say. We should be opening this Chamber, not closing it. The public gave us an active trust in allowing the Seanad to continue because they believed that the work mattered and they wanted a say in it, so we could and should be true to that by ensuring they have a vote. That is the minimum. Instead, what we have here is a less than minimalist approach to Seanad reform.

I will go through some of the specific concerns with this legislation. It is important to place it in that fundamental context, which is that it is not enough, it is not adequate and it is an insult to the public to give such a patchy and piecemeal small reform.

Regarding the dilutions, there are issues. Section 7 provides that a person may be awarded an ordinary bachelor’s degree level 7 or higher. Our cross-party report suggested that a person would only need a requisite qualification from a university or higher education institution, and it could be a level 6 or even level 5 qualification that would qualify persons. This would at least widen the qualifications further and increase the pool of who could vote. I supported the idea of a six-seat constituency or single constituency and that was also reflected in our legislation.

Section 9 repeats some of the same errors of the 1937 Act, such as the failure to provide for a supplemental register prior to the Seanad general election. Many recent graduates are prevented from voting in elections. For example, those who graduated in autumn 2019 were ineligible to vote in the 2020 election the following spring due to the lack of a supplemental register.

We also have concerns about section 12 whereby current electors must indicate their preference to be included in the new register. This could lead to a large-scale disenfranchisement where a large number of electors may not be included. What is the rationale for doing that, rather than amalgamating the two registers that exist – the NUI and the University of Dublin registers – and allowing for future and additional registration?

Regarding the membership of the advisory committee in section 24, we highlight that universities are made up of far more than their management. As regards appointing people to be representative of one or more institutions of higher education, there should be a provision that somebody should be nominated by trade unions or other non-management bodies, such as a university senate, for example, the student unions or university fellows. These are the graduates rather than the commercial management of an institution. They should have a say in what is a matter of public good and public duty and reflecting their rights and responsibilities as graduates.

We also urge there be a role for the Electoral Commission in conducting Seanad elections. I note that this was one more point in the delays. We were told not to worry because the Electoral Commission will deal with it. When the Electoral Commission legislation came through, there was no mandate at all in respect of Seanad reform, and our amendments to introduce a mandate on Seanad reform were resoundingly rejected. It seems an extraordinary oversight to have a new Electoral Commission and not give it a clear role in Seanad reform and potentially the expansion of Seanad reform in terms of the research needed. However, I do not believe that research is needed; I think the work is already done, and it is in the Seanad Bill 2020. The Electoral Commission surely should have a responsibility in respect of these issues.

Regarding the nomination of candidates and the filling of casual vacancies, this is an area where I will be strongly opposing the proposal. At the moment, it means that the system for filling casual vacancies for six seats is different from the system employed for the other 214 Members of the Oireachtas. I will give a summary. There are questions regarding Article 18 of the Constitution, which states that the 49 Members of the Seanad shall be elected Members. What is proposed instead is a partial replacement system. With absolute respect to Senators McDowell and Mullen, there is a proposal that if, for example, I vacate my seat, one of their preferred substitutes would take my place. We have a question. It is an example of how, while we spent months in detailed work looking at the international comparators, producing detailed reports, talking about how Seanad reform could be delivered and producing the Seanad reform Bill 2020, the Government simply went into a box and came out with this. There is no reflection of the Manning report in this Bill. There is no meaningful reflection of previous research that has been produced. There are serious concerns that betray a lack of proper scrutiny in areas such as the replacement system, the potential disenfranchisement of those who would be removed automatically from the register and backsliding.

We are potentially seeing it becoming harder to run for the Seanad. The cost in a general election for the Dáil is a €500 deposit whereas the proposal here is to have a deposit equivalent to the deposit for running for the European Parliament. That will disenfranchise people further and create an obstacle for those who should and are able to run. The fact we have so many people running in the NUI and Trinity panels, that there are always so many candidates, is a reflection of the frustration of those who wish to offer their service to the Seanad but are blocked from doing so in the panel system. All of those who offer expertise outside of the party system are forced through the channel of just six seats, while 43 seats on the panel system will remain out of reach for the general public.They will remain an area of thematic expertise in which the public are told their votes and opinions are not wanted and their say does not matter.

I acknowledge the centenary work of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, in which we commemorated 100 years of the Seanad a couple of years ago. I was clear then and am clear now that the next 100 years of the Seanad need to be a century in which we see the franchise meaningfully widened so that every person in the State and, indeed, on the island who is a citizen has a say in the Seanad and a vote that is reflected in a voice he or she elects to this House. The next 100 years need to be more democratic. I worry that this Bill replicates not only the elitism of a panel that is narrowed to graduates, but also the exclusionary practices, for example, automatic removals from the register and the creation of obstacles to those who may wish to register to vote or run in Seanad elections.

It is an insult. It is not a first step, but a last delay. We will continue to press for Seanad reform. The Seanad Bill 2020 has passed Second Stage. It is currently the furthest advanced Bill on this matter. Instead of the requirement to listen to the Supreme Court being all that guides his actions, I plead with the Minister to revisit this area, revert with something meaningful and show that he has listened to what the public said from 1979 to 2013.