Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I wish to share time with Senator Ruane. I welcome the Minister to the House.

We are proposing this legislation today to address a number of the key issues and gaps in terms of our electoral law with an overarching aim of enhancing democratic participation and voting rights. As we celebrated Vótáil 100 only a couple of years ago, the look to how we expand our franchise and how we increase and evolve democracy is something we all should be taking very seriously.

I will outline quickly some of the sections of the Bill. Section 1 is interpretation.

Section 2 seeks to amend the membership of the Electoral Commission to ensure there is a requisite expertise in Seanad elections. This Bill proposes the Clerk of the Seanad but I am aware that concerns have been raised in relation to that individual being the appropriate person. The standing point is that there should be expertise within the Electoral Commission in respect of the Seanad. However, I will indicate that I am happy to amend or remove section 2 from the Bill if necessary because, while section 2 addresses the membership, the fundamental points here are the points around the mandate of the Electoral Commission and the kinds of work we need it to be doing in order to deliver a genuinely inclusive modern democracy.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill come to the heart of the issue the Bill is seeking to address.

The House will be aware that a number of weeks ago the Supreme Court ruled that the Oireachtas must legislate in respect of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution, that is, to expand the franchise in respect of universities and graduates. This was a welcome decision and I commend Mr. Tomás Heneghan on taking the case. It is important to place this case in the context of a failure to legislate for the 1979 referendum being followed by a long history of evasion and delays around meaningful Seanad reform from successive Governments over many decades.

The majority of the public who voted against abolition of the Seanad in 2013 did themselves not have a vote in electing this House but they voted to retain the Seanad because they value its work and because they want a say in it. It was very clear that there was a mandate for reform which came out of that 2013 referendum. Following that referendum, the Manning report was developed which set out a roadmap for how reform could be delivered.On the very first day of the previous Seanad, a number of Senators, including Senator McDowell, and I brought forward legislation to say let us deliver on the Manning report. We were asked by the then Taoiseach, who is now the current Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, to set aside that legislation and instead engage in a cross-party implementation group. The cross-party Seanad reform implementation group did its work collectively and produced, as it was required to do, agreed cross-party legislation that would deliver a wide mandate and ensure that every citizen has the chance to vote for the Upper House and who represents them there.

The Government then shelved the report and legislation. It fell to me, Senator McDowell and others to introduce the legislation from that cross-party group as the Seanad Bill 2020. When the Bill was on Second Stage, the Government assured us that these issues of Seanad reform would be dealt with through the creation of the Electoral Commission, yet when the Electoral Reform Act to establish the Electoral Commission rolled along, there was a very clear and glaring omission. The commission would deal with local elections, national Dáil elections and European elections but not with the Seanad election or franchise.

The Government and, indeed, the Minister of State did not accept any amendments to enhance the mandate of the commission at that time. Now, with the Supreme Court ruling, the Government has run out of road in some of its evasions and is required to outline what actions it will take to deliver Seanad reform by 31 July. I am expecting the Minister of State to outline and inform the House on what actions he plans to take in his response today. We need to be really clear, however, that a minimalist approach to legislating on this issue would not be true to either the 1979 or 2013 referendums. The reform we need and on which we have been waiting for a long time needs to be both ambitious and comprehensive. It will not be enough to simply say we will extend the vote to a few extra graduates or even to all graduates. It is important that every person and citizen in this country has a say in the House that supervises and scrutinises half of the legislative process. We need, therefore, to ensure that it is an ambitious, comprehensive transposition.

The person who successfully took that Supreme Court case, Mr. Tomás Heneghan, has been very clear. He stated: “I hope the Oireachtas now acts speedily to ensure that the democratic right to vote in Seanad elections is extended to all, regardless of educational or socio-economic background." He said the Seanad Bill 2020 must be progressed without further delay and obfuscation from Government. He specifically named that as a way to deliver the spirit of that Supreme Court ruling.

While passing the Seanad Bill 2020 would be the most direct way to deliver the reform needed, there is also scope for the Electoral Commission to support that reform. By amending section 65 of the 2022 Act, we would give the commission a firm mandate to support Seanad reform. Chapter 7A is modelled on chapter 7, which deals with Dáil constituency reviews, and would enable the commission to review the electoral system and franchise, as currently set out. It would require that when reviewing that franchise, the commission would look to the 2015 report of the working group on Seanad reform, the 2018 report on the Seanad reform implementation group, the Seanad Bill 2020 and, crucially, Article 18.4.2 of the Constitution, which was inserted back in 1979.

This legislation would mandate the commission to begin this work upon commencement, and passing this legislation is a concrete step that is available to the Government to begin the overdue reform. Again, I would signal that while reform of the university panels would be welcome, it must be accompanied by reform of the vocational panels.

This is about democracy. It is important to remember that every Seanad since the 2013 referendum, including the one in which we currently sit, has existed because the Irish public chose to put their faith in the possibility of reform and the idea that this House could be relevant to them, and that it is something they believed and expected they would be able to shape.

Mt colleague, Senator Ruane, will discuss some of the other provisions of the Bill. I will briefly note that the current definition of "political purposes" in the Electoral Act is something that some people have cited as problematic and in need of reform. I want to also mention the voting age, which is a crucial issue in terms of democracy and widening the franchise. We have some witnesses in the Gallery in that respect. I will quote two of those who would be immediately affected by this. These are very short lines. One person asked, "If we are responsible for future generations, why shouldn't we have a say in what our future will look like?" Another stated: "Voting and participation in democracy is our fundamental human right. Why doesn't it extend to us?" These are young, engaged people who want their say. I will pass over to my colleague now.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I second the Bill. I thank Senator Higgins and our colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group and also the staff in our office for their work in developing this legislation. The Bill interestingly captures much of the work the Civil Engagement Group has strived to undertake on electoral reform since the group's inception. Much of the debate today will be familiar to our colleagues in the Seanad and the Minister of State.

The reason we tabled an omnibus Bill is that despite considerable effort and constructive engagement over the course of this and the previous Oireachtas, we have still not seen the change we wish to see with regard to electoral reform. The urgency for reform remains as great as it ever has been. We hope that by introducing this Bill, we can realise this urgency and initiate processes to act on it.

Section 5 specifies that research on the voting age would be included in the Electoral Commission's statutory research functions through the amendment of section 65 of the Electoral Reform Act 2022. I welcome Paul from the National Youth Council of Ireland to the Gallery and also Maeve and Leo from the Irish Second–Level Students' Union, ISSU, who will be very familiar with this part of the work. As my colleagues and the Minister of State will be aware, this is an issue to which I have devoted much time throughout my time in the Oireachtas. I also acknowledge the work of other colleagues in this area, namely, Senator Warfield. I strongly believe the voices and perspectives of our young people need to be heard within the democratic process. They are some of the most impacted by political decision-making, particularly if we think about the medium- and long-term consequences of changes in policy and legislation in Ireland. Currently, however, the reality is that young people are often paid lip service by public representatives. Both the Joint Committee on the Constitution in 2010 and the Convention on the Constitution in 2013 recommended reducing the voting age to 17 and 16 years of age, respectively. It is clear there is a mandate for change, but the Government still has not initiated the process it has itself committed to in this area. During the debate on the Electoral Reform Act last summer, the Minister of State reiterated the programme for Government commitment that research on the Scottish experience of reducing the voting age to 17 would be undertaken. To our knowledge, this has not commenced. If we are serious about engaging young people in the democratic process, we must make sure they know it is a forum in which their contributions are welcomed and valued.

Section 6 seeks to amend the definition of "political purposes" in the Electoral Act 1997, as amended. The primary issue with the definition of "political purposes" as set out in the Act is that it restricts the ability of community and voluntary organisations to fundraise effectively. The current definition of "political purposes" brings civil society organisations within the strict rules set out for donations received for political purposes under the Electoral Acts. This means that civil society organisations are prevented from accepting donations of €100 or more to assist them in seeking social change. The anomaly is a consequence of the extension of the Electoral Act 1997 by amendment in 2001 to include donations received by third parties for political purposes. It has forced our electoral regulator, the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, to treat donations greater than €100 received by community and civil society groups as if they were donations to political campaigning and to pursue any non-compliance accordingly. The work needed for civil society organisations to comply with such standards has damaged their capacity to advocate and has interfered with their right to freedom of association as a result. In its 2003 annual report, SIPO pointed to this issue, stating,"it doubted that it was the intention of the legislature that such bodies, in conducting their ordinary affairs, could find themselves covered by the legislation."SIPO must apply the law as is written, not as it may have been intended to be interpreted. As the Minister of State and my colleagues will recall, I introduced a stand-alone Bill to try to remedy this issue in 2019. I developed the Bill following significant engagement with civil society organisations, CSOs, and The Coalition for Civil Society Freedom. These organisations each possess a wide range of experience, amassed over more than 20 years, of the chilling effect of the ambiguous definition of "political purposes" in the Acts. People who do not want the definition to be changed often argue that funded advocacy by CSOs can play a disproportionate role in influencing public discourse, but this position is based on a number of false assumptions. According to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, these include misconceptions about the interaction of the advocacy of CSOs with the role of other actors in public discourse, including the media and elected representatives; and misunderstandings about how the regulation of donations relates to other regulatory and transparency requirements. While we, as a group, are strongly in favour of tight controls on third-party and political spending in the context of electoral events, there is no evidence to suggest that large-scale CSO spending had an undue influence on public discourse before the ban on funding for political purposes was introduced. It is incorrect to conflate this issue with civil society fundraising for day-to-day advocacy work outside of electoral periods, which is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy and an integral component of the right to freedom of association.

In section 6 of this Bill, we are seeking to amend section 22 of the Electoral Act 1997 so that it will apply to civil society advocacy during an election or referendum period, which was likely the Oireachtas's original intention in 2001. The wording of the section closely mirrors the wording of my Electoral (Civil Society Freedom) (Amendment) Bill 2019, and the amendments tabled by me and Senator Higgins during the passing of the Electoral Reform Act. During the course of the debate on the Act, the Minister of State advised that the Electoral Commission would undertake a wholesale review of electoral Acts, including the Acts' provisions regarding political funding and donations, but this review has not yet been initiated. Delaying this matter further by referring it to the Electoral Commission has meant further uncertainty for community groups, campaign groups and civil society organisations in their work. The anomaly has and will continue to have a chilling effect on civil society until such time as the law is amended.

Section 7 of the Bill seeks to provide a legislative basis for the provision of free public transport on election and referendum days. My colleagues, Senators Flynn and Black, will speak to the importance of this provision in their own contributions. It stands to remove a significant barrier to democratic participation for persons with disabilities, people on low incomes and those living in isolated areas.

Section 8 simply contains the Short Title and the commencement of the Bill.

In conclusion, this Bill has the potential to bring a number of important and positive reforms to Irish electoral law to ultimately facilitate greater engagement in the democratic process by a greater number and variety of people. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and thank the Civil Engagement Group for facilitating this debate and for using its Private Members' time to allow us to debate this legislation. As per the recommendations of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Fianna Fáil will be opposing the Bill today for the following reasons. The Clerk of the Seanad being a member of the commission will create a potential conflict of interest for the Clerk in being both the returning officer for Seanad elections and a member of the commission, as its remit includes reporting on the administration of electoral events, including Seanad elections. Seanad reform does not feature in the programme for Government, Our Shared Future, and requires further discussion by the Government. It would not be appropriate for legislation to specify the commission's research remit and determine its annual research programme in consultation with the relevant joint Oireachtas committees. Also, assessing polling stations for electoral events is unproblematic for the majority of the public. In light of the provisions in the electoral law around the appointment of polling districts, places and voting, the Minister does not have plans to amend electoral law in the way proposed by the Bill being debated today.

I acknowledge the recent Supreme Court decision and the work that is now under way following the finding that the franchise for the Seanad elections is unconstitutional. The Minister is working on it, and it is a top priority. It will require further discussion by the three Government parties to find a way forward, and proposals will be brought to this House and the Oireachtas in due course. It is something that the Minister has committed to doing, and will do so in a timely fashion. We are working to a particular timeline on it, as per the court's decision. I also acknowledge the implications of the law on civil society groups in terms of political activity and its definition, and I agree that it was not the intended purpose of the Act to bring that into its remit. The Minister has acknowledged the challenges in that regard and is working to address them. I agree and concur with the remarks of Senator Ruane, in particular, that it is good that we have restrictions on spending in terms of political activity and the electoral process, but we must ensure it is done in the right way so as not to hamper genuine advocacy and those groups coming together to advocate to improve the lives of citizens and our communities in Ireland.

It is an important debate to have. Senator Higgins went through the many debates we have had on this issue, the multiple pieces of legislation that have come before this House and the reports that have been gathering dust for quite some time. I agree that we are coming to the end of the road in terms of not acting on it, and I think the Senators will see genuine progress on this particular issue. There may not be full agreement on how to progress it, but I think, across the House, we all agree that Seanad reform is essential and it is something that has to happen. There is a Bill from my own party, from Senator Malcolm Byrne, that Senators will be aware of. It is an issue that we have discussed actively in our own party. We have discussed how best to give effect to that referendum, and also to ensure that the Seanad of today is a Seanad that is fit for purpose and serves all of the people, and that every citizen has a say. That is ultimately what we want to achieve.

I think that despite some of those challenges, the Seanad works very well and does very important work. It performs an important legislative function and an important scrutiny function. There is no better House than this one to have a proper debate and scrutinise legislation coming from the various Government Departments. I think every Minister will say that they need to have their homework done when they come into this House and be prepared, because they know that they will be tested and asked relevant questions from all sides of the House. The work that is done here is very important. That is why the public chose to retain the Seanad in the referendum in 2013. I campaigned to retain the Seanad. I passionately believed in the role of the Upper House, and in its function in terms of holding government to account in ensuring checks and balances. In a very basic way, I did not like the suggestion that we should concentrate more power in the hands of fewer people. That is why we have a second Chamber. It serves all of us well and it has done fantastic work since its inception. I have no doubt that when reform does take place, which I think will happen very soon, it will continue to perform an extremely important function in public and political life in this country. Certainly, in the extension of the franchise, in whatever way we choose to have the electoral process for the Seanad, I think it is important we are not trying to replicate Dáil Éireann. We want to maintain Seanad Éireann. It should be a different House. It has a slightly different purpose, but a very important function. We are not trying to have two Chambers that are the same, so it is important that the process reflects that.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. It is good to have the debate in this House. It shows that we are very much aware of the need for reform and change.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House, and the Civil Engagement Group for bringing forward this Bill in its Private Members' time. Fine Gael will also be opposing the Bill for many of the reasons that have been outlined by my colleague, Senator Chambers. I think there is a conflict of interest with the returning officer of Seanad Éireann overseeing Seanad elections and being part of the Electoral Commission. It is important, at the outset, to say that it is very important that we have an Electoral Commission now established firmly on statutory footing. It is doing a very important piece of work at the moment in taking submissions on the Dáil constituency boundaries. It is very open and public, and the submissions that are coming in from the public are being put up in a speedy fashion. I think the commission has got off on the right foot in terms of being that permanent electoral commission that we all want. Education and the role of education is very much part of what the commission's remit will be, but we have to give it time to be able to establish itself on that steady footing to be able to concentrate on the areas that are of immediate concern right now. I certainly see the Electoral Commission having a much wider remit in time than it currently has, as set down, but we cannot overload the new commission.It has to be given an opportunity to establish itself.

On Seanad reform, the Leader said she had campaigned to retain the House. My father, a former Leader of the Seanad, also campaigned to retain it.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's father paid a very heavy price for it. He was deselected.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator McDowell. It is very important to have a second Chamber that scrutinises legislation. Everyone in this House takes his or her job exceptionally seriously.

The Supreme Court ruling has been handed down. Senator Malcolm Byrne's Bill goes a way towards addressing that. As a former graduate of the University of Limerick, UL, I welcome the judgment. I do not have a vote to elect Members to the Seanad university panel. I should have it, as should graduates of all the institutes of technology and the new technological universities. There is a strong basis in the proposals put forward by Senator Byrne. Others are of the view that the provision should be much broader. I am sure we will have open and frank discussions on these issues this evening and at other times. We must address the Supreme Court ruling as a priority. It would be a welcome move.

There are several other elements to the Bill before us, including reference to public transportation. Our electoral districts and polling stations have been designed with a view to ensuring, as far as possible, that polling booths are located in close proximity to communities. I certainly can see where the Senators are coming from with their suggestion in this regard in the Bill, but it is not necessary to make special provision on the day of an election.

I welcome this important debate. However, there are fundamental flaws in the Bill, which means the Government will oppose it.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. He is always welcome here. He came to the Chamber on a previous occasion to explain the Government's activity on this matter. We were entertained by promises and commitments at that time from both himself and the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. We were told that, in very short order, a consultation group would be set up among the Government parties and the Minister would come back to the House by the autumn of that year to present proposals. That was two years ago.

Am I surprised nothing was done? No, because it is entirely to be expected. Lying at the heart of all of this is a deep-seated cynicism on the part of the powers that be in government. I know this because I, Senators Higgins and Warfield and others soldiered on the group charged with preparing legislation to give effect to the modified version of the Manning report, using a Government-funded expert parliamentary draftsman. All of that was done in accordance with terms of reference laid down by the Government. We did our job within time and presented the report. I then went to see the Taoiseach to learn what he would do next. He informed me that he had no intention of doing anything. We had wasted our time. It was a cynical ploy and it was disgraceful in many respects. The Taoiseach said that as far as he was concerned, our proposals did not accord with his personal views about this House. He explained to me that he had been an abolitionist, although I do not understand how that is relevant to the issue. He said that if somebody in the Dáil wanted to introduce the Bill that was appended to the report, that person could do so in Private Members' time and he would allow a free vote on the matter. In short, he was trying to kill the Bill in the most cynical and brutal fashion. I am here a long time and I did not lose my temper with him, but I looked at him very differently from that day on. There was a matter of honour involved in that he asked us to work on terms of reference. The work we undertook was set out in the programme for Government under Enda Kenny as Taoiseach. Katherine Zappone, as Minister, supported it and was an enthusiast. She was thwarted at every hand's turn.

The Leader says the provisions we are discussing are not in the programme for Government. She is right, but why is that so? The Green Party's attempts to legislate on this matter were cynically quashed. That is what happened. A decision was made that the Government would, once again, do the old trick of getting rid of the unionist and diaspora representatives in the House and stuffing it with people they thought would end up in Dáil Éireann with a favourable wind behind them. How mistaken they were, according to the opinion polls. That is the cynicism we face.

It has been suggested that Senator Malcolm Byrne's Bill might be the way forward. We need to understand what is involved in the provisions of that Bill. There are 1 million graduates of the National University of Ireland, NUI, as I was told recently by somebody in NUI, of whom only some 100,000-plus are registered to vote. Trinity College probably has 200,000 or 300,000 graduates. If we add in the technical and other universities, including Dublin City University, DCU, and UL, there are approximately 1.8 million votes. The Senator's Bill would have the effect that a single constituency would elect six Members of this House on the basis of nearly 2 million votes, leaving out the 3 million people in our population who are not graduates. The view seems to be that this would be fine and would constitute the reform for which we all voted. That is what the seventh amendment is all about. In fact, it is not what it is about. When Enda Kenny, as Taoiseach, thought he could win his referendum and all the opinion polls were with him, he said that if he lost it, there would be no reform. The reason he said that was to pull the rug from under the people who wanted to retain the Seanad. He said, in effect, that we could have the rotten boroughs that exist at the moment or we could get rid of the Seanad. That was another cynical ploy.

The time has come to stop the pretence, foot dragging, cynicism and the abuse of this House. The plan was to have different people from different backgrounds involved in the democratic process, not to have a second Chamber of the Dáil. As I put it many years ago, the plan was to have this House represent something slightly more than a cross between a convalescent home and a crèche for party politicians who are having difficulty with convincing the electorate to elect or re-elect them. That is something with which I have my own difficulties.

The Government has been confronted by the Supreme Court with a very simple challenge, which is to say before the end of July what it is going to do. I do not expect the Minister of State to tell me this evening what that will be. A few days ago, I tabled a Commencement matter on this issue. I was told that the Minister of State and the Minister are working on a scheme they will bring to the Cabinet. The Government will be the first to hear about it. There will be no public consultation. The Government will do the least it possibly can to ensure it keeps the Seanad as firmly under its control as possible. It is a scandal and we will keep fighting it. At the next election, there will be a majority for reform. All the cynics who lose their seats and all the people here who do not get elected to Dáil Éireann will wonder why they turned down the opportunity to do something decent for the first time in their lives.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I thank the Civil Engagement Group - Senators Higgins, Flynn, Black and Ruane and their team for tabling this omnibus Bill. It is very welcome and I am grateful for the chance to speak on it. I missed the electoral reform Bill, due to Covid, so I am happy to have the chance to talk about having the vote at 16 in particular. I welcome Paul Gordon and others from the National Youth Council of Ireland, and Maeve and Leo from the ISSU. I commend Youth Work Ireland, which recently had a briefing for the Oireachtas in Buswells. One of its key asks was to extend voting rights in local and European elections to 16 and 17-year-olds. I struggle to repeat myself sometimes on these issues. We all rely on 16 and 17-year-olds in our political campaigns to knock on doors. We allow them to join our political parties but at the end of the day, as many people as possible who are ready to vote should be able to vote. We have experience of it now and education and research in Wales and Scotland that shows the positivity of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The European Parliament elections are next year and as young people essentially will be a minority in an ageing EU population, we must ensure young people's voices are heard in those elections, as well as in our own.

I also commend Tomás Heneghan on taking the case. I thank Senator McDowell for his work on the Seanad implementation reform group and for the recognition of my work and that of my party. There has been tireless work by other people as well on the Seanad reform implementation group, such as Senator Higgins. She is right that the Government has run out of room. I know if he was here, Senator Norris would equally talk about Seanad reform. A good friend, Tony Walsh, sent me on the piece of literature that propelled David Norris into this House in 1987. He said that reform of the Seanad was a key issue for him in that election, to strengthen the vocational panel system and to extend the right to vote to a much wider suffrage, and to end the nonsense whereby UK citizens resident in Ireland could vote in Dáil elections but not for the Seanad. He said the university constituencies represented the one area in which our Northern neighbours participate freely in the political processes of the Republic and this should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Obviously the Seanad reform implementation group proposed one single six-seat constituency, but that was obviously divisive even without our own group. It is fair to say that both of the university constituencies are by far the most democratic ones for this House. As Senator Higgins says, the Government has run out of room now and we need to take a holistic overall look at this House.

We want the Bill to go to the committee, and we will support that in order to flesh out a couple of issues. Free public transport on the day of an election is one issue, and whether one needs a polling card. The cost of such an initiative must be considered but we are interested in exploring it and we want the Bill to go to committee in order to do so.

We also support reform of the area of political purposes in principle. We think the wording as presented has significant unintended consequences, such as allowing organisations and movements from outside this State, such as the US religious right, to spend money and improperly interfere in our legislative process and referendums. That said, allowing the wording to go to committee is a worthwhile exercise and will provide detailed scrutiny of the Bill. We accept there is a problem but we support the Bill and we encourage the Government to allow it to go to committee. I thank the proposers for allowing us to have a chance to debate this issue again.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Civil Engagement Group for bringing forward this Bill. The Labour Party will be supporting it and voting in favour of it. I agree with my colleague, Senator Warfield, that we would like to see the Bill go to Committee Stage in order that we can pick through the bits that have been outlined as problematic. Sending something to Committee Stage does not send it to the Áras to be signed off into legislation.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and for the Bill to go through the various legislative steps and processes. There are ten of them all together before it would have to be signed into law. I am sure it could look just spiffing if we were to allow it got to go through all of that and to get the robust review and examination that any legislation should. We will certainly support it.

There are a number of areas of the Bill we think are very welcome. The voting age is something the Labour Party agrees on and we fully support. The National Youth Council of Ireland, the Union of Students in Ireland, USI, ISSU and many other organisations, such as the youth wings of many political parties, including the Green Party, have all been campaigning for the franchise to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds for local, national and European elections. I understand that there will be constitutional elements involved for some of the elections but while I am open to correction, my understanding is that it would not require a referendum for certain elections. We have seen this in other parts of Europe for the local or municipal elections and for the European elections. I was in Berlin in recent days doing some cross-party work in the embassy there and I talked to a number of people about the impact voting at 16 had on their electorate. I am open to correction, but I think it was Lower Saxony that introduced it in 1995. Some parts of Germany have reduced the voting age to 16 for quite some time. A number of pieces of research have been done in Germany on whether lowering the age to 16 and 17 has increased political participation further into people's lives. Obviously those who were 16 and 17 in 1995 are not out of the woods, as it were, yet the initial research has shown that, first, it has increased participation and, second, that the participation continued in their late 20s and throughout their 30s. We are for democracy and we always hear parties and others lamenting the involvement of young people in voting and they say that young people do not come out or get involved in anything but that it is always left to everyone else and that young people just complain. This seems to be a proven piece to first encourage young people to get involved in politics and in having their voices heard, but it seems it then increases voter turnout and participation further into their lives. It seems to be a win-win to me. We will certainly support that particular element of the legislation.

The proposal to have free transport on polling day is great. When I was in the Union of Students in Ireland, I co-ordinated our response to the general election in 2016 and we also did it again for the marriage equality referendum. We did voter motor, where we drove people up and down the country. People were getting lifts from Donegal across to Dublin and then they were going from Dublin to Waterford and Waterford to Cork. We were linking people up all over the place. It would probably have been a little bit easier had public transport been available. We have seen those kind of get-the-vote-out campaigns in all sorts of elections and referendums. While they are great fun, it should probably just be the case that people can access public transport. It would be welcome for people to be able to access public transport rather than us shipping people around the country in cars. Not to be twee or contrite about it, we did make public transport free for the day of the Pope's visit so we should perhaps consider making it free on polling days also.

We also support the review of the electoral franchise of Seanad Éireann. Our former Seanad colleague, now Dáil colleague, Deputy Bacik, spoke on it and was involved in that process. Those of us who have come a little later to the Seanad are also incredibly supportive of that. We keep talking about Seanad reform. I remember when I was in the student movement, it was put to us whether we would take a stance in favour or against campaigning for the Seanad.The student movement decision on it was not unanimous, because that would have been madness, but the leadership of the student movement decided to campaign to keep the Seanad. It was very much spoken about, however, in the context of reform. I assure Members that I did not know I would end up in the Seanad when I took that stance. To me, the two issues were always linked.

It strikes me that Senator McDowell said that if this passes, we would do no such thing and there would be no reform. The spirit of that referendum for many people was that there would be reform. It is disappointing. It has been 11 years and there have been multiple elections since then but that reform has still not been seen. It is great that it is included in this Bill.

Last, regarding the issue of freedom of association and expression for civil society organisations, much like my colleague, Senator Warfield, we agree with it in principle. However, there are obvious areas that we would like to see teased out on Committee Stage. There is no good in us just saying we agree or disagree in principle. We would like to be able to get into the nuts and bolts of this legislation properly on Committee Stage.

The Labour Party will be supporting this Bill regarding extending the franchise, transport to voting and reform of the Seanad. In the last few seconds that are remaining to me, I want to shout-out to Tomás Heneghan, who has done a huge amount of work for civil society in Ireland in finally getting that case to where it needs to be. This, hopefully, will push the Government to enact that legislation, which is exactly what the people voted for long before I was a twinkle in anyone's eyes.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for being here today. Having free transport on election day is a no-brainer. It will create the opportunity for some people from very poor communities to get out and vote. That is a no-brainer. Today, however, I will focus on the issue of young people being able to vote. Much of the time, we undermine our young people. We do not value our young people's views and opinions. In my early days, I was a youth worker who was involved with young people in Ballyfermot to bring about equality and opportunities for young children and young people in working-class areas. Young people know the world around them. They know the issues that impact them in their own local communities. They are not in any way foolish when it comes to voting. I, together with Senator Higgins, spoke with two young people earlier today who are on placement. They spoke to me about the importance of young people having a voice and about how they feel very capable of voting. One of the young people said to me that older people sometimes do not have the capacity to vote in the right way. I admired that because we judge our younger people but we ourselves are not always right in how we vote for our society.

I thank Senators Ruane and Warfield for introducing a Bill in this House on lowering the voting age. Two years ago, Deputy Pringle brought forward a Bill about holding a referendum on young people being able to vote. On 30 June last year, I remember we had been in the Dáil Chamber watching the debate on Deputy Pringle's Bill on lowering the voting age. The Minister of State said the issue would go to the commission and that he will come back next year to the young people and to Deputy Pringle. If possible, I would like to know where we are in that regard a year after.

In my opinion, we are kicking this down the road. We keep talking about Seanad reform and about how the Seanad should be more inclusive. If we really and truly want Seanad reform, today is the day. I have been here for three years. I remember one of my first speeches, when I spoke before the Minister of State, in which I was comfortably saying that we need a Seanad that represents all of us. We need a Seanad of diversity and inclusion. This Bill is a step in that direction. It does not provide all the answers, unfortunately, but it is a step. We should be taking each step that our colleagues are working hard to bring forward.

At a European level, young people do have an opportunity to vote. They want all young people in Europe to be able to vote in the European elections at the age of 16. Why can we not do that here in this country? It would be so simple to give young people their voices, to stop disempowering our young people in this country and to empower them. Studies have shown, including a study from Sheffield, that when young people are empowered to vote, they go out in their droves and in bigger numbers to vote. They continue to vote and they are held accountable. In Scotland and Malta, young people are voting at the age of 16. It just works. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the House speaking about how they want Seanad reform and about how we have Senator Malcolm Byrne's Bill. However, this is a step.

The Minister of State has said he will be opposing the Bill but he should put his money where his mouth is and stop kicking the can down the road. Today is an opportunity to really show our young people that we value them. This Bill will not be passed straight away today. It will need to go to Committee Stage. The Minister of the State can take that one step to leave a better legacy for young people in this country. He can take one step to put this Bill through to Committee Stage. I encourage the Minister of State to do that, if the political will is there. I have seen many good politicians in this House who have gone against things and who have kept true to their own values and principles. I knew the Minister of State before he came to Leinster House as a Minister of State and as a Deputy. I know the value he places on community development work and young people. Today he can stay true to his own values and principles and support this Bill.

I again thank Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and everybody who over the years have canvassed and campaigned very hard for young people to have a voice in this country. This goes with what is in the Bill regarding students in universities having their voices heard and today is the day to do it.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is very welcome. I want to start by thanking my colleague, Senator Higgins, and her policy adviser, Sárán Fogarty, who have done phenomenal work in this area, as have Senators Ruane, Warfield and McDowell. Many people have done brilliant work.

I really believe this Bill is a celebration of democracy. That is what I think it is about today. We are fortunate to live in a country with peaceful democracy and a vibrant civil society. We cannot just rest on our laurels here, however. We need to be aware of defects and deficits in our democratic system. When they are identified, we need to act swiftly to rectify the faults. This was the message of the majority judgement in the recent Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of the Seanad university panel franchise. I wish to take the time to commend the litigant, Tomás Heneghan, and Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, which represented him. They have done this House a really great service by instigating reform that is long overdue.

There are many aspects of this Bill and my colleagues in the Civil Engagement Group have outlined most of them in their speeches. However, the piece I want to focus on is the provision of free public transport on the day of elections. This is really important. I do not want to repeat what my colleagues have said but while this might seem like a small thing, for many low-income people, it is a signal that their participation in our democracy is important and that their Government is taking active steps to make it possible for them to exercise their right to vote. Every euro matters, particularly in this cost-of-living crisis.

Free public transport on election days is a feature of civic life all over the world. Fiji and Israel provide free public transport on election days.Many cities in the US and Brazil provide it. The provision of free public transport on election day would also contribute to a sense of occasion. It could make it almost a festive day, which would be lovely. Elections are important and it is vital that we make every effort to foster an engaged electorate. It is a proportionally small cost and a worthy investment, I believe, in our democracy.

Election turnout has been relatively static, in the low-to-mid 60s in percentage terms for general elections for some time. It is even lower for local and European elections, which is extremely worrying at this time. The lower turnout in local and European elections seems to be particularly concentrated in deprived areas and more needs to be done to address this issue. The Government should consider making election days public holidays to signal their importance. It would be wonderful to have a public holiday on election day to signal its importance and to boost voter turnout.

I also want to make clear and highlight at this point that restrictions will still apply in any referendums.

I hope that this House can see the value in this legislation. I agree with my colleague, Senator Flynn, about not kicking the can down the road any more on this. This is a wonderful opportunity for change, expanding and enriching our democracy. It is a beautiful thing, when you think of it. It is a proposition that every Member here in this House, regardless of his or her political background, should be able to get behind and it is not too late for the Minister of State to change his mind.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn for bringing the Bill to the Seanad and to all of the Senators for their contributions.

Before I speak specifically through my notes, I will respond to some of the points raised by Senators during the debate this evening. It is useful that we have had this debate.

I would say at the outset that I value this Chamber. I am here often, as the Senators will be aware.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find the level of debate and contributions to be consistently of a high standard here. My own experience of that important scrutiny element of the Seanad has been through the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023, to which Senator Higgins brought forward quite a number of amendments, and many of which we have accepted. They have strengthened that Bill. I stress that is tangible proof of the value of this House in terms of its oversight and scrutiny roles, and being the Upper House.

We have established the commission, as Senator Cummins has said. It has been a long-held ambition of many Governments and we have done it. It will have a much broader function. It has the potential to transform our democracy - it is what we have been debating here this evening - in terms of education and awareness and in terms of that research function, tackling disinformation and electoral advertising. There are all of these elements to it. When we were moving the legislation, I was clear that we want to build its capacity. We wanted a big-bang approach to it. We wanted to try to build its capacity over time. It is moving along well in terms of staffing and those research elements and the additional elements.

Obviously, the initial task around the electoral boundaries triggered by the census is the most critical. It will exercise us all over the next number of months and, indeed, years.

I take on board the points made by Senator McDowell on the commitments around reform. It is not in the programme for Government but we have made commitments here. The Supreme Court case has now triggered action. I acknowledge that we have made commitments here that, in the Senator's view, we have not followed through on.

I will speak to the issue around public transport. All of these are innovative measures and it is good to have the debate around them.

Senator Black raised the issue of a public holiday. People might go off and use the public holiday as a holiday. These are important issues for us to debate collectively. Down the line, the commission will be accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas and setting a programme for its research function is something we all will have a role in. I would hope that all Senators would play an active part in that.

I will speak specifically to the issue of young people voting. I am on record as being of the view that we should reduce the voting age but that is my own personally-held view. I have met the national youth council, the ISSU, and, most recently, Youth Work Ireland out on the streets here after that Buswells briefing. I think it could strengthen our democracy and increase participation. It could transform how we campaign and what we campaign on. We are in a climate and biodiversity crisis and young people need to have an active role in that. They do, through other fora such as Comhairle na nÓg. To be part of our democratic process, we held a children and young people's citizens' assembly on biodiversity for young people to have a voice in that as well. The experience, from what I see, has been positive in other jurisdictions. It is critically important that we are able to make an informed decision on that.

The Government has decided to oppose the Bill at Second Stage reading. While the Bill is being brought with the best of intentions of improving our electoral system, the Government holds the same view on proposals in this Bill as it did during the passage of the Electoral Reform Bill 2022 through the Houses of the Oireachtas last year.

I will address the main provisions of the Bill, section by section.

Section 3 of the Bill makes legislative provision for the Clerk of Seanad Éireann being a member of An Coimisiún Toghcháin. On Committee Stage of the Electoral Reform Bill 2022 in the Seanad, I opposed an amendment similar to this on the grounds of there being a potential of conflict of interest for the Clerk of the Seanad being both the Returning Officer for the Seanad elections and a member of the commission, given the commission's remit, and reporting on the administration of electoral events, including Seanad elections, and I remain of this view.

Section 4 of the Bill provides new functions for An Coimisiún Toghcháin, namely, to review Seanad Éireann's electoral system and electoral franchise. On Committee Stage of the Electoral Reform Bill 2022 in the Seanad, I opposed an amendment with similar provisions. That amendment proposed reviewing and implementing proposals of the Seanad reform implementation group and the Manning report and reviewing the constituencies for Seanad Éireann. I opposed it on the grounds that the initial functions of An Coimisiún Toghcháin give it solid foundation and will allow it to build up its organisational and operational capacity gradually. I remain mindful of the need for an coimisiún to get established and build up its organisational capacity and do not intend to add to these functions at the present time. Furthermore, Seanad reform does not feature in the Programme for Government: Our Shared Future. That remains the case, notwithstanding the valid points raised by Senator McDowell.

I would like to use the opportunity to update the House on a relevant Supreme Court case relating to the election of university Senators. On 31 March 2023, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Heneghan case. The case related to an action brought by a graduate of the University of Limerick seeking an extension of voting rights at Seanad university Members' elections to graduates of third-level institutions other than those of Trinity College and the National University of Ireland colleges. The applicant had claimed that by not doing so, the State has neglected to take account of the outcome of the referendum held on the issue in 1979.

In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court determined that sections 6 and 7 of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Act 1937, which provides for the election of Members of the Seanad by certain university graduates, are unconstitutional. It declared them unconstitutional because they are not consistent with Article 18.4.2° of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has, in the first instance, suspended its declaration of invalidity and, therefore, the practical effect of the judgment until 31 July 2023.

In order to fully respond to the Supreme Court judgment, my Department and I are currently considering the judgment with a view to preparing options for consideration by Government. This work is being progressed as a matter of priority and urgency.

Section 5 of the Bill marks a legislative provision for An Coimisiún Toghcháin's functions to include as part of its research programmes research into voting age and potential changes to such voting age for participating in elections in the State. I welcome members of the ISSU and National Youth Council of Ireland representatives here in the Public Gallery this evening. On Committee Stage of the Electoral Reform Bill 2022 in the Seanad last year, I opposed the amendment with a similar provision to this. I am opposed to legislating to require the commission to carry out specific research areas. However, I stated that I will be requesting the commission to perform particular research projects, including consideration of the Scottish experience of lowering the voting age to 16. This request will support the programme for Government commitment in this area. I am conscious that is a timely piece of research that has to be carried out, given that we have local and European elections next year.

On the broader point about the areas of research undertaken by An Coimisiún Toghcháin, I remind Senators that there is nothing to prevent An Coimisiún Toghcháin from conducting research into or advising either the Minister or Government on electoral policy or procedures.In preparing an annual research programme, the commission must consult with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I encourage Senators who are members of that committee to engage with the Commission when the opportunities arise on areas they feel it should examine. The proposed amendment of the definition of political purposes in the Electoral Act 1997 as set out in section 6 of this Bill is similar to that contained in another Private Members' Bill - the Electoral (Civil Society Freedom) (Amendment) Bill 2019. I acknowledge again the concerns raised by a number of civil society groups on the wide ranging definition of political purposes, as set out in the Act. I know the Standards in Public Office Commission has also raised concerns about the definition. As I said during debates on the electoral reform Bill, and on the Electoral (Civil Society Freedom) (Amendment) Bill 2019, the Government is committed to requesting a comprehensive review of the Electoral Act 1997 by An Coimisiún Toghcháin. This is with a view to making recommendations to address, among other matters, the concerns raised by civil society about the definition. I note again the challenges raised by Senator Ruane. I intend to request this from the Commission shortly.

Section 7 of the Bill provides for free public transport on polling day. There are a couple of points to make in opposition to this proposal, on the grounds of access to polling stations or postal voting facilitates voting. First, the electoral code already contains provisions designed to ensure voters have a polling station located in a convenient place for them to attend. Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1992 requires each county or city council, while in consultation with the returning officer for Dáil elections, to make a scheme dividing the county or city into polling districts, and to appoint a polling place for each polling district. Second, electoral law provides that postal voting is provided for in respect of a number of categories. Among those categories are full-time students registered at their home but living elsewhere while attending an educational institution in the State. The law, therefore, does facilitate access to polling. Third, the programme for Government, Our Shared Future, contains a commitment to mandate An Coimisiún Toghcháin to examine the use of postal voting with a view to expanding its provision. In light of these provisions I have no plans to amend the electoral law by way of the proposed Bill. I reiterate that the option is there to ask the Commission to carry out research into how public transport has worked in other jurisdictions on voting days.

In conclusion, while I have no doubt the Bill is motivated by the best of intentions, Government opposes it as we remain of the view that the remit and framework of An Coimisiún Toghcháin, provided through the Electoral Reform Act 2022, enables it to research important areas like minimum voting age, postal voting and the Electoral Act 1997. In addition, Government will be responding comprehensively to the recent Supreme Court judgment on the issues of the franchise for electing university Senators. Much of this Bill relates to An Coimisiún Toghcháin, and I would like to conclude by updating the House on the Commission's progress in commencing its important work. An Coimisiún Toghcháin was formally established on 9 February 2023 by way of the Electoral Reform Act 2022 (Establishment Day) Order 2023, and is now operational. Its board has a full complement of seven members, chaired by the honourable Mrs. Justice Marie Baker. An Coimisiún is currently building its capacity and expertise. It is currently reviewing the Dáil and European Parliament constituency boundaries, which is a hugely important piece of work. It will have an important role in conducting research on electoral policy and procedure, and running educational information programmes to promote participation in electoral and democratic processes and electoral events. I remind the Senators that is what we are trying to achieve collectively in this debate. I think it will prove really valuable over time when the commission builds up that capacity on the education, awareness and research elements of it. I find it quite exciting that it has this capacity, and we want to build up that in the coming years. That is hugely important. The commission will also perform important functions in the areas of explaining the subject matter of proposals and referendums. It will promote public awareness of referendums and encourage the electorate to vote in these electoral events. The commission will play a vital role in safeguarding our democracy. We will most likely have referendums scheduled later this year. There are a number scheduled in the programme for Government. We will be progressing those. I thank all of the Senators again for their contributions. I thank the Senators for bringing forward the Bill this evening. It has been a valuable debate and has contributed greatly to our ongoing discourse and we look forward to that continuing.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Senator Higgins, I welcome Lily Coyle and Ed Nicell and all the SIG staff to the Public Gallery They are welcome to the House this evening.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister may be looking forward to ongoing discourse. I am quite tired of ongoing discourse because, with respect, the discourse has moved backwards. In the last Oireachtas the Government pretended it wanted to deliver Seanad reform. In the current Oireachtas, the Government has removed it from the programme for Government. It is clear it has taken only the action it has been forced to take. I have listened to the comments over a numbers of years, including before I entered this House, because I also campaigned for retention of the Seanad. I listened to language about how it is complex and how things need to be teased out. That was the rationale given by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, when asking us to establish the Seanad reform implementation group. We were told it was complicated and needed to be teased out. We teased it out. We produced solutions. We now say all of that teasing out, which we were told was important, has been set aside. Meanwhile the long-awaited electoral commission is only building up to an issue which has been the pressing democratic deficit in Irish society since 1979, the year the Taoiseach was born. That is not good enough. It is simply not good enough to say we are working towards that. It is on our long list. The Seanad is half of the legislative process in these Houses. We are making important decisions that affect people's lives. I welcome the Minister's engagement with me and we have made amendments to legislation, which have been accepted. That is exactly the case. Should not everybody have a vote and a say in who brings into legislation those vocational perspectives that are thematic rather than geographical? I want every person in Ireland to have somebody speaking about what matters to him or her, on the vocational panels and others. We have waited way too long for any of that. With respect, the idea that this is something on the long list or wish list for the electoral commission down the line is not satisfactory. The evidence does not show we are moving forward. The evidence shows we have moved backwards. Now the issue we have been told is so complex that our very detailed and well thought through Bill, which was drafted by a parliamentary drafter and paid for by the Government, will be fixed up between a couple of Cabinet meetings. Something will be landed on us before 31 July that will not involve engagement with the public. It will not involve engagement with the legislature, or with any of those who put months and years of their lives into studying the issue. It will not involve the experts who were selected to serve on the electoral commission because they are good at thinking about elections. It will simply be something the Ministers will produce and land in a couple of months. That is really inadequate.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I say that with absolute personal respect for the Minister. I know the Green Party would have liked this to be in the programme for Government, but frankly that is why we will have to press this. I think an opportunity has been missed to bring light to this issue, and to move it forward. The Minister should bear in mind that every time the public has been asked the question, in 2013 and in 1979, the clear message has been to widen and engage. There was the 1979 referendum. There are also provisions in the Constitution, because our Seanad Reform Bill 2020 is entirely constitutional, which allow the Government to legislate. They allow for legislative measures and allow the public to have a say. Let us be clear, this is the Government blocking the public from having a say in the Seanad.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what is happening. I welcome the Minister's engagement on the vote at 16. In terms of timelines that is urgent, because we have elections coming in May 2024. As my colleagues have mentioned, this is not just something that has been proven to work. The European Parliament has asked countries to ensure that 16-year-olds can have a say. I was part of the future of Europe process where the mandate again came from citizens across Europe to say they want younger people to have the vote so they can shape our European institutions. That is a hard deadline for next May. There is 31 July and May of next year and both of those issues need to be addressed.I welcome the Minister of State's engagement around the potential but people, especially students and other people who are living in other parts of the country, are travelling long distances from their polling stations.

In respect of political purposes, we would, of course, be very happy to engage with others around how we nuance that point. To clarify, however, we are clear that we are keeping the restrictions that are there for electoral and referendum activities. We absolutely agree with the point that we must ensure we do not have undue interference on those matters. This is about the normal advocacy work of civil society in between times. I regret that the Minister of State is not able to support the Bill at this time.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.