Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE TAOISEACH HAS said that plans to expand voting rights in Seanad elections to all third-level graduates in Ireland will not be implemented before the next election.
His comments come two years after the government first proposed to expand the electorate for six of the 60 Seanad seats from the current 151,000 to as many as 800,000 people following the defeat of the referendum to abolish the Seanad in 2013.
However speaking in the Dáil this morning Kenny said he did not think the long-planned reform, which would ratify a 1979 referendum result, would be introduced in time for the next Seanad election, which will follow the general election next spring.
In response to questions from Fianna Fáil’s Willie O’Dea, Kenny said: “The government made its decision to approve that.
To be honest with you I cannot see it being implemented before the next election in respect of the Senate.
The reform would have opened up the electorate for the Seanad to an estimated 800,000 people. At present only graduates of Trinity and the National Universities of Ireland are eligible to vote for six seats.
In 1979, a referendum to expand the electorate to all third-level graduates was passed but never legislated for. In November 2013, following the defeat of the referendum to abolish the upper house, the government agreed plans to legislate for the creation of one, six-seat constituency known as the “Institutes of Higher Education”.
All holders of degrees or equivalent qualifications from Irish universties, Institutes of Technology, private colleges and bodies such as the Royal College of Surgeons would be eligible to vote.
Draft legislation to implement the reform was published in Febraury 2014 by then Environment Minister Phil Hogan who said at the time that the expansion of the electorate was long overdue.
“Implementation of this constitutional provision could have been done at any point since 1979,” he said at the time.
The Government is now taking action to implement the will of the people.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The Seanad in its present form is a disgrace, reform is badly needed and should not be governed by any parties politics.
I just want to vote to stop certain senators getting in, not to elect any.
Peri is there an example of a non partisan national parliament ANYWHERE? I’m into politics and I’m unaware of one.
Would it even be a good thing? We’d have to bribe each individual Senator for their vote on EVERY BILL like in the US, it would be a nightmare.
Reform won’t happen for two simple reasons:
1. Every one persons idea for reform contradicts everyone elses idea, there is no consensus and most ideas are mutually exclusive. Some want a mixed appointed / elected one, some want a mirror of the Dail with staggard elections, some want PR-LIST on a national constituency, some want to keep the Uni seats and expand them some wanna get rid of them….
2. No government is going to create a powerful second house when the entire political establishment has been used to a veery fast, streamlined legislative process for years, Politics 101 folks.
There are plenty of ways we can put more checks into the system , one way I can think of is to get rid of the requirement in Article 27 for a petition for a referendum to be signed by senators at all, let the Dail Opposition petition the president alone.
everyone should get to vote on the seanad by not giving to everyone the government are basically calling us to stupid to vote the right people, the truth is they don’t want us having any real input in how our government works. the seanad should be voted in by the whole country at the next election.
This though, ^ is the inescapable Senate conundrum that those of us who wanted it abolished tried to argue.
Your suggestion just gives us two Dail Eireanns, there is no much point to that. So people say, lets have it be different somehow….but then nobody agrees on what it should look like, it’s like a fantasy rugby or football team everyone has a different idea and they all contradict each other.
A senate can only be two things: a rubber stamp or a source of gridlock.
This perfect chamber that’s enough of a check and balance to stop Patriot Acts but not activist enough to slow down day to day business is a political science class fantasy – it does not exist in the real world. No existing political establishment is going to let it be powerful, so therefore whatever we get will be another rubber stamp – so thats why we say just get rid of it. We can put checks and balances in through the President who, unlike the senate, IS independent and non partisan.
Make one legislative and the other budgetary and have the elections mid term of the other
Lets not forget the current filth in situ tried to eradicate one of the only methods to question their corporate directed policies when they tried to close the senate.
Lets not forget we beat the filth.
@Freebetcitydcom. “we” beat nobody, Mike, you are fooling yourself. The ‘bash Inda’ vote merely did a disservice to the rest of us. You voted to preserve Zappone, Healy Eames, Mr. ‘Isis’ and a shower of other headcases. Well done.
I see what your saying I guess it’s just one of those things we have to endure. I just feel if it’s abolished it will give the likes of enda to roll out any policy he wants without any debate.
The Senate is not protecting us from some tyranny or even rushed legislation etc…it does not stop anything! It does not vote bills down, it does not use article 27, it does NOTHING but rubber stamp EVERYTHING that comes it’s way.
Stop thinking of it as this bastion of our liberty it’s no such thing, it’s filled with people who wanna get into Dail Eireann and some who wanna become ministers – how do you get a nomination to Dail Eireann? Besides local nomination? PARTY HQ nomination! So you won’t burn your brides voting down govt bills p—-g off the very people who hold your career in their hands. This notion of the senate bravely defending us from bad law is a FANTASY
Let’s get real here. It was NEVER going to happen. That is why I voted for abolition, and why I was so disappointed with the outcome. The Senate, as it stands, is a rest home for politicians who have lost their seats and hope to regain them, and a perk for “friends of the government “. SHAME. We are stuck with sixty extra freeloaders in perpetuity.
I have a feeling Senate reform might make an appearance in the new FG “6 Point Plan™” people’s contact, for the next election.
There are three reforms they could have made without a referendum.
1. Expanding the Uni seats so they elect from across the sector so everyone with a degree gets a vote
2. Establishing vocational Senators representing specific areas of national life
3. Appointing Senators from outside politics to the Senate and the cabinet
They can’t even do the easy reforms. I used to facepalm at all those “yes for reform” people thinking oh you poor poor fools you’ve no idea how politics works, and now I get to say I told you so.
Agree Rasher, the only reform worth doing was getting rid. Any reform is going to window dressing. Some people thought it would be better to give the government a bloody nose though.
There was no logic in that at all – give them a bloody nose – by giving them a cushy dignified chamber (with MORE comfortable seats than Dail Eireann WITHOUT having to worry about constituents) on the same salary and expenses, the same media profile and the ability to make hotel managers in the US grovel at their feet when they see the word Senator before their name on the computer – yes you sure showed them!!
“The gov is now taking action to implement the will of the people”. REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Magdalene laundries, legislating for the X case, repeal of the 8th, Seanad legislation ignored for the last 40 years. This government must solve every historical issue previous ignored for decades, ww demand nothing less !
Publics fault for being too conservative to vote for abolishment. Maybe we’ll finally learn to stop gravitating towards to “grey” area for everything.
Abolition was the only true reform for that useless talking shop.
if we had abolished it we would only have weakened our legislative process which already the weakest in Europe if you want the Senate gone you need to get rid of party politics first
Yes talking about wiffy codes and aggressive pigeons safeguards us from the potential evil of the Dail.
Micheal we would not have had a weaker process, the premise of that is that the Senate as is makes for a stronger process – but it does not.
The bare and simple facts prove this beyond debate:
-Article 27 has never been used
-No bill has ever been defeated because of Senate opposition
-No major bill has ever been subsantially changed because of Senate opposition
-It’s nearly unheard of for the Senate to send a bill back to the Dail at all, and much of the time it does it’s been an accident because they could not get enough guys into the chamber before the doors closed.
A non partisan senate is a total FANTASY only someone totally ignorant of politics could think that would ever happen.
Another lie from this government.
The public decided. Cant blame the government
Successive governments have diluted the Seanad with their “appointees”. Fidelma Healy_Eames is a prime example.
Agreed.
Reform means either or both of:
more powerful at the expense of the People’s chamber, or
more representative, meaning a possible conflict with the democratically elected chamber.
Such reforms are dangerous.
Just leave the place as it is until the public realise it’s time to abolish it.
the public decided to give the rest of the universities graduates the vote he governments havn’t implemented that
I remember a minority of us on here were BLASTED for saying it would never happen, that ‘yes for reform’ was a fallacy, cos reform was not on the ballot paper, that your only choice was the Senate as is (maybe with some minor tweaking like the Uni seats). Regardless of what one thinks should be the reform, anyone who knows anything about how power dynamics in politics works knows no government is going to voluntarily establish a barrier to it’s own power that could be controlled by the opposition,
wherein lies the problem and need for reform.
It was voted down primarily because kenny wanted to abolish it. If any other *so called* leader proposed the abolition it would be gone and a shopping centre by now. This shower are not trusted .
The only thing that might have made me vote yes, and I know this moved a few people to do so, was them sneakily getting rid of the Presidents power to refer a bill to referendum at the same time – that was a dangerious little move that no media really covered – and now we at least still have that in case of emergency
*Vote no rather – damn No for reform / yes for abolition has me all confused
Anyone that believed it would be reformed and voted to keep it on that basis was a fool. It will be retirement home for failed TD for the next 100 years. The phrases Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas springs to mind
I certainly agree with a second house for checks and balances. However what I don’t agree with is a privilege afforded to certain Seanad invitees. Their appointments are disgusting. Also as a graduate of Trinity College I do not feel that I am more qualified to vote for the other candidates. Certainly not more so than the general public never mind other graduates.
Well done to all of you who gave the government a bloody nose by voting to keep the Seanad! The Special Needs wing of the Oireachtas gets to stay as the money pit, elitist, talking shop for failures. Yay you. Ya really stuck it to the Man, man!!
And another thing – I note from the article and the references to the 1979 conclusions that the great unwashed (of whom I am a member) are to remain excluded, by virtue of not having a University degree. I realise that time has ameliorated that effect, in that most young people can now get a degree in Meeja studies or hair braiding and thus qualify, unlike those of us who are older. Nonetheless, it is pretty un-egalitarian in a so-called Republic.
The Seanad should have been reformed; the proposal by Enda to abolish was dictatorial and I am glad he never got away with it. We have the most centralised democracy in Europe if not the world.
The Seanad could have been reformed in a way that compliments the Dail and hold the government and its appointees to account.
The Seanad could interview people for Top Jobs (Top Civil Servants, Judges etc) and present a short list to the government and they could hold those appointees to account.
I would keep the oversight of legislation aspect of the Seanad.
That is how the Seanad should be to start with, i would love to see a reformed model of it and enhancement of their current (unused) powers.
How could it have been dictatorial to ask the People to decide in a referendum on whether or not to keep the upper house by referendum?
Seriously.
1979 that referendum was in.
At this rate, we can expect this year’s recommendations of the working group on Seanad reform to be implemented in 2051.
Those recommendations are here: http://www.merrionstreet.ie/en/ImageLibrary/20150413SeanadReformFinal1.pdf
Another broken promise by Enda. No surprise there….
One of the first things that should be done is close the loophole that allows someone who stands and fails to get elected as a member of the Dail can then decide instead to get in the back door as a Senator. This would be a simple fix. Hold Dail and Seanad elections on the same day. There are actually some senators who want to be senators as opposed to those who take up space in the Seanad as a consultation prize or a retirement home or a waiting room for the Dail. It is a total insult to any genuine senator who actually stood for the Seanad because that is where they want to be.
Why should students be the only ones with a right to vote for them, I am off to the European Court of Justice lol.
The Seanad is caught between an indifferent public, neglect by the Dáil, and its own relative impotence. It looks as if even basic administrative changes, e.g. holding Seanad and Dáil elections on the same day, are off the table for now. Is there any chance of a party being serious about Seanad reform? The Seanad could be a lot more useful than it is, if the Government wanted it, or if the people wanted it enough.
have your say