Last week, Senators Feargal Quinn and Katherine Zappone published the Seanad Reform Bill 2013. The Bill offers a radical reform of Seanad Éireann as an alternative to its abolition. A referendum on its abolition is set to be held in October, along with a vote on reducing the voting age to 16. The current coalition Government had previously promised to abolish the Senead as part of a broader constitutional reform programme. However, the proposed Bill was debated in the Oireachtas on 15 May and accepted by the coalition. The Bill will now be sent forward to the next stage.
The Bill's central proposals include:
· Giving every Irish citizen a vote in Seanad elections, including Irish passport holders living overseas and people living in Northern Ireland;
· A 50/50 gender balance in the make-up of the Seanad;
· Radical change to the process of nominating candidates, including allowing individuals to be nominated by popular support;
· Giving the Seanad additional powers in the scrutiny of legislation, the examination of public appointments as well as the holding of inquiries;
· Senators' salaries to be half that of TDs.
Ms Zappone said that abolishing the Seanad would only strengthen and underpin the worst parts of an already broken Irish system of government. A new Seanad however, “can help reform and fix the way we conduct our affairs of State. It can provide the accountability, the new ideas and the questions we so urgently need.”
Click here to an article from the Irish Times and here from the Irish Examiner.
Click here to read an article by Senator Feargal Quinn.
Ireland’s electoral legislation, which excludes citizens living abroad (expatriates or expats) from voting, is set to come under increased pressure from the European Union. European Commissioner Viviane Reding recently launched the EU Citizenship Report 2013. The report is an action plan which seeks to improve EU citizens’ rights in a number of areas. This report includes 12 initiatives which seek to make citizens’ involvement in society more meaningful. One of these initiatives includes strengthening citizens’ participation in the democratic process.
In a press release, the European Commission said that the practice “in some Member States of depriving their citizens of their right to vote once they move to another EU country effectively is tantamount to punishing citizens for having exercised their right to free movement.”
Click here to read the press release from the European Commission.
Meanwhile, on 7 May the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dismissed a UK expat's attempt to overturn a ban on emigrants voting after they have lived abroad for more than 15 years. The applicant (Mr Shindler) claimed that the rule disenfranchised him and was a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 (the right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The applicant also claimed that he was being discriminated against compared to other British citizens (Article 14), and that he had the right to choose his place of residence without being disenfranchised (Protocol 4, Article 2).
The Court said that the central question of the case was whether the election law in question was a proportionate limitation on the right to vote which struck a fair balance between the competing interests. Particular emphasis was placed on a Member State's “margin of appreciation”. This “margin” allows Member States flexibility formulating their legislation on this topic. The Court concluded “having regard to the margin of appreciation available to the United Kingdom in regulating its parliamentary elections, that the restriction imposed on Mr Shindler’s right to vote was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.”
The Guardian noted that had the claim been successful, it would have had wide-reaching implications. There are an estimated 5.5 million UK citizens living abroad, but only 13,000 of these were registered on UK electoral rolls in 2008.
Click here to read the judgment.