Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend Senators Zappone and Quinn not only on their introduction of this Bill and their motives in doing so but also on the manner in which they orchestrated the "No" campaign last year. Their valuable contribution should be put once again on the record of this House.
However, I am somewhat disappointed with the suggestion by Senator Zappone in her opening remarks - I am sure she did not mean it - that because the Senators are bringing forward the Bill, this should somehow stifle debate, the inference being that we should not talk about it at all but embrace the Bill enthusiastically. That was the inference, and I am sure that was not what the Senator meant. However, she did indicate, to put it another way, that she wanted this Bill to go through without too much debate. I think "too many contributions" was the term she used. I can only draw from that the inference that she would prefer if there were no debate. I am sorry to disappoint the Senator, but I certainly will be debating various issues.
To pick up on the Senator's remarks, which are relevant to section 1, I will be opposing the Title - which, by the way, I will not an opportunity to speak on until we get to that stage. I have reasons for doing so. It is linked to the Senator's comment that this reform proposal would not put the Seanad in competition with Dáil Éireann in any way. That may be correct in theory. However, I put it to the Senator, in the context of the Short Title under section 1, that if we extend the mandate to the entirety of the Irish electorate, there is absolutely no question, in my mind, that there would then be a very strong view among those Senators who are elected that, in fact, they do have a mandate to compete with Dáil Éireann. That is not what the Constitution suggests. I would strongly defend the right of this House to continue in the form that was originally set out, which was of a vocational nature, although it sadly did not develop along those lines. I do not think it would be workable in an Irish democracy to have two Houses in competition with each other. I am suggesting to the Senator that extension of the mandate to the entire electorate would result in elections that were similar to Dáil elections. We will rest there; we may just disagree on that. However, I believe that is a fundamental issue. This House should not be seen to be in any way in competition with the other House. We cannot have the two.
I have a specific question about section 1. The Bill states, on page 9:

"relevant Irish Embassy or Consulate" means the Irish Embassy or Irish Consulate which has been assigned responsibility for the country in which the voter is ordinarily resident.

Ireland does not have an embassy or a consulate in every country in the world. It certainly does not have an embassy or a consulate in every country in which there is an Irish diaspora. Ireland - I am sure the Minister will confirm this - is represented by the EU or by EU countries or by the UK, depending on the country. I have not got the full list, but there is quite a significant list. I think that particular subsection of section 1 will have serious difficulty in being passed because it would mean through its very wording that access to voting would be confined to quite a significant number of the Irish diaspora. It refers specifically to Irish embassies or consulates. That is a major problem.

That was the main objection I would have to section 1, which is essentially about the Short Title and commencement and interpretation. This is significant because if this were passed without extending it to those countries where there is no Irish consulate or embassy, it would deny the franchise to some of the people to whom it is hoped to extend it.