Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is wonderful to have such a good debate. I appreciate the fact that the Government has put such thought into this section, for which I thank the Minister of State. I will do my best to respond to some of the remarks made and issues identified, despite the fact that there is no one behind me to help me out, but I will do the best I can.

One of the issues identified by the Minister of State was that the Bill would mean that we would have a second directly elected Chamber. In the context of what we have suggested, I agree that it would be a directly elected Chamber, but it would be directly elected in a different way because of the panels to be established. The people would not be electing Members on a geographical constituency basis but on the type of candidate they wanted to be on the different panels. The Bill is an effort to put forward the fundamental principle of having a universal franchise, one person, one vote, instead of the current system which largely means that we have politicians electing other politicians, to which we object strenuously, as does the public.

On the point made about the use of the terms "constituency" and "panel", we used these terms interchangeably to try to unpack and make more accessible the notion of a panel. We wished to ensure those voting to elect Members to a particular panel would feel part of that constituency. It would not be a geographical constituency, but use of the word "constituency" was deliberate and interchange of language.

The Minister of State also suggested various aspects of the Bill were legally flawed or problematic from a legal point of view. With others, Senator Feargal Quinn and I look forward to considering more deeply the meaning and detail of what has been put forward by the Minister of State, although, in many cases, he has just identified something as legally flawed or problematic. It would be helpful if he provided more detail on the reasons.

On gender equality, like Senator Cáit Keane, I do not believe there is a major issue in that regard. As far as I understand it, nobody in this Chamber is against the principle of gender equality. We debated thaeissue previously in the context of the Electoral Act.

This was our best effort to try to find a way to bring gender equality into this Chamber with the use of sub-panels, which in the past were referred to as inside and outside panels. If there is a better way and if the Government is in favour of gender equality for this Chamber, then it should put forward its proposals, as distinct from simply opposing what we have done with this Bill. It was our best effort at that moment in order to incorporate the principle of gender equality, which we all knew we wanted and which was passed for the other House. If the other House has it, then this House should have it too.

In his concluding remarks, the Minister of State spoke about why the Government is opposing section 2. He said he had an alternative on offer, which was to extend the franchise for the university panel. Yes, the heads of a Bill dealing with this were published a long time ago. I understand that many people were consulted about those heads, including the Seanad, which had a good debate. The consultation process was concluded in April 2014, but many months later the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is still considering what to do with the Bill. As the Minister of State said, that Bill will be published in 2015. If it is published next year, however, it will be too late, in our view, if we want that kind of change to happen, even with regard to that particular composition of Members of this House.

In the Dáil yesterday, the Taoiseach said he was establishing a working group on Seanad reform. We welcome the fact that he is finally doing so. I read his comments and noted that none of us will be participating in that working group. The discussion on this Bill concerns what we as Senators want to do by way of Seanad reform. There are few alternatives on offer and we do not even have a Government Bill. If we had such a Bill in 2015, we probably would not have enough time to pass it through both Houses. Even if we did so, however, there would still be elitism in the Seanad. In addition, the people would not have direct elections for the Seanad that were different from those for the Dáil.