Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

The subject of salaries and the broader issue of encouraging a turnover of public representatives in the Dáil is slightly straying from the import of the Bill. I spoke at length on this issue a number of years ago, opposing the changes primarily because I view it as important that people can afford to retire from the Houses. It is critical that there is a turnover of Oireachtas Members during elections and that we do not have a situation whereby in years to come people may have full service. I entered this House at the age of 23 and this will not affect me either. However, when I am a citizen at some stage in the future, one should know that the Members of the Oireachtas representing one are there for the right reasons and not sitting on seats because they cannot afford to step down. This is something we should debate.

I know we speak a lot about electoral reform and the need to reform our institutions of State, especially the Oireachtas, including the make up and content of and numbers in the Dáil. A proposal to abolish the Seanad has been made by some political parties. This is fine, but the difficulty we have, as always, is that very few voices advocate for public representation. It is probably the one profession where there is no uniform voice defending public representation as a profession and as an important requirement in any democracy. Given the politically charged climate in which we live, we spend more time doing each other down rather than advocating the importance of having democratic accountability and the importance of having Houses of the Oireachtas that are representational and a mirror image of the public. It is a debate for another day but the views expressed by Senator O'Toole are important.

If in the future we have Members of Parliament who have given a lengthy period of service but who cannot draw their pension until they are 65, they may sit in the Houses of the Oireachtas for a number of years, taking up valuable space and not making a contribution because they cannot afford to retire. I have 18 years of service and I am 42 years of age. It will not affect me but in the future it will be very difficult to encourage young people who will have to make decisions early in life on whether they will stand for public office, whether they will be able to make a contribution and, more importantly, if the career does not work out or they decide to step down, whether they will be able to afford to do so. While those in all political parties and none speak about attracting young people into politics, I am quite sure that at the very least the present arrangements will not encourage people to stand for election at an early age. As Senator O'Toole is not standing again, he can be bolder and braver in saying what he believes.

We must be very conscious of the fact that the Bill also proposes a reduction in the minimum wage of €1 per hour and we must be sensitive to the broader public. However, the debate on public representatives is one for another day at another time. We should not rush headlong into abolishing the Seanad or Dáil and winding down democracy because it might be popular without thinking through the consequences of it. The same is true of diluting the representation which has served the country well given where we came from with Civil War politics and all that flowed from independence. The institutions of State have weathered many serious challenges since 1920 and 1921 and they have served the country well. We should not lightly abolish them without genuine concerted debate as opposed to thinking on the hoof. I take on board the views expressed by Senator O'Toole but I know he is not referring to it in the context of the Bill.