Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I was listening to my colleague, Senator Cullinane, who I think has a point. When a decision is made to put an issue before the people, there is a certain implication that there is a desired outcome. Whether one has a referendum on an issue, such as gay marriage or the abolition of the Seanad or the reduction of judges pay, the very decision to put an issue before the people involves the identification of it as an issue on which there ought to be a decision. That in itself implies a value judgment. My question relates to the decision to allow the people have a say on whether the Seanad will exist into the future, which as we all know can only be taken by a referendum. Given the initial commitment to reduce the number of Deputies by 20, and not by eight as is proposed in the Bill, what is the reason for that decision? Senator Cullinane said one can cut salaries and expenses and, in addition, reform the Dáil by cutting the number of Deputies. It is certainly arguable that compared with other countries of a much larger population we have a higher ratio of Deputies to members of the population. It has been advanced by Government that the reason the number of Deputies is to be cut by eight and not by 20 is that it would require a constitutional change to cut the number of Deputies by any more than eight because the Constitution provides that there must be a Deputy for every 30,000 and no more than one Deputy for every 20,000 people. If it is possible to ask the people to determine the future of the Seanad by way of a referendum, why was it not also possible to follow through on the promise to cut the number of Deputies by 20 simply by availing of the referendum means which the Government is already contemplating in the context of election reform?