Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House.

We often hear the word "democracy" and phrases like "democratic principles" and "democratic ideals". They are easy to say but difficult to establish and even more difficult to maintain. Democratic principles establish a rule of law, respect human rights and promote active politics. It should be an unwritten commitment of every public representative to uphold and foster these principles. Unfortunately, I fear, the proposed 32nd amendment of the Constitution, if passed, will diminish these principles.

I have listened to the debate on the amendment over the past few weeks. I have listened to the positives and the negatives on the bicameral and unicameral systems and I admit that I remain unconvinced by the superiority of the unicameral system. It is a system where the quality of legislation, the oversight of the Executive and the representation of each individual in the State would rest solely in one House of representatives. It is not a sufficient safeguard for these precious ideals on which the State was founded.

During my time in the Seanad I have been privileged to have played a part in two pieces of reforming legislation which highlights the benefits of the bicameral system. I am referring to the Welfare of Greyhounds Act and the Animal Health and Welfare Act. When the latter was introduced the Minister recalled his prior visits to the Seanad and cited the quality of previous debates as a reason for initiating the legislation in the Seanad. The progression of the Bill highlighted the value of the two chamber system and the legislation received considered and constructive debate in the Seanad. Legislative errors are costly and can be avoided by careful debate across the broadest spectrum possible. The presence of the Seanad contributed greatly to ensuring that the final Bill was as comprehensive as possible.

Many speakers have spoken of the fact that there has been a debate on Seanad reform for 75 years. Debate is essential but it must be acted upon. Many of these reports were published as part of the debate process and contained excellent contributions and submissions on Seanad reform by members of the public. Now all of those submissions have been deemed irrelevant and today's Bill has been promoted as offering a choice to the people. Choice usually involves a judgment decision on the merits of the multiple options. We are limiting the choices available to the people by not offering reform and a disservice is being done to the people and the democratic principles on which the State was founded.

Yesterday, the Taoiseach spoke in this House. He stated that he believed that genuine reform of the Seanad would almost be impossible to achieve. In response I have a question for him. Is Dáil reform achievable? Should we examine the matter before we embark on what the Taoiseach has called "a major change in the structure of our Oireachtas"? Do we not have an obligation to attempt reform and to ensure that proper safeguards are in place? Do we simply abolish because change is perceived as being too difficult? Is that progressive reforming politics? What kind of Government will we have in five or ten year or who will be in charge? We must reflect on these matters.

In recent years Transparency International Ireland has cited the excessive discretion in which the Executive has a number of democratic functions, especially the legislative agenda proposing a barrier to the ongoing development and reform of Ireland's system and institution framework. The abolition of the Seanad means that the legislative agenda and the scope of legislation is in danger of becoming even more constrained. The Seanad Chamber allows far more than Dáil Éireann when it comes to the contribution of diverse and independent voices and represents interests not usually represented in the Dáil. The Oireachtas website states, "Seanad Éireann can debate these issues with greater freedom." Will there be a platform for these voices after the abolition of the Seanad? People already feel a disconnect between politics and their everyday lives. Many have spoken of the 75 years of debate on Seanad reform. What about the 75 year tradition of representing people's interests?

Earlier a comment was made about elitism. I do not come from an elite sector. No family member of mine has ever been involved in politics. In my two and half years here I am the only Oireachtas Government representative that hails from County Leitrim and I set up an office in Manorhamilton to look after the needs of the people of Leitrim. From the 2007 election until my colleague, Senator Paschal Mooney, was elected in 2010, there was no Oireachtas representative from County Leitrim. I know that Leitrim was unique at that time but we would not like to see the same happen in the future.

Like my colleagues, I will not oppose the Bill and object to the decision being put to the people. However, I am disappointed that the people have been given a false choice, the consequence of which may be irreversible.