Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I was getting some looks of admonishment. I hope that in a Chamber where we encourage debate there would not be a restriction on Members' interventions. We have a great opportunity between now and referendum day to reflect more fully. Ten minutes to make Second Stage contributions was not sufficient and I have not been able to engage in the Committee Stage debate but I want to comment briefly on what I have heard about the alternative opinion. The Minister and I, and everybody knows, that there never has been such doubt, concern and lack of faith in politics and in decision-making, and we should not pretend otherwise. As each day passes more people are growing concerned about handing over major decisions to a small selected group of people. Many years ago Government and politics was very different. Collective Cabinet responsibility meant something, and every member sitting around the Cabinet table seemed to have an equal voice. Members of Dáil Éireann actually made decisions, and the democratic process was open and transparent. In the past five to ten years we have a new system of politics where a small number of Cabinet Ministers, with their advisers, almost dominate the Cabinet agenda. They meet in advance of Cabinet and produce decisions that are then rubber-stamped. We are arriving at a different centralised form of democracy. Debate, dialogue and discussion are being squashed and that is beginning to seriously concern the public. I could refer to the Cabinet sub-committee, which apparently does most of the decision-making. I am not sure about the constitutionality of that in terms of the concept of collective Cabinet responsibility but we heard reports of decisions going to the broader Cabinet having already been decided by the Cabinet sub-committee. I am not sure what that means for the constitutional provision of collective Cabinet responsibility.

Between now and referendum day we must decide the question of checks and balances, and alternative proposals. Senator Quinn, Senator Zappone and many others Senators have spoken at greater length and depth than I, but we must not fool ourselves that there is an alternative to having two Houses. The concept of a mini-Seanad lasted about 30 seconds until everybody recognised it was so ridiculous, undemocratic and frighteningly politically patronising that the idea would have to be dropped. We are hearing about experts and pre-legislative committees and so on. It is a question of whether elected politicians are to be allowed to engage in debate and make decisions as we are supposed to do for all our faults - for all our strengths and weaknesses, that is what we were elected to do - or the power is to be handed over to a super-committee of so-called wiser people. That is something on which we have to deeply reflect.

The purpose of a second House or Chamber is to offer a second opinion, to improve, enhance and reflect on debate. That must be at the core of the referendum proposal. Do we hand over the power and all decision-making to a Dáil of 166 Members, 158 or whatever the number will be? However, it is the handing over of power to not only the Cabinet but to a small group of people within government that concerns me. I have got a satisfactory answer to a question I have asked previously, namely, is there any example not only in Europe but worldwide of where less democracy is better and that less intervention and less debating produces better results?