Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response and for outlining the Government's position which is amenable to the Bill. He has also outlined some practical issues with the implementation of the Bill if it was enacted.

If this Bill was enacted in the morning as it is currently written - and I appreciate that nobody is suggesting this and that much more detail and further consideration has to be worked through - it would bring enormous burdens on resources, not only for the State but right across the globe in ensuring that those entitled to a vote under the Bill would be appropriately accommodated and facilitated.

The Seanad Chamber is a legislative component of our constitutional architecture and it is fundamentally important that we get this Bill right. That is not to say we should be afraid of change or reform because if anybody has listened over the last years - and Senators and colleagues have outlined previous working groups, reports too numerous to mention - the retention of a bicameral system as part of our democracy is something the Irish people want. However, it is also clear that people want to see reform of this Chamber.

If we are to be honest about the Chamber becoming relevant to the public and media interest, etc., duplicating the Dáil is not the answer. It is also my opinion that changing how people are elected into the Seanad is not fundamentally the answer. The critical issue is around the functions and powers of the Seanad and is the area that will make the House most relevant. I feel strongly that changing faces and places will only change the make up of the Seanad and may change the composition a little.

This time 30 years ago I sat my leaving certificate and I had three options: I could go to college; I could take up an apprenticeship if I was lucky enough to be offered one; or I could emigrate. I took up an apprenticeship. Did I ever think on that day that I would get to serve in Parliament? I did not. Did I ever think on that day that I would be a Member of Government or a Minister of State serving in high office? I believe the system we currently have does need tweaking and reform but every citizen in the State has a right to be nominated for election, however they get to that point. I mean no disrespect but I have a genuine fear that we cannot allow Parliament, including this House, to become the preserve of celebrities, academics or people who feel that the ordinary person cannot apply. As an apprentice electrician and union member I consider myself to be an ordinary person. Each and every person can bring life experience into the House and it should not be underestimated. Current Senators and their contributions to debates should not be denigrated, whatever sector or experience they offer. Let us be careful and not be backslapping ourselves too much. Let us not feel that we are too important.

There is a balance to be achieved in whatever reform happens in the House. Powers and functions of the House are the critical areas and can perhaps be addressed through this Bill. The Bill mainly speaks about the process by which Senators are elected and arrive in the House but if the House wants to become more relevant there are far bigger issues in the powers and functions which should be considered in more detail.

The Minister has outlined that the Government is not opposing the Bill on Second Stage. While we do agree with it in principle, and it is outlined in the programme for Government, there are a number of practical issues. I will not go through all of them but they cover how it would work electorally to ensure the integrity of the process so that Senators' mandates are secure and proper, as it currently is in the constitution of the Seanad.

Senator Daly quite correctly outlined the importance of voices for the diaspora. I would include voices for minority groups in the State. However, there is no fast track to Parliament. I am sure all Senators would agree that it is hard work and graft whether one is a member of a party or an Independent. Regarding my earlier point about being an apprentice, I would not be standing here today unless I took an active civic interest in my community through civic engagement and activism, through local authority membership and by working my way up to be recognised in my own party. That door is open to any individual in this State and there is a diverse range of parties and independent options that could accommodate those people. This is not about providing a fast track to Parliament for somebody who might want to be a commentator or for celebrities and who think they can turn a key because they are well known. I do not believe democracy is about that. It is about bringing our life experiences, changing legislation and policy for the betterment of our citizens.

We need to be very careful. I shall now be critical once again of Senator Craughwell who has described the House as a nursery or creche. He is playing to the bland descriptions of the Seanad by media commentators. I think far more of this place, as I have always done. I certainly do not believe the House is a nursery or a creche. Yes it is great to be elected. It is a privilege and an honour and one takes that experience to wherever one goes in the next step in life. I was honoured to be a Deputy between 2007 and 2011 to which role I brought previous Seanad experience. That is why I respected Senators' views more when I was a Minister of State. That time was not wasted in a "nursery" as a party member. It was a learning experience and something that I will forever bring with me, and I know that other Senators feel that way also.

We must be careful of the language used in how Senators describe themselves. I believe the Seanad has a great future and that it has great membership. Colleagues can offer diverse perspectives and views on all debates. It is important that those views are heard but there is a fundamental problem. As a former Minister of State I know that it is the Executive of the day which holds the power. The Government of the day, when a majority exists - and it need not be this Government, the previous or any other Government - decides whether Seanad amendments are accepted or not. In the current regime of new politics, and one can describe it however one wishes, it is not a majority. It is a minority Government and there is more engagement with the Opposition, which is a good thing. That is democracy at work. However, when the majority exists we must also respect that as democracy. Whether we like it or not, whether one is an Independent or in a smaller party, when the citizens of the State elect a majority the decision should be respected. Senators are a minority voice and that is what they were elected to reflect. Senators are not a minority to change legislation. In a democracy the majority of the day dictates how Government works and dictates the legislation.

We must be careful but this is a very welcome debate. It behoves all Senators to be honest in the debate and not be knocking the process for popular reasons. Media commentators who have knocked the Chamber for years would give their right arm to be in here and their left arm to have the privilege of standing up in this Chamber. We should all be very proud to be here.