Seán Kyne (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, to the Seanad Chamber to discuss this motion. I confess that I have never been a particular fan of citizens' conventions, notwithstanding the comments of others earlier. Some have served a purpose. As a practising politician I get the abuse and hardship that we all get on doorsteps and at meetings. Some people seem to be of the view that the Houses of the Oireachtas or local authorities could not possibly make decisions but a citizens' assembly could, which I do not accept. They may have proven themselves to a degree. For example, on the issue of repealing the eighth amendment, a considerable amount of work was done in advance by Dr. James Reilly with the introduction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill in the lead-up to the repeal. That was a very important debate at the time and I was in the midst of that at a difficult time on a very important issue.

That said, citizens' assemblies are part of the process and are supported by the Government. These two issues are important, as are others. I do not in any way dispute the importance of issues such as drugs and others. I know there is a commitment to have citizens' assemblies for those at a future date.

One of the issues I have is with having 100 people. Certain counties may end up without any representation. Excluding the citizens' assembly on a Dublin mayor which is a Dublin-based issue, I have advocated to my party leader that for national issues like biodiversity, drugs etc., there should be simultaneous regional conventions in the four provinces or wherever. With the new technology, they can take place simultaneously and would allow for a higher level of participation. We certainly would not have the issue of certain counties without any voice.

Regarding the substantive issue of the two motions, I agree on the importance of the convention on biodiversity loss. Regional balance would be important there for the obvious reasons that country people would have a strong voice in this as well. It is not just an issue of somebody coming out to the countryside and admiring the countryside. It is important that people living in rural areas are aware of the issues as well and have an input into it.

Protecting biodiversity is very important. We have had a sea change in this country compared with what would have happened years ago where State agencies such as Teagasc and its precursor gave grants for the removal of biodiversity through the removal of landscape features, scrub and woodland for drainage of lands. Since the inception of the rural environmental protection scheme in the mid-1990s, the focus has been on the protection of biodiversity. That said, there are still examples of a loss of habitat and biodiversity. I hope the changes that have been agreed in the new round of the Common Agricultural Policy post-2023 will have greater focus on environmental issues and will allow for the protection of more of these areas. In order for an area to become eligible to be declared as a forage area, a farmer had to remove the habitat that was there. It is nonsense in this day and age that in order to ensure that farmers were getting money under disadvantaged area scheme or under the basic payment scheme in respect of forage areas the only solution was actually to remove in some cases smaller or in other cases larger areas of habitat.There have been issues and there has been a sea change in policy. That is to be welcomed but it is important to have a wide geographic spread of participants. If there is not, it could be perceived as biasing the results, which would be unfortunate in the extreme.

Regarding the Dublin citizens' assembly, I sympathise with the views of Senator Boyhan. While I have not gone out to seek councillors' views, I have not been contacted by Dublin councillors about this. It is a question of how many is enough. Is 24, as suggested, enough? Is 20 enough, or is the figure stipulated here sufficient? Again, why is the membership of the Dublin citizens' assembly to be 80 and not 100, which it would be in other cases? Those are technical issues, but, if the number were increased, it would allow for better participation of councillors.

Council amalgamation was pursued in Waterford and Limerick. Limerick accepted the plebiscite on a directly elected mayor. The legislation has been somewhat stalled. Perhaps the appetite is not as strong. Even though the result of the plebiscite was positive in support of the proposal, it may be somewhat stalled. We do not have an example within the country of a directly elected mayor working. Therefore, it is important that we look to our closest neighbour, including some of the larger mayorships in Manchester, Liverpool and elsewhere. That would be a positive.

These are positives in respect of the two issues. Down the line, in the very near future, the drugs issue and others should and must be assessed.