Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We are all good democrats in this House, living as we do in a constitutional democracy which is what this little republic of ours is. There have been many complaints, even on the Order of Business, that this is a Bill the objective of which is the abolition of the Seanad but its Title refers to the 32nd amendment of the Constitution, which implies the holding of a referendum. We cannot change the Constitution without holding a referendum. I compliment all those Senators who have spoken on their wonderful arguments. I also compliment the Minister of State who, as Senator Diarmuid Wilson said, has great patience. It is trying his constitution to have to listen to this debate, with some of which he does not agree, but we are all good democrats. I, therefore, subscribe to what Senator Diarmuid Wilson said about him. It was an honour to serve with him.

I recall that the Minister of State, with the then Leader of the House, the former Senator Mary O'Rourke, and three other colleagues put together a wonderful report. We might not have agreed with all of it, but we went with it because we were reformists in our own minds. Perhaps I will come back to that theme.

We accept that the people must rule supreme in our democracy. That is why this proposal is going to be put in a referendum. The timing is lousy, in the sense that the term of the Government presumably has another two and a half years to run. I do not know whether the referendum will be passed. If it is - as a good democrat, my attitude is "so be it" - how will Senators be fixed for attending public meetings, etc? Someone spoke about the jibes in newspaper letters and columns. If this proposal is passed, what will people say to any of us when we attend various events? I think the Minister of State understands why I think the timing could be better. This referendum should have come much later in the term of the Dáil, if at all.

I am a total reformist. I subscribe to that view. Like many other Senators on all sides of the House, I see this as a lessening of our democracy. Obviously, there will be an automatic reduction in the number of politicians. Some say it is a cheap shot to get rid of 60 politicians in one fell swoop. It is obvious that this measure will increase the significance of the Executive, which is already pretty powerful in our system. The Minister of State does not have to say anything because I understand from his smile that he agrees with me. If the Seanad is abolished, this little country of ours will probably have more advisers than ever.

The referendum campaign will be very difficult for existing Senators. I expect that the overwhelming majority of us will vote "No" in the secrecy of the voting booth. The campaign will be difficult because whether we like it, we will be perceived to have a vested interest. I do not intend to campaign in the referendum. It will be difficult for me, given that the Taoiseach has already announced we will have at least one other referendum on the same date. I assume that was a Government decision. The Minister of State might confirm this when he responds at the end of the debate. It is planned to hold a referendum on the same date to facilitate the establishment of a court of civil appeal. Such a court is badly needed because the legal system is clogged up and a large number of cases are before the Supreme Court. The Minister of State might comment on how many cases there are. That is very bad justice and, of course, justice delayed is justice denied. How many years will it take to have an appeal heard now? I have no doubt that a court of civil appeal is necessary.

Much has been made of the financial saving that might result from the abolition of the Seanad. Senator Feargal Quinn who is watching me like the wise old owl that he is has exploded that myth. We know there will be no savings whatsoever. There have been disputes about the figures. I understand the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, has said these resources will be diverted into a revised or reformed committee structure. With respect, that is a possible waste. All Deputies have to serve on one committee or another. I am not sure they are all fully committed to committees unless a constituency matter arises, but perhaps I should not say that. It is understandable, given our human nature, that the constituency is everything. I am sure the Minister of State is always focused-----