Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I thank Senators Zappone, Quinn and Crown for their initiative. I represent 55,000 people. I do not feel the slightest bit undemocratic. I represent them under the 1937 Constitution, and do so proudly. The proposal to abolish the Seanad removes checks, balances and scrutiny. What kind of Government does not like checks, balances and scrutiny? I would like to know the charge sheet, rather than hear a statement that the proposal to abolish the Seanad is in the Government's manifesto. What precisely does the Minister believe this House has done wrong? If he listens to his ministerial colleagues, he will find out that they praise us for the amendments we have proposed. Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly has amended the taxi legislation more than 80 times because of contributions made in this House. The Sinn Féin contribution on personal insolvency resulted in a similar number of amendments by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter.

I am a Member because this country was wrecked in 2008 by banks. There were no Senators in Government buildings on the night in question. Why is the Minister not trying to get rid of the bankers? Why does he not look at the senior civil servants who did not know what they were doing? Why does he not tackle the bankers who are still walking around? We are a bulwark against the destruction of this country and the Minister should cancel the referendum. He has no right to say that people who stand up against what happened to this country should have their House of Parliament abolished. There will not be an equal contest as the Minister will have the Government's money while we will be trying to raise a few shillings up and down the country. The Government will have its advertising campaigns and so on. The Government Senators who have played a noble role in this Seanad, which has 42 new Members, have, along with the other Senators, worked night and day to make this country better. The Minister should ask the Leader, who has played a noble role. We have brought in the MEPs and the Orange Order. Interestingly, the Orange Order opposed the abolition of Grattan's Parliament. When I visit Northern Ireland, I find that people hold this Seanad in esteem, particularly on the Unionist side. The Minister is making enemies unnecessarily by tilting at a windmill that the Taoiseach made when his party was in opposition.

We need checks and balances. The Executive has too much power. The Whip system exerts too much pressure. The lobby groups who walked off with €64 billion - the figure will probably end up at €90 billion - were unchecked. Why is the Minister not moving against them? There is a lack of expertise in the permanent Government service, as was pointed out in the Wright report. We provide it here.

I became a Member in a bankrupt country. We introduced three Bills, to the credit of this House and the Leader. One was on fiscal responsibility, the second was on the reform of mortgages along the Danish line, and the third was on banking regulation to separate utility banking from casino banking. We did that here; the Minister did not do so in the Dáil. I would not have been able to introduce the legislation had I been a member of the Dáil. This is a very well-run House and the Minister should examine the evidence to determine what we do here.

Why are we here? I am delighted that a former Provost of Trinity College, Mr. John Henry Bernard, went to Arthur Griffith before the treaty negotiations in London and said people who would not be elected to the Dáil will wish to make a valuable contribution to the new State. Mr. Griffith wrote to Mr. Éamon de Valera, who agreed in writing - the civil war had not started - that we should have a senate. We have never let people down. What about Dr. Sheehy Skeffington coming here when beating children was the rule up and down the country? He was not a member of any political party or the Dáil. Consider the reforms of Ms Mary Robinson. Women were not allowed to sit on juries when she introduced her reform. The work of Senators Norris and Zappone on behalf of the gay community should also be considered. We have made an incredible contribution to this country. For the Government to spend public money to abolish the Seanad without even telling us the reason is shameful.

I hope that when the referendum Bill is before the House, the Government Senators will not support it. We are being accused behind the scenes of playing too much golf and of too much horse racing. That might have happened in the past but it has not happened under the current Cathaoirleach and Leader. Why, then, can the Minister not tell us why he wants to abolish this House, dismember the Constitution and ignore the good work that happens here every day? There should be no referendum. This is very obvious to anybody who examines the matter dispassionately. This House is essential to the good governance of the country. The people who got us into the trouble are not being dealt with by the senior ranks of the Government. I refer to the banks and the power of lobby groups. I hear that legislation on lobby groups has not materialised. The banks owe us €64 billion. No Senators were in Government Buildings on the night that the finances of this country collapsed. We have done our best every day to remedy the problem. That should be recognised by Members of the Dáil. It is recognised by the other Ministers who come here and the Minister present, Deputy Hogan, should recognise it also. He should not waste public money on a referendum when there are so many reform proposals that would be much more creative. The Minister will lose the referendum and discredit his Government. What he proposes is seen as petty. What is he afraid of? Senators provide checks, balances and scrutiny; that is our job and we discharge that duty with pride.