Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I recall when the Minister of State sat on this side of the House. He was particularly successful in holding the Government to account in those days and always researched his contributions exceptionally well. For those of us on the other side of the House, we always felt what he had to say was worthwhile, meaningful and responsible, and ensured that what we were doing for the citizens was right.

When I first decided to go forward for Seanad election, I believed I was doing so as a public service. I was not aware at the time that there was a salary or that it was as good as it was. At that time, it was not about salary; I just wanted to give public service. I felt the same of most of the other Senators I have met.

There are perceptions, contrived or otherwise, about the Seanad’s role that exist outside this House. The idea of abolishing the Seanad came right in the middle of an emotional general election campaign. It was dropped like a bombshell with no preparation or consultation. For anyone wanting to get rid of Seanad Éireann, the climate was right at that time to do so. The climate was also right for getting rid of Dáil Éireann. The people were angry and had every reason to be. The issues being raised during the general election campaign concerned every individual. There was fear in the land, fear for the future. People were suicidal at the way things were developing. Nothing really has changed. Those fears are still out there, by the way, with people feeling hurt, let down and not properly represented. The mood was that the people must be given a sacrificial offering from the political system. Seanad Éireann was selected to be just that. I do not believe any greater thought was given to the proposal. Unfortunately, we have not had a focused and constructive debate with a White Paper or Green Paper on the proposal.

I do not believe the abolition of a House of Parliament in the manner suggested at that time would have satisfied the people in the long term. Eventually, they would have seen it for what it was, and realised that Seanad Éireann was being treated as the sacrificial lamb.

Unfortunately, the approach taken at the time condemned the debate to cul-de-sac status. It is as simple as that. The debate has really been all over the place since then. I will give some examples. Incidentally, I have great admiration for the Taoiseach. He knows that I think he is genuine and sincere. I have to say that some of the arguments that were initially put forward, precisely because we did not have a focused debate, ensured this debate would be fragmented and inconclusive. At that time, we were asking people to vote on something without giving them all the background information on it. It is absolutely unreal to say this House did not stop the breakdown of the Celtic tiger.