Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

What was happening in Dáil Éireann at exactly the same time? Why pick Seanad Éireann as an example when referring to institutions that failed to do their jobs? In fact, we did our job. On several occasions, I spoke from the Government benches on various issues in a way that would have seemed anti-Government. I adopted an independent line on many economic issues at that time. We need to be fair when it comes to the economy. I am no economist, but I know one basic concept when it comes to the economy. The economy is like a turning wheel. What is at the top does not stay there and what is at the bottom does not stay there. During the Celtic tiger years, the man in the street, the man in the pub and the woman in the street could tell it could not last. All of that was already out there. We tried to represent that in our contributions here.

Having brought that into the equation, the Taoiseach went on to suggest that we failed to reform this House when we do not have the authority or the right to do so. We participated in a reform process. I was very central to it on behalf of Fianna Fáil. Even now, I feel the paper we drew up at that time was worthwhile. It was radical in many ways. We were not just looking at where we were at that time. We were looking at what the potential was. I will mention one of the examples of that potential that we cited. We tend to forget the dreadful days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. During that period, many contributions on the Troubles were made in this House on the Order of Business every single morning.

Following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, when there was some light at the end of the tunnel, the Seanad had an opportunity to help to copperfasten what had been achieved. At that time, there was an opportunity for representatives from the Northern Ireland Assembly to come and address this House. In fairness, that would never happen with Dáil Éireann. We did not avail of that opportunity, but it is still there. I am sad because I feel we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to Northern Ireland. There are still serious sectarian and other issues under the surface in the North of Ireland. We do not want to go back to the dark days. The only hope of dialogue we had involved this House and the Assembly in the North of Ireland.

How many people on the street are talking about the hundreds of directives that are coming from Europe? I know we have committees, but they are not being examined, in fairness. They are being accepted willy-nilly. We end up wondering where the change came from and what directive brought it about. This House is ideally placed to deal with those directives. As Senator Mac Conghail said, there are people in this House - professionals and others - who have huge expertise, experience and common sense. It is better to have people who have come through an electoral system than some kind of toothless think-tank of people, put together by the Government, who will do exactly what the Civil Service tells them to do. That is not the case here. We have people with expertise.

I cannot think of any better people to deal with all the directives from Europe than the Members of this House who have backgrounds in the arts, business and industry and who understand they are accountable to their own electorates. That continues to be the mandate that is required for democracy. It does not stand up to examination to suggest in some way that getting rid of the Seanad will make a major contribution to reform. It is quite clear that we have been lacking accountability in the past. In the past, there was a chance for accountability in this House. We were not just rubber-stamping legislation that came from the Dáil. A third of all legislation was initiated here. One of the most major pieces of legislation in the history of the State, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, was initiated in Seanad Éireann.

Why is the perception at odds with the reality? I think there are a number of reasons for that. Ministers in this Government, the last Government and every Government - I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is different - do not really like the idea of coming in, sitting in the ministerial chair and being rigorously asked to account in minute detail for their handling of certain issues. That is one of the reasons there is a view out there that life could be made easier by getting rid of the Seanad. It does not fit in with what the public is being told, however, because what is being proposed involves the removal of accountability. I still believe this House has done an exceptionally good job with regard to accountability.

I would like to mention a second reason for the widespread perception which is at odds with the reality. There is nobody from the media in the Press Gallery at the moment. They are never there. They will come in if they think there is going to be a row or a fight. They have a holier-than-thou attitude. I ask them to leave aside the sensationalist issues and sit in this House - perhaps for the next four weeks - while we go through legislation and deal with the issues of the day. It is very easy to give a caricature of what a Senator is or to poke fun, but it might not be real or based on fact.

It seems we are prepared to sacrifice a House of Parliament rather than look at how we might improve it. An opportunity is being lost. Constitutional change is required if we are to do any meaningful and worthwhile reform. A single question - "to be or not to be" - will be asked in the referendum. It is as simple as that. We could easily have gone the whole hog while still giving the people their say. That is what we want to do. We are not trying to deny the people their say. We could have given them their say on the question of "to be or not to be" while going a step further and also asking them whether they would be happier about the Seanad if A, B and C were done to change the way it works.

It is a sad time for democracy. It is a sad time for the people because they have not been served well by the manner in which this has been handled. This referendum will not give a conclusive answer. It will leave a vacuum. I have not seen any plan B. The Taoiseach spoke about a kind of plan B - a second House that would not be elected, almost - but that seems to have been sidelined. I suggest it has been sidelined because it was not thought out. Similarly, his argument about the cost of the Seanad was not thought out. It was sidelined after we were told by officials that it was not costed. Those examples suggest the arguments we were given were not correct.

We find ourselves in this position because of a precipitative move that was made in the middle of a general election campaign. It is now up to the people. Our only hope at this stage is that the people will stop, reflect and think. They need to decide whether they are being well served, whether they are being given an offer that is worthwhile, whether the Seanad is being blamed for something it should not be blamed for and whether an opportunity to develop the Seanad in a meaningful and proper way is being missed.