Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is important to acknowledge that the train has only barely left the station on this one. Already, there is some light for Senators and what they stand for at the end of the tunnel, even if it is dim. I have been surprised and delighted at the number of people who during the past few weeks have initiated discussion with me on the proposed referendum. It is clear that when people realise what is on offer they are shocked. Up to now, things were quiet, we were moving along at a leisurely pace and people believed the country was in good hands and that everything would come right on the other side. They then realised we were in recession and began to question our regulatory system and those whom they had looked up to and thought were pillars of society, including bankers and so on. They are now questioning the reason for the proposed abolition of one Chamber of the Oireachtas, asking questions such as is it because Senators have not done their job well or because they are not aware of who they are? That is not our fault. It does not mean we have not contributed in this House, that we have not beavered away for long hours on legislation or that we have not been successful in having hundreds of amendments accepted. If does not mean any of that, rather it is a lack of knowledge, which is not our fault. That is a matter for those who make that information available to the public.

The people are beginning to question whether abolition of the Seanad will be good for democracy. They wonder why this is being proposed and if the Government is genuinely committed to having a better system and structure. I will be opposing this legislation because as I have said from the outset I do not believe this issue has been handled properly. There is no question about that. This matter was dropped into the middle of an emotional election campaign. Nobody but the Taoiseach knew about it. Much of the spin around this issue has been deflated. We were told about savings that would accrue as a result of this measure. It is clear there were no facts to back that up. We were also told there was a major restructuring taking place in the Dáil. That is not true. There will be no major restructuring of the Dáil.

In my experience, the committee system has deteriorated in recent years. It was proposed, based on a populous concept, that committees would cover up to nine portfolios. The result has been small attendance at meetings and meetings held at the same time as the Seanad is sitting. The committee system is not what it is being made out to be. It has deteriorated. The idea of replacing the Seanad if abolished with a non-mandated committee has been floated. While I do not wish to be derogative about our civil servants, who are the best in the world, it is more than likely that most of those appointed to that non-mandated committee will be civil servants. The accountability provided by this House will not be replaced.

I am of the view that we still have an opportunity to deal with this matter in a logical and reasonable manner and not in a way which appears to indicate that we just want to defend our own positions. People are ready to listen.

In the context of the amount of money the Government is going to spend on the referendum campaign, it must be remembered that judgments handed down in past court cases indicated that the way in which money was spent on particular referenda was not legal. I genuinely hope that will not be the case on this occasion.

The Government is not offering any further arguments in respect of this matter. Even if the amendments are not accepted, I hope we will be successful in ensuring that, as far as is politically possible, this House will present a united front. I cannot imagine a situation whereby the Seanad will be abolished and the Dáil will be left as it is currently constituted. We live in strange times and people are angry. They expect that some form of remedial action, which will get rid of the difficulties that exist and offer remedies in respect of the suffering and problems they are experiencing, is going to be taken. If the House is abolished, there will obviously no longer be a reason for Ministers to come here. I accept that at times Ministers feel somewhat uncomfortable when they are subjected to the type of informed interrogation they are obliged to endure in the Seanad.