Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Exactly. Senator Barrett has articulated his arguments very well on this issue. I come from a county which adjoins the Border, but of course we no longer recognise the Border. We live in a 32-county Ireland, which is the way I envisage it. As someone who spent five years living in the North of Ireland just before the Good Friday Agreement, during a time of relative peace, I can say more than most that the part played by this Republic in bringing about that peace was substantial. It has proved to be long-lasting and we all welcome that, but we should not disenfranchise any community in the North of Ireland by an action that would remove a democratic institution in this State. The abolition of the Seanad would remove an opportunity for the people in the North to be represented in the Upper Chamber of the Oireachtas.

I travel through the North of Ireland when going up and down to Donegal. I have many friends in the North of Ireland with whom I went to college and others who live in the North. I visited the North of Ireland the weekend before the Twelfth celebrations. I witnessed at first hand the peace and tranquility that exists there. There have been outbursts during the last week or ten days but the part being played by the Oireachtas to highlight those outbursts is particularly articulated by our university Senators, given that many graduates - particularly from Trinity but also from NUI - are living in the North of Ireland.

This House has always been a place where the views, expressions and concerns of the minority within our population were expressed but also, more importantly, were represented. Down through the years, exceptional Members of this House have come from the North of Ireland, including Séamus Mallon and others. It would be a disservice to the people of the North of Ireland, and to this Government's commitment to the North of Ireland, if the Seanad were to be abolished in one fell swoop.

What explanation can the Minister of State give to the people living in the North of Ireland for whom Fine Gael has proclaimed to work hard over the years? I acknowledge the work that was done by the late Dr. Garret FitzGerald through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am sure, however, that Dr. FitzGerald would not subscribe to the abolition of Seanad Éireann. One of the founding fathers of Fine Gael, Michael Collins, played an integral role in the establishment of this House. He certainly recognised the need to represent people in the North of Ireland.

The plan to abolish the Seanad does a grave disservice to those living in the North. I want to hear what explanation the Minister of State can offer to those people. What consultations have taken place with minority groups in our society concerning the abolition of Seanad Éireann? One can only presume that those discussions have taken place. No Government in any democracy would ram through a piece of legislation without consulting minority groups in the Republic or the North. I can only assume that such consultations have taken place. Perhaps the Minister of State can outline what those consultations were, where they took place and how many members were consulted from each community. I refer in particular to members of the Protestant communities, both in the Republic and the North of Ireland.

This House has many great opportunities. Apart from building and developing on its potential to build a greater Ireland, North and South, and to work closer with the Stormont Assembly, it can work with minority groups in our society, religious or otherwise, to develop the holistic Ireland we all want to achieve. This House has a role to play in all of this.

Members have an obligation to protect this House and ensure future generations can be represented through it. We must ensure, however, that the representation they receive is better than what the House is providing now. This House needs to be drastically reformed. It is no accident that the Government ignored 12 reports on Seanad reform since its foundation. I accept my party also ignored it when it was in government which was a grave mistake. Action should have been taken at the time to deal with some of those reform proposals, particularly the excellent 2002 report by the former Minister and then Leader of the House, Mary O’Rourke. There was also a referendum in 1979 on the Seanad franchise which was never implemented.

There are alternatives to abolition. They should be provided to the people by way of referendum where they can have an honest say and a choice, not a knee-jerk reaction because it is politically popular. I subscribe to what Senator Ó Murchú said regarding the sentiment of the electorate. I have consulted widely on this particular issue in my constituency in Donegal. The feedback I have received, even on the street, is a positive one. People do not want to see the Seanad abolished. They certainly want to see Seanad reform but they are very afraid of this dictatorial attitude coming from the Government with its huge majority in Dáil Éireann.

We have seen over the past week how this House made the Government uncomfortable. That is the way it should be. We also now know why the Taoiseach wants to get rid of this House. He envisages that he will still be Taoiseach after the next general election. He has a greater plan to ensure he has more control and fewer long speeches against his own popularity coming from this House. He wants the four Ministers at the heart of Government in the fiscal Cabinet sub-committee to be insulated with their power not undermined while the majority in the Dáil will continue to vote in favour of their policies. We are going down a dangerous road. If we are serious about reforming politics, then we need to examine every aspect of it, including the party Whip system within certain divisions. No party in any other parliament in the world would throw out honourable and respectable party members just because they voted in accordance with their consciences.