Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I did not intend to speak on section 28 but there is a misapprehension among some of my esteemed colleagues about my rationale. We are opposing each other on this occasion. I will explain my rationale in very slow and methodical language. I regret that I also hear that my esteemed colleagues Senators Barrett and Darragh O'Brien and my eloquent and esteemed colleague Senator O'Sullivan all feel either ashamed or disappointed on my behalf.

In my business I produce many plays, which are normally three-act plays. I suggest that the first act of this process is a farce - a farce in terms of the Government's response and approach to political reform. I do not intend to repeat my Second Stage speech but if Senators Darragh O'Brien and Barrett and, in particular, Senator O'Sullivan had read or indeed attended the Chamber and heard my Second Stage speech, they would not have lost too much energy and would not be surprised at why I voted the way I did. I explained how I was going to vote and will continue to vote in the same way. I will explain in a minute, including to that other esteemed Senator, Senator Ó Domhnaill, why I voted the way I did and how clear it was.

The farce related to the Taoiseach's approach to political reform and having multiple avenues of reform. First of all, the Dáil reform package is just non-existent. We are having this debate on Seanad reform without seeing any clear-thinking and accurate presentation of Dáil reform. I said this to the Minister of State in my Second Stage speech, so I will not repeat it. The committee process does not work. There are not enough committees. Some committees are dependent on enlightened Chairmen and Ministers who take the committees seriously. We know some Ministers just do not take them seriously. We then had the Constitutional Convention, as I explained in my Second Stage speech.

If the farce I described in Act One is about that, Act Two is about the melodrama of this House and the pallor of disappointment and perceived shame felt by Senator Barrett about the way I voted. The third act has yet to be written and concerns the reason I voted against the recommittal motion and the fact that the Government ruled my amendment out of order. The aim of my amendment was to include in the Bill a clause suggesting that if this referendum is defeated, the reform of the Seanad would go straight to the Constitutional Convention, which would report back to the Oireachtas. That is why I am voting in favour of this Bill. This could be difficult for Senators Barrett and Ó Domhnaill, so I will give them the A, B and C. By voting for this Bill, I am not voting for the abolition of the Seanad.