Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

No.

Much of this discussion was covered on Second Stage and the Chair has given everybody a great deal of latitude given the nature of the debate. How the Taoiseach has approached certain issues has been a massive disappointment. I am hugely proud of the fact, irrespective of my political leanings, that somebody from the west is Taoiseach. His election was a proud day for all on the western seaboard. However, most recently, the shenanigans relating to membership of committees last week and the nature of this proposal have been disappointing. They make Mugabe and Idi Amin look like Kofi Annan. There is nothing wrong with asking the people whether the Seanad should be retained except when the full energies of the State are ploughing in one direction. I would be much more comfortable with a recommittal of the Bill to give us an opportunity to ask whether we get rid of the House or reform it. That would be reasonable and if the Bill was recommitted, that could be done on Committee Stage. I favour that approach and I would be all for a referendum if that were done. It is not a question of fearing the people. I do not know, irrespective of whether I continue my political career, whether I will ever seek re-election to the Seanad. Hopefully, I will have a long life with many options. I have changed career a few times and I am sure I can again.

However, democracy in this State is managed and prescribed. If we seek to remove threads of democracy without considering in advance what will be used to replace them, that is a serious problem. To only ask the people to abolish the House is dangerous because we do not know what will come after. Given the cynicism and understandable anger and frustration among people at the system failing them politically over the years, regardless of who was in government, although I have no problem admitting Fianna Fáil was in government more often than any other party and it will take its share of the blame, as it did in the most recent election, some of the commentary by the director of elections on behalf of the Government, including during a radio debate I had with him last week, only adds to this. I mentioned on Second Stage that I asked him how many times the Government amended legislation in the House last year and he could not answer and I asked him how many times as Minister he had amended legislation and he was not able to tell me. There is a credibility issue. If a Minister is going to direct a campaign on behalf of the establishment and says this is good for the people and they must get rid of the House, the least he should do is be fully informed about what the House does, albeit in its flawed state as he sees it.

In a retort to me during a somewhat intemperate outburst, he said on air the numbers are rigged in the House to guarantee the Government's success. That is true but the Government Whip ensures that is the case. Senator Ó Murchú and others have questioned who ensures that outcome. I recall the frustration of sitting on the Government benches reading a Private Members' motion penned by Senator Brian Hayes at the time and waiting for the Government amendment to be sent over from Government Buildings. Such Government motions commend the Government on this, that or the other. I used to hate it and it was frustrating but it is still happening. Who ensures that remains the case? The Taoiseach of the day has control. Deputy Richard Bruton in his capacity as director of elections live on Highland Radio with me last week was right to say that it is a rigged scenario where the Government is guaranteed as a majority but, as Senator Norris correctly pointed out earlier, with 78 amendments tabled on Report Stage and 77 ruled out of order, one must wonder by whom? It is the same people who rig the situation.