Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

For me, this question is flawed. There is no fear whatsoever of asking the people a question - indeed, we should do so more often on a wide variety of issues - but it is dishonest not to ask the people whether they would prefer reform or abolition, because one must ask what comes next. As Senator Norris stated, No. 2, which is to be taken without debate, simply states that the Oireachtas will constitute the President and the Dáil. As for who controls the Dáil, as we have seen, with an iron hand, the Taoiseach does, and nobody else. I refer to Deputy Mathews and Senators Heffernan and Healy Eames, whose contributions are based purely on their loyalty, as it were, to the Crown.

That is fundamentally wrong. It is relevant to ask when the McKenna judgment will become relevant. Clearly, considerable resources of the State have been used in the promotion of abolishing what the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, in directing the Government's campaign, called the rigged situation that guaranteed that the Government succeeded. The records in Highland Radio can give the House the exact wording. They are the words of a man who could not tell us how many times his Government had amended legislation in the House in the past 12 months. When I made it easier for him by asking him how many times he had amended his own legislation in the House, I was met with silence.

There are probably thousands of very good reasons to abolish the Seanad, the Dáil, the Judiciary, the Garda Síochána and countless other organisations, as there are very good ones to reform or constantly improve them. It is not valid to blame the excesses of the Celtic tiger on the Seanad, as Senator John Crown said.

I used a word often associated with people who juggle in circus rings and I do not intend to use it today. Is it any wonder that I used such a term when somebody of such intelligence and with 37 years of proud public service in the Houses of the Oireachtas since 1976 could regard this House as rigged to ensure the Government would have absolute control? The Minister admitted this in directing the campaign for the Government. He implied that this House had done nothing to quell the excesses of the Celtic tiger era. We could debate that issue for years and talk about the abolition of stamp duty, etc.

I am aware that the debate on the Bill is to be guillotined at 4 p.m. and I am anxious that some of my democratic colleagues be allowed to say a few words. The question is flawed. I have no difficulty with or fear of putting the question to the people. I would welcome it, but the opportunity to reform the House should also be put to them. It is for that reason I supported the motion on recommital. Sadly, the proposal will go through en masse, which, for the most part, is to be regretted by the Members of this House. Let us see what the future brings.