In 16 days the people will vote in a referendum on the abolition or retention of the Seanad. The Government has decided not to give the people the option of reform and it is fair to say this is the only major constitutional change to our political system that the Government is planning. It involves over 40 amendments to the Constitution. The people take the Constitution seriously. The Government is spending over €14 million on the referendum - €14 million that will be taken from public services this year. This hides the fact that not one red cent will be saved during the lifetime of the Government until 2016. The Taoiseach and people around the country have yet to receive the Referendum Commission's leaflet. I have been on doorsteps talking to people, many of whom have not yet engaged in the debate. Time is running out. Given that this is the Taoiseach's initiative which he is putting to the people, will he explain why he will not take part in a debate on the national airwaves with Opposition party leaders, including Deputy Gerry Adams, to argue the merits or demerits of a fundamental change to the Constitution? It involves the elimination of one tier of our parliamentary system. It is an important tier and an important issue which merits debate between the political leaders of parties and others. Will the Taoiseach explain why he will not take part in such a debate?

The second question is whether, in the event that the referendum proposal is defeated, the Taoiseach can confirm that he will facilitate radical reform of the Seanad, beginning with giving people the right to vote for their own Senators, which could be done through legislation.

For 50 years the political system has failed to deal with Seanad Éireann. That is why, having looked at the question of reform of the Seanad, I came to the conclusion that it was not reformable. It either still involves a minority, is discriminatory or a replica of this House. It has no constitutional function in holding the Executive of the day to account. That constitutional responsibility rests with this Chamber, Dáil Éireann. The people are being asked a straight question as to whether they want to retain or abolish Seanad Éireann. I am very strongly in favour of the latter. It is not necessary in a country of this size, where constitutional responsibility is vested in this House, where the changes being made will engage with civic society and the people in a way intended by the original principles of Seanad Éireann but which never happened because of the process being hijacked by all political parties for many years.

Except the Independents.

That is the answer to the second question. The answer to the first question is that I do not want to embarrass Deputy Micheál Martin.

Brian Dobson did that last night on "Six-One".

This will abolish democracy.

The Taoiseach has failed to answer the two questions I asked, not for the first time in this Chamber and not for the first time during Leaders' Questions. Despite his protestations about being accountable to the House, he shows little sign of wanting to be accountable to the House or the people.

On the question of why he will not take part in a televised debate, I would put it to the Taoiseach that he owes more to the Irish people. In any modern democracy, it is the least that one can expect of leaders of political parties or those who put forward substantive fundamental reform of the Constitution. The Seanad has important constitutional functions. We would not be going to the people with this referendum if it did not.

A question please.

It is incredible in a modern democracy that the Taoiseach put forward a proposal to fundamentally alter the Constitution and yet is not prepared to take part in one of the basic elements of democracy, which is to debate and argue the merits or demerits. The Taoiseach may give a glib smart reply today but that does not really answer the substantive point I am making to him, that is, the obligation on a leader of Government to come out openly into the public domain on the national airwaves and argue the merits or demerits of a particular proposal.

The second point is that, of course, the Seanad is reformable if one wants to reform it. What I asked the Taoiseach was, in the event of the Seanad proposal being defeated-----

Why did Deputy Martin's party not do so?

Would Deputy Doherty please adhere to the rulings of the Chair?

The Independents are trying to reform it and the Government blocked it. The only ones who knew what it was.

In the event of the proposal being defeated, would the Taoiseach then facilitate reform of the Seanad?

The Independents are trying to reform it and the Government blocked it.

That is all I asked the Taoiseach. If it was defeated, would the Taoiseach - yes or no - facilitate the reform of the Seanad because he is not giving the people the option? If the people vote him down, will the Taoiseach then facilitate it?

Deputy Martin is over time.

It is an important point.

Deputy Martin will not walk me down that avenue.

Sorry?

The Taoiseach is not answering the question.

I am around long enough to have every faith and belief in the decision of the Irish people.

The Taoiseach should deal with the cost issue, that the Government is making up the figures.

The people are being asked a very straightforward question, which is part of the process of changing the way politics should be run in this country which Deputy Martin and his party failed to deal with over the years. We are now, as part of a process of reducing the number of elected councillors with the elimination of town councils-----

Is that supposed to be good?

A power grab.

A dictatorship.

-----and by the amalgamation of a number of county council, by a changing of the relevant electoral areas for those councils, and by reducing the numbers in the Dáil, admittedly by a small number, providing an opportunity to abolish Seanad Éireann and transform this House into what it should be - a Chamber where the elected representatives of the people can hold the Executive to account.

A Chamber of guillotines.

That is why the changes that are happening here will engage with the Irish people in a way that was never done before, except in the most recent cases of the legislation dealing with the loss of life during pregnancy.

Deputy Martin set out his own programme. It is difficult to debate with somebody-----

It is not; it is very easy to debate.

One day Deputy Martin states his party is for the abolition of the Seanad and wants to get rid of the Seanad and the next day states his party thinks it should be retained.

Deputy Martin should debate that one.

The Taoiseach himself did a bit of that. He was for it one day and he was getting rid of it the next.

It is always a difficulty to know which Deputy Martin will turn up in a debate, wherever around the country.

The Taoiseach was 34 years supporting the Seanad.

I would also make the point to Deputy Martin that it was his own party that shot down the proposals put forward for Seanad reform by former Minister, Ms Mary O'Rourke, in 2003.

Let us debate it.

The Taoiseach is like Big Bird over there with yellow feathers.

Deputy Martin could have implemented those with the assistance of those who were in the Progressive Democrats party at the time.

The Taoiseach should debate with me. All I am asking him is to debate it.

There is only one minute left.

Deputy Martin also shot down the changes that were proposed for the committee system and what he did, in fact, was try to buy them off by having Chairs, Vice Chairs and convenors.

The time is up; the debate is over.

All of these positions that were paid for by the taxpayer are gone. That is all gone.

Will the Taoiseach debate?

Is that a "yes" or "no"? Will the Taoiseach debate it?

The position is: I look forward with enthusiasm to the decision of the Irish people.

The Taoiseach is chickening out of a debate.

The people know their politics.

Big Bird.

The people know the value or otherwise of Seanad Éireann and they also understand that it is in this Chamber that the Government of the day must be held to account and that we will see to it that that is allowable for the changes that are taking place in terms of legislation, analysis, etc.

Let us debate it.

That is why, if Deputy Martin thinks about it, one does not have written questions or questions to Ministers from the Seanad. It is not the body to hold this place to account. That is another reason.

That is wrong. Ministers went before the Seanad a couple of times with amendments. Ministers are accountable to everyone; of course they are. The Taoiseach should know the Constitution.

Would the Deputies please adhere to the Chair? We are away over time.

The people in this country like to be very clear about where they stand. The question, yes or no, is "does one want to hold on to the Seanad or does one want to abolish it?".

The Taoiseach has bigger numbers in there and he can get his own way more easily. Will he debate, yes or no?

The Taoiseach can railroad matters through. He has a much bigger majority.

I hope that the people give a resounding answer to abolish it and let us get on with our business here of making this place truly democratic and truly answerable to the people of the country through the elected representatives of this and all other parties.