When the people spoke last Friday, they rejected the Taoiseach's proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann. In his own words, they gave him one hell of a wallop. I put it to the Taoiseach that he refused to listen to reasoned opinion advocating reform before the referendum. He refused to refer the issue to the Constitutional Convention. He refused to give the people a choice between abolition and reform. He even refused to debate the issue - to take it to the people. Essentially, it was his way or no way. I suggest that the result of the referendum reflects a reaction to the proposal itself and to the Government's way of doing business. We need to be clear that the people voted for a reformed Seanad. They did not vote for the retention of the status quo. There is a legislative template on the Order Paper. I refer to the Bill placed on the Order Paper by Deputy Ross, which is-----

That Bill is also in my name.

-----very similar to the Bill proposed by Senators Zappone and Quinn and the Bill proposed by Senator Crown. All Members of this House have an obligation to put our differences to one side by working to make legislative progress and to achieve the maximum agreement on this matter. Reform can be brought about by legislative means. We need to show a response to the people and to the campaign in which we have just been involved. That would be the correct response right now to the people's decision. Will the Taoiseach have a change of heart? Will he agree to join talks between all the parties with a view to reaching agreement on this legislation to ensure its passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas?

The Taoiseach should have forgotten the book launch.

First, I would like to inform Deputy Martin that I said this was a wallop - not one hell of a wallop.

Can the Taoiseach explain the difference?

He should get his words right.

It was a big enough wallop.

Second, I have already answered the-----

I suppose there was only a couple of percentage points in it.

Deputy Martin can smile away if he wishes, but the position here is that we now need to take a serious view of the decision of the people.

The Taoiseach should take it seriously so.

As Deputies will be aware, the Constitutional Convention was set up with great results to make recommendations to the Government on whether referendums should be held. The Government had decided to hold a referendum on this matter. It is one of the few cases where anybody can say a commitment was honoured. The people have made a clear decision that Seanad Éireann should be retained in our Constitution and that has been accepted by me as Taoiseach.

Does the Taoiseach have any choice?

The people had a choice between voting "Yes" and voting "No". The choices in between had been messed around for 70 years and nobody did anything about them. The issue raised by the Deputy in respect of debates is immaterial. It is important to set out that I was not going to be led by Deputy Martin's agenda or by anybody else's agenda. I made it clear on Saturday in my response to the people's decision, as announced in the result of the referendum, that we need to look at the question of the best thing to do with the Seanad. I have looked at the reports that exist over many years.

Some proposals would not require legislative change, some movement could be made with legislative change, while others would require further referenda. I do not favour the setting up of another separate Legislature by Seanad Éireann. I have said - I am glad Deputy Martin agrees - we should call in the leaders of the parties in the Seanad and engage in a meaningful discussion about what is best to do given the extent of the proposals there are and the clarity of the result of the people and move on. I also make it clear that those discussions are only part of the process of political change that we are involved in as part of wider politics and the management of our affairs in here, which remains, under Article 28(4) of the Constitution, holding the Government to account.

I have a busy schedule, but I will engage with the leaders in the Houses as early as I can. We will sit down and talk about the decision people made that Seanad Éireann continues as part of our Constitution and consider what is the best thing we can do to make it effective and whether we should introduce legislation on the third level sector, which was approved by constitutional referendum almost 30 years ago and never acted on, or whether there are other issues that we should deal with. I will take everyone's view into account. A clear decision has been made and I accept it. I do not think that there is anything wrong with somebody in politics consulting the people when they said they would and accepting their answer. I am up for engaging with the leaders in the Dáil and the Seanad and we will see what is the best way of putting in place a process that will lead to a more effective Seanad Éireann.

The Taoiseach did not consult; he just tried to ram something through without any meaningful consultation and put forward an ill-informed proposal with no proper accompanying constitutional reform. The Taoiseach did not answer the question I put to him. Deputy Shane Ross's Bill is on the Order Paper. Is the Taoiseach prepared to join other parties in discussing that Bill and that legislative template with a view to reaching agreement to have it passed through the House? The Taoiseach has not consulted us on Dáil reform in a meaningful way or in any shape or form. A meeting was convened on Dáil reform two or three days before last Friday's polling day to do what he said he would do some months ago, which is to present us with a fait accompli that he intends to ram through the House this week. There has been no meaningful engagement. That is the problem when he says he will meet leaders - the meeting is about nothing. His proposals on Dáil reform are to sit more and do less.

That is more than Deputy Martin ever did.

The old Fianna Fáil is back - oppose, oppose, oppose.

The people are saying loud and clear that they do not want any more tinkering around with the system or on reform. What they want is meaningful reform that enhances the independence of Parliament vis-à-vis the Government. The Taoiseach is correct that the people have said "No" to his proposal to abolish the Seanad. There is an immediate legislative template on the Order Paper, and it is within our capacity to reach agreement on that legislation with a view to its implementation in the short term.

Like Deputy Martin's reports.

If people want to consider other things after that, that is a matter for the political parties, but we have something definitive on the Order Paper. The people have rejected the Taoiseach's proposal-----

You do not have one.

-----and I suggest to him that, by the way he is approaching things, he is still not getting it. He does not engage meaningfully on a level and fair-minded basis in terms of really listening to other proposals with a view to taking them on board. He just does not do that, and he has not done that in the two and a half years since he came into Government. That is why he was walloped. I take his correction on the kind of wallop it was, but it was a wallop none the less and a wallop as much about how he does things as the proposal itself.

Such a spoofer.

I do not know what meaningful discussions Deputy Martin had when he put forward the abolition of Seanad Éireann into his programme. He certainly did not discuss it with any other party. He then changed his mind when he saw the wind was blowing the way it might suit him.

That is what the Taoiseach did.

It is a bit like what Deputy Martin did back in 2000. Does he remember that?

The Taoiseach is taking us back to 2000. It is 2013. He needs to answer the question he was asked, for God's sake.

That is when Deputy Martin said that he would deal with the working time directive for junior doctors. Let me remind what Deputy Martin did back in 2000 when he consulted the people. He said he would end the working time directive for junior doctors inside nine years.

I did not say that.

They are outside the door.

He then spent €254,000 on a report he never acted on and about which he did not consult anybody. Deputy Ross was an esteemed member of the Upper House and caused great excitement on a number of occasions with valid and colourful contributions. His is one Bill. Senators Zappone and Crown have different Bills and Senator Quinn has other views. Deputy Martin wants to proceed with Deputy Ross's Bill and to ignore the people in the Seanad who are elected by 1% of the people here.

All I heard from Deputy Martin's spokesperson was that savings could be made in the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. I heard copycat calls as a result of the Zappone Bill. That Bill was passed unanimously on Second Stage in the Seanad. It will commit Senators to halving their salaries, which is an interesting concept.

I will not take Deputy Martin's triumphalist barrage. It is about time people committed themselves to doing what they said they would do. We committed to putting the question and we have an answer. I want to engage in meaningful and comprehensive discussions with the leaders of the parties here and the leaders of the Seanad.

Let us press ahead with it.

That will include discussions on Deputy Ross's Bill, Senator Zappone's Bill, Senator Crown's Bill and the contribution of the former Senator O'Rourke - she is from Deputy Martin's party in case he does not remember - who wants 100 Senators. As I announced on Saturday and yesterday, I will initiate meaningful, comprehensive, thorough and fulsome discussions with everybody as soon as I can, although I have a busy schedule.

I will be waiting.

Deputy Martin's party has had 14 years.

I hope that Deputy Martin or his spokespeople come up with meaningful proposals-----

We have given them to the Government.

-----and not daft ones such as those I have heard in the past.

Still chirpy.