In the programme for Government the Taoiseach committed to establishing a process to ensure the Constitution meets the challenges of the 21st century, and this included abolishing the Seanad. He also committed to establishing a Constitutional Convention to consider comprehensive constitutional reform. Sinn Féin put it to him that the convention should be asked to re-imagine Ireland and to bring forward a new Constitution, and he refused to do that. I also asked the Taoiseach on a number of occasions to put the future of the Seanad and its reform on the clár of the Constitutional Convention, and he refused to do that.

In light of the result of the referendum at the weekend - I think the Taoiseach made a hames of that referendum; he took it on as a personal political initiative but then refused to show leadership, refused to debate the issues and did not motivate or mobilise citizens - it is clear that no one can view the referendum result as a vote to retain the Seanad in its current form. Will the Taoiseach now move with speed to extend the remit of the Constitutional Convention in order that it can discuss and make recommendations on the future of Seanad Éireann? He has said on at least four occasions in the House, including as late as today, that the essence of democracy is that one asks the people. The convention is a grouping of citizen delegates and the Taoiseach should ask them about this. I have attended a number of the meetings of the Constitutional Convention and I may be one of the few party leaders to have done so. People are very well motivated and are involved in honest and thorough discussions. Here is an issue that can be put on the clár of the convention and it can come forward with recommendations on the future of Seanad Éireann.

I have already answered this question. The Constitutional Convention is an interaction between citizens, chosen properly, and some public representatives to make recommendations to Government about whether a referendum should be held. The people were consulted in this case and they have given an answer, and the answer is to retain the Seanad. I have already said to Deputy Martin that, as far as I am concerned, we accept that answer and that verdict to engage with the leaders in this House and in the Seanad to see within its constitutional remit what is the most effective way of making it a better contributor organisation to our democracy.

That will occur as part of the overall process of change relating to politics in general and also in the context of the more effective running of this House, which clearly still retains its constitutional requirement in respect of accountability. I hope to engage with Deputy Martin and others, both here and in the Seanad, as quickly as possible in respect of engaging in a meaningful discussion on-----

Why not refer the matter to the Constitutional Convention?

As I informed the Deputy previously, the purpose of the Constitutional Convention is to consider issues and make recommendations to Government on whether referendums should be held in respect of particular issues.

Its purpose is to ensure that the Constitution meets the challenge of the 21st century.

In this instance the people were consulted because the Government made a decision on the matter. Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil all included the issue of Seanad abolition in their election manifestos. The Deputy's party did not advocate abolition originally but it eventually came around to that point of view.

My party did advocate abolition.

Fair enough. We were all agreed on the matter. The decision has been made. The people were fully consulted and were given the opportunity to vote. As far as I am concerned, I will engage with the various leaders in this House and in the Seanad in order to define - in a meaningful way - what is the best process in the context of moving forward and making the Upper House a more effective contributor to our democracy.