The debate on the future of the House is coming along quite nicely. Senator Sean D. Barrett has stolen a great deal of my thunder, but I commend the group which is essentially a disinterested one and which has the future of democracy at heart. I also commend Senators Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn for the motion that received the full support of the House and sparked off the debate.

It has been said that there is a democratic deficit in the Seanad. We all regret the fact that the election of Members of the Seanad does not involve universal suffrage. However, it is not the fault of the Seanad that this has continued and it is worth reflecting on this. To be elected from the university panel one must secure a quota that is in the thousands. Being elected by county councillors, as I was, is very difficult and testing. One is dealing with an electorate that is highly sophisticated and comprises elected men and women, each of whom represents an average of 2,000 citizens. If there is a democratic deficit in that regard, how I wept when I saw what the Taoiseach was proposing, which Senator Sean D. Barrett has so eloquently described. Instead of a Seanad, there will be a group of people appointed by the Taoiseach of the day. In the past most Taoisigh were quite happy to appoint 11 Senators. It appears that the Taoiseach wishes to appoint his own Seanad, lock, stock and barrel, which would review and oversee the work of the Dáil.

Is the Senator seeking a debate on the issue?

I am; I also seek a debate on the cost of the proposal. There has been talk about the cost of running the Seanad, but this agency would, apparently, have a full secretariat and backup. Where would be the saving in this proposal? It beggars belief that the Taoiseach thinks he can appoint his own bureau to replace what is, with all its faults, a democratically elected institution.

I call for a debate on that. The Taoiseach needs to reflect very seriously on what he is doing to democracy in this country.