Okay. It is good to be back. It has been a very difficult number of months for every Member. During that time Senators endeavoured to do their work as best they could, although unquestionably it was under a cloud. Sometimes when the spotlight is focused on individuals it makes us all think about the job we do, how well we do it and, in some instances, how we do not do it well and where we can improve. In the last two years, to be fair to the Leader and to the leaders of all the groups in the House, significant changes have been made in how this Seanad operates, such as through the Seanad Public Consultation Committee and various other new ideas and initiatives that have been introduced. We need to do this in a considered way.

It is not just the Government which has that responsibility. I refer to the Leader's colleagues in the Dáil and the Taoiseach. I would not necessarily leave it to them to come up with ideas for reform, and not of this House alone. What the public called for and want is political reform in all of the structures - the Oireachtas, both the Dáil and the Seanad, Uachtarán na hÉireann, and in how local government operates - concerning how politics and politicians serve their constituents and the people. What the result of the vote showed is that people value their Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, and their political structures no matter how imperfect they may be from time to time. We must recognise that. When the Taoiseach brought forward the Bill on the abolition of the Seanad in this Chamber, in one of only two occasions he saw fit in almost three years to address this elected House of the Oireachtas, I accused him of performing the greatest act of constitutional vandalism. He was not allowed away with that because the public made the decision and the people are sovereign. The Taoiseach has accepted that which is good, which I welcome. For us, as parliamentarians and Senators, our job is to move on. The campaign is over. People listened to our arguments.

I commend colleagues from all parties and none for the work they did during the course of the referendum campaign, in particular those who advocated a "No" vote, forgiving those who advocated a "Yes" vote.

Not those who did nothing.

I will leave that to the Senator to discuss. During the course of the campaign there was a focus on our political structures, not just the Seanad, which is good. What is not good, and is a matter we must get into straightaway, is the budget. Let us have no doubt about the timing of this referendum. With a week to go to the budget, when we will be discussing old age pensions, social welfare, jobs, medical cards and all the other areas of government expenditure, the past three weeks have been taken up with the Seanad referendum. I asked, as did many Members across the House, that we change the way we do our budgetary process and try to have proper informed debates well in advance of a budget being produced by a Minister for Finance. What will happen next week is that the budget will be produced and announced as a fait accompli. That is not what the public want. Part of the vote rejecting abolition of the Seanad was very clearly the people saying they want us to act differently, that they want this and any future Government to do that job differently, not to treat them like fools. One never underestimates the electorate. It read into this issue.

We have to get on with our job of work, in which I will support the Leader. In a very considered way, as the Leader mentioned, there have been a number of reports and Bills, including two in this House proposed by Senators John Crown, Katherine Zappone and Feargal Quinn. Other parties and other Members have also produced documents, not only on reforming this House, which is required, but on political reform in general - of our committee system, the overuse of the parliamentary Whip and reform of the Dáil. It is ironic that this Thursday the Lower House will hear the reform package the Cabinet cobbled together two weeks ago in the middle of the Seanad campaign, adding in a couple of extra hours on a Friday and a sitting at 9 a.m. on a Thursday. Does the House know that the time being allowed for debate and discussion on Dáil reform on Thursday is 20 minutes? That is not acceptable.

I congratulate, at long last, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, on the passage of the referendum on the Court of Appeal, which is very important legislation. I want to see the Court of Appeal set up and running by October 2014, the date stated by the Minister. That is good. Let us get on with our job and improve how we do it. Let us look at our structures and work together to improve this House of Parliament.

Like the Leader and Senator Darragh O'Brien, I very much welcome the result of Saturday's referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. It shows that the people engaged very closely with the proposal put to them. They scrutinised the issues and were very keen, particularly in the immediate lead-up to the referendum, to inform themselves. Their decision speaks for itself. I also very much welcome the resounding majority in support of the proposal to establish a new court of appeal.

I commend all of those who were active in the campaign leading up the Seanad referendum. The result seems to have confounded many commentators. The Leader has referred to the reason we have a two-day sitting week on this occasion. It appears that some people might have written off the Seanad in advance in terms of their agreement or otherwise to come into the House. We will see a return to normal business in future weeks, as the Leader indicated.

The referendum result gives us a clear imperative for reform - not just Seanad reform but also political reform. I very much welcome the Leader's announcement that we will have statements on political reform for two hours this evening. We should work together in a collegiate fashion in this House in considering reform measures. There are two key ways to do this. The first is to refer potential constitutional changes to the Constitutional Convention which is the forum in which constitutional changes and political reforms broadly are being debated. Second, this and the other House can progress legislative reforms in parallel. We should be working in a collegiate manner to take what is best from the two reform proposals already passed on Second Stage and the cross-party report on Seanad reform adopted two Seanaid ago which included several very sensible suggestions, some of which have been incorporated into the Bills by Senators Katherine Zappone and John Crown. We must examine what is best in these legislative proposals for reform and seek to progress them in a timely way. That is the clear imperative arising from the very welcome outcome of the referendum.

I welcome the clear indications in recent days that next week's budget adjustment will be less than €3.1 billion. It means that there will be some relief for hard-working families and citizens in that the adjustment will be less than was previously suggested.

I also welcome the Government's announcement on Priory Hall. Everybody is delighted to see a settlement in sight for the residents of that development.

I express deep gratitude to the people who exercised their civic duty to vote in the recent referendums, regardless of how they voted. To vote is a patriotic act at the core of an expression of Irish freedom. It is also an act whereby one enters the territory of collective responsibility for how the country is governed. It demonstrates a very welcome resistance to the culture of individualism.

Having strongly campaigned on the need for Seanad reform, I am, of course, delighted with the outcome of the Seanad referendum. I am grateful for the astute leadership demonstrated by the Leader of the House and the extraordinary commitment and work of the founding members of Democracy Matters and all those who volunteered their precious time or financially contributed to that cross-party civic society group. I know colleagues will understand why I pay special tribute to Senators Feargal Quinn, David Norris, John Crown and Sean D. Barrett for their tireless and inspiring commitment to Seanad reform.

My question for the Leader centres on the Taoiseach. I acknowledge the graceful way in which the Taoiseach accepted the people's verdict. I welcome wholeheartedly his recent statements of intent to lead the Government in deciding how to make this House more effective. Seanad Éireann in its current format is crying out for reform and the outcome of the referendum provides a strong mandate from the people for the Taoiseach to begin that process. As others have mentioned, we have two legislative proposals, namely, the Bill put forward by Senator Feargal Quinn and me and the one introduced by Senator John Crown, both of which passed Second Stage in the House and offer a substantive starting point for credible means to effect a radical transformation of how Seanad Éireann is elected and how it functions.

I am strongly of the view that had the panels been used properly and effectively in the past as constituencies of public interest, this House would have commanded greater respect and been more effective in its work. I am, therefore, in favour of their retention. I am also strongly of the view that the Taoiseach's lead on Seanad reform should, as colleagues have urged, be conducted in parallel with substantive Dáil reform. If that is the case, we will not require constitutional change for the present.

Rather, we should seek to get the best legislative change for the Seanad and procedural changes for both Houses so that transparency and accountability become hallmarks of Irish democracy. Will the Leader ask the Taoiseach to come to the Seanad Chamber within a month to outline to us his plans for Seanad and Dáil reform? I assure the Taoiseach that my colleagues and I want to work in a collaborative manner with the Government and all parliamentary Members to ensure the necessary reform in Seanad Éireann is achieved as soon as possible. There is urgent - the people are waiting and watching and they want change now.

This has been a remarkable week. It was a remarkable result and it is one I welcome. It would have been a tragedy had the referendum been passed on the tissue of lies, half-truths and cynicism presented by the Government. It would have undermined respect for democracy. It teaches us a lesson. When it became clear that it was completely wrong that the alleged figure of €20 million would be saved, I wrote to the Standards in Public Office Commission and the Referendum Commission. Both replied that it was outside their scope and that there was nothing they could do. It should be within someone's scope to stop deliberate lying during elections. This illustrates that we need, for that reason and because of the obscure way in which ballots were presented to the people, a permanent electoral commission to examine these matters and oversee such points. An examination of this referendum should be used as a template.

With regard to cynicism, I refer to the immediate volte-face by the Government, which had tried to bully the people by saying there was no alternative, that it was never going to be reformed and that it would not reform. Within hours of the result, the Government was talking about results. I am glad of that but it shows cynicism. The Government then attempted to dump all the blame on the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton. People should not put party before the country. The saddest thing is that the expensive exercise, costing €15 million, was attempted at a time when we are still in a moment of real economic crisis. To divide the country and set one House against the other was a grave mistake.

In addition to those of us who were visible, there were currents beneath the surface and some brilliant interventions. We were a small number of groups and individuals who took on a Government machine that was so powerful but that underestimated the intelligence of the Irish people. This is not a moment to gloat or to say "Well done" to everyone. We have been given a vote of confidence by those who voted in the referendum. Our real obligation is to them and to show them the valuable work we can do and have done in the past. I never once trashed Seanad Éireann and never said it was dysfunctional although, through the electoral process, it is. We have known for 30 years how that can be fixed. I know the work that is being done. Recently, there was something on RTE about fluoride. The debate started in this House, which never gets acknowledged. New photographic equipment is being introduced to stem the tide of social welfare fraud and to ensure the money goes to people who need it. One person made €450,000 by cheating. The Government got the idea of photographic identification from this House. Let us also make sure we communicate with the public what we have done and what we are doing. We must sell ourselves.

This was a dangerous referendum because it also sought to clip the powers of the Presidency, which was almost entirely overlooked. It was a power grab. The legislation, which is extremely valuable, contained elements I do not agree with and I look forward to saying that this evening.

I am not going to work for nothing; they must be joking. The talk about elitism and cutting the numbers by half was just a titbit to throw out to the public and it caught on very well. Last night, somebody on "Tonight with Vincent Browne" said, "I would agree if they worked for nothing." I say, "No bloody hope." Elitism would mean a House peopled by nobody but aristocrats and millionaires.

Well said.

I want people in the House like the Leader, Senators John Whelan and John Gilroy who have known what it is like to be unemployed. Should people really be expected to come off the unemployment register and to work for nothing? If so, people are living in cloud cuckoo land and I do not give a damn if it is unpopular, I am saying it and I will not stop saying it. I sometimes work a 12 to 14 hour day, but I will not do it for nothing.

I am glad that people are so calm today and that we will allow for this period of reflection. I welcome what has been said by the Leader and Senator Darragh O'Brien in regard to the question that has been put. In fairness to the Taoiseach, he made a commitment that he would put this question to the people. It has been put, they have answered, he has graciously accepted the result. Therefore, it is time to move on to the next business.

The budget and the finance and social welfare Bills are coming, as well as many other important pieces of legislation which it is the duty of this House to examine thoroughly. We are bound by the people's Constitution and Members should take care of what it says therein. I draw the attention of the House to Article 15. Let us go on in that spirit. The Leader has said it all from our point of view. The House has done a lot of good work through the public consultation process and through other initiatives of this Seanad. We were somewhat stymied on European matters and European scrutiny which is of concern to people on both sides of this Chamber. Perhaps we can return to that business and something can happen, now that we will be discussing Oireachtas reform because the other House is the primary Chamber and that is perhaps where it needs to start.

I also welcome the decision on the Court of Appeal. That is an important and a significant reform. It is hoped, as has been said on the opposite side, the court can be in operation speedily. We are all aware of the delays in the process.

The Leader has provided time this evening for a discussion on Oireachtas reform. I have a different view to some Members. I think it will require a separate group other than the existing Constitutional Convention to examine Oireachtas reform. We all have a vested interest so perhaps a fresh look from well qualified outsiders would be needed and their findings could be material for reflection by both Houses and the Cabinet.

Like everyone in this House, I agree that a period of calm and reflection is required rather than any triumphalism as a result of last week's vote. The vote proved yet again that where there is a lack of consensus on change to the Constitution, it is very difficult to effect that change. There was most definitely a lack of consensus at this time. The people gave their choice and they made a decision based on a reflection rather than as a knee-jerk reaction. However, I share the views from all sides of the House that the emphasis should not be on this House alone.

I agree with Senator Darragh O'Brien that most people want political reform in the widest possible context. There is no doubt but that the Dáil is crying out for some sort of effective reform, whatever about this House. If any reform is to take place in this House, it has to take account of the other House. We can never be seen, irrespective of what reform policy is adopted, to be in any way competing with the other House. This House has been and should remain complementary to the other House. It is a case of how to build that architecture which is the challenge facing the political establishment. There is no doubt that the Lower House is the principal House and that is where the reform should come from. It should include, for instance, a revision of the Whip system and a study of other parliamentary systems in use in Europe.

The Danish system was used very much as a stick with which to beat us here in the Seanad and it could perhaps be usefully considered as a template to enlarge and extend democracy within this country. In that example the government is accountable to parliament rather than the other way around, as is the case here, where the Parliament essentially does the will of the Executive. Whatever is done and whatever discussions are taken, the process must not be followed in isolation; that is the clear message from the events of last weekend. It is about political reform in the round.

I also echo the sentiments of other speakers and welcome the result at the weekend. There should be calm reflection, with all Senators thinking about where we go from here. Personally, I would have felt a little calmer and more inclined to reflect if there was not such a light schedule of business this week. I have made the point in the past that there has been a deliberate dumbing down of the business this House has conduced in the past few weeks in order to show us as inefficient and ineffective. I hope there will be no petulance in Government circles because of the outcome of the referendum. This House should have a full schedule of business every week from now on.

I welcome the report that there is, at last, light at the end of the tunnel for the residents of Priory Hall. It is important to state it has taken far too long for this outcome to be achieved - it is practically two years to the day when Priory Hall was evacuated. I ask that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, be invited to the Chamber to indicate how similar scenarios which I believe will arise will be dealt with. A protocol must be put in place in that regard.

The most pressing item I would like to bring to the Leader's attention is the report on the 4,600 asylum seekers living in direct provision accommodation, of which almost 1,000 are children. Inspection reports published today by The Irish Times indicate that these families are living in the most appalling conditions. The issue has been raised in this House on a number of occasions by many Members, but these official inspection reports bring into the open what we all know to be true, that some of these shelters are no more than protection against the rain, as opposed to homes in which people can live. It is outrageous to think the State is paying the guts of €70 million per year for what is a national disgrace that is almost comparable to the Magdalen laundries. As a consequence, I ask that the Minister for Justice and Equality be invited to come to this Chamber as a matter of urgency to set out how he can justify the experiences of asylum seekers.