I have spoken numerous times recently on the use and abuse of the referendum process, particularly by this Government. It is now the weapon of choice for all kinds of populist proposals, or for providing cover or distraction from other controversies or Government failures. Apart from the recent abortion and blasphemy referendums, there is talk of the constitutional protection of women who choose to remain in the home being challenged by the Government in a referendum. I am sure the proposed referendum on the unified patent court will set the minds of the electorate ablaze with enthusiasm. A referendum on directly elected mayors is on the agenda.

That is democracy.

It has been suggested that there could be a third referendum on divorce. There is a proposal for Irish people living abroad to be allowed to vote in presidential elections. The idea that we should have a referendum on public ownership of water is a nonsense populist proposal that has been acceded to by the Government to dampen the flames of the Irish Water fiasco.

The Senator is a bit of a populist himself.

The list seems to go on and on.

The Senator has forgotten the referendum on marriage equality.

The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy D'Arcy, seems to have added another referendum to this list. Last week, he made a direct threat against the Judiciary when he warned that the Government might hold a referendum to curb its discretion in respect of personal injury awards and, specifically, whiplash awards. This raises a number of issues. As we know well in this House, having been subjected to the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017, about which others spoke earlier, the Judiciary is often fair game for populist attacks. It is disappointing that the Minister of State, who is a former Member of this House, is jumping on the bandwagon. I am concerned that he may have done so at the behest of the Government and not as a solo run. How would such a referendum be crafted or worded? It seems to me that it would be impossible to achieve his aim without making a more general encroachment on the independence of the Judiciary, which would be a seriously wrong step to take. It seems to me that the aim of restricting the level of awards could be relatively easily dealt with in legislation. We need to be careful when we discuss whiplash because we risk penalising or stigmatising those who have genuine personal injury claims. The use of phrases like Ireland being the "whiplash capital of Europe" suggests that all whiplash claims are false or fraudulent but this is clearly not the case.

Many of them are.

We cannot afford to make any changes in this area which might affect those who suffer as a result of genuine injuries. The best way to deal with false insurance claims is to encourage and assist insurance companies to probe and defend rigorously those claims they believe to be suspect.

Hear, hear.

A recent High Court case pertaining to a serious attempt at insurance fraud, which involved a number of individuals, was successfully defended by the insurance company through rigorous investigation and strong legal defence. That is the way to go. The courts system can work. We need to find ways of assisting it, rather than resorting to draconian and populist measures, which is a mania at this time.