Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Jul 2013

Vol. 225 No. 7

Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Fifth Stage

Tairgeadh an cheist: "Go rithfear an Bille anois."
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

This is a very sad day for Seanad Éireann. Like my colleague, I also look forward to the restoration of good relations. They do not exist at the moment. The Minister of State is rather naive. I would like to put something rather important on the record of the House today for the Minister of State's attention.

Can we have silence in the Chamber please?

I have today discovered from an unimpeachable source, who is centrally involved in all these discussions about Seanad reform and all the rest of it with the Taoiseach and the Fine Gael Party, that the Taoiseach and the Fine Gael Party established a sub-committee to look at the Seanad and it unanimously endorsed reform. There was then a focus group report, a public relations exercise, that said to the Government that a populist stunt that would bear votes for it would be to talk for the abolition of the Seanad. That is what actually happened.

I found that out today, and the source is unimpeachable and was directly personally involved. That is the truth. It is for that reason I want this Bill to be rejected.

University graduates were singled out by the Minister. It is a wonder to me that the Government did not have the guts to go the whole hog and use the word "Protestant" as quite a number of the correspondents who wrote in the media did. They derided what they called the Protestant ascendancy antics and so on. There is a little veil of sectarianism underneath this and Senator Barrett is right that it will not wash in the North.

Turning to the Constitutional Convention, I tried to get that involved in this discussion. It was ruthlessly hammered out by the Government. The Minister should know I was here during that filibuster, and it had nothing whatever to do with the Constitutional Convention.

Can we have silence in the Chamber please?

He should withdraw that because that was a filibuster on the Order of Business and the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, waltzed off in a snit at the end of it. That is why we did not have the debate on it. It had nothing to do with the Constitutional Convention.

Come on. That is rubbish.

The Government picks and chooses. I think 96% voted in favour of more direct public access to the nomination procedures of the Seanad, and it threw it out. It took things at about 52%, so it is very à la carte with regard to that.

We then had the business of second guessing the people. I have to laugh. Has the Minister of State ever heard of the Lisbon referendum?

He was not behind the door second guessing the people then when they had already passed a referendum so let us not have any more of this hypocrisy.

There were 78 amendments, of which one was allowed. I am glad it was an amendment tabled by my good colleague, Senator Barrett, whose speech was one of the most outstanding of this Seanad and was superlative. Although I have been in this House for 26 years, I have never known anything remotely approaching the rejection of 77 out of 78 amendments. Moreover, the grounds were completely specious and that, a Chathaoirligh, is deeply worrying. Some of the Cathaoirleach's decisions are indefensible.

That is an attack on the Cathaoirleach.

Senator, you are questioning the Cathaoirleach's decision on that.

I will let off the Minister of State because I often make intemperate remarks. The Minister of State did state he would exact vengeance by not bringing in any more amendments from Senator Barrett.

It was a joke.

That was an off-the-cuff remark, and God knows I am known for them. Consequently, it would not be right to punish him for that. It was fair enough and was part of the debate. I know the Minister of State to be a generous man and he did not mean it. Moreover, he would be very unwise to, because he might remember the little goody I delivered to him at lunch in recent days, which will be good for the Government and the country.

I remind the Senator that we are on Fifth Stage of the Bill.

We are not at lunch.

Yes, I know that.

Finally, I note that after this Bill, Members will be asked to pass this piece of rubbish, namely, the motion that is No. 2 on the Order Paper. This is another clear example of the Government usurping the right of the Referendum Commission, because this purports to write for that commission part of the information that will be distributed. This is as grossly wrong as the manner in which, last Friday, the Government in a unique act first suspended the Standing Orders of this House and then bypassed the Committee of Selection. I have never known anything like that previously. Let the people of Ireland beware: if this is what happens when there are two Houses, then God help Ireland if the Government manages to get rid of this House. I rely, as I always have done, on the good sense of the people of Ireland. I believe they will perceive that they have an open goal. The Government, very cleverly and strategically, may have placed the referendum before the budget, because this will be one hell of a budget. This will be a savage budget and nothing the Government proposes would be passed thereafter.

Senator, we are on Fifth Stage of this Bill.

Consequently, the Government's sleight of hand, dishonesty, manipulation, Machiavellian conniving and use of corruption - in every sense of the word - will backfire on it. The people will see through the poke but will give one almighty poke to the pig that is contained within it.

I will make a brief comment. When people come into this Chamber, they should speak from the heart rather than being told what to say. Most Members on the other side, were they really to open up their inner thoughts on what is happening here today, would be voting otherwise than they are

I will conclude with an old saying recounted to me by my grandfather, because I have heard people opposite speaking on both sides of the House, namely, "May he never be fat, a man who wears two faces under one hat." Most of the Members opposite are doing that today.

As I stated on Second Stage and again on Report Stage, what is happening and has just happened here in respect of the vote to pass this Bill is nothing short of shameful. I directly ask the Minister of State: where was the Taoiseach? On Second Stage, the Taoiseach stated directly to Members and gave a commitment that he would come to the House and answer questions that I and my colleagues put to him. He was not even man enough to come into this Chamber to answer those questions. I find that to be absolutely deplorable. He would not come in to answer questions.

He was not in the mood.

Bhí ceist á fhreagairt aige as Gaeilge.

On Fifth Stage, Senator.

Yes; I am on Fifth Stage, effectively. I will ask the Minister of State another question that will not be answered today: what is the date for the referendum? I have listened to some Members on the Government side - I include some of the Taoiseach's nominees in this regard - who have spoken about giving the people a right to have a say on this issue. Nowhere within this Bill has the Government actually stated when the referendum will take place. The Bill does not even mention a referendum. This Bill is about the abolition of the Seanad and I repeat that it is the worst act of political vandalism in the history of the State. The Government is dismantling-----

Apart from Fianna Fáil destroying the country.

I have listened to Senator Gilroy and at this stage-----

Senator O'Brien without interruption.

This debate has further proved to me that the Labour Party in particular is finished, because the Labour Party stands for nothing.

Please, Senator, on Fifth Stage.

No; this is important.

Senator, on Fifth Stage. We are on the Bill, not on political parties.

The Labour Party is irrelevant-----

Senator, we are on Fifth Stage now.

Bring forward a referendum to abolish the Labour Party.

-----and stands for nothing. I will tell the Cathaoirleach the reason it stands for nothing. Every single Member on the other side-----

Senator, on Fifth Stage.

I am on the Bill. Every single Member on the other side has, privately and in discussions, stated to everyone present that he or she does not agree with the abolition of the Seanad. That is what they have said.

The people will vote on that.

(Interruptions).

I ask them all to read the Short Title of the Bill and look precisely at what they are voting for. If anything has been proven, it is that more and not less oversight is what is required. There are no real proposals from the Government as to what will replace the Seanad, should the people vote to abolish it. Finally, like my colleague Senator Norris, I put much faith in the Irish people in this regard and know that whenever this matter is put to a referendum, the Irish people will make their decision on this issue. In the interim, however, I do not believe any Government Senator should ever come to the Seanad to propose any amendment, Bill, Private Members' motion or anything else because the Government Members have voted no confidence in the Chamber they purport to respect.

(Interruptions).

Senator O'Brien without interruption.

Show me the word "referendum" in the Bill.

None of the Members opposite deserve any respect from this side after voting-----

Senator, on Fifth Stage of the Bill, please.

-----for this. That is a fact.

Senator O'Brien, on Fifth Stage of the Bill.

Many of the Members opposite have marched up the mountain on many issues, including social welfare Bills and budgets.

Senator, on Fifth Stage.

They have walked up the hill and then walked all the way back down, as they did last Friday-----

This has nothing to do with the Bill.

Senator, on Fifth Stage of the Bill.

-----when this House set aside Standing Orders, set aside a Committee of Selection and rammed through changes here.

The Labour Party Members-----

Senator O'Brien, on Fifth Stage of the Bill.

I am on Fifth Stage.

This has nothing to do with the Bill at all.

This is about how the Seanad operates and about the Labour Party Members, who shed faux tears last Friday, stating they could not back this and could not replace Senator Heffernan. However, as Senator Bacik stated, they sorted it out among themselves and came into the Chamber like the sheep they are and voted for it.

This has nothing to do with the Bill at all.

This is what they have done here again today, and consequently, should this be the last Seanad, in the two and a half years remaining to the House, none of them should ever bring forward an item, because they have lost all credibility.

This is a defining moment in our history. Members are being presented with a referendum to decide whether this House should be abolished or retained. I believe this argument will be won by reasoned debate, but only by reasoned debate that will demonstrate the benefits of this House to Irish politics and in the service of Irish people. There will be many cat fights originating from both sides of this House, but Members must forget about themselves. The majority of Members present may never be returned in the future, with the exception of those who may have been promised something that is not democratically based. Consequently, Members should consider how they can serve the Irish people, as that is their sole purpose here. My vision for a reformed Seanad is one in which all Irish citizens will have a vote, where there will be thinking politics-----

Senator, we are on Fifth Stage, not on reform.

On the Bill, I refer to a vision in which there will be thinking politics in this House unimpeded by a Whip system or party politics. While I completely support that in the Dáil, the Seanad should be a thinking House that will inform policy that can then be taken on board by the Dáil. I will not impede democracy and today I will vote for the passage of this Bill. I do not wish to impede democracy but to improve it. There has been sufficient political interference for populist reasons, and that damages politics.

One of the reasons this was a poorly motivated proposal in the first instance is that it did not emerge for the right reasons. It emerged for populist reasons only and that is never a good motivation.

I believe the Irish people are not looking for small politics anymore. They are looking for thinking politics. Let us give it to them. Let us forget about ourselves here. We may be the fall guys but at least we will have made our mark.

I took umbrage with the Fianna Fáil Party stating the Labour Party was finished.

I stated the Labour Party was irrelevant.

The polls are usually right.

On Fifth Stage of the Bill, please.

Someone recently stated that when they have a roll call in the Fianna Fáil Party, they do not know whether to say "Present" or "Not guilty".

On Fifth Stage of the Bill, please.

I note Senator O'Brien laughing.

They have expertise here.

That is an outrageous comment.

The day politicians are afraid of the public is the day one leaves democracy. Nobody here should fear the Irish public's view. Ultimately, they are the arbiters of this referendum. If the public feel the way we do and choose not to abolish the Seanad, the Seanad will come back as a much stronger organisation. Maybe the Taoiseach has done the Seanad a favour by putting it out there and saying, "Let the public, after 75 years, decide whether the Seanad is worth retaining." The wisdom of the public is what we must go on. If we had the law on our side and could vote in favour or against, I am sure 100% of the Senators would vote to retain the Seanad, but it is not for us to tell the public that it should not get a chance to endorse this fine House and the worthwhile contributions from all sides in this and other debates. We must let the public decide. We can kick our heels up and say the House does not deserve to be abolished. That is not a matter for us, as Senators, in here. It is a matter for the public outside. I ask the public, in October or November or whenever the vote takes place, to retain the Seanad.

The Fianna Fáil Senator stated that we are voting to get rid of the Seanad. We have a private vote and I will be voting in the polling booth to retain the Seanad, as I am sure many other Members will.

I and many Members here are on the record as saying so. Those who propose to abolish it are doing so for their own reasons. That will be decided by the public, not by 60 Senators in here. We all have a role to play between now and referendum day.

One should not be afraid of the public. One should let the electorate decide. If the electorate gives its endorsement to the Seanad, when we come back in October or November we can say we are a part of democracy that the people maintained, but if they vote to abolish the Seanad, that is also democracy.

Fairly uniquely in this House, I ran, in the one election campaign in which I ever ran as an adult - although some would argue that one too - with a brochure that stated I would campaign for the abolition or reform of that Chamber for which I was running because its electoral system was an affront to democracy, and I still believe that. I believe this is a House that needs to be reformed. If there were no option but to keep it as it is or abolish it, I probably would reluctantly vote for abolition, but I believe there is the prospect of reform. Putting my money where my mouth is, I, together with Senators Quinn and Zappone, authored Bills which are aimed specifically at reform. I am grateful to the leadership of the House for allowing our Bill to proceed to the Stage it has so that we can with a clean conscience campaign for a "No" vote in the referendum, stating that there is an option. If we win, if the Seanad is retained, there is significant moral pressure on the Government to consider the Bills to reform the Seanad.

It is a rather breathtaking piece of historical revisionism to blame the Seanad for failing to reform itself over all the years. Certainly, I was not in the Seanad. The Taoiseach, who has been the primary auteur of the move to end the existence of the Seanad, has had a long and distinguished career in Leinster House and I have not noticed many initiatives from him over the years to reform the Seanad.

In summary, my opposition stems around a few facts. First, as someone who has screamed and roared for increased funding to be made available for the health service and other parts of the social system, I can say that the figures that were trumpeted as the potential savings associated with abolition have been shown to be wrong and have, in fact, been partly retracted by others in the Government. I would go further. I believe the saving will be zero. I believe there will be no moneys redeployed to the health service. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, the man who is responsible for saving money in the public service, in this Chamber in 2011, again on RTE and more recently in a private conversation with me, which he gave me gracious permission to quote in public, has told us that the moneys saved from the Seanad would be redeployed to Dáil committees.

There is undoubtedly a democratic deficit in the Dáil and Seanad. The democratic deficit, collectively, in Leinster House, will be larger - it will be further in the red - if the currently quasi-democratic Seanad is replaced by a wholly undemocratic politburo of experts appointed by the Taoiseach. With respect to the Taoiseach, he has shown himself in recent weeks to be not immune to the idea of using appointments which should be technical - the very kind of appointment he stated he would make for the oversight of our legislation - in removing Deputies Mathews and Denis Naughten from committees in which they had technical expertise, for reasons which had nothing whatsoever to do with their competence in the committees-----

-----because he wanted to make a political point and, with respect, to introduce a little cronyism. Instead, while there is a need to end Tammany Hall, there is no need to replace it with the Politburo.

There also has been a substantial rewriting of history. I will not use the analogy I used previously, but the Taoiseach, in his inaugural speech for a Seanad abolition campaign, stated that the Seanad was somehow - I am still trying to work this one out - at fault for inflating the Celtic tiger. That is a little like God blaming Met Éireann for the great flood. The reality is that the Taoiseach, who was then leader of the Opposition and was sitting in Leinster House, did exactly nothing to deflate the bubble. I am not saying he was primarily responsible. We all bought into the madness and exuberance of crowds at the time. However, he did not have any particular unique insight or wisdom. One certainly cannot quote any particular argument-----

On Fifth Stage of the Bill.

Senator Crown is speaking on it.

I believe I am speaking about the Bill.

We have had five Second Stages.

I have stated previously that I believe the current Taoiseach is the best we have had over a number of terms, although the competition for that accolade has not always been significant. I do not believe that the Taoiseach was in any corrupt sense involved with the former Anglo Irish Bank at all - I note allegations have been made that somehow he has questions to answer - but he was part of the continuity of dysfunctional relationships that Fianna Fáil, and now Fine Gael, had with a highly dysfunctional banking system.

Senator Crown is moving away from the Bill.

The relationship between the bankers and the politicians was not one of highly amorous serial monogamy in which they dumped Fianna Fáil and then embraced Fine Gael.

Senator Crown is moving away from the Bill.

We now know that it is best described as serial polygamy, which is exactly what was happening in the relationship between these groups.

There is no valid argument on its own merits for abolishing the Seanad. There is a valid argument for reforming it. The strongest argument is that if we reformed it along the lines of my Bill or my colleagues' Bill, there would be one House in the Oireachtas which was focused on national issues and was thoroughly democratic in its composition and which was not focused on parochialism. That is why I will be opposing this Bill in its Final Stage.

For me, this question is flawed. There is no fear whatsoever of asking the people a question - indeed, we should do so more often on a wide variety of issues - but it is dishonest not to ask the people whether they would prefer reform or abolition, because one must ask what comes next. As Senator Norris stated, No. 2, which is to be taken without debate, simply states that the Oireachtas will constitute the President and the Dáil. As for who controls the Dáil, as we have seen, with an iron hand, the Taoiseach does, and nobody else. I refer to Deputy Mathews and Senators Heffernan and Healy Eames, whose contributions are based purely on their loyalty, as it were, to the Crown.

That is fundamentally wrong. It is relevant to ask when the McKenna judgment will become relevant. Clearly, considerable resources of the State have been used in the promotion of abolishing what the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, in directing the Government's campaign, called the rigged situation that guaranteed that the Government succeeded. The records in Highland Radio can give the House the exact wording. They are the words of a man who could not tell us how many times his Government had amended legislation in the House in the past 12 months. When I made it easier for him by asking him how many times he had amended his own legislation in the House, I was met with silence.

There are probably thousands of very good reasons to abolish the Seanad, the Dáil, the Judiciary, the Garda Síochána and countless other organisations, as there are very good ones to reform or constantly improve them. It is not valid to blame the excesses of the Celtic tiger on the Seanad, as Senator John Crown said.

I used a word often associated with people who juggle in circus rings and I do not intend to use it today. Is it any wonder that I used such a term when somebody of such intelligence and with 37 years of proud public service in the Houses of the Oireachtas since 1976 could regard this House as rigged to ensure the Government would have absolute control? The Minister admitted this in directing the campaign for the Government. He implied that this House had done nothing to quell the excesses of the Celtic tiger era. We could debate that issue for years and talk about the abolition of stamp duty, etc.

I am aware that the debate on the Bill is to be guillotined at 4 p.m. and I am anxious that some of my democratic colleagues be allowed to say a few words. The question is flawed. I have no difficulty with or fear of putting the question to the people. I would welcome it, but the opportunity to reform the House should also be put to them. It is for that reason I supported the motion on recommital. Sadly, the proposal will go through en masse, which, for the most part, is to be regretted by the Members of this House. Let us see what the future brings.

I was not going to speak at all, but I could not sit here and listen to motives being attributed to me on how or why I am going to vote. I vote because I want to vote. I am voting for the Bill because ten reports have been produced on Seanad reform during the years-----

The Senator’s party blocked reform every single time.

I am proud to say I am voting for it. It has been stated the Title of the Bill is the "Abolition of the Seanad Bill". That is wrong. The Title is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2013. It is only the people who can change the Constitution. I am giving the vote to the people of Ireland.

The Senator is ramming it down their throats.

That is what the Taoiseach said.

The real Title of the Bill-----

-----is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013.

(Interruptions).

Do not ask the poor man to sit down; that is rude.

Excuse me. I have the floor and every right to ask a man to sit down. I have the floor and ask for the protection of the Chair.

Senator Cáit Keane to continue, without interruption, please.

The Title of the Bill is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution-----

Will the Senator complete the Title of the Bill? She should tell the truth.

Will the Senator, please, resume his seat?

What do brackets mean? What do curved brackets mean?

This has been said in the House.

They do not alter the text of the main sentence, which is about giving the choice to the people.

It is not a sentence; there is no verb in it.

It is in brackets and punctuated, that is the meaning of it. The Senator is a scholar of English and should know-----

It is not a sentence; there is no verb in it.

I support much of what has been said by Senators David Norris and John Crown, in particular, and Senator Marc MacSharry, although I have difficulty with the God Enda Kenny analogy. The Taoiseach reminds me more of the Wizard of Oz.

Smoke and mirrors.

He is a relatively small man hidden behind a smokescreen of advisers and handlers but who is making a loud noise and certainly managing to scare the people under his command.

Most of the people, I am correctly reminded. I thank the Senator for that intervention.

We are on Fifth Stage.

One thing I have learned, if I had not already learned it in recent weeks, is that we should be very grateful for the Constitution. It is the Constitution that can save us from the shallowness of our political leaders right now. I am thankful, in particular, for the McKenna judgment and the Coughlan judgment, specifically the former. When we hear people grumbling about the McKenna judgment, we can safely conclude that they do not have the best interests of democracy at heart because the judgment and the Constitution stand in the way of people such as the members of the Government and their supporters who would oversimplify issues, deprive us of our necessary democratic institutions, reduce the quality of politics and the scrutiny to which they are subjected.

Henry Kissinger famously said 90% of politicians gave the other 10% a bad name. I am not sure whether I admire Henry Kissinger or whether he is right about his ratio, but I believe a pleasant aspect of life around here is that, even when we disagree strongly with each other on policy, we continue to be personally friendly. I hope that will always be the case, but I believe that in respect of the initiative to abolish the Seanad, Government Senators, individually and collectively, deserve the sternest of criticism. They are present because they believe in our democratic institutions. Not one of them is on the record during the years as stating he or she did not believe in the quality or necessity of the Seanad. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. They were all happy to run for and be elected to it and the nominees were all happy to be nominated.

They might change their minds after hearing the Senator.

They took a proposal from the Taoiseach that we all know to have been a shallow one. It came only a wet week after he had talked up the merits of reforming the Seanad and giving it an enhanced role. The advisers, minders and people who deal in shallow populist ideas told him it would be a good idea to curry favour with the electorate by reducing the number of politicians. Interestingly, as we know, he did not seek to reform the Dáil at the same time, although he talked a lot about it. We were told there would be 20 fewer Deputies. The only reason there are now to be eight fewer is that it would require a referendum to reduce the size of the Dáil to any great degree, yet we are to have a referendum on the Seanad. The reality is that we have a Government that has no genuine interest in political reform. It has an interest only in creating the appearance of reform and being seen as the sheriff that will come in and clean up the town. In reality, however, it is not out to clean up the town at all but to buttress its own elite position.

What saddens me about the performance on the Government side is that the Members have shown a shocking lack of gumption. They have completely failed to man-up or woman-up and resist this grubby little proposal. It is quite clear that the Government ought to have reshaped or rejected this legislation. It should have carried through on what it states in private it would like to see happen, that is, the reform of the Seanad.

As it is now 4 p.m. and in keeping with an order of this day, I have to put the question.

(Interruptions).

I presumed the Leader would allow people to contribute.

That is a guillotine. That is your idea of democracy.

Cuireadh an cheist.
Question put.
Rinne an Seanad vótáil ar mhodh leictreonach.
The Seanad divided by electronic means.

Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.

Faoi Ordú 62(3), ba mhaith liom go dtógfaí an vóta ar bhealach eile seachas ar bhealach leictreonach.

Cuireadh an cheist.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 25.

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Brennan, Terry.
  • Burke, Colm.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Coghlan, Eamonn.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Comiskey, Michael.
  • Conway, Martin.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • D'Arcy, Jim.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Gilroy, John.
  • Harte, Jimmy.
  • Hayden, Aideen.
  • Healy Eames, Fidelma.
  • Henry, Imelda.
  • Higgins, Lorraine.
  • Keane, Cáit.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Landy, Denis.
  • Moloney, Marie.
  • Moran, Mary.
  • Mulcahy, Tony.
  • Mullins, Michael.
  • Naughton, Hildegarde.
  • Noone, Catherine.
  • O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
  • O'Keeffe, Susan.
  • O'Neill, Pat.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • van Turnhout, Jillian.
  • Whelan, John.

Níl

  • Barrett, Sean D.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Crown, John.
  • Cullinane, David.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Heffernan, James.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • O'Brien, Darragh.
  • O'Brien, Mary Ann.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • Power, Averil.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Reilly, Kathryn.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
  • Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson.
Question declared carried.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Top
Share