Seanad debates

Thursday, 5 May 2005

British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second and Subsequent Stages.

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Joe McHughJoe McHugh (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House. Fine Gael will support this Bill because it is technical in nature. I thank civil servants for bringing it to our attention yesterday and briefing us in anticipation of today's debate. The real issue here is rushed legislation. I do not have the experience to decide whether rushed or unrushed legislation is better but history shows that rushed legislation is bad. Due to the Minister's back being against the wall and the possibility of court cases there was a need to rush this matter. However, it is important that this House does not set a precedent for rushed legislation. We have learned a hard lesson from the Health (Amendment)(No. 2) Bill 2004, which will cost the State €2 billion. It is obvious that rushing that piece of legislation was not in the best interest of the State.

The public, upon being asked, does not know what Senators do or that the Seanad exists. The public perception of our role is not positive. It might be time that the Seanad, as a reflective Chamber, began to sell its wares. I was involved with the Minister on the recent Irish language Bill, on which we deliberated for a long time. The time spent by the Minister on that Bill was appreciated. He accepted some amendments and rejected others and we at least had an opportunity to debate. It is important that this House is used as a reflective forum for discussion.

A precedent should not be set for rushed legislation. Passing legislation overnight is not fair to our electorate, the Civil Service and others who want to have an input. It undermines the entire democratic process. The Seanad should not be a rubber stamping facility. Many people have opinions which carry weight.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.