John Crown (Independent)

I propose that the Order of Business be amended in order that the Taoiseach might come before the House to discuss the future of democracy in this country. I do not wish to be overly dramatic but the Taoiseach is a member of a party which prides itself on having — with some small exceptions during its history — a great adherence to democracy. It was one of the first parties to hand over power peacefully to those it had militarily defeated in a bitter civil war. That is a fact of which the entire nation should be proud. However, I am somewhat concerned regarding some of the commitments to democracy that are being exhibited by the Government. I refer to two issues in particular. The first of these relates to the decisions made at the recent EU summit and the widely-rumoured impending transfer of a chunk of national power and sovereignty to entities outside the State. This may or may not be the right thing to do. I am not in a position to make a judgment on the matter but I will offer an opinion if I am given the opportunity to do so when it counts. It is essential that the Taoiseach be given the message in person in the House that this is not a matter in respect of which the opinion of the single lawyer who advises the Government should be paramount. This issue will have to be put to the people in a referendum. I am of the view that the matter is non-discretionary in nature. If we are going to effect a major transfer of power, then what I am suggesting must be done.

The second issue relates to the cornerstone of democracy in any country, namely, its national parliament. As Members are aware, I have strong opinions regarding the need to reform both Houses of our national Parliament. I also have strong opinions on where the responsibility lies in respect of the decisions that were made which gave rise to the extraordinarily difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves. Those decisions were not made in Seanad Éireann, although I believe those in the House at the time probably had a partial passive culpability because they were asleep at the tiller. The Taoiseach has indicated that the constitutional convention will be established next year and has specifically excluded any discussion by it of the future of one half of our national Parliament. It was reported in the newspapers in recent days that a decision has been made to hold an early referendum — perhaps a solitary referendum — on the future of the Seanad. It was also reported that the arrangements for existing Senators may be somewhat different to those which were widely rumoured at the time when the discussions concerning a referendum originally took place.

I find myself occupying a peculiar position in respect of this matter. If the Seanad ends abruptly at some point next year and I am no longer a Senator, I will be better off financially. That is a fact. Being a Member of this House costs me money. I have another job to go to. I stated in all of my election literature that I will never run for the Seanad again under the electoral rules which currently obtain in respect of it because I believe these to be an affront to democracy. I am of the view that I have some authority in being an advocate in respect of this matter. It is essential that something as fundamental as the future of our country's Parliament should be discussed here.