Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is always a privilege to follow my honourable colleague, Senator Barrett. I thank the Minister of State for his intervention which proves what I said earlier about him being a worthy opponent. I do not necessarily want to re-argue that point because Senator Norris might cough or the Minister of State might resist that statement.

The Minister of State argued that the Government had promised to put the choice before the people. There is nothing that I should be opposing there, I suppose, because it is to let the people decide. However, in presenting this Bill, the Minister of State is putting out two messages. One is to let the people decide, but the other is to abolish the Seanad. That is the second message.

The Title of the legislation is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill. I have discussed the Title with colleagues and we noted that it could have referred to the future of Seanad Éireann, instead of which it refers to the abolition of Seanad Éireann. It is therefore sending out two messages: "Let the people decide", but also, "We want you to abolish the Seanad". That is what I wish to oppose. That is the first point on which I want to take issue with the Minister of State following his very worthy intervention. I have three other points.

The second point concerns the Minister of State's argument that much of what we have been saying here should be left for the campaign trail, because we are saying the Seanad should be reformed. He says we should not be debating reform because we cannot hold a preferendum; that would be unconstitutional due to Article 47. Many of us have our blue book, Bunreacht na hÉireann, with us today. I read Article 47 a couple of times, which referred me to Article 46. I have read both articles. The Minister of State is arguing that we cannot put three options to the people - that is, reform, retention or abolition - because that would be unconstitutional.

However, my understanding, particularly of two amendments that have been tabled to this Bill, is that they do not call for a preferendum. They are simply amendments to add additional text to the referendum that will be put to the people.

Both of those amendments have been overruled. The first amendment - amendment No. 1 - which I tabled with my colleague, Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, effectively argues that if the constitutional amendment falls and the people vote not to abolish the Seanad, then the Taoiseach is obliged to enact reform. That is simply adding text to the amendment to the Constitution. It is not putting a preferendum to the people.