Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to move this motion. It is a very modest motion but a very important one. I believe that we have not had enough discussion on this Bill. It was guillotined in the Dáil and we have not had a sufficient opportunity to debate it here. The debate we have had has been very good and the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brian Hayes, has been present for practically all of it. For instance, we have not had a chance to get the views of the nominating bodies of which there are 110 involved in election to the Seanad.

I appeal to Senators to support this motion because to all intents and purposes it asks simply for more time to consider and debate all the implications of the abolition of the Seanad. By supporting the motion Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators would not be opposing their own Government's decision to hold a referendum on the Seanad's future. All that we will do is perhaps delay it for a certain period to give us more time to pay attention to it. They will be giving more time for the consideration of the specifics of the Bill to ensure that the right question is put before the people and that there are no gaps. This is extremely important and in this House we should take the time to ensure that all the arguments about Seanad abolition and its impact on our Constitution are fully ventilated. Sadly, the debate in the Dáil was brought to a premature end. I acknowledged that the Government did lift some of the time limits in the Dáil but this did not prevent it putting down the guillotine when there were still amendments before it. On 23 June with pages of amendments still to be considered the Government dropped the guillotine and this was largely due to the understandable focus on the release of the taped conversations between bankers in the former Anglo Irish Bank. The Bill did not receive the attention it should have done.

In this House, where some cynics have been quick to label Senators as turkeys voting for Christmas, we have a solemn duty to ensure that every angle in regard to Seanad abolition is given full scrutiny before we proceed to a referendum. This is surely an important responsibility to the people and to Bunreacht na hÉireann which has served the country well for over 75 years. Abolishing the Seanad is the biggest change and reform of our Constitution since the Good Friday Agreement but it is far more divisive. Everybody in this House agrees that abolishing the Seanad will fundamentally alter the nature of our parliamentary democracy and will change the system of checks and balances upon which our Constitution is founded. The Seanad is mentioned 75 times in the Constitution and the Government's Bill involves over 40 separate amendments to the Constitution to delete all those references. A referendum vote in favour of abolishing the Seanad will leave Bunreacht na hÉireann in a considerably altered state. I do not think nearly enough attention has been paid to that. We have an obligation to discuss each of these separate amendments in some detail before we proceed any further, particularly to ensure that we do not have any unforeseen negative consequences.

We cannot predict the future but historians in the next generation are likely to castigate this House if it meekly allows the Seanad to pass out of existence without properly analysing all of the possible permutations. We do not know what political alignment may control the body politic in the future so it seems to me that it would be irresponsible of us to remove, with some undue haste, constitutional safeguards without detailed debate, particularly on something that has been here for 75 years. We need in particular to ensure that there is proper provision to guard against rushed legislation if this Chamber is removed. We also need to have a proper discussion on whether it is democratically proper for a transient Dáil majority to be able to impeach a president or a judge. This is uncharted territory and we would be very wrong to rush into this without examining its implications. As an eminent senior counsel, Jim O'Callaghan, recently pointed out, the Government's Bill will delete Article 27 of the Constitution concerning the reference of legislation to the people. This article has never been used but it is a very innovative article that gives the people an opportunity in certain circumstances to have their say on legislation and contains proposals of national importance. We need to discuss properly whether it is desirable that the safeguards be removed.

We also need to ask ourselves why we are rushing legislation into a referendum without proper consideration. Has this more to do with populism than practical politics? The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, angered Senators of all persuasions in the House when he threw out misleading figures for the cost of the Seanad. The Government clearly wants people to believe that it is going to make the political classes pay but of course the rushed referendum is designed to scapegoat the Seanad while at the same time leaving a dysfunctional Dáil completely unreformed. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation cited a figure of €20 million. That applies more to the cost of the actual referendum. Without the unseemly rush the Convention on the Constitution could in a timely manner review and make recommendations on the Seanad's future.

We put in an effort to have the Constitutional Convention consider this issue. That has not proved possible so far because of the time limits the Government has imposed on holding a referendum. I believe this would give the Constitutional Convention time for consideration.

Last summer the House voted for the question of the Seanad to be dealt with by the Constitutional Convention, but the Government ignored that democratic request. This motion allows time for this to happen. We are now in the last chance saloon and all of us in the House need to ask ourselves a very fundamental question as to whether we truly believe there has been proper debate on the question. If we do not discuss this matter properly we are sleepwalking into a situation in which the Executive's stranglehold on political debate is strengthened and we may end up with a single-chamber parliament with no space for independent and minority voices. Does this serve democracy well? I appeal to Senators to support the motion. I believe there is a real need to do so. I am aware that we have discussed many of these points in the past, and putting the legislation before us now is not an effort to stop the referendum. People should debate it but they should have the full facts at their fingertips. I do not believe we have explored this often enough. Senator Katherine Zappone had agreed to second this motion - as I did not see her, I apologise - but Senator David Norris has also agreed to second it. I believe this matter is very worthy of consideration and I urge the House to accept the motion.