Seanad debates

Tuesday, 23 July 2013

An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: An Tuarascáil (Atógáil) - Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Report Stage (Resumed)

 

1:00 pm

Photo of James HeffernanJames Heffernan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

It was with interest that I listened to some of the debate in the Chamber on this Bill, particularly today's contributions by Members who are apparently independent. Yesterday Senator Ned O'Sullivan referred to them as quasi-Independents. The debate spurred me to enter the Chamber. I have already made my feelings on this legislation well known, but I must take exception to Senator Fiach Mac Conghail's contribution. With respect, the Senator is well versed in treading the boards and acting the part. When it comes to theatre, theatrics and acting, one must be sure one has learned one's lines before taking to the stage. It is clear to anyone who received today's Order Paper - it is even on the television screens now for those who have not seen it - that the first item to be dealt with is the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution - in brackets for slower learners - (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013. That is what every Member will vote on. It is as simple as that. I do not know whether Senator Fiach Mac Conghail or some of the other Independents are being prompted from backstage, but they certainly have not learned their lines or certainly do not know what they are talking about. It is there in black and white for all to see that we will vote on the abolition of Seanad Éireann. Obviously, they are not clear on it.

I want to make this point because I took exception to the speech made. Although I see it happen a great deal in political life, one cannot talk out of both sides of one's mouth. One nails one's colours to the flag; one cannot be all things to all people. Too many Members are trying to do just this. I respect many of my colleagues on the Government side who have refuted the Bill. They object to what it is about and see it for what it is, namely, a slap in the face for democracy and a solo run by a man who, after having a couple of jars at a presidential dinner, decided-----

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.