Before the debate on the Bill commences I would like to call on Senator Feargal Quinn who has given notice that under Standing Order 126 he is going to propose that the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 be recommitted in its entirety to a committee of the whole Seanad. I invite Senator Quinn to move his motion.
Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Motion to Recommit
I move:
That Seanad Éireann, pursuant to Standing Order 126 of the Standing Orders Relative to Public Business, directs that the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 in whole be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.
I second the motion.
I oppose the proposal.
Senator Quinn may now explain his reasons for seeking such a recommittal.
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 the 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.
As the seconder of the motion I reserve the right to-----
There is no provision in Standing Orders for a seconder.
I am asking for the Chair's indulgence because, as Senator Quinn said, it is very important that we have an open discussion-----
There is no provision for a seconder to the motion under Standing Order 127. The Senator is completely out of order.
-----and I do not think it should be suppressed in this House.
Will the Senator, please, resume his seat? He is out of order.
I am asking for a little indulgence and there is nothing to prevent that in Standing Orders. The Cathaoirleach said there was no provision-----
There is no provision under Standing Order 127 for a seconder.
But there is nothing to prevent it and I am asking the Cathaoirleach to use his discretion. They are talking about cutting cleaners. Do they mean they are going to sell this place as they sold out Gandon's Parliament to the Bank of Ireland?
Will the Senator, please, resume his seat?
They mentioned ink cartridges. It was not a Member of this House who spent €40,000 on ink cartridges. They are going to fire a whole load of people.
Will the Senator, please, resume his seat?
How does that fit in with its jobs initiative?
The Senator is completely out of order.
With all the pensions and-----
The Senator is completely out of order. Under Standing Order 127, there is no provision for the seconder of the motion to speak to the motion.
There is no provision against it either. The Cathaoirleach has failed to produce any provision to prevent me from speaking.
I ask the Leader to make a statement as to the reason he is opposing the recommittal motion.
I do not propose to accept Senator Feargal Quinn's motion on the recommittal of the Bill under the Standing Order 127. I have no remit for what has been said or what happened in the other House. What I can say is that we commenced discussion of the Bill on 26 June and this continued over the course of four separate days. Ten hours were allocated for Second Stage and 54 Members availed of the opportunity to speak during that debate. Committee Stage took place over two days last week, with more than 12 hours of debate. Eight of those hours was spent on a discussion about section 1, which, in my view, was not the best use of the allocated time for that Bill. I am on the record as stating that the timing of a statement by my own party members was less than helpful and was disrespectful when the Bill had not gone through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I stand over that statement, but as the Government representative I have allocated more than sufficient time on Second and Committee Stages. As we are now on Report Stage and will have further time to debate the matter, I do not propose to accept the Senator's proposition.
I am putting the question.
On a point of order, before the House divides, will the Cathaoirleach advise on the impact of the recommittal? What would it entail?
A recommittal would bring the Bill back to Committee Stage in the Seanad.
Would that entail a full debate of the Bill, section by section?
Yes.
Would there be a prescribed time for such a debate?
That would be a matter for the House to decide.
Cuireadh an cheist.
Question put.
Rinne an Seanad vótáil ar bhealach leictreonach.
The Seanad divided by electronic means.
Faoi Bhuan Ordú 62(3)(b), ba mhaith liom go gcaithfear vóta ar bhealach seachas ar bhealach leictreonach.
Under Standing Order 62(3)(b), I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.
Cuireadh an cheist arís.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 31.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Heffernan, James.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donovan, Denis.
- O'Sullivan, Ned.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Mac Conghail, Fiach.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
- Whelan, John.
Tellers: Tá, Senators David Norris and Feargal Quinn; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Question declared lost.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltú don cheist.