On the 2nd Stage of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2001, in the Seanad on 6 December 2001, I said:

I have decided to vote against this Bill for four main reasons.

I do not like the shape of the solution that is proposed to deal with what is a very complex problem. To entrench law into our Constitution destroys a distinction that is fundamental to our system, that between a framework for law-making and the laws that are made within that framework. To mix up the two in the way proposed here is highly dangerous.

My objection is not so much that the solution is messy or inelegant, although it is certainly both, but that it risks leaving us in a situation that would be virtually impossible to undo if, at some future stage, we find things do not work out the way we expect.

Our sad history with this problem in the past is that over a period of time unexpected problems have arisen and what at one time seemed a perfect way out no longer seems perfect when that occurs. By taking this route of entrenching a complicated law into the body of our Constitution, we risk driving down a cul-de-sac while at the same time we are tearing up the road behind us.

Any solution to this problem will be messy no matter what it is but we do not have to mess up our Constitution at the same time.

Any way forward will be messy because of the way public opinion on this issue is structured. At one end of the spectrum, as has been said here today, are people who are absolutely against abortion in any shape or form, while at the other end are people who accept the principle of abortion and start from that point. These two viewpoints added together account for only a small proportion of the people as a whole.

In between these two extremes is the majority of citizens. These people are against abortion but feel there are rare cases in which it should be permitted.

One of the things that makes any solution messy is that there are wide differences among people who feel this way about what are the exceptions that should be allowed. Let me give an example.

Some people feel only medical exceptions should be allowed - in other words, where a choice must be made between the life of the unborn child and that of the mother.

There is another group which feels abortion should be allowed where conception has come about as a result of rape or incest.

Others feel abortion should be allowed when there is a danger of the mother committing suicide, and that has arisen in recent times.

The present effort at a solution by consensus was not an attempt to find common ground between the people at either end of this spectrum of public opinion because that, by definition, is impossible. The two groups on either side are acting on principle. There can be no common ground between those who oppose abortion on principle and those who approve of abortion on principle.

The search for consensus was aimed at this middle ground. The task was to find a solution that would unite a majority of the people who are against abortion but who want to allow for some exceptions. If there could be agreement on what exceptions to allow for, then consensus would be possible on that basis but, unfortunately, it has now become clear that the proposed solution is unlikely to create such a consensus.

What is more, the discussion we have had so far underlines one thing - it was confirmed, I think, by today's discussions and by the deeply felt debate taking place here - that this approach is very unlikely to be the last word on the matter. Far from putting the question to bed once and for all, the divisions created by this solution will prolong the issue. Whatever the outcome of a referendum, it seems likely that the problem will continue to fester.

As such, I do not believe it should be approached by way of constitutional amendment - at least not at this stage. This should not be approached by way of an amendment which will lock us into a situation and, having done so, will throw away the key - a key that we may well need in the future and may need sooner than we think because it has happened in the past.

That is the first and most fundamental reason I oppose the Bill - that is, the method of putting it into the Constitution is difficult. My three other reasons are of a much more practical nature and some of them have been touched on already.

The second reason I am against this referendum is the possibility it will fail. It is clear from the way the two sides are lining up that winning this referendum is by no means certain. We have seen before how opinion on a referendum issue can shift from one side to the other quite quickly and fairly unpredictably. When we think back to how divisive previous referendums on this subject have been, it is hard not to agree with the Tánaiste, whom Senator Dardis quoted today. She said she would not be in favour of going ahead with a referendum unless there was a clear consensus in favour of a "Yes" vote. I doubt if that consensus is there.

Failure in this referendum would be a bad thing in that the country would be embittered and divided at the end of it. Such a failure - this is my third reason for voting against the Bill - could surely have a knock-on effect. I understand the Government intends to hold a second referendum on the Nice treaty, although I believe it might be unwise to take that particular route. If it holds a second referendum on Nice, the risk of a second "No" vote will increase if, in the meantime, this referendum fails. When people get into a "No" frame of mind, they tend to stick with it. The Government would be very unwise to treat these two referendums as totally separate. When people begin to vote "No" and, to a certain extent, win against the establishment, they tend to do so again. In the public mind, which is where it counts, the two are connected at least to the extent that a "No" vote on one occasion makes a "No" vote much more likely on the second occasion.

The fourth reason I am against the Bill is that I am against holding a referendum on any subject until we rethink our attitude to holding referendums and, in particular, how we campaign for referendums.

For many years I have made the point in this House that the Referendum Commission approach was fatally flawed. The outcome of the Nice referendum showed the truth of what many of us had been saying for some time.

Some people are now saying we should try to roll back the McKenna judgment either in the courts or by way of a constitutional amendment. I am not sure that is the best way to go forward. I am not sure the McKenna judgment was wrong but I am sure the way we chose to respond to it - by setting up a Referendum Commission with an almost impossible task - was certainly wrong.

That approach is not only totally ineffective as a way of informing the public, it may even be systematically biased in favour of what I call "madcap views". We had an example of that in the past.

What we should be discussing today is not the referendum Bill before us but a way of putting questions to the people in a way that is fair, democratic and ensures that the majority will become engaged in the fundamental act of choice - in other words, that people will become involved in deciding whether to vote "Yes" or "No". That did not happen in the Nice referendum.

The challenge of facing up to how we handle referendums in the future is a far more urgent task than passing the Bill we are discussing.