Items Nos. 1 and 2 will be taken today.
Order of Business.
I received a communication from you this morning, Sir, informing me that amendments which I had put down to Committee Stage of this Bill were ruled out of order. I do not intend to dispute that ruling which is of course unimpeachable in terms of the Standing Orders of this House but perhaps the House would wish to consider another course. I would like, therefore, with your permission, to ask the Taoiseach if he would move that an instruction be given to the committee of the House under Standing Order 99 (2) to permit amendments which are outside the strict scope of the Bill to be considered.
I am advised that it would not be possible for me to take that course of action. I wish very much to oblige the Leader of the Opposition in this matter but my advice is that technical difficulties prevent me from doing so. Perhaps during the course of Committee Stage debate you, a Cheann Comhairle, could use your discretion to allow the subject matter of the Opposition amendments to be discussed with the other amendments.
I appreciate the Taoiseach's approach to this matter but Standing Order 99(2) provides that "The Dáil may, on motion made by the member in charge of a Bill, give an instruction to a Committee to which a Bill has been committed empowering it to make amendments, the nature of which shall be specified, provided that the amendments be relevant to the general subject matter and not in conflict with the principle of the Bill". I submit that the amendments which have been ruled out of order are relevant to the general subject matter and are within the broad scope of the intentions behind the Bill which the Taoiseach developed when introducing the Bill to the House. I submit, therefore that what I have proposed, if the Taoiseach is agreeable to do so — and I think he is in principle — would be in accordance with what is envisaged in that Standing Order. I submit it to you for your ruling, Sir.
I also received a letter from you this morning informing me that four of the five amendments which were put down in the names of Deputies Kennedy, McDowell and myself were disallowed. I understand that of the 13 amendments which appear on the Order Paper ten have been ruled out of order and only three, which are not fundamental to the matters which were discussed on Second Stage, are in order to be moved and debated. One of them is in my name. It is a matter of considerable regret that the Committee Stage will be as relatively meaningless as debating these three amendments, which are not central or crucial. It is obvious from the numerous speeches made on Second Stage that a broader amendment, such as amendment No. 1 in my name and in the names of my two colleagues, is what the House would wish to discuss. I foresaw this problem when the Bill was first mooted and last Friday week I gave amendments to the Taoiseach which I thought would cover the point which many people in this House wish to see covered. We subsequently published these amendments after the Government indicated they were not prepared to bring in a Bill on those lines.
The crucial vote on this Bill is the one which took place last night because that was where you either accepted a totally narrow view of this matter or you sought to expand it to cover the many other problems which speakers on all sides of the House agreed existed. I regret the attitude take in relation to the vote last night by at least one party because I think if it had been more fully realised what the Committee Stage would be like, the significance of last night's vote would have been more fully appreciated. In the circumstances the only way out of the problem is that suggested by Deputy Dukes whose two amendments have been ruled out.
Now that we have the baby in the bath, and have not thrown out——
As this is a constitutional matter I would very much wish to facilitate the House and have the matter explored as fully as possible on Committee Stage. I would need guidance from you, a Cheann Comhairle, on the technical aspects of the matter. I would be very much disposed to giving the direction the Leader of the Opposition seeks but I would need to be assured if I do so that the order of the House regarding the time and the putting of the motion at 4 o'clock today will be adhered to. In other words, what I am suggesting is that all amendments be taken and discussed together and that the order of the House as to the putting of the final question at 4 o'clock be adhered to.
Do we agree to discuss all the amendments together and that the final question be put as laid down at 4 o'clock this evening?
Yes.
I, too, was on your mailing list this morning a Cheann Comhairle. While I regret that you have disallowed four of the five amendments submitted by the Labour Party, contrary to what Deputy O'Malley said I am glad to see that one had remained on the Order Paper. I ask for some clarification on what you are now saying because it appears that these amendments are now admissible. On receipt of your letter I perused Standing Orders and I ask for guidance on your judging the amendments to be out of order. For the benefit of the House, will you tell us if there are any precedents because there is very little available to us when we are looking for guidance in relation to proposed amendments to Bills amending the Constitution.?
While the Government amendment appears very narrow, as all speakers have said over the past two days, it will have very wide effects, and may have even wider effects, and will be brought back to this House for future referenda. Would the Chair give me some guidance on what basis you judged the amendments out of order, and if there are any precedents?
Normally the Chair would not allow his rulings to be questioned in the House in this manner. Nevertheless, for the guidance of Members, I have ruled a number of amendments out of order on the grounds that they are outside the scope of the provisions of this Bill as read a Second Time. The principle of the Bill is of a narrow scope and is confined to enabling the State to ratify the Single European Act by way of a constitutional referendum. I have given very careful consideration to all the amendments submitted to me and I have had regard to the rulings of my predecessors in such matters. I am quite satisfied in the case of the amendments referred to that they sought to introduce principles which were not in the Bill as read a Second Time. While I am loath to give explanations of my rulings, I will mention one analagous precedent for the advice of the House.
There was the case of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 1972, which amended Article 16.1.2º by reducing the age for the right to vote from 21 years to 18 years. An amendment to the same Article to make similar provision for eligibility for membership of An Dáil was disallowed by my predecessor on the grounds of not being relevant to the Bill as read a Second Time — Official Report, 11 July 1972, volume 262, column 1214.
My rulings in this matter stand. If the House wants to come to a different decision, that is your prerogative.
In order to facilitate the proceedings, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, in deference to your ruling in accordance with Standing Orders, I move:
That it be our instruction to the Committee on the Bill that it be empowered to consider the amendments which have been ruled out on the ground that they are not relevant to the subject matter of this Bill. If that motion is accepted by the House, all amendments can be discussed together and we can proceed to take the decision of the House at 4 o'clock as already laid down.
I am disposed to accept the recommendation of the House in such a matter.
Motion put and agreed to.
Does that mean that at 4 o'clock the House will be able to vote on the various amendments?
We can merely discuss them?
We will put the question at 4 o'clock completing Committee and Final Stages.
Does that mean that at 4 o'clock the House will be able to vote on the various amendments or may we simply talk about them? What amendment or amendments will be deemed to be eligible for voting on?
I should like to remind the House of the decision in this regard in respect of the proceedings today. The proceedings on Commitee and remaining Stages of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1987, and the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1987, if not previously concluded shall be brought to a conclusion at 4 p.m. on Friday — today — by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Member in charge of the Bill. That is the order which the House adopted on Wednesday last in respect of the procedure to be adopted for all Stages of these Bills.
May I make a suggestion? I do not intend to move amendment No. 10 on the Order Paper so that reduces the number of amendments. I understand that in a case of this kind the normal procedure in the House — I base myself on precedent in saying this — would be to deal first with the Schedule to the Bill because that is where the substance arises and, depending on the fate of amendments to the Schedule, the necessary amendments to the sections would be made on a consequential basis. I would be disposed, if it is agreeable to the House, to allocate time for the number of amendments that are there. I understand that the order of the House, of which you have just reminded us, is intended to deal with a situation where not all the amendments have been discussed or voted upon during the course of the debate. If that is the case, I will accept that one question is put. However, that order of the House, in my understanding, would not prevent us from discussing and voting on other amendments prior to 4 o'clock.
That is not what I have in mind. My proposal to the House is quite clear and, unless it is accepted, we shall have to resort to the previous position. My proposal is that, in order to facilitate discussion, the Minister in charge of the Bill will give a direction under Standing Orders that these amendments can be discussed together and the decision of the House taken at 4 o'clock as laid down. If that is not acceptable, we will have to resort to the previous position.
That seems to be a very clear proposal.
In practice it will not mean very much as far as putting any of the amendments is concerned because, if they are all discussed together, no one of them will have been put by 4 o'clock. Since no amendment on the Order Paper appears in the name of a member of the Government, under the order of the House no amendment will then be put and the question that you will be putting will, in effect, be the Fifth Stage and nothing else. While it allows things to be discussed it does not allow anything to be put. It is important that some of these amendments are put. There are 13 of them and I am sure that if some were moved and put the great majority would be withdrawn. For example, there are five in my name and if No. 1 is moved and put, I undertake to withdraw the other four. I suggest to the Taoiseach that No. 1, which encapsulates most if not all the points made on different sides of the House over the last two days might be debated for, say, two hours and then put at 1 o'clock. The others could be debated afterwards.
I am also seeking clarification in relation to this matter. There are two Bills before us, the Referendum (Amendment) Bill and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I, along with other members of The Workers' Party, submitted an amendment to each of those Bills and, as I have not received a letter indicating they are out of order, I assume they are in order. I am anxious, therefore, that they be discussed and put to the House. For that reason, I cannot agree to the proposal by the Taoiseach that all amendments would be discussed together and decided on at 4 o'clock when the vote takes place. I hope that a specified time will be set aside for each amendment or groups of related amendments before the House so that we will each have an opportunity of putting them to the House.
If my proposal is not agreed by the House I have no alternative but to withdraw it and to suggest to you, Sir, that we proceed with business as ordered.
Mr. Dukes rose.
I want to bring this matter to finality. The Order of Business must be decided. I have been very liberal in hearing comments from all sides of the House before we come to deciding the Order of Business. However, I propose to come to it very quickly now.
I counsel the Taoiseach against precipitate action in this regard. Since the Taoiseach has agreed with the suggestion I made to the House, with your permission, that is a suggestion I would support and, if that is being put as the way we proceed with business today, I will support it.
Is that agreed?
Reflecting on the procedure that has been proposed by the Taoiseach and agreed to by Deputy Dukes, there appears to be an assumption that all the amendments are similar in intent and can be disposed of by a similar set of arguments. The only thing they have in common is that the Taoiseach is not accepting any of the amendments, which seems to be a very crude way of disposing of amendments that are different in character and cumulative effect because, having disposed of one, others may fall, some may remain and others may be related and so on. It is not fair to the spirit of the amendments that they should be disposed of in this way.
I am putting the question: "That all amendments be considered together and that the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion at 4 p.m. in accordance with a resolution of the House on 22 April 1987".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 103; Níl, 12.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mooney Mary,
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McCartan, Pat.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies Taylor and Proinsias De Rossa.
Question declared carried.