Vol. 52 No. 1
I have received notice from Senator Sheehy Skeffington that, on the motion for the adjournment of the House tonight, he proposes to raise the following matter:—
The Government's continued reluctance to prohibit the export of horses for slaughter.
I am accepting that notice and the matter will be taken from 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., or earlier, if the business for the day concludes.
I regard this matter as altogether too serious to be taken merely on the adjournment. I do not think it proper that a matter of this seriousness should be taken by way of a statement by one Senator and, perhaps if a Minister chooses, a statement on behalf of the Government in reply. There have been three years in which to deal with this matter. It was a serious matter formerly and I cannot see why——
Is this a point of order?
Of course it is a point of order.
Senator O'Donovan.
Not a speech?
It is all right to call it a speech. I think this is a matter which should be taken as a substantive motion or alternatively taken on the adjournment tonight. The time of half an hour, which is not specifically laid down, should be extended to a reasonable time to allow other people to speak on the matter.
I have ruled that I am accepting the motion and that closes the matter.
Can I have your ruling as to the length of time which is available for it? There is no specific time laid down in the Standing Orders to take these motions. I do not see any reason why an hour should not be taken for it.
With regard to the time. I should point out to the House that we are bound by the relevant Standing Order and by precedent.
Can we not suspend Standing Orders for the purpose of extending the time to deal with this motion on the adjournment? I think we can.
On a further point of order, may I draw attention to the fact that in our rulings and proceedings provision is made for extending the time, which I would welcome? Page 2 of this book reads as follows:
By agreement of House, half-hour permitted may be extended if it is not unduly so and the Minister is given adequate time to reply.
Time may be extended by the authority of the House by agreement.
I do not think there is any necessity for the extension of the time or for the putting down of this motion on the adjournment in view of the statements made by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture.
With respect to the Leader of the House, that is not my point. My point is that if it is accepted adequate time should be given for the discussion of it. I do not mind if we divide in the House as to whether it should be taken at all, with respect to the Cathaoirleach's ruling. Suppose the House were to divide on it—I could imagine a situation in which the House could divide on it. I suggest that what way I would vote would be a different matter, but since it has been accepted by the Chair, I think there should be adequate discussion.
Might I say that I think we should confine matters raised on the adjournment to half an hour? If we take more than half an hour for a matter raised on the adjournment, we should deal with it under another Standing Order and discuss it as a substantive motion. I understand the feelings of certain people here but we should not endeavour to mix the two things. We should preserve the adjournment rule because it is useful to members of the House.
Would the Senator care to put down a substantive motion instead?
I should be very happy to put it in the form of a motion, provided it would be discussed today.
We have given a firm promise and made a firm agreement to deal with the Broadcasting Authority Bill today. We certainly could not deal with other motions.
What does Senator Sheehy Skeffington wish? Does he wish to go on with the motion on the adjournment?
In that case, I must insist on raising it on the adjournment tonight, as it is a matter of grave urgency in my opinion.
The matter will be taken then at half-past nine or earlier, if the business concludes earlier.
