Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1966

Vol. 61 No. 8

Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill, 1966: Allocation of Time.

Mr. E. Ryan

I move:

That, notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order 74 relative to Public Business, the Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill, 1966, be considered forthwith;

That the proceedings on the four stages of the said Bill and on any motion of concurrence with the earlier signature of the Bill by the President, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. on Wednesday 8th June, 1966, by putting from the Chair forthwith the Questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion: Provided that after the said hour on the said day

(i) a Question shall not be put on any amendment (save on a Government amendment, and the Question on any such amendment shall be in the form, That the amendment be made), nor on any motion other than a motion necessary to bring the proceedings forthwith to a conclusion and then only when moved on behalf of the Government and

(ii) the Question to be put to bring the proceedings in Committee on the Bill to a conclusion shall be, That Sections (or Sections, as amended, if amendments have been made) stand Part of and that the Title be the Title of the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is that the motion be agreed.

Mr. McQuillan

I wish to state on behalf of the Labour Party that we are opposed to the taking of this motion here today. I do not in any circumstances wish to cross swords with you, Sir, or to dispute your ruling with regard to the Order of Business or the setting up of the Order Paper as we have seen it this morning, but I am sure at the same time that it must be a matter of anxiety to all Senators in this House here to find that a very grave matter of public importance such as this motion and the Bill to which the motion refers can come before this House in spite of Standing Orders and in spite of the fact that it is clearly stated in Standing Orders that the Order of Business must be clearly printed and stated on the day that the Seanad meets.

An Cathaoirleach

I wish at this stage to draw the attention of the Senator to the fact that the Chair has ruled that the motion is in order.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not disputing that. I said in my opening remarks that I am not disputing that at all. I said that I did not intend to dispute your ruling on this but I said that I feel—and I do not want to repeat this —that there must be anxiety on finding that an Order Paper does not mean what it says any more to me. Now the Government in their anxiety to brush aside the normal rules of procedure, in their anxiety, have sought by every loophole possible in Standing Orders to evade what should be the proper procedure in this House. I do not suggest for a moment that the Chair co-operated in any way with the Government. I do not suggest that, but I do suggest that the Government and their advisers show little regard for this House, No. 1, and, secondly, that their failure to adopt the proper procedure with regard to the moving of this motion shows a lack of efficiency on their part something similar to what took place in a recent event elsewhere.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid that the Chair cannot permit any further discussion of this kind. The Chair has ruled the motion to be in order and the matter should end there.

Mr. McQuillan

But I am entitled to give my view on the Government's action on this.

An Cathaoirleach

The Government did not influence the Chair in any way.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not want the Chair to be disturbed in any way by anything that I am saying. I am sure that the Chair's conscience is as clear as he suggests it is and I hope that the Chair is not getting too anxious about this.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair will be very anxious about the procedure and the order of the House.

Mr. McQuillan

We have an Order Paper which is futile, and in future we can expect an Order Paper in invisible ink just specifying what is in order and as we get up to the motion and when the ink appears we are told that this is all right. Perhaps we shall discover this. I want to get after the Government, not the Chair.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is apparent.

Mr. McQuillan

The Government's attitude in introducing this motion reminds me of a defeated army, and we know that when a defeated army are on the retreat they get vicious. They are prepared to lay the countryside waste. They are prepared to set up booby traps, to lay mines, to destroy valuable buildings, to tear down, shall we say, the power structures and installations of various sorts, in their anxiety to leave the countryside denuded of anything worth while to those who would take over. In this particular instance we have the picture of the Government prepared to tear down or uproot the very fabric of society in this State by attempting with this motion to introduce in the speediest possible fashion a type of legislation that will react in a very adverse manner on the country as a whole.

The Irish people have been known down through the centuries as a people who can be persuaded or led, but not driven, not gulled and not forced to do something against their will. We have in this motion now an attempt not to give a matter of such importance as is contained in the Bill, which will come before us, time and plenty of time before such a measure is contemplated and passed. Instead an attempt is being made to hurry it through this House before having proper discussion and before people have time in which to study the particular sections of the Bill itself.

I have listened time and again to the Taoiseach in the other House and outside it talking about his regard for the workers and about the rights of the individual. One thing sticks in my mind when I think back to the Taoiseach's own remarks on similar attempted legislation in 1961 when he said: "I want to establish a cooling off period." I suggest that what we want in this House at the moment, as far as the Government itself are concerned, is a cooling off period after what has taken place over the past ten days. It is not the worker who needs to be cooled off. It is the Government who need to be hosed down in order to bring them back to realities and in order to get the venom out of their systems. We know perfectly well that the industrial worker showed his absolute disapproval of this Government on a very recent occasion, not for the love of the other group.

Mr. O'Quigley

Without the help of the Labour Party.

Mr. McQuillan

The industrial worker showed, in what I can only describe as a vote of no confidence, that he wanted this particular Government out. The Government's reply to this was this speedy attempt to bring the lash down on the back of the industrial worker. This is the answer that Fianna Fáil and their cohorts are giving to the industrial worker in the city of Dublin and other parts of the country. I beg the Minister, at this stage, to agree to my suggestion of a cooling off period. Let this legislation stand as it is for the present. Let us adjourn this House today without attempting to go any further with the passage of this Bill. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who in many ways is a very reasonable man, agrees to that, he will be doing more good for industrial relations than he has so far had an opportunity of doing since he was appointed Minister.

I know there may be difficulties as far as some of his colleagues are concerned. I know in the Cabinet we have some of the greatest reactionaries that ever sat in any reactionary Cabinet in Europe. Mind you, some of them were very reactionary. We have men in the Fianna Fáil Cabinet at the moment who do not know even how to talk to their workers and who do not even know how to bid the time of day to their own employees. Those are the men who hide now behind a Cabinet decision and send a decent colleague in here to this House who must take the brunt of the blame for the introduction of this repressive legislation that is coming before the House. I want to repeat again what the Taoiseach said. He said: "I want a cooling off period established." That was in 1961. Could we not ask for this cooling off period instead of now attempting to bring in permanent legislation?

In 1961 when this House met to discuss an almost similar measure, the Taoiseach came into this House and spoke immediately after the then Leader of this House, Senator Carter, introduced this motion. What does the Taoiseach think of this House today? He thought it worthwhile in 1961 to explain to the Seanad: "This is only a temporary measure. This is only a cooling off measure. I ask you under the circumstances to pass this temporary legislation and we will get it out of our way as soon as I have a tribunal established and as soon as everything is right inside the ESB". Even though it was only temporary legislation then, he thought it was essential for him to come to this House and explain it.

What happens now? Has his regard for this House sunk so low in the meantime that he will not even bother coming in at all? Although this is permanent legislation we are putting on the books on this occasion he does not even think it worth his while to come to this House. As far as the head of the Government is concerned he has lost his grip on the Cabinet. He has allowed the hotheads and the arrogant men behind him to bring in this permanent legislation with regard to the industrial workers of this country.

I do not suggest that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is here, is personally responsible for this particular motion. I would ask him, even at this late stage, to ask the Chair for an adjournment and having achieved what he knows every Member of this House would agree to, he should then seek the aid of three first-class men in the State who will be asked to set up, at this stage, a tribunal specially to consider this particular issue about which this legislation is coming in. It is not my function to suggest the names of such people but we have people in this State with the ability, the anxiety and the integrity necessary for this matter. We have people who will give confidence to all concerned that their recommendation is one that can be abided by. I ask him to set up a special committee.

Professor Stanford

Is the Senator not really anticipating the debate on the Bill rather unfairly? I do not think he should be allowed to do this.

Mr. McQuillan

There is only one Chair. Perhaps during that trip of his the sun was too strong for the Senator.

Professor Stanford

I am appealing to the Chair for a ruling.

Mr. McQuillan

I am giving my reasons to the Chair.

Professor Stanford

The Senator is discussing the Bill. We all, as a body, want to discuss it and we do not want to see it being monopolised.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

Senator McQuillan does not want the Bill discussed.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not want it discussed.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair suggests that the Senator have regard to the motion before the House.

Mr. McQuillan

I think this motion is unnecessary. It would be much more advisable if the Minister accepted my suggestion to set up a special committee at this stage to deal with this matter rather than bring down the iron hand on a number of workers.

Professor Stanford

What we are arguing here is the iron hand on this House, not on the workers. Is that not so?

Mr. McQuillan

I hope the Senator is not trying to prevent me making a reasonable suggestion. I hope he did not come back from America with reactionary ideas. He has been there during the past four or five months. Let me put it this way, through the Chair, to the Taoiseach and the Leader of the House. Would it not be better to accept this suggestion of mine than this hasty motion and the Bill which it will enable the Government to bring before the House? Which is better, to discuss my proposal as an alternative to this motion and to keen the goodwill of the workers of the country—I do not wish to repeat myself——

Professor Stanford

I suggest that either we accept this motion and not suggest other means of meeting the situation——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McQuillan is entitled to make a case but he should confine himself to the terms of the motion.

Mr. McQuillan

I am grateful to the Chair for protecting me from this would-be dictator.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not think that remark is in the best of good taste.

Mr. McQuillan

If you ask me to withdraw it I shall abide by your ruling.

Mr. O'Quigley

And the unhurt feelings of Senator Stanford.

Mr. McQuillan

My view is that it is easier at this stage to deal with the matter before the harm is done. If we allow this motion to go through and start a discussion on the Bill, we know it will only make still more bitter the workers of the country.

Mr. Yeats

The workers want the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

It will make them still more bitter. As Senator Yeats should know, compulsion is one thing nobody wants.

Mr. Yeats

The workers want this Bill to keep them in employment.

Mr. McQuillan

We shall deal with that later on. The Senator is trying to draw me on the Bill itself.

Professor Stanford

There is no reference to the workers in this Bill. Please, Sir, this is out of order.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair wishes again to draw the attention of Senators to the fact that this motion is a matter of procedure for the House. Senator McQuillan should, therefore, confine himself to it.

Mr. McQuillan

I am trying to but Senator Yeats is trying to bring in red herrings and discuss the Bill on the motion. I do not want to follow his lead.

An Cathaoirleach

I hope the Senator is not trying to drag in some cod.

Mr. McQuillan

There are too many red herrings around here. When I was interrupted I was putting it to the Minister that it is much better to deal with a nasty situation before it gets to the very serious stage. The hand of friendship should be held out in time. That is why I urge, indeed, beg the Minister at this stage to ask the Cabinet to consider this idea of mine. The Minister and the Taoiseach have agreed now to set up a Ministry of Labour and all that it entails. It means the Labour Court will be enlarged, that first class technical advisers and assessors will be made available through this new Ministry. Seeing that the Government have a practical longterm idea in mind, I urge them at this stage not to bring in repressive legislation as this motion will enable them to do. If they do this, everything will be spoiled. On the ground that the Government propose a longterm solution by setting up a Ministry, I appeal to the Government not to bring in this repressive measure which would spoil everything. I urge that the House be adjourned.

Mr. O'Quigley

Looking at the number of Senators on the other side, I have no doubt the motion will be accepted. What I am concerned with is what will the position be in connection with an amendment which is put down by these benches on behalf of Fine Gael Senators? Is the position that all these will be taken at the one time? Today in the Dáil it was not possible to have the reasonable amendment which was suggested considered or voted on separately. Can any arrangement be made so that amendments will be taken, say, at 9 o'clock so that votes could be taken on specific amendments? It is very desirable that should be done.

An Cathaoirleach

The normal procedure for Bills will be followed up to 9.30 p.m.

Mr. O'Quigley

If the Second Stage has not concluded at 9 o'clock——

An Cathaoirleach

Then the terms of the motion must be carried out.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is what I wished to know before I assented to the motion. Will there be, say, agreement to conclude the Second Stage at 8 o'clock and then to take amendments which could be voted on at 9 o'clock so that the final vote could be taken at 9.30 p.m.? What we are enacting here is permanent legislation and we ought to have some regard to that fact. We are, in a hurry, enacting permanent legislation and I think the amendment we suggest may go a long way to deal with an emergency situation. Would the Acting Leader of the House give some indication of his opinion of the pattern I have suggested—that the Second Stage concludes at 8 o'clock and that we vote on the amendments at 9 o'clock?

Mr. E. Ryan

If the position is that we have reached Committee Stage before 9.30, amendments can be taken and we can vote on the amendments.

Mr. O'Quigley

What I want to ensure is that we will not be asked to enact as permanent legislation a Bill the details of which could reasonably be discussed in an hour. We ought to be given an hour in which to discuss the detailed provisions of the Bill. I do not see any reason why there should not be agreement on that. Otherwise, of course, what will happen is that speeches will go on. We can all speak most eloquently and at great length upon this Bill and, judging by Senator McQuillan's speech now, the speeches are likely to be very long. I do appeal to the Labour Members of the House to agree that the Second Stage would be voted upon at 8 o'clock and that we will have Committee Stage from 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock.

An Cathaoirleach

This is a matter which may be discussed with the Leader of the House.

Professor Stanford

I very strongly support what Senator O'Quigley suggests.

Mr. McAuliffe

I am not prepared, nor do I think the Labour Party are prepared, to accept the suggestion made by Senator O'Quigley because the Bill is too important for us to call a halt to it at any particular time of the night. As far as I and my colleagues in the Labour Party are concerned, we all wish to get an opportunity to speak on this Bill because it is one of the most important Bills which has ever come before this House. The fact that the people it is primarily aimed against are manual workers concerns us quite a lot. We consider it an anti-trade union Bill and we have very good reason for thinking so. I am in full agreement with Senator McQuillan that there should be a cooling-off period, such as the Taoiseach asked for in 1961. That cooling-off period could very well last until next week seeing that negotiations are in progress at the moment which may settle the whole matter of the strike; it may be settled before the weekend. I think, in fair play to the Labour Court and to the people who are trying to bring about a settlement of the strike, there should be a cooling-off period until next Wednesday.

I am supporting Senator McQuillan in having that cooling-off period and seconding the motion that the House would adjourn. Furthermore, I do not want any time limit on the debate here. I happened to be in Dáil Éireann today when the Committee Stage of the Bill came up. It happened to be a Money Bill when the Committee Stage came up and every single Labour speaker who got up to speak was ruled out of order. I do not want to see the same thing happening here tonight.

Mr. E. Ryan

With regard to Senator O'Quigley's suggestion, I am agreeable to a vote on the Second Stage being taken at 8 o'clock, if the House wishes to take that.

Mr. Murphy

Have we now an amendment to this motion?

An Cathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator to withdraw that. The Chair is ruling that this motion is in order. There is no question of an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Murphy

There is no question of an amendment to it, so we have this motion before us in the name of Senator Ó Maoláin; this is what we are discussing and not any arrangement between the two conservative Parties here. I am opposing this motion here and, with respect to Senator Stanford, it is difficult to talk about the motion without having regard to the Bill. It will, of course, by the mass of people here, be pushed through here tonight no matter what the ranks of the Labour Party—small as they are — will say about it. I accept there is a crisis, a very difficult situation but what I am saying is that this is not the way to solve it.

Remember we had exactly the same situation in 1961. Senator McQuillan referred to what happened then. We were asked to agree to a cooling-off period. The Taoiseach came along here and made an eloquent speech to Seanad Éireann. But let us go a little further; let us recall what happened after that. The strike was settled, of course, without having to avail of the temporary repressive legislation then being enacted but the situation was so serious at that time and we had got such a warning of the seriousness of the situation, that it was thought desirable to appoint a commission of inquiry to look at the whole situation in the ESB. The Congress of the trade unions cooperated in that commission of inquiry and they reviewed the whole situation in the ESB. They heard a great deal of evidence; they talked to many people and eventually they came out with recommendations. One of the principal recommendations of that commission was that the two tribunals which then existed in regard to the ESB for dealing with rates of pay—one for dealing with rates of pay of the salaried staff, the other for dealing with rates of pay of the operative grades—should be amalgamated. They were satisfied— I do not know whether they used exactly those words or not—but they were satisfied that there was a feeling within the ESB that there were two worlds, one world and one tribunal for the salaried workers and another world and approach when dealing with matters for the manual workers. To try to, overcome this division within the ESB, they recommended that the two tribunals be amalgamated.

That report went to the Minister for Transport and Power, who is the Minister responsible for the ESB, responsible for all the situation and all the difficulties, and he is responsible for this present crisis. That Minister did nothing at all about it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair suggests to the Senator that this discussion is out of order. It would be more appropriate on the Bill itself; not appropriate on the motion.

Mr. Murphy

I shall try to keep myself in order. We are asked to agree that this important piece of legislation be rushed through by 9.30 this evening.

An Cathaoirleach

We are asking that the motion be accepted or rejected.

Mr. Murphy

Yes, and the motion says that this House agrees that we finish it all by 9.30 p.m., in four hours' time.

An Cathaoirleach

The Bill cannot come before the House until the motion is passed.

Mr. Murphy

I am opposing the motion and I hope I am in order in stating my reasons for so doing.

An Cathaoirleach

This is a matter for procedure. That is what is at issue here. Perhaps the Chair has been a little too lenient to speakers so far. However, Senator Murphy to continue.

Mr. Murphy

This is a matter of procedure but, as I understand it, it is for the House to agree whether or not this should be the procedure. Any Senator, as a Member of the Seanad, is entitled to say why he thinks the House should not agree to this procedure. I am saying I do not agree with this procedure and I am saying why I do not agree to it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair feels that the Senator is arguing against the procedure.

Mr. Murphy

I am arguing against the procedure of rushing through a very important and permanent piece of legislation without the House getting a proper opportunity of considering it; without the people involved in it being consulted. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have not been consulted about this measure which raises very important issues. It is doubtful whether or not it is in conflict with the ILO recommendation on strikes. It is equally doubtful that it is in conflict with their recommendation in regard to forced labour. We will come to that later in relation to the Bill.

We are asked, as a responsible House of the Oireachtas, to agree that this should be rushed through without any consultation with people who have a knowledge of this, in the background of the ILO recommendation or, without knowing what it will involve for the trade union movement. It is finished and done with then and it is a permanent piece of legislation on our statutes. Maybe, then, we will have the ridiculous situation that some of us, in our representative capacity in the trade unions, will be appealing to the ILO against some enactment here of the Irish Government. Do not let us all be so silly. Do not let us all look so ridiculous because, no matter what the haste about this legislation, it will solve nothing. It will not deal with the crisis in the ESB. Therefore, I think the Minister and the Government are being very ill-advised in trying to push this legislation through without proper consideration of it, without giving both Houses of the Oireachtas the opportunity of looking critically at the measure, looking at each section of the Bill, and having advice from the people competent to advise on it so that we can discuss these sections on their merits.

As I have said already, what we are dealing with is a permanent piece of legislation and once 9.30 p.m. has passed and once the President has affixed his signature it is on the Statute Books. It is there as a permanent piece of legislation and a precedent for the future when the Minister for Transport and Power makes a mess of CIE again, or Aer Lingus, or Irish Shipping. We shall have a delightful precedent for attempting to force workers to work against their will if they refuse to do so. How ridiculous can we be.

It was said in the Dáil that the first thing the Government should do is build prisons——

Mr. Nash

On a point of order, I should like your ruling, Sir, as to whether these remarks are on the motion, which is that notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders the Electricity Bill should be considered forthwith. Senator Murphy is now considering the merits and the demerits of the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair appreciates that but in view of the circumstances, however, I shall allow Senator Murphy to continue and come back again to the debate on the motion.

Mr. Murphy

I am asking—and I am not too skilled on the finer points— why this measure should be rushed through the Seanad. That is intrinsically the point. What we are dealing with now is the rushing through of an important piece of legislation. We are not discussing the details of the legislation. We are asked to agree and accept that an important piece of legislation should be rushed through this House without the usual opportunity we have of debating the merits of the Bill on Second Stage, looking at it in detail and consulting the people involved, putting down amendments for Committee Stage and debating them.

We have been debating the Occupational Injuries Bill here for hours and if Senator FitzGerald continues we shall be debating it for hours again. It is an important measure but I suggest this Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill, 1966, is equally as important a measure. We are being asked as a responsible House of the Oireachtas to rush it through and put it on the Statute Book without having had a proper opportunity of discussing it and consulting the people who are involved and who know the details of the trade union movement.

I am opposing this motion. I think it is ill-advised. I think the whole thing has been bungled in the way it has been dealt with here and the way it has been dealt with by the Minister for Transport and Power since 1961. It is not alone what he did not do but what he is still doing with the ESB and similar bodies. Now we are asked to pull the chestnuts out of the fire and I suggest that what we will do is make the situation worse. I oppose the passage of this motion and I hope—I am afraid it is a vain hope—that maybe there will be some people in this House who will have more regard for the dignity of Parliament and who will agree that it is quite wrong that we be asked to rush through a permanent piece of legislation in four hours.

Mr. O'Quigley

Since I rose last I have submitted an amendment to the motion, the effect of which will be——

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to draw the attention of the Senator to the fact that we are not in Committee. We are discussing a motion.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move:

To delete the second paragraph down to and including "conclusion" in line 16 and substitute:

"That the proceedings on the Second Stage of the Bill if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th June, 1966, by putting from the Chair forthwith the questions necessary to bring it to a conclusion; that the Committee Stage be taken from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. and shall be brought to a conclusion by putting from the Chair forthwith the questions necessary to bring it to a conclusion including questions on amendments to the Bill and that the proceedings on the Report and final Stages of the Bill and on any motion of concurrence with the earlier signature of the Bill by the President if not previously brought to a conclusion shall be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. by putting from the Chair forthwith the questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion."

An Cathaoirleach

Do I take it that the Senator is moving an amendment to the effect that the Second Stage be concluded at 8 p.m.

Mr. O'Quigley

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

And that the Committee Stage be concluded at 9 p.m., with the division on the amendment if not reached, and that the Bill be finally disposed of at 9.30 p.m.?

Mr. O'Quigley

I agree with that.

Mr. Murphy

Senator O'Quigley agrees with it.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of order, may I ask first whether you are accepting that amendment for discussion?

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. McQuillan

If so, is a Senator who has already spoken prior to that being moved entitled to speak on the amendment? I suggest I am entitled to speak.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator McQuillan should understand that his right to speak on the second occasion will be strictly on the amendment.

Mr. McQuillan

I appreciate that.

Mr. Murphy

We have not seen the amendment, Sir.

An Cathaoirleach

I have tried to convey as clearly as I can to the House the meaning of the amendment.

Mr. McQuillan

Would it be possible according to normal procedure that each Member of the House be given a copy of the amendment now?

An Cathaoirleach

I have already explained the salient features of the amendment and I shall try to have it typed and circulated as soon as possible.

Mr. Murphy

I suggest we adjourn and await the amendment for debate.

An Cathaoirleach

We should proceed with the motion.

Mr. O'Quigley

The purpose of the amendment——

Mr. McQuillan

Are we going to discuss the amendment without the Members of the House being in a position to see it? I understood you are going to circulate the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, but I have asked the House to accept the explanations I have given in view of the amount of time at our disposal and in view of the clarity of the points mentioned in the amendment.

Mr. McQuillan

There is no time limit on the actual motion we are discussing?

Mr. Murphy

That will be another amendment.

Mr. McQuillan

We should like to find out why we cannot have a copy of this amendment before we discuss it. I support Senator Murphy that we adjourn until copies of this amendment are made available.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

On a point of order, in the other House the amendment by the Labour Party Leader was discussed without circulation in view of the circumstances.

An Cathaoirleach

I have made up my mind that I am accepting this amendment.

Mr. Murphy

Are we not entitled to see it, Sir?

An Cathaoirleach

We shall do our best to get the amendment typed as soon as possible.

Mr. Crowley

I have been 12 years in this House and I have never seen business handled in this way previously. I am not saying your ruling is wrong but I question whether we are doing what should be done in this House. I respectfully suggest, Sir, that if a Member puts down an amendment to this particular motion that every Member is entitled to consider that amendment objectively, not alone to speak on it but, in fact, to move a further amendment to it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair appreciates the difficulties of the Senators but he must have regard to other matters.

Mr. Murphy

Where does this amendment come in?

An Cathaoirleach

It is an amendment to the motion. It is a simple matter. I again mention that the Second Stage shall conclude at 8 p.m.; this is an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It amends the second paragraph of the motion.

Mr. Murphy

Where does it amend the second paragraph?

An Cathaoirleach

That the Second Stage be concluded at 8 p.m.

Mr. Crowley

Who has agreed to that?

Mr. McAuliffe

This is fundamental, not elementary.

An Cathaoirleach

The amendment proposes that Committee Stage be concluded at 9 p.m.

Mr. Crowley

Tonight?

An Cathaoirleach

Tonight, yes, with the division on the amendment if not reached, and that the matter be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m.

Mr. McAuliffe

This amendment was put down by people on this side of the house?

An Cathaoirleach

The amendment was submitted by Senator O'Quigley and I understand it is seconded by Senator Garret FitzGerald.

Mr. McAuliffe

They are on the wrong side of the House.

An Cathaoirleach

I have the two names here.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We signed it.

Mr. O'Quigley

We are dealing here with an abnormal situation, and abnormal things will occur in that kind of situation. There are two ways of protecting the interests of the workers. One is to play around with them, and play politics, and the other is to do something on the basis of the Bill submitted by the Government. The Labour Party know as well as I do that the numbers on the Government benches are sufficient to push this Bill and this motion through to-night.

Mr. Crowley

That is beside the point.

Mr. O'Quigley

We had better be realistic. The truth of the matter is that the Government have the manpower, the numbers, to push this measure through tonight. They pushed it through the Dáil this afternoon.

What we propose in our amendment to the Bill is to take this legislation which is in the form of permanent legislation and to convert it into temporary legislation to meet an emergency situation. If we allow this motion to go through as it is worded, there is no possibility at all of a proper discussion by the House on the amendment which we propose to the Bill, and the House will not be given an opportunity to make temporary legislation of this permanent legislation which the Government have offered for our consideration.

It is in the interests of the workers and the trade unions to minimise the effect of this legislation. It is for that reason, and in order to minimise the adverse effects of this legislation upon all classes of workers and upon the trade union movement, that we have put down this amendment. It is in the interests of those people that the amendment should be debated and discussed. We could talk about the Bill, and talk it out, and nothing practical would have been done to help the trade union movement. If our amendment to limit this Bill is discussed, it may well be that less damage will be done to the trade union movement than will inevitably be done by the passage of the Bill as it is. It is for that reason that we are suggesting to the House that the Second Stage discussion should be limited to 8 'clock, and the Committee Stage be taken between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock. We can then vote upon the amendment. I think this is in the best interests of the trade union movement and the workers.

Mr. Crowley

No one thinks that but the Senator.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is my view.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The House has before it a motion and an amendment. Does any other Senator wish to speak before the question is put?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Seeing that the Acting Leader of the House has agreed to this amendment in the names of Senator O'Quigley and Senator Garret FitzGerald, I should like to ask their co-operation in seeing that the Second Stage of the Bill is dealt with before 8 o'clock, in other words, that they will also allow every Member who wishes to speak an equal opportunity to participate in the debate.

Mr. Murphy

I oppose the amendment. I feel it is not a solution to the problem. It still leaves us in the fundamental position that we are rushing this Bill through. All the amendment provides is that the four hours to which we are limited are divided in a certain way. I am against the limitation to this four hours, as such, and, therefore, I am against the amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator in speaking on the first amendment moving the second amendment which has been handed to the Chair?

Mr. Murphy

No. I was not speaking on the second amendment. I did not know it had quite reached the Chair. I have to hear first whether the Chair is accepting it and if he is disposing of the first amendment before coming to the second amendment. I want to proceed in an orderly fashion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The position of the Chair is that it has accepted a motion and an amendment to that motion, and the debate is proceeding on the motion and one amendment, the first amendment.

Mr. E. Ryan

In view of the fact that the Bill has yet to be debated and that it will probably be concluded by 9.30 p.m., I move that this debate on the motion which has been very adequately discussed be concluded and the question now put.

Mr. McQuillan

Outrageous.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Acting Leader of the House has asked for a closure to be applied in regard to this matter. This is within the discretion of the Chair under Standing Order No. 44 but in this particular instance the Chair is not satisfied that the question has been adequately debated or that the rights of minorities would not be infringed. Accordingly, I cannot at this stage accept a closure.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. McDonald

As there are only two hours left for the Second Stage, if we could have an indication of how many Members wish to speak perhaps the House would have a better idea of whether the time is adequate.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senators must realise that in the absence of other relevant speeches the question will automatically be put.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I want to say in reply to Senator O'Kennedy that we shall co-operate in trying to ensure within these very stringent limits that time is given to as many people as possible who want to speak.

On the substance of the amendment, I believe the House will be aware of the fact that owing to problems of procedure in the other House it was impossible for a vote to be taken on the amendment. The purpose of the amendment to this motion which we have put forward is to ensure that the amendment to the Bill, which was talked out in the other House and could not be voted on, will be discussed and voted on in this House. The amendment seeks to limit the duration of the Bill. It is introduced in an emergency situation and it may not be the best way to handle the situation permanently. It is our view that while it is necessary for an emergency, it should be limited in operation. We think this House should have an opportunity to consider what form the permanent legislation should take, and we think that permanent legislation on this matter should not arise out of an emergency. Because of procedural difficulties in the other House they got no opportunity to consider whether this legislation should be temporary or permanent.

It is our view that in the interests of the workers and the community, on the one hand this emergency situation should be met, and on the other hand that permanent legislation in a matter of this kind should be more considered and should not be just something arising out of an immediate emergency.

Mr. McQuillan

I understand that copies of the amendment were being made available. Is that correct?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The position is——

Mr. McQuillan

Has he gone out for them?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

——that the debate on the amendment appears to be drawing to a close.

Mr. McQuillan

No. I am in the very awkward position that I have not been able to fit this amendment properly into the notice of motion which was moved by the Acting Leader of the House.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It replaces paragraph 2.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The amendment which is in the hands of the Chair is to delete the second paragraph down to and including the word "conclusion", in line 11, and to substitute what was previously read out by the Chair, the substance of which is that the Second Stage will be voted on at 8 p.m. and the Committee Stage taken until 9 p.m. when the amendment will be voted upon if not reached, and that business will be finally concluded at 9.30 p.m.

Mr. McQuillan

So that the amendment that is moved reaches as far as "9.30 p.m." Is that not correct?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not quite gather the point the Senator is making.

Mr. McQuillan

There are 6½ lines deleted in paragraph 2. Is that correct?

Mr. Murphy

Seven and a half— down to "9.30 p.m."

Mr. McQuillan

These lines are not numbered. I wonder would the Chair bear with me in this? I am not used to this House.

Mr. O'Quigley

Nor is the House used to you.

Mr. McQuillan

I hope that our stay will be a fairly short one, to judge by the recent Presidential election results. I should like to find out in connection with this amendment if I am correct, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, in suggesting that 6½ lines in paragraph 2 would be deleted if the amendment moved by Senator O'Quigley and seconded by Senator FitzGerald is carried?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The deletion would be from line 6, which ends with "the proceedings", down to the word "conclusion" in line 11 immediately before the colon.

Mr. Crowley

Surely this whole difficulty arises——

Mr. O'Quigley

Line 16.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, line 16.

Mr. Murphy

Surely it would be much more satisfactory if this were circulated to us.

Mr. Crowley

I was about to make the point that our difficulty is in the fact that we are trying to deal with this matter in an entirely irregular and unprecedented manner as far as I am aware, with an experience in this House extending over 12 years. I humbly suggest with all due respect to you, Sir, and to your judgment in this matter, that the proper course to adopt in dealing with this matter is to let every Member of the House see the amendment that we are expected to seriously consider. I personally find myself in the difficulty that I am expected to come in in a debate in which I am vitally interested and to contribute intelligently to it without having any clear idea of what the amendment really means. I suggest that you owe a duty to every Member of the House, unless the amendment is available to him, to adjourn the House until such time as copies are circulated to each member.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is in considerable difficulty over this matter. It would appear that in the absence of the circulation of this particular amendment there will be contributions to this debate which will prevent a conclusion being reached. The Chair would suggest to the House if it would be agreeable to adjourn the House for a brief period and to extend the period of sitting accordingly. Would the Acting Leader of the House care to express any view on that?

Mr. E. Ryan

For a brief period.

Mr. O'Quigley

Ten minutes.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the House adjourns until 6.10 I think it only proper that the period mentioned in the motion should be correspondingly extended.

A Senator

Would you ask the Acting Leader of the House if he would agree to 7 o'clock?

Mr. E. Ryan

I would agree to 6.10 and I would agree to the final question being taken but not, certainly, any later than 10 o'clock.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The proposition now is that the House adjourn until 6.10, that at that time the debate on the motion and amendment be resumed, and it is hoped to have copies of the amendment circulated by that time at least to the Leaders of the Parties, and the position will be that at that time all the times mentioned in the amendment will be extended by half an hour.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Right.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Does the House agree to that?

Mr. McQuillan

No. Is this an amendment that the Acting Leader of the House is moving to Senator O'Quigley's amendment?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a motion for a temporary adjournment.

Mr. McQuillan

I gather that the Acting Leader of the House is moving an amendment to extend the period of time from 9.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th June, 1966, to 10 p.m. Is that not an amendment on the part of the Acting Leader of the House?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a matter of control of the debate, and is not an amendment of the motion.

Mr. McQuillan

What is it an amendment to? He has nodded his head to me and said it is. I should like a ruling on that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Do you mean to oppose an adjournment?

Mr. McQuillan

No. I am sorry, but I understood that the Acting Leader of the House had moved an amendment to the effect that instead of bringing the matter to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. it will now be brought forward to 10 p.m., or put back.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

As I understand it, the Acting Leader of the House expressed himself as being agreeable to this course.

Mr. McQuillan

Is he moving this as an amendment?

Mr. Yeats

Surely the position will be that the amendment introduced by Senator O'Quigley will now be withdrawn and a revised amendment bringing in the change will be brought in. Is that not the position? The House wishes to adjourn until 6.10 for the purpose of allowing circulation of the amendment.

Mr. McQuillan

An adjournment, without any agreement on any other issue.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Labour Party do not want an extra half hour.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to know if we are now adjourning in order to see the amendment in writing. Are we going to get that now?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Every effort will be made. This is the purpose of the adjournment.

Mr. McAuliffe

Is it with an addition to 10 o'clock?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This was the suggestion from the Chair.

Mr. E. Ryan

The suggestion from the Chair was that in order to allow the Labour Party to understand this amendment that we should adjourn for a quarter of an hour, and we also suggested that as this would lessen the time to consider the Bill, the time should be extended. In order to facilitate the Labour Party, on the supposition that they do really want to discuss this Bill and on the supposition that they do not understand this amendment, both of which suppositions are hard to accept, I expressed my agreement to allow the amendment of the motion to include the final votes to be taken at 10 o'clock rather than at 9.30.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I suggest that that should be discussed when the amendment was before the House. The Labour Party do not agree to the amendment.

Mr. E. Ryan

In view of the fact that apparently some Senators from the Labour Party do not want the time extended to 10 o'clock which might enable the Bill to be discussed, I now withdraw that suggestion, and suggest that we should let the time of 9.30 stand.

Mr. O'Quigley

Let the House adjourn and let the amendment be circulated.

Mr. Murphy

We are against the limitation of the debate.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is concerned about these matters. Is the House for or against an adjournment of this debate until 6.10?

Mr. O'Quigley

Agreed.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.10 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

The amendment to the motion has now been circulated.

Mr. McQuillan

An argument was put forward that the Labour Party were preventing the House from discussing in detail the sections of this particular Bill which may come before the House if this motion is passed. I want to be quite clear and blunt on this. The amendment, in fact, shortens the time still further that the Government made available as far as the Second Reading of this highly important measure is concerned. Instead of the Fine Gael Party asking the Government to extend the time for the Scond Reading they have reversed engines and sought to go back from 9.30 p.m. to 8 o'clock.

I thought it was bad enough to have Fianna Fáil riding roughshod over the House without having Fine Gael coming in and asking them to shorten still further the time for the Second Reading. That is precisely what is happening. The amendment is an attempt by Fine Gael to have some way of getting out of this, to recover some of their glory of last week and at this stage to say: "We are on the side of the workers."

Mr. O'Quigley

The workers are on our side as has been proved and as Senator McQuillan has already said.

Mr. McQuillan

The noose is being put around the worker's neck. Fianna Fáil want to put it around under his right ear and Fine Gael are giving him the choice of putting it under his left ear. That is what the amendment is. The only concession is that there might be the addition of a further half hour before the execution takes place. That is what the amendment is.

I do not intend to speak much further on the amendment. It is an attempt to whitewash the attitude of the Fine Gael Party in this. It shows here clearly that they are just as conservative and reactionary as the Fianna Fáil Party are in both Houses. If ever there was proof that there was no difference between them, that it was a case of tweedledum and tweedledee, we have it in this particular amendment. I have spent my life since first elected pointing out to the public that there was not room in this country for two major conservative Parties. I have lost personally down along the line by preaching that viewpoint. I wish to make it clear that as far as I can prevent it I shall not allow Fine Gael to pretend they are on the side of the worker when they are behind the Government.

Mr. O'Quigley

When it came to opposition to the Government the Labour Party were not to be heard during the past six weeks.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps Senators would forget the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. O'Quigley

When it came to the recent test of opposition, the Labour Party were not to be heard except to tell the people to vote against the Government. What did Deputy Dr. O'Connell say?

Mr. McQuillan

This is a far more important matter than shaking hands in the Park and drinking tea.

An Cathaoirleach

Would the Senator come to the amendment?

Mr. McQuillan

I am trying to. Let us clear this. Fine Gael say we must have this. They are prepared to blame the worker in conjunction with Fianna Fáil.

Mr. O'Quigley

Indeed, we are not.

Mr. McQuillan

If Fine Gael were serious——

Mr. O'Quigley

We are practical.

Mr. McQuillan

——they would condemn the ESB, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Transport and Power. They do not do so. They will walk into the Division Lobbies to hit the worker, not the ESB, not the Minister for Transport and Power, though their whole case has been that the Minister made a mistake and that the ESB were responsible. When the chips are down Fine Gael are conservative and reactionary.

Mr. Carton

You supported us for ten years.

Mr. McQuillan

I never supported you.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Ahern, Liam.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brennan, John J.
• Brosnahan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Carton, Victor.
• Cole, John C.
• Conlan, John F.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooge, James C.I.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Honan, Dermot P.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lenehan, Joseph R.
• McDonald, Charles.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Mannion, John.
• Martin, James J.
• Nash, John Joseph.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Quigley, John B.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Patrick W.
• Ryan, William.
• Yeats, Michael.

Níl

• Crowley, Patrick.
• Davidson, Mary F.
• Fitzgerald, John.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McHugh, Vincent.
• McQuillan, Jack.
• Murphy, Dominick F.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators McDonald and O'Sullivan; Níl: Senators McQuillan and Murphy.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put.

Mr. Murphy

I put in an amendment in writing, signed by myself and Senator McQuillan, to delete in the second paragraph the 8th and substitute the 22nd. The purpose of this, obviously, is to give the House an opportunity of discussing this measure.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair is ruling that this amendment is out of order. In effect it constitutes a direct negative and the result may be achieved by voting against the motion.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 7.

Tá

• Ahern, Liam.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brennan, John J.
• Browne, Seán.
• Cole, John C.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Honan, Dermot P.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lenehan, Joseph R.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• Martin, James J.
• Nash, John Joseph.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Patrick W.
• Ryan, William.
• Yeats, Michael.

Níl

• Crowley, Patrick.
• Davidson, Mary F.
• Fitzgerald, John.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McHugh, Vincent.
• McQuillan, Jack.
• Murphy, Dominick F.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Browne and Farrell; Níl: Senators Murphy and McQuillan.