It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1 to 3 on the Order Paper.
Order of Business.
Would the Leader of the House repeat that, please?
Nos. 1 to 3 on the Order Paper.
Would the Leader of the House give an indication at this stage as to when time will be made available for No. 4 and No. 6 on the Order Paper?
No, I cannot give an indication at this stage.
Is the Leader of the House aware of the fact that while he was absent, which we all regretted, through illness—I am glad to see he is fully recovered—the Acting Leader of the House, Senator E. Ryan, gave a specific undertaking here just four weeks ago that Motion No. 6 would be taken within a fortnight or at the latest within three weeks and that only last week the Leader of the House who is now definitely back to himself said here: "I have not even discussed it with the Minister." I am asking at this stage whether the Leader of the House is blatantly breaking the promise given by the Acting Leader of the House on this very important issue.
I understand that what Senator Ryan said was that he hoped to be in a position to take it.
No, I think in all fairness he said he hoped within a fortnight but the latest would be three weeks.
He said he hoped within three weeks.
It would appear that Senator E. Ryan must have discussed the matter with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and surely the Leader of the House would now indicate whether he proposes to have a discussion with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries with a view to having this very important motion taken next week.
In due course.
It would seem that the meeting today will not be of long duration and perhaps the Leader of the House might be able to contact the Minister if he is free this evening to come in to dispose of those motions.
Which motions is the Senator talking about?
I beg your pardon, Nos. 4 and 6.
No.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether it has occurred to him that the general attitude both of himself and of the Minister might be calculated to bring this parliamentary institution into contempt and that some people find themselves in jail for doing that kind of thing.
In view of the unsatisfactory reply from the Leader of the House, I want to move an amendment that we add to the Order of Business item No. 6.
In view of the fact that on the last two or three occasions the House sat we concluded by 7.30 or 8 p.m. surely it is reasonable to ask that these motions should be taken and cleared off the Paper.
Hear, hear.
It is ridiculous travelling up and having just a few hours sitting and then leaving motions there for months on end. No. 4 has been there since last November.
I know Senators are anxious for publicity in the circumstances but I am afraid they will just have to wait.
I wonder could I add No. 4 to the proposal of Senator Murphy that No. 6 be taken? There are nearly 100 farmers in jail while we are waiting for this matter to be discussed.
You are not going to help to get them out with that sort of thing.
What is the point of having a House here at all if the Minister refuses to come in? We have the Minister for Finance here now and we could not get him for the past six months.
I wonder whether it would be in order, as I would contend, to take these motions with the Minister absent.
That is a matter for the House. The amendment to the motion is that items Nos. 4 and 6 be added to the Order of Business.
Lest I should by the manner of procedure be precluded from speaking, I have a point to raise in regard to the taking of No. 3 this afternoon. Should I proceed now?
Yes.
Due to the fact that the House was specially summoned at short notice we find ourselves in some difficulty in regard to the Report Stage of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Bill. On the understanding that the House would not sit this week and would probably sit next week there was an understanding in regard to the Report Stage that Government amendments would be provided and that when these were in our hands we would be in a position to decide whether or not we wish to put down amendments of our own.
The position now is that with that understanding in mind the Order was made last week that the Report Stage be taken on the next sitting day, the clear understanding being that that sitting day was a fortnight away. The position now arises that with the House now having been summoned for another purpose the Order is that we take this Bill this afternoon. We would find ourselves in great difficulty if the Leader of the House wished to have the Report Stage taken today.
I should like to support that. The Government amendments only came to my hand this morning at 9.30. That does not give much time when you take into consideration my driving from Donegal to Dublin.
Time for consideration but little opportunity for drafting.
Perhaps we could take the Report Stage of the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Bill, 1967, today and if anyone has amendments they could suggest them before next week.
On what Stage?
We are on Report Stage already.
Is it not proposed to recommit the Bill?
It might be a solution to recommit the Bill this afternoon and take the Report Stage another day.
In deference to the person who has just spoken, even if it is recommitted it is still on Report Stage. You cannot add another Stage to a Bill.
I should have said—complete the Report Stage.
Has Senator Dooge a lot of amendments to this Bill?
We have not; we have not had time to put them down.
I did not hear any serious remarks on Second Stage that would entice me to believe that there would be an avalanche of amendments.
If the Leader of the House had been here on the exhaustive Committee Stage he would have seen that we extracted with great difficulty consent from the Minister to look again at a matter which has produced the most extraordinarily unsatisfactory amendment I have ever seen.
The only real satisfactory way of dealing with this is to leave the matter over. It is not an urgent Bill and I do not think the House should be rushed in this fashion.
If Senators feel there is a lot of work to be done on the Bill yet, in spite of the Second and Committee Stage debates, then I am prepared to leave it over until the next sitting day.
And that would give us time to take Nos. 4 and 6.
The motion is that the Order of Business be Nos. 1 and 2.
Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to reconsider the position now with regard to the other two motions in the light of the fact that there is very little business before the House today?
I recommend Senator McQuillan to read what the Taoiseach said.
And the man in the Park told you to come in here——
The motion before the House is that the Order of Business be Nos. 1 and 2, but that there is an amendment that Nos. 4 and 6 be added.
Question put: "That the amendment, namely, to add motions Nos. 4 and 6 to the Order of Business be agreed".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Alton, Bryan G.
- Carton, Victor.
- Conlan, John F.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
- Fitzgerald, John.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McQuillan, Jack.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
- Prendergast, Micheál A.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Rooney, Éamon.
- Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
- Stanford, William B.
Níl
- Boland, Gerald.
- Browne, Seán.
- Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Honan, Dermot P.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Martin, James J.
- Nash, John Joseph.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators J. Fitzgerald and McQuillan; Níl, Senators Browne and Farrell.
Amendment declared lost.
The Order of Business, then, is Nos. 1 and 2.