Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1971

Vol. 69 No. 7

Business of Seanad: Motion.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I move:

That in relation to motions other than Government motions the following provisions shall apply—

(a) one full sitting day in each month shall, unless the Seanad otherwise orders, be devoted to such motions,

(b) the time allowed for the debate on a motion shall, unless the Seanad otherwise orders, not exceed a period of six hours in the aggregate and at the expiration of this period, if the proceedings on the motion have not previously concluded, the Cathaoirleach shall put forthwith the question or questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion,

(c) the speech of a Senator proposing a motion shall not exceed 30 minutes, and the Senator proposing, or such other Senator who has not already spoken as he may authorise in that behalf, shall be entitled to not more than 20 minutes for a speech in reply; the speech of any other Senator in the course of the debate shall not exceed 20 minutes.

I should like to remind the House that this motion is moved on behalf of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges which are representative of the three parties in the House and of the Independent group. The decision to put it forward was the unanimous decision of the Committee and expresses the views of the whole Committee of Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not know whether it is necessary to second this motion. If it is I do so. There is one point I should like to make. There was a general understanding at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges meeting that this motion would be operated by the House, if it is accepted in the general sense of taking one month with another. There should be a certain amount of freedom allowed to the Leader of the House in making arrangements for Ministers to attend here in connection with Seanad motions. A situation might arise where more than one day in a particular month, where two days, for example, might be devoted to motions in lieu of a day in the following month, if it happened to fall in with the arrangements of the House and of Ministers that that should be done.

I simply want to record my understanding that the intention was that, while the motion is in particular terms, the House would be understanding if it were necessary, in order to convenience the House and at the same time to convenience Ministers, for the Leader of the House to ask us that in one particular month we should devote, say, a day at the beginning of the month and at the end of the month to motions and that none would be taken the next month.

Mr. McDonald

May I ask if the Leader of the House can give us any indication of which of the motions we can accept to have taken first and how soon, in his estimation, that will be?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I cannot at the moment.

Mrs. Robinson

I certainly have no intention of opposing this motion and, like other Senators, I welcome the guarantee that a sitting day in each month will be devoted to the many motions on the list. I should like to have some clarification of what is meant by one full sitting day in each month and some assurance that the Seanad cannot be adjourned sine die for a long period. Even if there is not Government business created by Bills or motions, the Seanad should meet regularly during term for the purpose of taking these motions. I am sure the Senators would welcome an undertaking to this effect by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Horgan

Like Senator Robinson, I think this a motion which is deserving of our support and I am grateful for the efforts of the Leader of the House on our behalf. There is one small point I should like to make in connection with paragraph (b), relating to the time allowed for a motion of this kind. Although I appreciate that demands on people and Ministers in the legislation of the House are reasonably heavy, it has often occurred to me that we might take a leaf out of a book written in another place. Perhaps, especially on days like this when motions are being discussed, we might increase, by our own consent, the time devoted to this motion by sitting through a time normally devoted to meals. It is not the practice to rise for meals in the other House and I think it is one we might take on here as well.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is provided for in the motion unless the Seanad otherwise orders.

Professor Dooge

Before the Leader of the House concludes this debate there are just two points I should like to advert to. Firstly, I should like to dissent from Senator Horgan's anxiety to follow the digestive habits of another place. This House should adhere to the custom which we have had. We can, with goodwill, manage to arrange our business without the invasion of the time for eating at a reasonable rate, as has been our custom. The second point is that Senator O'Higgins has placed on record his understanding of the saving clause in paragraph (a) whereby the Seanad might by order vary from a strict one day a month rule.

I should like to place on record my understanding of the saving phrase in paragraph (b) which is to the effect that the time allowed shall be six hours, unless the Seanad otherwise orders, and to place on record my understanding that this is operable in both directions. By agreement, a sitting day which was being devoted to motions might be devoted to two motions on which the sponsors in the House were both agreed that each of these should not occupy more than a few hours. Secondly, in regard to motions some of which we have on the Order Paper—motions in regard to such wide-ranging topics as the EEC, the Buchanan Report, et cetera—the House would order more than one sitting day for the discussion of these motions. It is on the understanding that this phrase “unless the Seanad otherwise orders” would be interpreted as operating in both directions I supported this proposition in the Committee and support it here in the House.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I want to make it clear that that was not my interpretation. My interpretation was that the six hours would be devoted to a motion or motions, as the House so desired, and that the question would then be put and that there was no question of adjourning to a second day. I would be totally against that.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think that we should take this as it is on the Order Paper and, as I understand it, that leaves the power of decision with the House: if the House should decide that a motion was of such importance or likely to be of such length that it would require more than the six hours, it is open to the House to make an order to that effect in accordance with this motion as it stands. I do not think the House is necessarily obliged to devote the entire six hours to a motion. Senator Ó Maoláin's reading of the motion would involve, whether the House liked it or not, that six hours must be devoted to the motion; I do not think that that is intended.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Relative to Senator O'Higgins' statement, if extra time were desired I see no reason why Senator Horgan's proposition could not then be adopted.

Question put and agreed to.