It is proposed to take Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Order of Business.
I propose an amendment as follows:
That the Order of Business be Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
I should like to support that amendment.
Some weeks ago I stated that there was no particular urgency about the Bill which Senator Mrs. Robinson, Senator West and myself then sought to introduce. Subsequent events have led me to revise the opinion I expressed at that stage. I should now like to make a case for the inclusion of No. 2 on today's Order of Business on the grounds of urgency and specifically in three areas: legal urgency, social urgency and political and constitutional urgency.
First of all, I should like to deal with what seems to me to be the legal urgency surrounding this proposal. Since discussion about this and the preceding draft of the Bill was inaugurated it has become clear that, firstly, there is considerable ignorance of the law of the land which extends even to Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Secondly, it has emerged that there are, in all probability, a large number of people in this country who are at the moment in a de facto position of breaking the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, section 17, because it interferes with what they consider to be their human rights. Any lawyer will agree that a situation which places the law in this position is a very bad one for the rule of law in this country, or in any country, and that it should be reviewed as a matter of urgency. I am very glad to say that I can quote support for this contention from a very excellent speech made yesterday by a Senator on the other side of the House, Senator Neville Keery, and reported in this morning's newspapers and I quote:
The extent of this law breaking has made a mockery and...
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I hesitate to intervene at this stage but I would remind the Senator that he must confine himself to the question of whether this business is to be taken today. Accordingly, he should deal with the question of urgency which he has already raised and not the merits, which would be more appropriate to a later stage of discussion.
I fully bow to the ruling of the Chair. I am trying to make a point about the urgency of this Bill. In making that point I was simply bringing in a certain statement which I do not propose now to read out in view of the Chair's ruling. This statement, I believe, supports my contention that law reform in this matter is urgent. Another point which might also be made in connection with the question of legal urgency is this. If by any chance—I do not think it is possible to rule this out of question —section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was challenged in the courts and found to be unconstitutional it would give rise to a most serious situation for public order and morality in this country. When determining the legal urgency of the measure which we have proposed we should take this into account.
The second area of urgency I should like to mention, very briefly, is that of social urgency. Again, I do not intend to discuss the merits of our proposals. I would simply refer the House to three relevant factors. The first of these is the poll of doctors carried out by the Irish Medical Times. The second factor is the horrifying statistics quoted in a speech last night by Dr. Paul McQuaid of the Mater Hospital Child Guidance Clinic and the third is the excellent speech made last night by Senator Neville Keery.
I should now like to pass on to the third element of urgency which, I believe, is involved: the political and constitutional urgency. This can be divided, broadly speaking, into two areas: national and international. On the national level, I think the record shows that agitation of one kind or another—most of it very responsible agitation—for a change in our legislation has been going on for the last five or six years. Secondly, the most recent statements, in my opinion, by bodies and persons outside this House have—I may be open to correction on this—brought into question the competence of this House and of the Houses of the Oireachtas to carry on their own affairs. It is a matter of urgency for us, and the Houses of the Oireachtas as a whole, to show at this point that we are masters in our own house. It is also true to say——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must intervene here. The only question proper to discuss is whether this matter should be debated by the Seanad today or at another time. I must ask the Senator to confine himself to this point. The Chair has been indulgent in allowing him to introduce a certain amount of background but he cannot be allowed to dwell on these matters.
I bow to the Leas-Chathaoirleach's ruling. I should like to make one final point, if I may, on this matter. I would refer Senators to statements, which I do not propose to quote, from resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1969 and the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights in May, 1968, both of which were subscribed to by our Government. I feel that the inordinate delay between subscription by our Government to these documents and the enactment of suitable legislation is an argument in favour of the urgency of the present case.
I should like to support this amendment for the reasons given by Senator Horgan and also for another reason which I think is within the terms of the First Stage of the Bill. With respect, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, we are not seeking a debate today; we are seeking purely the passage of the First Stage of the Bill so that it may be published. I think this is an urgent matter. The subject has been discussed widely in the Press and debated around the country. It is unfair that a subject should be discussed at this length without the people having knowledge of the exact terms of the Bill. We, as Senators, have been distressed at the extent to which we have been misrepresented. We are distressed at the extent to which people are confused and, to some extent, worried at the possibility of opening the floodgates of the permissive society. We feel that to be allowed to publish the Bill would curtail a great deal of misleading talk. It would mean that the debate would be centred on the relevant subject matter of the Bill, on the strict control of distribution of contraceptives which it now contains, and on the issue, which is a civil rights issue, whether we, as an Irish community, can tolerate the practices of others in relation to practices which we might not condone for moral reasons.
For this reason, which is relevant to the First Stage, I would support the amendment of the Order of Business. In making this point, may I say that it has been suggested that because the three Senators who have sponsored this Bill represent the university constituency we are not speaking for the people of Ireland. Our answer to that is that we have been elected to the Seanad to work as Senators. We have the right and the duty, if we see fit, to introduce legislation. The legislation, when introduced, will go through the parliamentary process, which is a democratic process, and will be discussed. We are seeking now the publication of this Bill so that the democratic process may take place. We are not seeking to rush this process. We are not seeking to put something through which the people do not feel they wish to accept. We are simply seeking publication for the purpose of having a valid, constructive, relevant debate on the terms of the Bill. I, therefore, very strongly support the amendment to the Order of Business.
I should like to say a few words on this. The amendment before us may be a technical question as to whether the particular item will be taken today or not. I am not criticising either of the Senators who have raised this question but it is clear that to regard this merely as a technical question would probably be oversimplifying the matter. Those who have views as to whether or not it should be taken would, within the Rules of Order of this House, be entitled to explain that if they felt there was any degree of urgency which would indicate that this item should be taken today, and if they felt disposed on that account to agree with the amendment that this Bill should be ordered for discussion today, they would be entitled to make it quite clear that by doing that they would not necessarily be supporting the contents of the Bill or even committing themselves to support the First Stage of the Bill whenever it is taken.
I am speaking for myself now. The only value I would see in this amendment would be to get the bloomin' Bill out of the way. There has been far too much time taken up, far too much controversy on a matter which I do not believe is exercising the minds of a great number of people in this country. I say that in particular to Senator Horgan. We can show we are masters of our own House by dealing with matters which are really important. If there is a vote on this amendment, I will not support it, nor would I support the Bill. I do not want to discuss this at length now, but it is relevant to point out that this is the first time this Bill has appeared on the Order Paper in the Seanad. A previous Bill was handed in and did appear on the Order Paper. Those who proposed it have now abandoned that Bill. Another Bill appears here for the first time today and we are asked, as a matter of urgency, to set aside a particular Order of Business and to give this Bill a First Reading.
I do not support the Government— nobody is in any doubt where I stand as regards that—but I think the Government and the Leader of this House are entitled, in a situation where an item appears for the first time on the Order Paper of the Seanad, to give it consideration and to decide their attitude with regard to it. This should be said in fairness to the proposers of this amendment. There are very substantial differences between what is now proposed and what was proposed before. I am not in favour of either proposal, but in fairness to the Senators this should be said. When that is said the consequences also follow that, with a radical alteration in the proposal which is being brought before the Seanad, the Leader of the House and the Government are entitled to consider the implications of that radical alteration.
I should like to support this amendment. I do for one reason. I have been quite horrified at the amount of misrepresentation about the contents of both these Bills. Normally I would agree with Senator O'Higgins's point that, as this is the first time the Bill has appeared on the Order Paper, I should not support this type of amendment. But there are outside considerations, and we have all been shocked at some of the reactions to this Bill. This is a subject matter which is alive in Ireland today. There may be reasons for this, which I do not wish to go into. We must be concerned about some of the movements which are going on, first of all, to defeat the Bill before it has even been discussed or indeed circulated. In fairness to the proposers of the Bill, it should, at this stage, be circulated so that we can arrive at intelligent and democratic decisions.
Without doubting the bona fides of the proposers——
May I interrupt the Senator? Are we going to have a debate on this? I refrained from speaking in the belief that a representative of each of the parties wanted to make his position clear, but if we are going to have a debate on it that makes a big difference.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The position is that Senator Ó Maoláin has moved a certain Order of Business. An amendment to that has been proposed and seconded. It is a matter for the House to decide what they want to do. On that point every Senator may be heard and, when no further Senators are offering, Senator Ó Maoláin will then conclude the discussion on this particular point.
I take it I am in order. As I was saying, I do not doubt the good intentions of the three Senators who are promoting this Bill, but they have failed to make a case for the urgency of its introduction. As Senators are aware, on 26th February we received a letter from Senator Mrs. Robinson indicating her support for a Bill which she was introducing under her own name for amendment of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1935. Four weeks later we had a further communication enclosing the substance of a further Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 1971, sponsored by three Members of this House. Notwithstanding the criticisms that have been made by the two Senators, three spoke in favour of the early introduction of this Bill. Although they complain that they have been misrepresented in correspondence and through the news media generally, it seems to me that the dialogue that has taken place so far has caused the sponsors to amend their original ideas. A further limited delay might result in more amendments, or a further amending Bill, and possibly supported by more Members of the Seanad.
I am not going to indicate at this stage what action I shall take when we finally come to consider a Bill. In this regard I think that the Leader of the House should indicate a final date. This business has been handled wrongly. The Bill should be withdrawn and the Taoiseach, who has indicated that he proposes to make a study of this complicated and highly delicate matter, should be encouraged to do so at the earliest possible date.
Senator Robinson appears to think that nobody in the country knows what is at the back of her mind. She seems to forget that a tremendous amount of explanation of the proposals in the present Bill is available to the people, as a consequence of the interview given on Radio Telefís Éireann on Sunday by Senator Horgan and of the subsequent interview given last night on "7 Days" by Senator Horgan. As was pointed out here, this is not the original Bill which was introduced into the Seanad by Senator Robinson some weeks ago. This is an entirely different one from that which appeared on the Order Paper. At that time I said that it was a matter which required consideration and I want to make it quite clear, in case there is any misunderstanding, that this is a matter having wide implications and one of great importance. It is one which could not and should not be approached in the schoolgirlish irresponsible manner in which Senator Robinson and Senator Horgan approached this, by the introduction of two Bills.
Are Senators being schoolgirlishly irresponsible by introducing Bills? That is incredible.
Shame.
This is a very important matter which requires mature consideration and it will receive mature consideration from the Government and from the Fianna Fáil Party. In view of suggestions which have been made, I want to state that we are not going to be rushed by any pleas put forward into doing a thing without considering the implications of our action. We are not going to be panicked, frightened, rushed or pushed, either from the right or from the left, or through the media or by correspondents in newspapers, or by pressure groups. Nobody can have any doubt that we will withstand any pressure of that nature.
A Senator
Hear, hear.
This is a matter which requires consideration in view of the fact that there is an entirely new Bill on the Order Paper, and that consideration will be given. When it has been given, the attitude of this party will be communicated to the Seanad and action will be taken accordingly. Until then I must object to the amendment and insist that the Order of Business stand as I have proposed it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Is a vote in order?
An Leas-Chathoirleach
The position is that, if the amendment is being pressed, the amendment will be put. After that it is open to any Senator to seek a division.
The amendment is being pressed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.