It is proposed to take Nos. 3 and 4. With the permission of the House I would hope that we would adjourn at 6 o'clock to permit Members to attend the obsequies.
Order of Business.
The Leader of the House means that we adjourn but we do not resume today. I take it we are not sitting tomorrow.
I move the following amendment to the Order of Business:
To insert No. 2 before No. 3.
I second the amendment.
Before speaking on the amendment I should like to associate myself with the expressions of condolences to the family of Mr. Seán Lemass and to the expressions of appreciation of him as an Irishman. I had the privilege during the last year on the Council of the European Movement of getting to know him to some extent and I share in the views expressed from both sides of the House about this great Irishman.
In moving the amendment to the Order of Business, I do so in order that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which is No. 2 on the list and which is tabled by Senators Horgan, West and myself, be given its First Reading by the House and the technical right to be published and circulated. This item was on the Order Paper last week but was passed over by the Leader of the House and on that occasion we did not object to this because we did not wish to give the impression that we were unduly pressurising the Government or that we were interested in obstructing the business of the House or in looking for cheap publicity for its own sake.
I think the stage has now come where we cannot once again allow the matter to be passed over in silence because what now arises is the question of parliamentary privilege, of the privilege of a Senator to introduce a Bill and to have that Bill given a First Reading by the House, unless it is the intention of the Government to oppose it. By postponing consideration of the matter in this way the Government are effectively preventing three Senators from exercising their privilege as Senators to introduce legislation in the normal way. They are effectively censoring our right to introduce Bills and to have the public know what we are doing.
I propose, in order to show the extent to which this is a curtailment of our parliamentary privilege and to show how serious this would be if accepted by the House as normal practice, to look very briefly at the Standing Orders of the Seanad in this respect and to compare them with the position in the House of Commons and the House of Lords in England. I do not propose to take up much time over this but I think it is important. I refer initially to Standing Order No. 72, one of the Standing Orders of the House:
Any matter for decision by the Seanad shall be brought before it by Motion for a Resolution or Order, by the introduction of a Bill.
It states: "Any matter for decision by the Seanad..." If a matter is brought by the introduction of a Bill for decision by the Seanad I think it is something not contemplated in the Standing Orders of the Seanad that the matter be continually postponed by the Government and passed over and not taken on the Order Paper. I think this is a hidden deprivation of privilege, deprivation of the right to introduce Bills, and it diminishes my understanding of what it is to be a Senator and my understanding of the power of a Senator to introduce legislation and I think that it is important that this matter be clarified. If I may refer to Standing Order No. 73, which relates to the First Stage of Bills:
When a Bill is to be initiated in the Seanad a copy thereof, authorised by the signatures of not less than three nor more than six Senators as proposers, shall be delivered to the Clerk, and its title and a short description of its purpose, prepared by the proposers and accepted by the Cathaoirleach, shall appear on the Order Paper. The Senator whose name shall appear as first signatory on the said copy shall be deemed to be the Senator having charge of the Bill and shall move for leave to introduce the Bill. If such motion be opposed the Cathaoirleach after permitting an explanatory statement from the Senator who moves, and a statement from the Senator who opposes the motion may, if he thinks fit, put the question thereon. If leave to introduce the Bill be given, an Order shall be made for its second stage and the Bill shall be printed;
It is this First Reading, then, that we are seeking today and I emphasise again that by postponing the taking of this item on the agenda the Government can indefinitely curtail our right to introduce legislation and our right to have the public know exactly what we are proposing. This hidden possibility of indefinite postponement of an item, if it is abused as I suggest at the moment that the Government are abusing it, is not possible under the English system. If I may quote very briefly from Sir Gilbert Campion's Introduction To The Procedure of the House of Commons.
Senator, you appreciate that we are at present discussing the Order of Business. I do not think that the procedure in other parliaments really becomes relevant on this heading.
I accept your ruling but what I was about to do in a few words was to stress that the First Stage in the British Parliament is a formal stage. We get most of our parliamentary tradition, most of our attitudes on the importance of parliamentary democracy from the Westminster model. We do not copy in detail but our general view is the same in stressing the importance of the legislature, the importance of parliamentary democracy. While I accept your ruling, what I proposed to do was to show that in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords once a Private Member introduces a Bill the First Stage is a formal stage. If I might just very briefly quote from the relevant——
The Senator will appreciate that we have our own Standing Orders in this House under which we operate. I have allowed the Senator to quote from various Standing Orders but strictly speaking all we are dealing with at the moment is the Order of Business. The Senator has moved an amendment to add one item to the Order of Business. I do not really think that this matter arises under that heading.
Very well. I accept your ruling. It was, as I said, purely to establish the principle that the First Stage in the British Parliament is a formal stage and would not be either postponed or indefinitely put on the long finger in this way. It is not my object to take up the time of the House. It is not my object to seek cheap publicity about this matter. It is my object to affirm the importance of the privileges of Senators, of the legislators in the system, and the importance of not allowing our privileges to be eroded by the indefinite postponement of a matter by the Government, and to emphasise that the Order Paper is a matter for the House. It is the Seanad which determines when a Bill is introduced whether it will be given its First Reading, and that this is a principle we should not let fall by the wayside.
I appeal as a Senator, then, for the right to introduce this Bill with my two colleagues. I appeal for the right to get a reading unless the Government intend to oppose it, and from statements both from the Taoiseach and other members of the Government it does not appear as though the Government oppose this in principle. The matter is not very clear but it is not evident from various statements which have been made in public that the Government intend to oppose this in principle.
As I mentioned before, the Senators who are attempting to get a First Reading for this Bill are distressed at the extent to which we are being misinterpreted in the press and at the extent to which this is bad for the general opinion of the legislation when is comes up. It is much more difficult now for the Bill to be given a neutral consideration when feelings are polarised. There is a feeling that we are trying to make legal the use of contraceptives. This is a misunderstanding. It is already legal to use contraceptives. I think this point ought to be emphasised. It is legal to use contraceptives. We are concerned purely with the sale and availability and distribution of them. This is a matter we ought to be allowed to put before the people, as we have tabled the Bill, and therefore I move the amendment.
Would I be in order in saying that last Thursday Senator E. Ryan, in reply to a question from me, invited me to inquire again today when item No. 1—Enforcement of Court Orders Bill, 1971 —would be taken? If it is possible for the Government to indicate when the First Stage of this Bill will be taken I should be very grateful, for reasons, I may add, of the same kind as those advanced by Senator Robinson in defence of her Bill.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House what his intentions are as regards motions. There are 14 motions on the Order Paper today. I have a motion which is a long way down the list. It is a motion which, in my opinion, is very important. As the pace in dealing with motions has been so slow it could be years before this motion will be reached. This has happened before. I have seen motions on the Order Paper that have never been taken before elections. This is an insult to the Seanad.
My motion is very important to the economy of the country as regards liver fluke but from the way in which motions are being dealt with it is obvious to me that this motion will probably never get a hearing in the House. I should like to ask the Leader of the House what is his way of dealing with these motions. What good are we doing in the Seanad? We might as well abolish the Seanad. A motion serves the purpose of Question Time in the other House. We cannot get a word in here. I should like the Leader of the House to let us know what his intentions are in dealing with these motions.
On the last occasion when we met there was some misunderstanding about Motion No. 20 which we felt would have been taken this week. I can appreciate the position of the Leader of the House and the other Members of the House due to the death of Seán Lemass, but I would be anxious when the Leader is replying if he would convey to us that he would be prepared to take this motion next week.
Very briefly I wish to support Senator Robinson in this amendment to the Order of Business. One of the reasons is that we have the quite absurd situation where we now have a nationwide debate on a nonexistent Bill. There is considerable misinterpretation going on. This has been pointed out.
In the discussion on a similar amendment in my name several weeks ago Senator Ó Maoláin advised anybody who had any doubt as to what the Bill contained to refer to radio and television programmes in which I have participated. It seems to me that there is considerable confusion here and one of the reasons why we are bringing in this amendment is to attempt to clear up this confusion.
Before participating in radio and television programmes dealing with this general area of discussion, I went to considerable trouble to take advice as to the extent to which I could be allowed to publish details of this Bill. I received a great deal of advice, much of it contradictory. More recently I have had very strong advice from somebody I regard as an eminent constitutional lawyer, that the failure to get the First Stage of a Bill through in the Seanad does not preclude publication elsewhere. I, on the other hand, would prefer to be guided by what I consider to be the traditions of this House and not to establish any precedence travelling in the other direction. That is why any comments that I have made in public about the Bill have been as general as in conscience I felt I could make them.
It is customary on motions of this kind not to debate the merits of the Bill itself. I am absolutely convinced that there is another issue at stake— it is the one, broadly speaking, outlined by Senator Robinson, and it is the merits of this issue that we should be discussing—that is the competence of the Houses of the Oireachtas in general and in particular of our own House. In this context I am particularly perturbed by the significance of the Government's refusal to give this Bill even a First Reading. It seems to me that the business of the Government is to take vital decisions affecting the community. This is perfectly understandable and justifiable. It is the way in which all Governments should work. What we seem to have operating at the moment on the Government side is a sort of sense of global panic which leaves them not just to take decisions but to take complete and virtual and totalitarian control over vast areas of our democratic process. This is why I support the amendment.
I just want to say a few words on this. This amendment is in line with an amendment which was proposed some weeks ago by Senator Horgan and I expressed my views at that time. I think it is just as well that I should say again very briefly some of the things which I said then. One of the things that I think is necessary to say and to be quite clear on is that the amendment that is being proposed is an amendment to the Order of Business before us today. Whatever view individual Senators may take with regard to whether this particular item should be included in today's Order of Business should not be interpreted by anyone, in the House or in the Press Gallery or outside, as indicating support or approval for the particular Bill which is listed as item No. 2 on the Order Paper—the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 1971.
It is necessary to make this clear particularly in view of the situation that was described by Senator Horgan who referred to a nationwide debate being held on a Bill which as yet does not exist. I feel very conscious that a number of Senators would feel that the rights of Members of Parliament should be upheld in so far as obtaining a First Reading of a Bill is concerned and who at the same time, while feeling that strongly, may not wish, if they decide to support that point of view, to be tagged as supporters of this or any other particular Bill on this topic. I think it is necessary to make that clear.
As far as the Members of my party are concerned, they have not been given any diktat or whip with regard to the particular amendment that is proposed today. Some of them may decide that the arguments in favour of a Senator being permitted to have a First Reading of a Bill are such that they cannot be withstood and they may vote for the amendment. Others may feel, as I feel myself, that there is no need whatever for this Bill to be introduced or for the time of this House to be taken up by discussion of this Bill. So far as I am concerned, I see no reason why it should be ordered today. I see no reason why it should be ordered any other day. We are reaching a situation—it is quite clear to all of us—where there is going to be a general election in the near future. If anyone wants to put the proposals contained in this Bill to the Irish people the time to do so is at a general election.
I wish to support the amendment to the Order of Business. In supporting Senator Mrs. Robinson I do not feel there is any necessity to look to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or to any similar place. In my opinion we have only to look to the Standing Orders of this House, the body of which we are Members, which say: "That the business of the Seanad shall be in the order as laid down on the printed Order Paper unless otherwise decided by the Seanad." Therefore, under our own Standing Orders, we start with the presumption that this House should discuss first No. 1, second No. 2, third No. 3, fourth No. 4 and so forth. This is the presumption under our own Standing Orders. It is possible under that Standing Order to vary our business but we should realise every time we do so that we are making a conscious decision. It is not for the Leader of the House to stand up and to say, as a sort of lottery, that we will discuss this item or that item. When he stands up each day to propose the Order of Business he is proposing, in fact, a variation from the standard, the norm, laid down under our own Standing Orders.
Our own custom, if not our Standing Orders, place the First Stage of Bills before the Second Stage Bills on the Order Paper. In doing this we follow the parliamentary customs to which Senator Mrs. Robinson has referred. We dispose of First Stages of Bills before we come to dispose of Second Stages unless we decide otherwise. Surely the Seanad should not except for weighty reasons make such positive decisions. Accordingly I think that the onus of varying the Order of Business, the onus of not taking the First Stage of any Bill, the onus in regard to this particular argument, is on those who propose that the First Stage should not be taken. The onus is not on those who propose that all First Stages be taken and that all Bills be printed without any necessary decision about when the Second Stage should be debated.
That is what we have before us today. We have before us a proposal that the First Stage of this Bill be taken today and, if the House so approves, that the Bill be then printed. The proposition is not that the Bill be now printed and the Second Stage taken next week. It is the simple proposition: that the House should be entitled to discuss the question of whether or not this Bill—the precise question that Senator O'Higgins has proposed—is one that should occupy the time of this House. Whether there is to be a substantive debate on Second Stage is better debated on First Stage than on the Order of Business here. I am sure the Chair at this time, 3.45, is sympathetic with that particular argument.
I would suggest that the complete onus is on the Leader of the House who seeks, in this respect, to vary the order laid down in our Standing Orders, to vary the practice of other parliaments. I want to make my position clear. I support this amendment not because I necessarily support the contents of this Bill. On that point I reserve my position until such time as the appropriate arguments have been made on First Stage and, if the Bill so survives, I further reserve my position until the appropriate arguments have been made on Second Reading. It is on the basis that no Bill should be lightly denied publication, on the basis—and this has already been mentioned—that the debate is already taking place throughout the country, or on the basis that a substantial proportion of the people whom we represent are concerned about this particular problem that I support the amendment. I believe it is the duty of this House to have this Bill, or if not this Bill some other Bill, printed without delay. Whatever we may think about the merits of this case I see little validity in the argument that this matter should be continually postponed from day to day.
I feel that in what was said on the last occasion and what has been said up to the present the onus of proof for departing from parliamentary practice has not been discharged by those who would ask us to depart from normal parliamentary practice, that the First Stage of a Bill should be automatic so that at least we will know what we are talking about.
I, too, would like to support this amendment. I was very encouraged that Senators should support the right of us three Independent Senators to have the First Stage of this Bill taken without necessarily supporting what is in the Bill. We are talking about a basic right we have as Senators. I am, therefore, very encouraged by Senator O'Higgins and Senator Dooge saying that we are entitled as a basic right to have our Bill published without they necessarily supporting it. It is not the intention of Senator Mrs. Robinson, Senator Horgan and myself to steamroll legislation. We know, as well as anybody else, that no Bill can become law without the approval of the majority in both Houses of the Oireachtas. However, we feel that it is a basic right to have the Bill published. Therefore, I should like to support the amendment because it is one particular area of democracy which we should not allow to be eroded.
Senator Prendergast rose.
Senator Prendergast has already spoken.
I have already spoken on the motion but I would like to speak on the amendment.
I cannot allow the Senator to speak again. We are taking the motion on the Order of Business and the amendment together.
I shall be very brief.
I am sorry, Senator, but I must ask you to sit down. I am calling Senator Russell.
I would be grateful if you could clarify a statement that has been made here that there is a basic right for Senators to have any Bill brought before this House and debated as of right. If that is an established fact I do not know what we are arguing about. Unless I have your ruling, or a statement, to that effect I cannot accept that any Bill, no matter what its contents or intended contents, has a right to be debated in this House or in either House of the Oireachtas. I made my position quite clear on the last occasion on which an effort was made to have this Bill introduced. I do not think this is the proper way to deal with this problem.
The Taoiseach has already indicated, quite clearly, that the subject matter of this Bill and other matters of a constitutional nature which, he suggested, might hinder better relations between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six Counties, would be dealt with by the Government at an early date. I feel there is an obligation on the Government and the Taoiseach to deal with this matter, and in my opinion they are the people who should be dealing with it. If there has been dialogue or discussion on a non-Bill it is not the fault of the Seanad. Again it augments the reasons I have given why this matter should not have been dealt with in the way it has been dealt with. Discussion should have preceded introduction of a Bill of this nature and not have followed from its introduction. A good deal of misunderstanding and, as Senator Mrs. Robinson has rightly said, a good deal of misinterpretation have arisen. The fault must lie squarely with the sponsors of this Bill. Bills of this nature, involving matters of a highly complex and delicate nature, should be discussed outside both Houses before they are introduced.
May I answer the question put to the Chair by Senator Russell? It is a matter for the House to decide the Order of Business. The Chair has no function in the matter.
I never heard such raméis since I came into the Seanad as has been uttered here by most of the speakers on the other side of the House. One would imagine that this Bill is some sort of a secret document which nobody knows anything about and that the whole fate of the nation depends on its being printed by Seanad Éireann and circulated gratis to gratify the whim of our lady Senator here.
More mileage has been got out of this Bill than out of any other Bill which I remember being introduced into this House. Every day some newspaper carries a double column heading on the issue of contraception. Our friends in Westmoreland Street make a point of ensuring that every time one of the Senators concerned speaks there is a lengthy verbatim report of every word uttered. The people in general are quite well acquainted with what is in the minds of those who are introducing this Bill. There is no secret about it. It is not a case of a non-Bill. It is a Bill and everyone knows what is in it. If any point would be served by having it printed, then those who are so anxious to have the Bill actually in print for distribution, if they are enthusiastic enough to want to foist this on us without proper consideration, then they can get it printed and circulate it themselves.
The trouble is we cannot——
I do not see any reason why they should not do that if they are so enthusiastic. All protest committees and people of that nature are doing the same thing. Senator Dooge fulminated a few moments ago about customs. There are a number of customs in this House requiring a change. In due course I will certainly make a move to change some of them.
That is a very sinister utterance to leave hanging in the air.
It is intended to be sinister and it is intended to be left hanging in the air.
To put Senator Prendergast out of his pessimistic misery—as a matter of fact, great minds were thinking alike on this question of his motion—I had practical arrangements made to have it taken. Unfortunately, it cannot be done this week and I am not sure about next week now. However, he need not have any qualms about that, because it is a matter of great interest to a large section of the people and it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
Senator Reynolds was anxious about Motion No. 20. There again we are hamstrung by events. I had hoped that if we had an opportunity today, if these two Bills with which we are to deal were finished in time, we might have a short discussion on that motion. Due to pressure of time I did not order it.
What about No. 1?
Senator Kelly is very anxious to get a decision on No. 1. I did not order No. 1 today but if the Senator would like me to vary the order and if the House will agree, I will order No. 1 now on the understanding that I shall oppose it. If that satisfies the Senator, that is all right.
Senator Mary Robinson annoys me. I explained to her on the last occasion to which reference was made in connection with this matter what the position was. That position still obtains. We are not going to be pushed by any amount of shouting, or by quoting what happens in the British Parliament or any other parliament, into doing what we do not wish to do until such time as adequate examination and consideration has been given to the whole thing. As I said on that occasion, when that examination is completed and when the position has been decided on as to what the Government Party's attitude will be in the matter, the result will be communicated to the Seanad. That is the best I can do in this regard.
With regard to Senator Dooge's proposition about the printing of Bills, it comes ill from people who are always quibbling about extravagance in certain Government Departments to talk about printing something when there is no need to print it. No matter how small the expenditure might be in regard to printing this Bill, it is something which I would not encourage and I do not see why anyone else should encourage it either.
You could print 1,000 Bills for the cost of Ár nDaltaí Uile, a piece of election literature about education sent round at the public expense for Fianna Fáil in 1969. A 1,000 Bills could have been printed at the same cost.
That was issued by the Department of Education. I do not know anything about it. Senator Kelly has such a blurred, biased, and prejudiced Fine Gael mind——
Would the Senator stick to the Order of Business?
I am inclined now to say a few things to Senator Kelly by sticking to the Order of Business.
Can I take it that the Leader of the House is prepared to vary his proposal?
Would the Senator mind waiting until we dispose of this amendment and then he could put his question on the Order of Business?
I beg your pardon. I am sorry to delay the business, but I would like to get this clear. If we vote now on the Order of Business as originally proposed, what will happen to the suggestion made just now by the Leader of the House that he would take No. 1 now?
We are now disposing of the amendment. When this amendment has been disposed of, we will have to decide on the Order of Business, as amended or unamended, as the case may be, and the Senator can then raise the point. Is Senator Robinson pressing the amendment?
The amendment is being pressed.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá: 12; Níl: 29.
Tá
- Belton, Richard.
- Boland, John.
- Dooge, James C. I.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Horgan, John.
- Kelly, John.
- O'Brien, William.
- Prendergast, Micheál A.
- Robinson, Mary T. W.
- Sheldon, W. A. W.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
Níl
- Ahern, Liam.
- Brennan, John J.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Cranitch, Mícheál C.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Doyle, John.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Farrell, Peggy.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Gallanagh, Michael.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Desmond.
- Honan, Dermot P.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Keery, Neville.
- McElgunn, Farrell.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Nash, John J.
- Norton, Patrick.
- O'Callaghan, Cornelius K.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Terry.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Walsh, Seán.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Horgan and Mrs. Robinson; Níl, Senators Brennan and J. Farrell.
Amendment declared lost.
May I now ask the Leader of the House whether that was a serious offer to take No. 1 now, before Nos. 3 and 4?
It was.
Will Senator Kelly move an amendment to that effect?
I move:
That the Order of Business be Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:
That notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Standing Orders the Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill, 1970 should be taken today in the absence of the usual three days notice.
Question put and agreed to.
Is the Order of Business, as amended, Nos. 1, 3 and 4 agreed?
Order of Business, as amended, agreed to.