It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 3 and 6, Nos. 3 and 6 to be taken together.
Order of Business.
I propose the following amendment to the Order of Business:
That the Order of Business be Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6.
Once again I must bring up the matter of the Bill which is constantly being skipped on the Order Paper by the Leader of the House, namely No. 2, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 1971, which is being tabled by Senators Horgan, West and myself. The last time this was a matter for discussion in the House was when we divided on the Order of Business on 12th May. On that occasion I argued that a Standing Order of the House, Standing Order No. 72, does not allow the Government to stifle the Bill, to postpone it in the way that this Bill has been postponed. I quote from the Order:
72. (1) Any matter for decision by the Seanad shall be brought before it by motion for a Resolution or Order, or by the introduction of a Bill.
(2) ... and any other matter which, by law, the Seanad may decide...
It is the Seanad itself decides this matter. There is no clause or phrase in the Standing Order which allows the constant postponement of a Bill.
On 12th May another Bill came for its First Reading, the Enforcement of Court Orders Bill, 1971, proposed by Senator Kelly. This was allowed its reading because it was to be opposed. I was appalled on that occasion, and still am, as I read on the record the reply of the Leader of the House on that occasion. He said:
I am opposing the First Stage because the Government will be introducing a Bill which covers the points raised.
Professor Kelly rightly asked: if the Government were going to introduce a Bill, why they would not take the Bill drafted by the Opposition. Where is the promised Government Bill?
I bring this matter up not because it is strictly relevant to our Bill but because it indicates the attitude of the Government and how important this matter, which we are now debating, is. We are talking about parliamentary privilege, about Parliament itself. I say with diffidence, as a fairly junior Member of this House, as somebody who is not yet two years elected, that I am appalled at how cynically we override the reality of Parliament in this country.
A Parliament is a curiously personal body. It must create its own authority. It must arrogate to itself its own powers. The Parliamentary tradition of Britain was that Parliament gradually took powers from the monarchy and reduced it to a constituent monarchy. In Ireland, if we are to have a true democracy, we must assert our powers. We must have those powers.
It is a great defect of this Parliament if the Government arrogate to themselves total monopoly of introducing legislation. The Government say to a Member of the leading Opposition party: "We refuse to consider your Bill because we will be introducing a similar Bill in due course"—if that happened in the House of Commons in England would there be the list of Private Bills before the Parliament that there is at the moment? There is a substantial list of private legislation introduced by Opposition Members or by Private Members of the Government Party. We have no such tradition.
Secondly, in so far as I have been able to do a research on this, it is unheard of in England that a public Bill brought in by a Private Members does not get a First Reading. It may be opposed or it may be allowed to be published and circulated, but to keep it in limbo in this way is totally a new departure from parliamentary tradition and I think a very bad one about which the country ought to be made aware.
A Parliament is a personal body, which must create its own traditions. Another tradition which I deplore in this House, and which I think is relevant at the moment, is the vice-hold of the party whip. I think it is sad in this day and age that the party whip operates so mindlessly, so automatically and so completely on every issue. I would ask now—I do so with very little hope that this will happen—that the party whip be raised on this issue. I am speaking on an issue of parliamentary privilege. I am speaking about the Seanad determining its own Standing Orders and determining its own procedures. I think this ought to be a matter of a free vote. It ought not to be a matter of the whip being enforced.
Again, looking to the Westminster model, we have no real backbencher tradition here where the Government are criticised from their own back benches, where there may be a substantial group who will dissent, especially on a matter of conscience, and I would say that a matter of parliamentary privilege or a matter of conscience is one where there ought to be a free vote. I say as a younger Member of the Parliament that it is relevant at the moment in Ireland and other countries that Parliament is on trial. It is on trial with the younger generation.
I think that Senator Robinson is going rather far outside the terms of her motion which is to amend the Order of Business to add No. 2. The general question of comparative parliamentary procedures in different countries really does not arise.
I merely wanted to say that, in order to gain popularity, to gain authority in the State, Parliament must be more responsive to public opinion. It is relevant that public opinion has been discussing the subject matter of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, namely the limited availability of contraceptives in the country and the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1935, and, by the repeal of censorship provisions, the availability of literature relating to contraceptives. This has been debated extensively around the country.
Recently there was a very responsible poll in This Week on the matter. On the last occasion, on 12th May, the Leader of the House said that the Government were to consider this matter in due time and make up their minds about it. I cannot believe that the Government can be so much slower than the average person if there is goodwill. I am now beginning to believe that there is not this goodwill, that there is a great deal of political cynicism, that there is the desire not to take the Bill this session, to leave it until October, November or December—when we will meet again. By that time it will be a very stale issue, it is hoped. I would remind the Leader of the House, and this is my final point on this occasion, that tomorrow we are into July; that we are coming into what is known in parliamentary language as “the July gallop”; that there will be a great deal of legislation during the month of July, as there always is; that he will seek and will want the co-operation of the House; that this co-operation will only be forthcoming if Parliament itself is seen to be moving independently and giving to itself and taking this authority. Only if Private Members have confidence that, if they put down Bills they will be taken and that they will not be opposed merely on the grounds that the Government may at some indefinite time in the future introduce legislation, or, worse still, that they will not be kept in limbo and be stifled by the Government, will the Leader of the House get the co-operation necessary for the vital legislation which will be coming before us during this month. If not, we will be forced to reply in kind to the methods of the Leader of the House. I think that would be very regrettable for our parliamentary tradition and very regrettable for the good of the country which requires this legislation.
I second Senator Robinson's motion and I will say a few words in support of it. I should like specificatlly to refer to a point made by Senator Dooge on another occasion when he argued very tellingly that the onus is less on the proposer of a motion such as Senator Robinson to show why such a Bill or projected piece of legislation should be included as it is on the Government to show why it should be excluded. We have heard from the Leader of the House, and indeed from the Leader of his party, the Taoiseach, a number of excuses recently, all aimed at reassuring us that this matter was being given mature consideration and that the Government would not be bullied by any pressure group from left or from right. I submit that there is another interpretation to be put on the facts and that the Government's action in refusing to take this Bill at its First Stage can be ascribed to an incredible mixture of intellectual confusion, mental paralysis and moral cowardice. I do not think that any of us agreed with the fate that was meted out last week to Senator Kelly's draft Bill, but at least in that case the Government had the guts to oppose it and in opposing it showed the tawdriness of their reasons for doing so.
The situation we have about this Bill at the moment is that the Government apparently neither have the guts to accept nor to reject it. I will not abuse the intelligence of the House by repeating further the arguments why I believe it is necessary for us to take this Bill. I believe that they are self-evident and I defy the Government to prove otherwise.
I should like briefly to support Senators Robinson and Horgan on this issue. I feel that far from being irresponsible, as some people have levelled at us, we are being responsible on a deeply personal issue by putting forward this Bill. I think it is high time it was considered. Because it is such a personal issue, it is one into which the party whip should not apply, and I think that the sooner we face up to the necessity for a change in the legislation and consider this issue the better. I would feel quite happy myself if the Government gave us a firm guarantee as to when they would be prepared to do something about this, but seeing that they are not going to do this, we have got to press them on the issue.
I should like to be associated with this, particularly with Senator West's last remark. I should be happy if we were to have a definite date in the not too distant future for the acceptance of the First Stage of this Bill. This Bill is of enormous interest to the community and of enormous importance to quite a considerable section of that community and to have it hanging fire like this for a protracted and indeed an indefinite time is not consonant with either the dignity of this House or the interests of the Community.
This is the third occasion on which an amendment has been proposed to the Order of Business for the purpose of having a discussion on the First Reading of this Bill. I want to say at the outset that we must clearly distinguish here between two things. One is the question of parliamentary procedure which has been raised by Senator Robinson and other speakers, and the other is the question of the Bill itself. I make no secret that so far as the Bill is concerned I am opposed to it and I am prepared to opposed it if a First Reading is ordered and later if a First Reading is accepted.
The question of whether the Bill should be ordered is a separate matter on which different Senators will have different views. I should like to make clear also, at the outset, that the members of the Fine Gael Party in the Seanad are absolutely free without any dictation or whip whatsoever to vote as they wish and as they think right on the amendment which has been proposed.
Expressing a personal view, I may say that I think the request made by Senator West is not an unreasonable one. I think it is reasonable that when a Bill has been on the Order Paper of the Seanad for a considerable time the sponsors of that Bill, if the amendment is not being accepted by the Government, should receive some kind of firm indication from the Leader of the House as to when it is proposed to order the First Stage.
This is the third occasion on which this proposal has been made. On the first occasion the matter was not pressed to a vote. On the last occasion there was a vote. I voted against taking the First Stage. My vote on that occasion seemed to give rise to some criticism and some speculation as to the political motivation for it. There was also a suggestion in some of the written comment that because I voted against the taking of the First Stage on the last occasion, I was in some way less of a parliamentarian. I should like to take the opportunity now of making my views quite clear. I support of parliamentary democracy 100 per cent. I acknowledge and support the right of Members of either House of the Oireachtas to initiate legislation, but I also acknowledge and support the right of each of our Houses of Parliament, subject to whatever constitutional requirements there may be, to decide for themselves and without outside interference any questions concerning the ordering of their own business.
I regard it as the absolute essence of parliamentary democracy that any questions coming before either House of the Oireachtas should be decided by majority vote. I am not suggesting that any person in public life should be regarded in any way as being immune to criticism or from ever being called to account or taken to task for his actions. I would regard it as the very antithesis of parliamentary democracy that any member of Parliament should vote otherwise than he thinks right for fear of harassment or bullying either inside or outside the House. So far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to trade my vote on this or on any other matter coming before us for favourable publicity or comment.
On the question of political motivation, so far as I am concerned there is none whatever. I approach the matter of the Bill, the matter of this amendment, without any reckoning of political consequences. I will use my own judgment on the merits of the proposal before us. I took the view before that the time of this House should not then have been occupied by a discussion of this Bill. The only merit I see in the amendment before us is that it would enable the House to get rid of this Bill. I do not wish to see the working of the Seanad interfered with or held up indefinitely by discussions such as we are necessarily undertaking at the moment. I feel that it is a reasonable request from the point of view of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary democracy that if a Private Member of either House of the Oireachtas puts down a Bill she or he should have some reasonable indication from the Leader of the House so far as this House is concerned, and the head of the Government so far as the other House is concerned, as to when it is proposed to order that business for discussion.
I am no more in favour of this Bill now than I was previously, but my decision with regard to this amendment will be governed by whatever contribution may be made by the Leader of the House. I regard it as eminently reasonable that he should give an indication to the sponsors of the Bill as to when he proposes to order this business. If he feels that he is not in a position to give that indication and if he gives the House reasonable grounds as to why he cannot give this indication, then one set of circumstances will exist. If, on the other hand, he simply refuses to give an indication as to when the Government will be prepared to order discussion of the Bill, having regard to the fact that it has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time, then another set of circumstances will exist. I will make up my mind, on this basis, what I will do with regard to this amendment.
On the two previous occasions on which Senator Robinson has pressed for the discussion on her Bill I have taken the view that the complex and delicate matter to which the Bill adverts is one which should be dealt with by the Government. I have waited patiently, like many other Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, to see if the Government would act on the undertaking given by the Taoiseach many months ago, that the question adverted to in this Bill would be dealt with by the Government. The time has long passed for the Government to make good the Taoiseach's undertaking. The Leader of this House should give a clear undertaking that the matter will be dealt with soon by the Government or else he should allow us to vote on this Bill. I will reserve my right to vote whichever way I think fit when the Bill is published, but I do not think that the Leader of the House can justifiably repeat his assertion that there is no hurry in regard to this business. There is no question of pressure being put on the Leader of the House in any way. Unless this Bill is to become a complete public farce, he should agree to the introduction of the Bill and let us vote on it.
I must say I am not a bit impressed by the excitement which Senator Robinson tried to generate in her opening remarks nor am I impressed by Senator Horgan's statements on this Bill. They completely misunderstand the situation with regard to legislation. Perhaps I had better throw some light on it. In their minds the question of contraception appears to be all important and of great national urgency, but in the minds of most people in this country it does not hold that position at all. The Government have quite a considerable amount of more important and necessary legislation to get through before they can reach all the matters which many people would like them to deal with.
When this Bill was introduced I said that in due course the Government would give it consideration, that the party would give it consideration and that the result would be announced to the Seanad. It is not our intention to take it out of its place and to give it consideration before much more urgent problems which occupy the minds of the Government and the people generally.
The Forcible Entry Bill, for instance.
It is not our intention either to regard seriously the threatened non-co-operation campaign of Senator Mary Robinson. If anything would make me determined to be pigheaded it is a threat from Senator Robinson, or from anyone else in the Seanad, if we did not do so-and-so and if we did not give a First Reading to this Bill, they would do so-and-so and they would make legislation impossible in the Seanad. All I can say is: just try it. They will find that it is not a workable proposition.
We do not intend to be forced to do something which we must do without mature consideration. That consideration will be given in due course. It is most improbable that the Government would adopt Senator Robinson's Bill. In my opinion, it is not at all a suitable Bill. It does not meet the desires——
On a point of order, is it in order to refer to the contents of a Bill that has not been published?
The Leader of the House is not attempting to discuss the Bill in detail. It is not permissible to discuss a Bill in detail but he may refer to it in passing.
I just wanted to say that in my opinion it is most improbable that the Government would accept Senator Robinson's Bill. If Senator Dooge does not want to hear any more on that score, and if this "whip free" party are so hidebound that they cannot listen to any more on it, that is all right with me—I shall not say any more on the subject.
I should remind Senators—and particularly Senator Horgan, who made some semi-fascist utterances a few moments ago—that a couple of weeks ago Senator Kelly introduced a Bill here which was denied a First Reading. He fulminated loudly and for a long time about the failure of the Government to tackle the problem which he had in mind: he complained about the long delays and that it was to be put on a still longer finger. I am sure that Senator Kelly will be pleased to see that item No. 1 on the Order Paper today is a Bill which embodies the very points in which he was interested. I am sure that that example will not be lost on Senator Horgan, if the Opposition——
Can we expect the Government's Bill next week?
I sat here listening to all the ráiméis from the other side and I never opened my mouth. Just because a few arrows from my bow are sticking themselves into your numskulls you cannot take it. So please sit there and be quiet and listen until I finish.
Who is threatening now?
Will the Senator address the Chair, with or without arrows?
I did not want in any circumstances to address such remarks in your direction: they were intended over there. If Senator Robinson is not satisfied with the position which I have explained, and if she thinks that immediate attention must be given to this and that we must throw everything aside in order to deal with the matters in this Bill, she is making a great mistake. Even assuming that the Bill were introduced, discussed, and so on, it would be a very long time before we could reach the Second Stage because there is a programme of legislation ahead that will keep this Seanad going until, possibly, the middle of August, and may be later. If we adjourn for any reasonable time, it will mean that it will be late autumn before we resume any consideration. Therefore, with the best will in the world, Senator Robinson's proposition falls by the wayside. I am afraid I cannot accept Senator Robinson's proposition. If she insists on wanting to introduce this Bill, then I cannot do anything to dissuade her, I suppose, except in the only way that is permitted to the Seanad to do so.
Can the Leader of the House give any indication as to when the First Stage of the Bill might be ordered?
I cannot give any indication, much as I should like to.
So long as it remains a nettle it will not be grasped.
Long before Senator Kelly appeared on the public scene we were grasping nettles—big ones.
(Interruptions.)
Question put: "That No. 2 be inserted before No. 3."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Belton, Richard.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Horgan, John.
- Jessop, W.J.E.
- Kelly, John.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Lyons, Michael D.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- Mannion, John M.
- O'Brien, William.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Russell, G.E.
- Sheldon, W.A.W.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
Níl
- 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.
- Killilea, Mark.
- McElgunn, Farrell.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Nash, John J.
- Northon, Patrick.
- O'Callaghan, Cornelius K.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Terry.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Walsh, Seán.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Horgan and Robinson; Níl, Senators Brennan and J. Farrell.
Question declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.