Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1973

Vol. 75 No. 2

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 4, 5, 6, 8, 7, 12 in that order. It is proposed to interrupt business at 7.30 p.m. for the purpose of taking No. 12 if it has not been already reached. It might be of assistance to Senators to know it is proposed that we conclude the discussion on No. 12 not later than 5 o'clock tomorrow and that the Minister should be called not later than 4.30 p.m. If necessary we will sit on Friday to conclude the other business if it has not been concluded before the discussion on No. 12.

I understand No. 7, the Social Welfare Bill, is to be taken tomorrow.

If a miracle occurs and the remainder of the business finishes early there is no reason to wait until 7.30 to take No. 12.

We would then have a truncated Social Welfare Bill debate. It will obviously be a long debate.

The Whips might have a discussion when we see how things go today. It might be possible to take the Social Welfare Bill before resuming on No. 12 tomorrow. That will depend on the length of the debate.

Senator O'Higgins did not mention No. 8 on the Order Paper.

Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 will be taken before No. 7.

When will it be possible to take No. 21 on the Order Paper? This is urgent because in my county £125,000 is in the pipeline for farming. The local authority do not know what to do with the planning, development and administration they have set up to spend this money.

Will the Leader of the House set aside some time in the near future for a debate on Northern Ireland. There is no need to underline the critical situation we face. I should like to make two points in connection with the necessity for such a debate. Firstly, there has recently been a very successful and constructive debate in the other House and it is time we recognised that the only way to stop the shooting is to start talking. It is not good enough to say that a debate at this time will rock the boat.

I must interrupt the Senator to indicate there is no motion on the Order Paper relating to Northern Ireland. Accordingly it does not arise on the Order of Business.

There will be very shortly.

When there is it will be in order.

How do the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition hope to curtail the debate? Why is there an assumption about concluding at 5 o'clock tomorrow? Is the debate likely to fall about that time? If some Senators have not spoken by that time and wish to do so, can the debate not be continued further?

The position is that the Leader of the House has made a proposition in regard to the business, which involves the Minister being called at 4.30 p.m. tomorrow. If that is agreed to, it becomes an Order of the House.

Taking Senator Browne's point first, the reason for this is because the Minister is engaged on official business later in the evening and we were trying to facilitate him and have as full a discussion as possible in the circumstances. Regarding the point raised by Senator West, when a motion dealing with it is put down we can facilitate discussion. With regard to motions, I adhere strongly to the points of view I expressed from the opposite benches that we should proceed with motions regardless of whether it is possible for Ministers to be in attendance. We will make every effort in listing motions to have the appropriate Minister in attendance but, even if this is not possible, I see no reason why motions cannot be dealt with. Subject to the Whips having a discussion on this matter, the best arrangement would probably be to take motions as they are listed on the Order Paper unless the proposers wish to have them deferred.

Could I draw your attention to a Seanad debate on 1st June last? I made a remark which is reported at Column 44 of the Official Report for that day. I turned to the Minister and I said:

Does the Minister know where it is going?

We were talking about certain moneys. Senator Lenihan is then reported as saying:

He cannot be quoted.

I am then reported as saying:

That is honest anyway.

That report does not make sense, because a remark made by the Minister is not included. The remark made by the Minister, to my best recollection, was: "I do not know either where it is going"—that is, referring to the money.

It may be in the recording system which the Minister has or it may be a defect in the transcript. I do not know. As it is at present, this report simply does not make sense. I do not know what Senator Lenihan thinks. We were both seated in different parts of the House, as you can see, and we both appear to have heard the Minister's remark.

When I read the report the very same thought struck me and I am glad Senator Browne has raised the matter. My recollection is on all fours with his recollection. In fact that is what the Minister said: "I do not know either."

I heard the remark quite clearly. The report, as it is, does not make sense. It would only make sense in the context of the Minister being reported as saying just that.

I will have the matter investigated and will communicate with the Senator.

My remark was in the context of the Minister shaking his head. He shook his head and said: "I do not know either".

Do we have to raise this matter again in order to have this statement inserted in the report?

I will investigate the matter and, if necessary, arrange for any correction to be made in the bound volume of debates.

I assume the Minister's views will be obtained.

It has happened before.

Order of Business agreed.

Top
Share