Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Jul 1973

Vol. 75 No. 6

Business of Seanad.

I move motion No. 1:

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

(a) 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,

(b) the speech of a Senator proposing a motion shall not exceed thirty 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 twenty minutes for a speech in reply; the speech of any other Senator in the course of the debate shall not exceed twenty minutes.

Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 comprise the scheme with regard to motions which was agreed by the Committee of Procedure and Privilages. It is, with some variations, similar to the scheme which was agreed during the last Seanad. The variations are contained in Motion No. 2 in that, instead of setting aside one day in the month for motions, it is proposed that the procedure should be that at least one motion a month will be taken. That will enable us not to confine ourselves to a particular day, for example, we might follow on on a Wednesday and go into Thursday with motions. It would also enable us, if there was some comparatively short business to be done on a day which had been intended to be allocated to motions, to take that business as well.

The major difference is in relation to clause (2) of Motion No. 2, where we set out some guidelines to determine the priority of motions and also establish the fact that, in cases where a statement of Government policy is not necessarily involved in the motion, we should be free to go on in the absence of a Minister. That is an important matter from the point of view of Senators. The motions are deliberately worded as they are, in that Motion No. 1 will have binding effect on the Chair and on the Members of the Seanad as regards the time allocated to motions and the amount of time which speakers may occupy.

Motion No. 2 is worded in a recommendatory sense. It is necessary technically to do that because it does not amount to an actual amendment of the Standing Orders, for which another procedure would be required.

I regard the procedure as set out in the two motions as a distinct improvement on the procedure which lamentably failed to operate in the last Seanad. There are one or two questions I should like to ask particularly in relation to the second motion. I am glad to see that they are setting down a minimum and that at least one motion will be taken if time allows for discussion.

As to the criteria on which these will be chosen, I should like some clarification on subsection (2) (a) which refers to the topicality of the subject matter. There are some motions which are not necessarily very topical in the sense of being discussed but where the Seanad could perform a very valuable function. I am thinking of the annual reports of bodies such as the Library and the Museum. These are not topical in the sense of being debated in other forums or being on the lips of the ordinary person. But they are an extremely important matter for the Seanad to discuss annually and on which to give their assessment each year of the performance and of the priorities of these bodies. We should be careful that topicality does not rule out what might be considered to be rather minority but still very important matters.

I should like clarification on that matter and also on the question of rotation between different groups. As an independent Senator, I presume the independents will be considered to be a group. Although I can see the fairness of rotating, if there is not a demand for rotation I assume one does not have to wait until there has been rotation for two motions for the same Senator or same group of perhaps independent Senators.

The third point I should like to raise is this. I assume the Senator proposing the motion would be the person who would be asked to indicate whether he would be happy to proceed without the Minister being present.

Briefly, all of the Senator's assumptions are correct.

I am glad that there has been an advance in the opportunity for the Seanad to discuss these motions. I wonder about the wisdom of the limitation in the time for the Senators in the debate. Most of the time I should imagine that 20 minutes is enough for each Senator on these kinds of motions. But in discussing some motions it is possible that a much more leisurely assessment of the problems involved would be desirable and valuable from the point of view of the Seanad, and possibly for the Minister if he happens to be present.

At the last meeting of the Seanad I felt rather embarrassed that I continued to speak when I felt I should. I had protested at the limitation on the debate on the EEC report. I felt there should not have been a limitation on that debate. I did not then feel that I was bound to——

There would not be a limitation. This only refers to non-Government motions.

I see that, but some of the non-Government motions are particularly interesting ones. For that reason I do not see why there should be this limitation. I felt that I was taking away an opportunity for another Senator to speak. Another Senator who was allowed three to four minutes to speak did protest when he had obviously a lot to say. Insofar as the Seanad meets so rarely, we have plenty of time. We have very little business to do compared to the Dáil. For most motions 20 minutes would be quite enough, but I just wonder whether we are not putting ourselves in a position in which we will have to skimp the motion and deal with it in a cursory, superficial way rather than deal with it in a full and considered way as we have the time, and a number of us have a certain amount of knowledge which might be of value to the Ministers in the discharge of their job as Ministers in Government. For that reason I wonder whether it is wise to restrict the time to 20 minutes. As long as the person speaking is within the Rules of Order of the House, it seems to me that there is no good case for restricting the time of the discussion.

This is a matter that was considered by representatives of all groups at the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. I do not think there was any objection in the last Seanad. If there was a breakdown in our scheme, it was not because we were too cramped as regards the time allowed to Senators. If what Senator Browne foresees does seem to arise as a problem during the implementation of this scheme, I would be happy to have it looked at again. I am quite sure that Senator Lenihan would feel the same way about it. I think it is unlikely to happen. Most of us, if we set ourselves to it, will be able to marshall our facts and get them across inside 20 minutes.

There is a very flexible approach being adopted by the Committee as representative of all the groups in the Seanad. The Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, the Fianna Fáil Party and the independent group have their representatives on the Committee. We will certainly do everything to facilitate the flexibility in our approach to these rules, but it is important to get a set of rules down and try and make them work.

Question put and agreed to.

I move Motion No. 2:

That Seanad Éireann consider that—

(1) if the exigencies of business allow, at least one motion other than Government motions should be taken each month; and

(2) in determining the order of priority in which such motions should be taken regard should be had to—

(a) the topicality of the subject matter,

(b) rotation between different groups, and

(c) the availability of the Ministers concerned: provided that a motion not necessarily involving a statement of Government policy may be proceeded with without a Minister being in attendance.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share