It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 5. Assuming that the Order of Business is agreed, perhaps I should mention that Opposition Senators will probably be aware that some of the business we were expecting from the Dáil has not arrived. I do not know whether or not it will arrive later in the day. I have in mind particularly the Members Allowances Bill. I am not looking for agreement for this at this stage, but if the Members Allowances Bill should be received from the Dáil during the course of the day I propose suggesting at a later stage that business might be interrupted at 10 p.m. and that the Seanad should sit somewhat later than usual in order to try to at least commence dealing with the Members Allowances Bill. I am not looking for agreement at the moment; I am merely mentioning it in order to give notice of the fact that, before 10 p.m., I might be making a proposition to the House in connection with this Bill.
Order of Business.
We can leave that for discussion between ourselves as the day progresses. It might be premature to make any decision on the matter pending the resolution of the Dáil's affairs. We will leave it on that basis.
Yes. I only mentioned it because I do not want to take people by surprise later on.
I wish to propose an amendment to the Order of Business for the purpose of taking Motion No. 17. Therefore, I move:
That Item No. 17 be added to the Order of Business.
I should like briefly to say why I propose this amendment. I feel that everybody must agree that the subject matter of Motion No. 17 is the most critical issue which faces this country at the moment. The Seanad will not be fulfilling their duty if they fail to debate this motion before the recess. I raised this on a previous occasion. The motion requests a statement from the Government and the Leader of the House quite rightly pointed out that the Taoiseach had already made two statements of Government policy on this, one in Blackrock on 21st June and the other in London on 2nd July. The movers of the motion will be quite happy to debate either of the two statements which the Taoiseach has already made. The Leader of the House previously pointed out that the Government had made statements but what we request is an opportunity for the Seanad to debate these statements. We are not fulfilling our duty if we go into recess without a debate on the Northern Ireland situation. I am prepared to withdraw this amendment if the Leader of the House can give us a guarantee that we will have an opportunity to debate this motion before we recess.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am about to put the question.
It is normal procedure for me to reply. I wished to know if the other Senators wanted to intervene. I should like to say a few words on the amendment.
On a point of order, was the amendment seconded?
I second it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I gave Senators time to intervene before proposing to put the motion. I will allow the Leader of the House to reply.
It is a matter of courtesy. I do not want Senator West to think I am ignoring his request. I do not give any assurance that this motion will be discussed before the recess. I quite understand the reasons why Senator West would like to have a discussion on the motion. It is a matter of a point of view. Many people would feel that, as the Taoiseach has made no fewer than three statements very closely on the lines of what is called for in the motion and that as one of these statements was made in the Dáil and the other two were circulated to Members of both Houses, this more than fulfils the request contained in the motion that a statement should be made by the Government.
I appreciate that the making of these statements does not give the Seanad as a body an opportunity of discussing the motion in this Chamber but every Member of the Seanad is free to express his views, whether in criticism or in support of the statements made by the Taoiseach. It is not necessary that comments from Senators should take place in the form of a discussion in this House.
Surely our duty is to discuss issues of national importance? As I tried to point out, there is a great difference between a Government statement, whatever one feels about it, and a debate. There is a most important distinction to be made between a Government statement and an opportunity to debate it. As I have already stated, we are not fulfilling our function if we fail to debate this.
The motion calls for an outline of policy, which has been given on three occasions.
The motion would give us an opportunity to debate that outline of policy. That is what we are here for.
I support Senator West. There is a deadlock situation and Senator West's motion is very much in order and very urgent. Mr. Whitelaw stated recently that the Irish Government have not pressed him on the issue which is causing that deadlock, that is, the reorganisation of the polic force in the North.
An Leas-Chaothairleach
The Senator is out of order.
It is very hard to keep inside the line, but I wish to stress the importance of Senator West's motion. It is a matter of national importance and I hope the Leader of the House will accept it.
Tá
- Brennan, John J.
- Brosnahan, Seán.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Seamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Horgan, John S.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Martin, Augustine.
- O'Callaghan, Kevin.
- Robinson, Mary.
- Ryan, William.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
- Yeats. Michael B.
Níl
- Barrett, Jack.
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Boland, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Fox, Billy.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, John.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Russell, George Edward.
- Iveagh, The Earl of
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- McGrath, Patrick W.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mullen, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.