It is proposed to take Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in that order. It might be appropriate to say that in view of the recent announcement regarding Government proposals for legislation, it is not proposed to take No. 7 today.
Private Business. - Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, the Family Planning Bill, 1973, was ordered in November to be taken on the first sitting day after Christmas. Therefore, to that extent, by not moving No. 7—the Family Planning Bill—today, the Seanad is varying that Order of Business. I should like to make it clear that we fully accept that it is open to the Seanad to decide at the start of each day to order its business; it is open to Senators to put in amendments to that Order of Business; if necessary, to divide on it and vote on it. We, the proposers of this Bill, do not intend to move the amendment of the Order of Business by asking that the Second Reading be given today, as had been arranged before Christmas.
We have decided to wait a little longer in consideration of two factors. Firstly, in view of the fact that the Government came to a decision only last night that they were going to bring in their own Bill in the other House; and, secondly, because to move for a debate today would only result in wasting the time of the House, because the business which has been ordered, which is described as urgent, namely, the Transport Bill, will take a substantial amount of time. But we give notice that we do propose to either seek that the Leader of the House order the Family Planning Bill at the next sitting day of the Seanad, or else we shall order ourselves by amendment that it be taken.
We do so because we seek an early debate in this House on the terms of the Bill which was given a First Reading by the Seanad. We facilitated the Government by allowing the Christmas Recess to go by between the First Stage and Second Stage; we are facilitating them once more by not pressing for a Second Reading to be taken today. But we give notice that we will be looking for a debate on the next sitting day. Perhaps the most satisfactory contribution that this House could make on the whole question is to have a debate on the general principles and then adjourn the Second Reading without a vote. This would be an opportunity for us, as proposers of this Bill, to outline and explain the framework of the Bill and its contents and to have a discussion on the record on it. It would be an opportunity for those totally opposed to express their views. It would be an opportunity for those who would like to see amendments to express their views on it; and it would be an opportunity for the Government to indicate why they prefer to bring in a Government Bill. Hopefully at that stage they may be in a position to outline what the contents of that Bill would be.
I want to make it very clear, because this is a very technical point, that it is not weakness or indecision or a lack of desire to go ahead with the Second Reading which motivates us. Nothing would please us more, as sponsors of the Bill, than that the Bill be given a Second Reading here today. But we feel that we can accommodate the Government and accommodate the Seanad by not pressing for it today, on the understanding that we will be looking for a Second Reading at the next meeting of the Seanad, whether it be next week, or in a fortnight's time, or at whatever date the Seanad is adjourned to. At that stage we feel entitled to a debate. We have put a lot of homework into this and have provided the text of a Bill. The public, which has seen public money expended on the printing of the Bill, is entitled to see a debate on the terms of that Bill.
We feel that the Seanad has a positive contribution to make as a forum for public opinion, especially in anticipation of a Government text, because the Government have not revealed what they intend to put in their Bill. We do not have the text of it and we, as individual Senators, have unhappy memories of a previous Government promising to bring in a Bill, and of a Private Member's Bill being withdrawn in anticipation of such Government Bill which was never produced.
Therefore, what we will be seeking at the next meeting day is a Second Reading debate on the principles. The Oireachtas owes it to itself, as an important forum for airing controversial matters or important matters of this sort. We must at this stage debate the principles of legalising family planning by providing for the sale and availability of contraceptives and the removal of the censorship restrictions on the subject matter. We could then adjourn the Second Reading pending the First Reading in the Dáil of the Government measure showing the precise provisions of the Government text. When we have seen these provisions of the Government text, we will be in a position to know whether we ought to withdraw entirely in favour of this Government Bill, or whether we would still like our text to be given further consideration and a vote by the Seanad as being, in our view, a preferable text. That is still an option which ought to be open to us at that stage, when a Government Bill has been published and is about to be debated in the Dáil. Consequently, we are merely holding our fire for a very limited further time. We do not accept in any way that the Seanad has been displaced as a forum in which to discuss this issue by the promise on behalf of the Government to bring in a measure in the Dáil.
On the Order of Business, I am wondering how useful the Seanad is and how useful a Member of the Seanad can be, when the Order of Business is selected in this way.
Motion No. 12 in my name has been down for nine months. This motion refers to a money matter not provided in the last budget. I consider this of importance to the country at large. If it cannot be dealt with in nine months and has to run its course and another budget is passed, any Member of the Seanad, whichever side of the House he is on, is entitled to ask himself what contribution can he make. No. 12 is a very simple motion. Even the Government accepted it and supported it. I do not think it would do the Government any harm. I appeal to you, Sir, with respect, to ask the Leader of the House to allow time for this motion to be taken. At least it would encourage Members to feel that they contribute something. If matters cannot be raised in this manner we are most restricted in the amount of business that we can transact here. We cannot ask questions. I would appeal to you, Sir, to do something about this matter because many local authorities and organisations throughout the country have been left in a dilemma since last year. They have been left waiting for nine months. It is unfair.
I would say to the Senator that the Order of Business is a matter for the House, not for the Chair.
I should like to support Senator McGowan's plea on this, because the Motion No. 12 is a very important one. I am not going to go into the merits of it now, but it is tremendously important. Things have changed immensely in this country within the last nine months. Consequently, it is wrong of the Seanad to postpone this motion from one meeting to another. An important motion such as that should be discussed. I would appeal to the House to discuss it today, if possible.
In proposing the Order of Business as he did, Senator M.J. O'Higgins gave as his reason for not including No. 7 the fact that the Government have already indicated their intention of introducing legislation in the same area.
I agree with Senator Robinson that there is no particular necessity to press for a Second Reading today, because of the urgency of the Transport Bill. I should like to reply to Senator M.J. O'Higgins and to suggest that the willingness or unwillingness of the Government to introduce legislation on any matter is not necessarily related at all to the way in which this House should order its business. The House does not need reminding that legislation of this kind has been on the Order Paper in our names for the best part of four years. The Government proposals are as yet not a week old and have not even been unveiled in all their details.
On the particular matter in question I would obviously prefer—and no doubt Senator Robinson would prefer as well— that the Government should introduce an adequate measure and put it through both Houses of the Oireachtas. We have as yet no assurance that any measure which they introduce will be adequate. We have, as I said, a history of four years' waiting in this House for a reasonable, sensible discussion on a matter of some public importance. The main reason why I would disagree with Senator O'Higgins when he says that we should not debate this measure because the Government are going to introduce proposals is that if we agree to this we are agreeing to something which I feel strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy. We are agreeing in effect that the Government are above Parliament. If we hold the other position—which I do—we believe in the principle that Parliament is superior to Government, not Government superior to Parliament. We believe in the autonomy of Parliament. We believe that Governments are ultimately answerable to Parliaments. Senator O'Higgins would no doubt add that they are answerable to the people as well. I do not think I would disagree with him on that, but I would suggest that it is not a point at issue here.
I am saying as strongly as I can that we must not allow it to go out from this House that the Seanad should not discuss this item just because the Government say they will do something. It is not in the tradition of parliamentary democracy for any Parliament to jump like a rabbit when the Government fire a popgun. It is, on the contrary, a principle of parliamentary democracy and, indeed, of autonomy of the Oireachtas, that we have the right to discuss whatever we want to discuss, whenever we want to discuss it, irrespective of what the Government may happen to wish or proposed. I agree with Senator Robinson that we would fail in our duty to the electorate who have elected us and to the taxpayers who pay us if we failed at this point to write into the record of the House our adherence to the principle that the supremacy of Parliament must never be in doubt.
We must make clear our conviction that Parliament is not an offshoot or an extension of Government but that the situation is the other way round. I would make that point very strongly. I am not, for the very same reasons as Senator Robinson, pressing for a Second Stage debate today. I believe with her, however, that an adjourned Second Stage debate at the first possible opportunity is essential and that it is the duty of all seriousthinking people in this House to support us when we press for it.
I wish to raise two matters on the Order of Business. The first one is that already raised by Senator Robinson and Senator Horgan. I must say I am not very happy with what has happened. The Family Planning Bill—No. 7 on the Order Paper—was ordered at our last sitting to be taken today. At the very last moment the Government have produced a tentative plan but no concrete Bill and we are left in the lurch. I feel that this is government by delay. I am distinctly unhappy because this sort of thing could go on for weeks and weeks, as it did under the last administration when such a Bill was on the Order Paper, and we could keep on being put off. Things could continue on being postponed. At the very least we should ask the Leader of the House for a concrete undertaking that on the next sitting day of this House the Family Planning Bill in the names of Senator Robinson, Senator Horgan and myself will be taken or that a Government Bill will be discussed, but it is absolutely essential that a Family Planning Bill should be taken.
During the period of the last administration we suffered something similar over an Adoption Bill with which Senator Robinson, Senator Horgan and I were involved. Senator Robinson introduced that Bill on 29th June, 1972, and the then Minister for Justice mentioned that he had a Bill of his own in preparation and he hoped to introduce it before Christmas, 1972. He could not give a definite undertaking but he hoped that it would be possible.
I know that the Minister's successor also has a commitment to introduce an Adoption Bill. There are very serious anomalies in the present law concerning adoption. It is now two months after Christmas, 1973, and there is no sign of an Adoption Bill. This is another example of what happens to Private Members' Bills in this House and, apparently, in the other House. They are treated with a considerable amount of disdain by whatever administration is in power. This is not just good enough.
The second matter I wish to raise concerns the Transport Bill. The proposal is that we take it first on the agenda. Motion No. 15 on today's Order Paper, in the names of myself and Senator William O'Brien, reads as follows:
That Seanad Éireann takes note of the McKinsey Report on "Defining the Role of Public Transport in a Changing Environment" laid before the Seanad on 30th September, 1971.
A motion has been on the Order Paper of the House for virtually two years concerning the McKinsey Report and, a Chathaoirleach, if I recall correctly you were a co-signatory with me for that motion in the last administration. We now have a Transport Bill dealing with the finances of the national transport company, Córas Iompair Éireann, and we have a motion on the Order Paper to discuss the McKinsey Report, which is a report commissioned by the Government to discuss the finance of the transport company. For some reason these two items cannot be taken together. I intend to ask the Seanad to amend the Order of Business and to propose an amendment so that the Bill and the motion can be taken together. It seems absolutely ridiculous that the McKinsey Report, which was laid before the House on 30th September, 1971, cannot now be discussed in conjunction with a Transport Bill which deals with the finances of our national transport company. It is ludicrous. It makes pie in the sky of our pious idea to discuss a motion per month in this House. By my count we have had three motions since June and we have been sitting for almost nine months.
Here is a unique opportunity to take two subjects which are very closely linked together. I see absolutely no reason why the McKinsey Report should not be discussed along with the Transport Bill, 1974, and, therefore, I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that items No. 2 and 15 on the Order Paper be taken first and then items No. 3 and 4.
I should like to associate myself with the view that this Bill should be discussed in the Seanad. I am not challenging the Order of Business of today because to debate it in an atmosphere of urgency and tension arising out of the urgency of the Transport Bill would obviously be the wrong sort of atmosphere in which to debate it. The view that the Government are thinking out their own Bill at the moment and have a Bill to present to the Dáil and to the people cannot be submitted as a good reason why the Seanad should not discuss this Bill on Second Stage.
In fact, I would argue the dead opposite. If the Government are framing their policy and if they are serious about the parliamentary procedure, surely they should hear what this House has to say on this Bill before they form their policy. I say that with a certain amount of annoyance almost because if the Government are serious about letting us debate it, fine, but if they are not I would find it a ground for very great annoyance. I have put a lot of thought into this issue over the past few weeks and I am sure everybody in this House has and we assembled here to day on the grounds that it was to be taken. Now all the thought we have put into it as parliamentarians will be lost just because a few superior intelligences in the Cabinet have decided "No. We do not need that Bill; we will do something much better ourselves". Do the Government so disdain the collective intelligence of this House and the individual intelligences of its Members as to think that our debate, our contributions on this issue, could not shed any possible light in the framing of a Bill? That would seem to be the implication if the Government do not allow us to debate this Bill on Second Stage.
Therefore, while not challenging the Order of Business today, I should like to serve notice that there will be a great deal of annoyance, there will be divisions and a good deal of fractiousness on all sides if the Government treat in this way the people who have thought this Bill out so carefully. Indeed, I believe the entire House would like to see it brought before them and subjected to constructive critique. However, that is to be brushed aside and a decision handed down from above. That would seem— I would agee with Senator Horgan here—to be a negation, a deliberate and perhaps a very cynical negation, of the whole parliamentary procedure.
Would the Leader of the House indicate when he proposes ordering Motion No. 12?
I do not think anybody has any doubt as to what has happened here. I could quote the phrase coined by a very distinguished predecessor of ours in the Seanad, Senator W.B. Yeats, "You have disgraced yourselves again". I think there is little doubt about that. To quote another distinguished politician: "The paltroons have won again". As all of the Senators have said, there is no reason in the world why this Bill cannot be discussed in the Seanad. It is most ideally suited for discussion in the first instance by Senators. That cannot be said of many Bills, but it can be said of this Bill because of the varying connotations in which academic and professional expertise could be of help to the Dáil in the Bill discussed and passed here.
I am surprised at the wonderful tolerance and patience of these three talented Senators—Senator Horgan, Senator Mary Robinson and Senator West—who have waited so long with such patience and put so much time into devising and introducing this Bill.
I can assure the Senator that our patience is running out.
I am glad to hear it is running out. They have waited four years, I think Senator Horgan says. We have all waited four years. I think I have waited since 1947. This started in 1947, in the 1947 Act. People have been waiting for this kind of legislation. It started, I suppose, even in 1935. How can the Government ask for our tolerance and patience, and particularly this Government, whose two components are committed in political terms to the introduction of this Bill over a matter of years through their two party conferences and by public declarations made by members of the present Cabinet? There is no reason in the world why this Bill should not be discussed this afternoon.
As Senator Robinson has said we were told it would be taken at the first meeting after Christmas. The Government knew that. That was a formal undertaking given here and on the records of the House. Why should the Government be permitted to break that undertaking? What grounds have been given to us which would justify us accepting the undertaking that it will be taken at some time in the unspecified future? If, for instance, the Leader of the House would give us an undertaking that this Bill would be taken, say, next week, then that could be considered. But unless a specific date is given, the Seanad should press for taking this Bill now. There are medical reasons. This is not an academic discussion. There are very important human repercussions from the absence of this kind of legislation on our Statute Book in relation to the incidence of unwanted children, of unfortunate mothers who are having children they do not want. I will not go into that in any length now but the Seanad knows that this is a Bill with very far reaching human implications throughout our society.
There is a great urgency about this Bill. We are one of the last countries in Europe without legislation of this kind. Recently, in the Dáil we were told that there is so much other legislation coming up from this Government with all the talents they have, that they had to suspend Private Members' time. So, what chance has a Bill of this kind in priority with all the other important legislation which these political geniuses are dreaming up for our delectation in the months ahead? Why not? Surely this is an ideal opportunity for the Dáil and for the Cabinet to hand over to responsible people—I think it can be accepted that there is a majority of responsible people here—discussion of this Bill. The value of our opinion then would be available to those talking about the Bill in the Dáil. We can ease the burden of the many demands on their time.
They did not hear of this thing for the first time last week. This is not the first time this has been heard of. As Senator Horgan has stated it has been there for four years. When it was rejected by Senator Ó Maoláin, as Leader of the House under the Fianna Fáil Government, there was a mixture of jubilation and indignation amongst the "hawks" who wanted to get this type of legislation to show that that was not a theocratic society. Fianna Fáil had it that way; but if these people had the opportunity to govern they would strip all these archaic and medieval statutes off the Statute Book and we would become a progressive, liberalised society. They are there a year now.
This excellent Bill was devised by Senator Mary Robinson after a great deal of thought and concern. To my mind, it does not go far enough, and I propose to amend it when it is introduced. However, it is an excellent Bill as an advance on what is already there.
But something has tamed the hawks; something has clipped their wings. They are adopting much the same attitude, but in a more serious way, as Senator Ó Maoláin, who at least had the support of his party behind him. We now have the Leader of the House apparently differing from the general policy decision of his own party—an extraordinary position. You remind me —I have to use that word—over the years I have been in public life you all remind me, successive political leaders here——
I would point out to the Senator that when he uses "you" he is addressing the Chair.
Sorry. I am talking about politicians generally. I went on to define exactly whom I was talking about. You remind me of children. When a child closes his eyes he thinks it is night-time. The Dáil, the Seanad, year after year as you brought in this kind of loaded decision in the Oireachtas, have behaved as if nobody notices what is happening. This goes way back to the 1935 Bill, which Senator Robinson is trying to amend. It goes back to the 1937 Constitution. It goes back to the famous mother and child scheme. It goes back to adoption. All the way through there is a strong unbroken thread of subservience to an opinion outside this House and that is what is motivating the present decision of the Government in asking Senator Robinson to withdraw her Bill.
This decision which is being taken is being watched very carefully. It is not night-time in the North of Ireland. They are wide awake up there and are watching. This decision is being taken in the context of Sunningdale, in the context of Faulkner fighting for his life, in the context of the Protestant unionists being further confirmed in his justified belief——
I am afraid the Senator has gone so far from the matter of the Order of Business that I must ask him to come back to it.
Yes.
The question is that Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be the Order of Business for today.
To use the phrase of Deputy O'Brien, Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, of December last, if the Family Planning Bill is not passed this is good evidence to show that we are ruled by Rome.
I must point out to the Senator that he is now talking about the merits of the Bill and has departed from the question of whether it be debated today or not.
Just a moment. That is just what I was saying. I am talking about Sunningdale.
Sunningdale is not on the Order of Business.
I am talking about it in the context of people who are being assured by our Government that a State which would evolve from a Council of Ireland would be a State in which pluralist attitudes in regard to matters such as contraception, adoption, divorce, therapeutic legal abortion, homosexuality, censorship would all be possible. This is being held forward to the Unionist Loyalists as likely eventualities——
I must intervene to indicate to the Senator that the only question to be debated at the moment is the Order of Business today. It is not in order to enter into the merits of or to anticipate the debate which might take place today or on another occasion.
I am attempting to show that the decision not to allow this Bill to go forward is to support the illusion created by Mr. Faulkner in the North that the kind of society into which he is attempting to inveigle the dissenting Unionists at the present time, the third who do not want to come into a theocratic society. This is an attempt to support the case he is putting forward that all is now changed.
I am afraid that, despite all the rephrasing the Senator is making, his speech has been for some time past outside the scope of the present discussion.
No case whatever has been made. It has been suggested that we are a busy Seanad. I sincerely hope this will not get into the Press, the radio or television. It would be laughed out of court as a serious suggestion. We have met today for the first time since before Christmas. It is being suggested there is a controversial Transport Bill but surely we will not pull one another's hair out about a Transport Bill and the fact that we might try to discuss a Bill on contraception at the same time. There is no reason why this Bill should not be discussed now unless we are given an undertaking by the Leader of the House that it will be taken next week.
There is medical urgency for it. There is also legal urgency and I am surprised the Leader of the House is not concerned about this. There is an unconstitutional law on the Statute Book at the moment. There is also very important political urgency about it. Let them allow Senator Robinson's Bill to be discussed. Let them show the people in the North of Ireland what the Seanad feels about this. Let them establish the case put forward by Deputy O'Brien, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, that if this is turned down we are ruled by Rome. Let us prove we are not ruled by Rome. Let us debate this Bill, pass it and refute this.
Could I ask the Leader of the House, could I ask the other Senators, would they mind reassembling tomorrow in order to discuss it? If that agreement is given for even this day week, then I will withdraw my amendment to the Order of Business, which is that No. 7—the Family Planning Bill—be taken now since it is easily the most urgent matter on the Order of Business before the House.
From a very much different standpoint to that of the previous Senator who has spoken, I would ask the Leader of the House to give us an opportunity as soon as possible to get this off the Order Paper. Give us an opportunity to get the case, and a very compelling case, that is against many of the changes which Senator Dr. Browne so glibly hails as being progressive. Let us get an opportunity of putting our case against that and then I, for one, will resist very strongly any idea that a Second Reading debate should be adjourned. Let us go and nail our colours to the mast and I will be found there with those who will be, I am absolutely confident, the overwhelming majority of the Seanad who will vote——
The Senator is anticipating the debate.
I have a little more experience in politics and in this House than the junior Senator from Galway. Also I came through an electorate; I did not have an easy passage like the junior Senator. The quicker we have an opportunity of doing this, the better. I would not like it to be delayed until the Government brought in the Bill, except that the Government have to bring in some amending legislation based on the Supreme Court decision. Such an effort by the Government should be only after very serious and mature and prolonged consideration. I do not for one moment suggest that the Government should rush this.
Senator Browne suggested that we in Parliament are subservient to an authority outside of Parliament. We are subservient to an authority outside of Parliament. We are subservient to the plain people of Ireland who appreciate the quality of life that has made Ireland a country we have been proud of. These plain people will give the——
Senator Quinlan is following Senator Noel Browne into his irrelevancies. I would ask him to come back to the Order of Business.
——same answer as I know the plain people of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann will give to this. We can rely on them to take a commonsense and an overall approach to the problem that faces us today and not to be swayed in any way by the pressure groups that are having such an innings today.
Using the vocative case correctly, a Chathaoirleach, as the junior Senator from Galway West I was considerably embarassed by confusion with the surname of the Leader of the House. I want to say that I am one person on this side of the House who wants a debate as soon as possible on this issue. It arises from the moving of the Order of Business. I can put it in much fewer words than Senator Quinlan, even if I have not the benefit of his age and erudition. It is necessary to have a debate soon so that the very many mistaken and stupid and ill-informed sociological comments which have been made will be put an end to once and for all.
I am a professional sociologist, whatever that might mean. I teach this subject in the university. I have seen one comment after another, one fact linked to another, blatant inaccuracies perpetrated by those who claim to teach in third level institutions. The most important reason why we welcome a quick debate is that this matter affects the young and particularly the poor young. Who are affected by it? It is those whom we have told, whom previous Governments told cannot be guaranteed a house and we cannot guarantee them their rights. We need to discuss their rights. We need to discuss what kind of society we want. We need to discuss the many documents put forward by the Irish Conservation Society and the documents put forward by many other brilliant people who have studied the subject. We need to discuss these documents soon.
I should like to pay tribute to Senator Robinson for making an attempt to introduce this legislation. She is making what I think is a reasonable request for an early debate on yet another human matter. It has been her contribution not only to this Seanad—of which I am not an elected but a nominated Member, as I am reminded by my erudite third level colleague from Cork—but once again she has drawn our attention to something human, or rather inhuman. She has put her name to a Bill which affects vulnerable people who are in need of a voice and who need our discussion. The sooner the Bill is discussed the sooner it will give our colleagues in the Labour Party, who are united on this measure, satisfaction.
Surely the important question at issue here is not when the present Family Planning Bill will be debated in this House. That is not the important question. The important question is the desirability of ensuring that whatever legislation should ultimately be enacted will be adequate, equitable and will meet the wishes of the majority of our people. That is the real issue.
I cannot remember exactly when the present Bill was placed on the Order Paper, but it was some time ago. Since then the Government have had a full opportunity of considering all the pros and cons and are therefore in my opinion in a much better position to introduce the type of measure I have referred to. It may well be that the Government will embody in their Bill the objections and the amendments which one Senator has already given notice of intention to relate to the present Bill.
Two Senators have expressed themselves on the Bill. I think they were out of order. One Senator has said that he will not accept it. Another has said that he accepts it but he wants to make an amendment. It may well be that the Government will embody all these objections and suit everybody and therefore expedite the matter instead of delaying it by this type of discussion.
Before I call on Senator Michael O'Higgins to reply to the debate there have been two variations in the Order of Business moved. Senator West has proposed to add No. 15 and Senator Noel Browne moved to add No. 7. Are there seconders for those propositions?
I second the amendment to add No. 15.
I propose to withdraw my amendment.
Is there a seconder for the amendment to add No. 7?
Can Senator Browne be given a firm undertaking that this matter will be debated, preferably tomorrow or, if not, next week?
The Chair is concerned that any question which comes before the House will be properly before it. This is the reason why seconders are sought; otherwise no decision could be taken on these points. It is a further matter whether they are ultimately pressed or not.
On that understanding—that the Leader of the House may give an indication when this Bill will be debated—I should like, for the purpose of having the motion put forward, to second Senator Browne's motion. As I understand it, he will withdraw it if there is a firm indication that the Bill will be given time for a debate.
I call on Senator Michael O'Higgins to conclude the discussion on the proposal that the Order of Business be Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to which amendments Nos. 7, 12 and 15 have been proposed. There are three separate amendments.
I have not taken full notes of what has been said. Senators McGowan and Dolan raised the question of Motion No. 12. I should like to tell them that as far as I am concerned that will be taken as early as we can arrange to have it taken. The only reason motions were not ordered for today was that, as every Member of the Seanad is aware, the notice we received for this meeting of the Seanad was very brief. The Government Whip made an effort to arrange for the taking of the motion. However, the Minister concerned was not available—he is abroad on duties connected with his office—and we were not able to get another motion arranged in time.
It certainly is my purpose—and I have made this clear time and time again—to endeavour so far as the Government side of the House are concerned to adhere to the scheme which was agreed by the House that we would take a motion each month. That is all I can say in regard to Motion No. 12, but we will take it as soon as possible so far as this side of the House are concerned.
With regard to Motion No. 15, which was raised by Senator West, I understand that it simply is not convenient for the Minister to deal with the Transport Bill and the McKensey Report at the same time. Having regard to the views of the Minister on the subject, we are not suggesting that it should be taken with Motion No. 2.
Regarding the request made by Senator Robinson and others in connection with item no. 7, I am not in a position to give an undertaking in a concrete or definite form which was suggested, in the first instance, by Senator Robinson and then by Senator West. I will certainly consider the request which has been made that a Second Reading discussion on the Bill should take place in this House and possibly by agreement be adjourned. As I say, I am not in a position to give an undertaking. In addition to consideration of that suggestion from a Government point of view, I think it is only fair that the political parties— Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour— should have an opportunity of considering it and letting us know what their views are so that the matter can be dealt with on that basis.
Senator Browne, in his contribution, referred to evidence of my view differing from those of my party. At least I would differ from only one party if that was so. I have been in the same party all my political life and I am glad to say it is the only one that Senator Dr. Browne was never in.
As regards Senator Higgins' embarrassment over a confusion of names, may I tell him that his embarrassment was nothing to mine when I received his income tax demand.
I will accept the undertaking by the Leader of the House but I would ask that he try to get this in next week if possible.
Senator West?
I have got no reason whatever, a Chathaoirleach, why motion No. 15 cannot be taken except that it is just not convenient. That is a perfect non-reason, so I intend to press the amendment.
Senator West is proposing that item No. 15 be added to the Order of Business.
Question "That No. 15 be added to the Order of Business" put and declared negatived.
We got no undertaking at all. You can kick to touch until the end of this session, have us here till Christmas or even next year.
I am putting the question: "That No. 7 be added to the Order of Business."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 43.
Tá
- Browne, Noel C.
- Horgan, John S.
- Martin, Augustine.
- Robinson, Mary.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
Níl
- Aylward, Bob.
- Barrett, Jack.
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Brennan, John J.
- Brosnahan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- FitzGerald, Jack.
- Fox, Billy.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Mannion, John M.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mullen, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Owens, Evelyn.
- Quinlan, Patrick Michael.
- Russell, George Edward.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Browne and Robinson; Níl, Senators Sanfey and Halligan.
Question declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.
I wish to indicate that the Labour Party supported the Order of Business today in the hope that the reasonable request made by Senator Robinson would be acceded to.