Might I ask is it the intention of the House to sit on or, as customary, to adjourn for tea at 6 o'clock?
Business of Seanad.
I am expecting the Cathaoirleach back in about five minutes.
I thought that the Chair could at least give a ruling on that.
Acting Chairman
It is a matter for the House to decide.
The point was raised as to whether or not it was proposed to adjourn for tea. I want to suggest to the House that we should not adjourn for tea. As far as the Minister is concerned, he has expressed his willingness to sit through tea and, also for the purpose of disposing of this business, to sit on later than we normally do. I am proposing to the House that we sit not later than 1 a.m. Further, for the information of the Seanad, it is intended that we should sit tomorrow as well.
For what business?
For whatever business will remain.
(Interruptions.)
I am totally unable to understand from the statement of the Leader of the House what the purpose is in sitting until 1 a.m. The whole attitude behind the pushing of this Bill has an extraordinary element of urgency, almost of emergency, about it. The Minister in the Dáil only last week said, with his typical candid approach to such matters, that he had every expectation that a general election would take place four years from now. Accepting the candour, honesty and truthfulness on such occasions of the Minister as indeed I must, it seems absolutely clear that there is no element of urgency whatever about this Bill. I simply cannot understand why we should be treated in this way.
I have been a Senator for 16 years, on and off, and I can say categorically that never before has this House sat on three days in Holy Week. I can recall one occasion when the House sat on the Tuesday of Holy Week to take a very urgent Bill, a Central Fund Bill, which had to be dealt with in order to provide moneys by 31st March. But never did anything of this kind occur in Holy Week previously. It is quite unprecedented and very unjustified.
Not only are we being asked to sit for three days in Holy Week but we are being asked to sit through tea. It is simply extraordinary. Unless the Leader of the House can give us some reason for this we could not possibly agree to it. The only thing is, as already said by Senator Willie Ryan, that if the Government intended to have an election and to face the people within a month or so, we would give them the Bill in five minutes. But failing that it is unthinkable we would agree to do anything of this kind. Starting at 10 a.m. and going on until 1 a.m. the following morning is ridiculous for a Bill of this kind which has absolutely no urgency.
I think Senator Yeats has let the cat out of the bag in the few words he has uttered now. It is quite clear that Fianna Fáil see no reason why this Bill should not go through in five minutes. What have they done? They have signalled from the very start that they intend to filibuster on this Bill. Senator Yeats has been in this House, as he has said, off and on for 16 years. Neither he nor any other Member of this House has heard a speech in this House which occupied 6 hours and 20 minutes. Two Fianna Fáil speakers have occupied practically eight hours between them. I do not know any better definition of filibustering than that. Fianna Fáil are entitled to do that if they want to. They are quite entitled to use every legitimate device under the Standing Orders.
So far as this side of the House is concerned, and so far as the Minister is concerned we are also entitled to have regard to the convenience of the Members of this House, to the Government programme of legislation, to the desirability of preventing this House being turned into a farce by any Opposition speakers. It is for those reasons—putting them as briefly as I can—that I am making this proposition.
Who is making it a farce? The Leader of the House states that Fianna Fáil, through the democratic process, stand here and question every word in the Bill. Is that farcical? In fact no single Member of his own party and the Labour Party will get up to add one contribution.
If I may reply to the Leader of the House. We have had a day and a half on a Bill of the greatest importance. When does a filibuster come about? After one day and a half? Does the Leader of the House want to abolish parliamentary debate? How long does a debate need to continue before it becomes a filibuster?
I have been in politics a good deal longer than the Senator and I can read signals as well as anyone else.
I would suggest that the Leader of the House should wait until 10 o'clock tonight and see how the debate is going. It is absolutely ridiculous to talk about a filibuster.
I should like to add my voice to that because I, like many others here, travel to my home town of Killeshandra every night. I did so last night and I arrived here in time this morning. It is typical of the Fine Gael attitude towards rural Senators. They have demonstrated it in the Bill and they are now demonstrating it in the attitude they have adopted here. They are trying to keep us here until 1 o'clock in the morning and expect us to be back here by 10.30 in the morning.
I did not delay this House one minute yet. I do not think it is fair to ask Senators who have not held up the House to stay on until 1 o'clock in the morning.
As far as I am concerned the Senator may go home.
Why should it be 1 o'clock? Can we not stay until 10 o'clock tonight?
The proposition being made by the Leader of the House is that the House should sit until 1 a.m. It is a matter for the House to decide on this point. There is a difficulty that the Chair has already accepted a Motion on the Adjournment and has directed that this be taken at 9.30 or earlier. I take it that the proposition by the Leader of the House involves that motion?
It would involve discharging that order and refixing the time for the Adjournment.
It is not an Order of the House, but is the Leader of the House suggesting that half an hour's debate be allowed on the Adjournment at the end of the evening?
Yes.
I would appeal to the Leader of the House to withdraw this proposition in order not to make a farce of the proceedings of this House. At least I would ask him to delay his proposition to see how the debate proceeds, because he is making a farce of the proceedings of this House. Half way through the second day of a debate on a Bill of this importance he brings in this kind of emergency proposition as if it was a Bill that had been going on for three weeks.
It is not going to be necessary to sit until 1 o'clock unless the Members opposite insist on it.
I wish to say——
I have already heard Senator Dolan on this motion.
I think that there should be a half hour for Senator Martin on the Adjournment.
At what time?
Commencing at 12.30 a.m.
Is it in order for anybody to propose something of this nature in the middle of a speech by a Senator?
It is customary for the House to adjourn at 6 p.m. If there is any variation on that it is customary that the matter is discussed around 6 o'clock.
I accept that but something else has been proposed here, that we sit until 1 a.m. Is that in order while I am making my speech? Maybe what I am saying is not very interesting but I am trying to provide, what Senator O'Higgins has often spoken of, responsible Opposition. He is criticising us for speaking here. We had no constructive argument whatsoever from the Government side yesterday; they could not get a chance today, admittedly. We are trying to provide responsible Opposition.
The Senator is now going into a further argument having asked me whether this was in order. The position is that there is no fixed time for Adjournment under the Standing Orders of Seanad Éireann.
This whole performance is utterly unacceptable and is complete dictatorship on the part of the Government.
Would Senator O'Higgins rather that we did not provide responsible opposition to any Bill? Would he rather that we all went away? We have not heard anything constructive from the Government since the debate started. I heard Senator O'Higgins here one day making an hysterical personal attack on Senator Brian Lenihan and I have not heard him open his mouth on this Bill. He was a disgrace to the Seanad that day.
(Interruptions.)
I would ask Senators to resume their seats. I am putting the motion.
I think there may well be other speakers from this side.
I just want to clarify the position in regard to order. The Leader of the House rose and was heard making a proposition. Other Senators spoke to this proposition in regard to our hours of sitting. In my opinion this proposition is properly before the House and should now be debated and determined without any return to the subject matter of the main debate.
A motion has been proposed that we sit here until 1 a.m. Is that the wording of the motion?
Not later than 1 a.m.
I am not prepared to accept that motion even though it comes from a responsible Member of this House, Senator O'Higgins, because I do not see the reason for it no more than I see the reason for sitting during this particular week. There is no precedent for dealing with any legislation during Holy Week. If, perhaps, the urgency was explained to us then we might have a better understanding. There has been no reason given whatsoever in support of not just alone sitting this week but now proposing something that I never remember—sitting until 1 a.m.—to deal with a Bill that can only further the cause of the Government parties.
We would react responsibly to any motion asking us to sit late into the night if proper reasons were given. All I recall Senator O'Higgins saying is that he was proposing a motion that we sit not later than 1 a.m. and that we sit through the tea break. No one else on that side of the House has given us any reason why we should sit late. I am not prepared to accept that we should. We have sat here all day. Some of us have been prepared to speak. We did our homework so that we would be ready to contribute to this very important Bill. Others, apparently, are not too sure whether they have anything good to say about it because they have said nothing at all. Occasionally they made interruptions which did not make sense. They appeared to be just personal attacks on the speaker at the time.
If the Leader of the House is prepared to give us one good reason why we should sit late to deal with a Bill of this type and explain the urgency to us then he will receive a responsible reaction from this side of the House.
In making my protest against this motion I think it is only fair that this House take into consideration the staff of this House who, first, are now being asked to work through tea, secondly, to work not later than 1 o'clock and, thirdly, to work tomorrow when this House will again sit. I do not think it is quite fair on a matter that is not of a great immediate national importance. This Bill is not an emotional Bill from that point of view. It is unfair that during Holy Week we should put this extra strain on the staff of the House.
I do not think the remark of the Leader of the House when he said that what we are doing here today is a farce is a proper and accurate description of the democratic process that has been gone through since 3 o'clock yesterday. I cannot see, no more than Senator Hanafin, any reason why we should sit here until 1 o'clock tomorrow morning. Further to that I have not seen before a motion like this being put in this House in my few short years here. I always watched the process when we were on the Government side. At 9.30 the Leader of the House would interject. Prior to that the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition would, presumably, discuss the situation and if the Leader of the House saw fit at that particular time to continue on for two, three, four or five hours, as has happened, it would have been the proper way to put this motion. It is wrong that this motion be put at seven minutes past six. We will oppose the motion vehemently. Furthermore, the reason we will oppose it is, as is on the records of the House, the Leader of the House has suggested that we will sit again tomorrow. The urgency seems to have grown since yesterday at 3.15 p.m.
It is not proper to break with the tradition of this House. I think at this stage the Leader of the House should withdraw this motion. He should assess the situation at 9.30 or thereabouts in the way in which it has always been done. Furthermore, it is not fair to the Senators on this side of the House. We have tried diligently all this day and all yesterday to make sensible and sound contributions to the debate. Some of us have worked reasonably hard. It is not quite fair to us since the Bill is not of great immediate importance that this motion should now be forced on this House.
There are many of us who would like our normal break for tea. Some of us—myself included—could possibly do without it. It do not think it is quite fair when we are sitting tomorrow, to be asked to sit until, or not later than 1 a.m.
It could be later than 1 o'clock.
For Senator Russell's information, it cannot now be later than 1 o'clock, unless Senator O'Higgins wants to add to the misery and misfortune that he has created here in his statement of farce, when he suggested that we were talking in a farcical way.
I want to add that I shall occupy time in lieu of what is being wasted by the Senator.
The Senator is the creator of the situation.
Senators
Hear, hear.
The responsibility rests with him alone. He walked in to this House with an air of confidence and sat in that seat. He did not even ask the opinion of the Minister who was sitting beside him, because I was observing him. He stood up and said: "No tea". Then he said: "I further want to make the following proposition", and added: "We will also sit tomorrow". He is the person who has created this situation. If I can play my part as a democratically elected representative on this side of the House I will do so to see that he pays the price for this situation he has created for the first time in the Seanad.
I think it is a game.
It is not a game. You insist, as you have done just now, that we are not——
On a point of order, whom are the two Senators addressing at this moment?
I addressed the Chair in my opening remarks. I have continued to address my remarks through the Chair and I will continue to do so. If Senator M.J. O'Higgins has not addressed the Chair, then I am afraid I am not responsible for that. Further to that he has suggested for a second time that this debate is a farce. This debate on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, is not a farce.
Senator M.J. O'Higgins, as Leader of the House, should be brought to task for breaking with the tradition of this House, a tradition that we on this side always upheld. I would ask the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion. I would ask him to adjourn this House for one half-hour in order to give the Members of this House and the staff an opportunity to have a cup of tea. I would further ask that at 9.30 p.m. he consult with the Leader of the Opposition. If he is not satisfied with his reply at that time, then he could bring his motion to the House to sit not later than 1 o'clock.
I wish to add my voice to that proposal. We have already protested against this injustice. This has come as a complete surprise. It should have been mentioned in the morning on the Order of Business. When the regulations were made then, a motion from Senator Martin on the Adjournment was accepted. It is a very interesting motion and one that many of the Senators—particularly myself—would be very interested in and to which we would like to contribute. The proposition has been made that we sit until 1 o'clock and that afterwards we would discuss Senator Martin's motion. I have very considerable respect for Senator Martin who is a neighbour and a colleague and usually his contributions to this House are very interesting and are listened to by most Members.
I know it is my duty to be present here and I do my utmost to ensure that I am punctual and make a reasonable contribution to the debates. I resent the insinuation that has been made by the Leader of the House that we on this side of the House are talking tripe and nonsense and that we are trying to filibuster. If anything has happened in that respect—and I would not admit one line of it—that, to my mind, is a gross reflection on the Chair. I have known the Cathaoirleach for quite a long time. I have watched his performance as Chairman and think he is excellent. Certainly, I have never seen a more impartial or a better chairman in any assembly and I am quite sure that the majority of the Senators, even on the other side of the House, would admit that what I am saying is perfectly clear and sincere. I do not think he is the type of person who would allow anything to slip through——
I am sorry to stop this flow of flattery, Senator, but it is not relevant to the motion.
He is not the type who would allow anything to slip through that was not within the order of debate. I have learned that he is a man who knows it from A to Z. We were not taken in by the attempt that has been made here to try to stifle us on this side of the House. We were not brought in here by the Taoiseach. We know we have a worthwhile contribution to make in this House. I do not like to see the ordinary process of democracy being flouted by the Leader of the House or any other Member. We are the Upper House in this State, we are part of the Oireachtas irrespective of which side of the House we sit and I think it is wrong for anybody, in particular the Leader of the House, to try to slip this in. I will admit that he has a majority over there and it seems that he is going to exercise it. He shows the total disregard which he has for the people of rural Ireland. It has been demonstrated already in the Bill before the House regarding the changing of the constituencies. We have already noted, and it is now on the record, that he has conceded that it would take a greater number of people in rural Ireland to elect a Deputy to Dáil Éireann than it would take in the cities. That is perfectly true. You can take the figures anyway you like. It has been proven here by the figures. I am reasonably good at mathematics and I would expect that some of the people opposite would try to do their homework in this respect. I want to say that it is wrong, in my opinion, for the Leader of the House to try to deprive us of taking part in this debate. To carry on a debate in this House until the unearthly hour of 1 o'clock is certainly beyond comprehension. Many people may wish to travel back to their homes, as they are entitled to do, and as I think any family man would like to do. It is only fair that these people should be given a chance. I think it is wrong to introduce this at such an hour. Let us be sensible about it. After all we are living in a Christian state. When the Family Planning Bill was before the House they were emphasising very emphatically how much they were leaning towards Christianity. It surprises me that in Holy Week——
A Senator
Wait until tomorrow.
(Interruptions.)
The Senator is going outside the scope of the debate which is on the arrangement of the business of the House.
I appreciate your protection, a Chathaoirleach. I want to say again that it surprises me that the Leader of the House, who waxed so eloquent on the Family Planning Bill regarding the Christian and moral aspects of it, is now trying to steamroll all us into degrading Holy Week, making a mockery of Holy Thursday, not allowing us to attend to our duties on Good Friday—trying to steamroll the very essence of Christianity out of this House. We start our business here with a prayer, which I think it is an excellent thing. It happens in the Dáil on the other side and it happens here, and I suppose the next move by the Leader of the House will be to ensure that there will be no prayer for the beginning of our business here and he will also try to have a motion to try to cut that out.
I think this is grossly unfair. Somebody mentioned the staff of this House. I as a Labour representative, too, and one who knows what it is to work, try to appreciate that the staff of this House have to work very hard and that they have to stay inside in good sunshine and so forth in overheated conditions. I appreciate, too, that being human beings they have wives and families and homes to go to. It is unnatural to expect the restaurant staff to sit up here until 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock for no particular reason at all except to satisfy the whim of the Government who are coming in here and trying to steamroll through the House a Bill about which there cannot be any apparent hurry. It will be appropriate, I can tell you, before 12 months. However, I think it is wrong that they should come in here to try to put this across and I want to express my deep disappointment at this treatment, especially from the Leader of the House who just walked in here at the very end of the proceedings, sat down, made his contribution and whipped in the boys behind him—those silent people who have been silent all of the two days and never made even one sentence of a contribution except interruptions. If they were in earnest about the merits of the Bill and if they believed in it, they should not be ashamed to get up in this House and defend it but not one single Senator on the other side of the House said one word about the——
To the merits of the motion now.
On a point of order, surely this motion is part and parcel of the management of this Bill and therefore the conduct of the Government during the discussion on this Bill is entirely in order because it is part and parcel of the whole approach of the Government?
I consider that Senator Dolan's remarks were going wide of the merits of the motion. If I were to accept the contention of Senator Yeats it would be possible to discuss the Bill on the motion and I think the discussion on the motion must be confined.
I have no intention to continue to stray outside the bounds of order but I feel that even the Government Senators could contribute to this motion. They had been mute for so long on the Constituency Bill which effects everyone of them. I do not know who silenced them or who gagged them, but during the last two days they have come in here as if they were on a retreat. Perhaps it is the spirit of Holy Week that has got into them and that they are really on a retreat. I am not too sure about that but there is something wrong with them. They have gagged themselves or they have been gagged by somebody else. I want emphatically to protest. If any of these people on the far side feel like breaking the silence I invite them wholeheartedly to do that but I want to protest against this motion.
I do not want to say very much on this except to say that the words "farce" and "filibuster" and so forth have been around a great deal here this evening, and it seems to me that at this moment—later than 6.30 p.m.—we are enacting a farce of the most palpable kind. In fact we are discussing whether we should or should not rise at 6 o'clock and have tea so as to come back at 7 p.m. We have been discussing this since about five past six. The question whether we rise for tea or not is certainly part of the issue.
An unimportant part.
Its importance you judge according to your own judgment but a part of the issue it is, and it seems to me that to be discussing this motion while the time for tea recedes around that clock is worthy of a chapter from a novel by Myles na gCopaleen.
I think that the level of reality that exists in the House at the moment is of the most tenuous and ephemeral kind. I did not stand up to make that derisory remark though that derisory remark I think is well justified by the manner in which the national Legislature is behaving and has been, in a sense, behaving all day. All the Senators who have spoken on this side who object to the motion will be satisfied with the answer to one question: what is the urgency for the Bill? I presume they are sincere in this. In other words, if somebody from the Government side can stand up and say what is the urgency for the Bill I think we could all go on and perhaps have tea or go on with the debate as the case may be. Could we solve the problem by perhaps having that question answered and perhaps then we could proceed with the process of legislation?
I should like to appeal to the Leader of the House not to press this motion I accept, and I am sure the Seanad accepts, that this is just the same as the guillotine. It is nothing short of it. You could not convince the public that this is a reasonable motion. I think the Minister will have to live with it and the Government will have to live with it and they will live to regret it. No action that will be recorded during the passage through the House of this Bill will stand to the credit of the Government. I would ask for a reasonable approach to it. Those in Government have a responsibility to legislate in a reasonable fashion. If contributions are to be made they should be sincere contributions. I do not think these can be made after the hour of 10 o'clock and according to standing orders 10 o'clock was a reasonable hour. I would ask the Leader of the House not to press this motion, as one who has not been involved in any filibuster here.
At least the Senator is honest.
I should like to add my voice to the appeal to the Leader of the House. I cannot understand the indecent haste with which this matter is being pressed. We have been called to sit this week for three days. We made arrangements accordingly. I think there is every reason to believe that if we sit the normal hours this evening the Second Stage will be concluded tomorrow and I cannot see any reason for this extraordinary attempt on the second day of a debate of a Bill as important as this to start to apply special hours and sitting until 1 o'clock in the morning. One would have thought that the Government, having disgraced themselves in the Dáil with the guillotine, would have had second thoughts and would have reverted to a normal approach to this matter in the Seanad, but in less than two days they are introducing a suggestion that special hours should be introduced in the Seanad. No explanation has been given and it will be very difficult to justify what they are attempting to do. We have had remarks from the other side of the House that this was a game—some people were speaking and behaving over here as though it were a game. If it is a game it is a game that this House is very familiar with.
It is a game which Fianna Fáil, when they were in office, had to put up with for 16 years. There have been many Bills in this House that went on, not for two weeks or two days, but for several weeks. No matter how long the Opposition of the time went on filibustering, or playing the game that they seemed to know so well, Fianna Fáil allowed them to play that game until they were finished talking. Yet after a day and a half of this important Bill, we have this attempt to curtail the debate. The Government are in office a little over a year. The mind boggles at what this Government would be like after another year or two. God forbid that they should last 16 years. It would certainly be a totalitarian parliamentary system. They have been there for only a year. Just let them try to restrain the arrogance which they are displaying about this Bill and let this Seanad sit the normal hours for at least two days.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I should like to appeal to the Leader of the House to withdraw this motion. This probably all came about because of the tea break. Earlier today I agreed with Senator Sanfey that we should sit through tea but there was no mention at that time of sitting until 1 o'clock. If I had known that, I certainly would not have agreed to sit through tea.
We have been accused by the Government of using delaying tactics here. The House has been sitting for 11 hours discussing the Bill. Seven speakers have spoken from this side of the House. The Minister also spoke in that 11 hours. We could not be accused of delaying the Bill. We have only about seven other speakers.
I had a quick look through Seanad debates concerning the other Electoral Bills which have been passed here— in 1959 and other years. They took a lot longer in this House than this Bill and we were not the people who held them up at that time.
It would be very unfair to expect the staff to stay on until 1 o'clock when there is no rush whatsoever about this Bill. There should not be a rush but, perhaps, there is an election about to take place.
Around the corner.
Otherwise there is no real need for this rush and I would ask Senator O'Higgins to withdraw his motion.
I rise to oppose strongly the motion put forward by the Leader of the House that the House sit until 1 o'clock tomorrow morning. I understood that earlier today the Cathaoirleach indicated to Senator Martin that he would accept his motion on the Adjournment at 9.30 tonight. I should like to quote the transcript of what took place this morning.
There is no need for the Senator to read that. This point was raised and, in fact, the motion before the House allows for the taking of the Adjournment discussion at 12.30.
I would have thought that the decision of the Cathaoirleach this morning that Senator Martin's motion on the Adjournment would be discussed tonight between 9.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. could not be changed now. It seems strange to me that a proposal such as the one that has come from the Leader of the House should come at all. No doubt it will receive the support of the members of the Labour Party in the division that will take place. In insisting that this House sit until 1 o'clock. Fine Gael and Labour are showing no consideration whatsoever for the staff of Leinster House. They are showing no consideration for the officials of the House who have been here since 10 o'clock this morning, for the stenographers who have been here since 10.30 and who are now being forced by Fine Gael and by Labour, the so-called protectors of working people——
On a point of order, I move that the question be now put.
I should like to examine the Standing Order.
They really are dictators. I have never seen such contempt for the parliamentary process as is being shown by the Government. Would you like to abolish the Seanad altogether?
We never did that.
The Seanad was abolished before and it was not by anyone in this party.
I have read the Standing Order and having considered the matter, I do not think it proper to accept the closure at this point. That does not prevent Senator Halligan or any other Senator raising it at any time in the future. At that time I will take into account the amount of discussion that has taken place and the degree of repetition by speakers on the merits of this motion.
That last proposal is yet another example of the dictatorship which now exists in this State. As every day passes we come more and more to the conclusion that the parties that have come together after 16 years of political starvation feel they have a God-given right to flout the democratic principles of this country. I was dealing with the staff and the inconvenience that Senator O'Higgins's motion would cause them. Does Senator Halligan of the Labour Party consider it just that the Official Reporters attached to this House should be expected to work from 10 o'clock this morning until one o'clock tomorrow morning? Does he believe that the ushers, who are continuously on their feet, should be forced to remain here when the Official Reporters, the remainder of the staff and all of us know perfectly well that there is no rush with this legislation? Does Senator Halligan believe that the kitchen in Leinster House and the waitresses in the diningroom and possibly the chef should be forced to continue working until one o'clock tomorrow morning? Does he believe that the gentlemen of the Press, who have been here since ten o'clock this morning, should be compelled to work until one o'clock tomorrow morning to satisfy some peculiar whim of the Leader of the House and possibly of the Minister?
I should like to know what is the urgency of this Bill. This legislation will only become effective when the next general election is declared. Are the Labour and Fine Gael Parties fighting so much or is the economy of this nation in such serious plight that the Taoiseach is afraid that he may have to dissolve Dáil Éireann at any time? Supporters of the Government have assured us on numerous occasions that there will not be a general election for the next three-and-a-half years. Bearing that in mind this means that this Bill should not be needed for the next three-and-a-half years. There is no reason in the wide world why this House could not adjourn at the normal time this evening until after the Easter recess. One must naturally believe or accept, because of this undemocratic proposal of Senator O'Higgins, that the Government are in danger of falling.
We all know that there are many members of the Fine Gael Party disturbed over the proposals for wealth tax and the taxation of farmers. We all know that there are people in Fine Gael who would get rid of the hind tit of the National Coalition Government at any price. It is common knowledge that the dreoilín pig sucking the sow is left the hind tit. What this Dublin city Government may not fully understand—and Cork city as well—is that when this sow runs out of milk the dreoilín is in trouble from the hind tit. I believe, judging by the apparent urgency of this legislation, that the cream on the milk of the last Coalition Government is running dry and the dreoilin on the hind tit is in trouble.
It would appear that if it is necessary for this House to sit until one o'clock tomorrow morning this legislation is so urgent that it is the intention of the Taoiseach to go to the country after Easter. It is the duty of the Government to explain to the people exactly what is going wrong with the affairs of Government to justify this situation. On the last occasion that these two parties were wedded, before the budget of 1957——
It seems the Senator is out of order.
The Chair has been watching Senator McGlinchey carefully and admiring his ability to keep just within order.
——the then Taoiseach rushed to the country before the budget was presented to the people. Nothing will convince me but that if this legislation is so urgent there is grave trouble in Government circles and in Cabinet circles and that the moment the President signs this Bill and it becomes law the Taoiseach will rush to the country and Fine Gael——
Is that what you are afraid of? There will not be an election.
Then why the urgency?
On a point of order, we have been discussing this motion for exactly one hour. I move that the question be put.
I am satisfied that having discussed this motion for an hour, the Senators are now in a position to make a decision on it.
Another guillotine by the Government.
There will be no further discussion. The question is that the proposal that the House sit not later than 1 a.m. be agreed to.
Question put: "That the Question be now put."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Boland, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Iveagh, The Earl of
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Mannion, John M.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Russell, George Edward.
- Ryan, William.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Níl
- Aylward, Bob.
- Brennan, John J.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Seamus.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killilea, Mark.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators Hanafin and W. Ryan.
Question declared carried.
Question put: "That the Seanad sit not later than 1 a.m., the Motion on the Adjournment to be taken not later than 12.30 a.m."
The Seanad divided; Tá, 29; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Boland, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Iveagh, The Earl of
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Mannion, John M.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Russell, George Edward.
- Ryan, William.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Níl
- Aylward, Bob.
- Brennan, John J.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Seamus.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killilea, Mark.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
I should be interested to hear from the Leader of the House what the position will be tomorrow.
That position will be determined on the Adjournment. It was not part of the motion. I understood that Senator O'Higgins gave notice of intention.
With respect, I would like to ask the Leader of the House what business will be on the agenda tomorrow?
The position is that at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning the House will decide what the nature of the Adjournment should be. When the House resumes after that Adjournment, it will decide on the business.
With respect, I suggest that it will be tomorrow.