Senator O'Higgins.
Order of Business.
In accordance with Standing Orders governing sittings of the House and in the absence of any order by the House to the contrary, the adjournment of this House yesterday was necessarily until 10.30 this morning. Senators will recollect that on the Order of Business yesterday we discussed the probability of having the Local Government (Petitions and Disqualifications) Bill coming to us from the Dáil yesterday and we geared our business in this House in order to cater for it. In fact, the House is aware that the Bill was not released by the Dáil yesterday. As the person responsible in connection with Government business here I must, of course, accept responsibility for the fact that, when we adjourned yesterday, we did not suggest any variation of Standing Order 18 which would have enabled us to fix the time of sitting other than this hour today. The information available to all of us up to very shortly before the adjournment yesterday was that the Bill would finish all Stages in the Dáil and would be available for consideration by this House today. In fact, that has not happened and consideration of the Report Stage of the Bill in the Dáil will only be resumed on next Tuesday.
In those circumstances, the position is that I have no proposal for Government business before the House today. In the absence of any suggestions regarding Private Business the only proposal I would make would be to take item No. 20 on the Order Paper.
Let me say that the last remark by the Leader of the House shows a highly facetious if not irresponsible attitude. Item No. 20 is the Adjournment of the Seanad. We have been called here as one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. We have a full Order Paper containing 19 items, 18 motions and a Bill of very serious social concern put down by Members of the House, Senators Robinson, Horgan and Higgins, the Illegitimate Children (Maintenance and Succession) Bill, 1974. This is a Bill that seeks for the first time since 1930 to do something of a practical, social kind in regard to the obligations of fathers of illegitimate children. That is a Bill of profound social and Christian concern. If that is not to be taken, why? There are a number of other motions covering every aspect of Government administration. Surely one Minister would be available to take one of the motions?
I might say that yesterday we had a very constructive debate of great concern to rural Ireland in connection with the farm modernisation scheme. There are a number of other motions here on which an equally constructive debate could take place today if a Minister of the Government were available. It is the irresponsibility of the matter that disturbs me and I want to register a very emphatic protest in regard to the irresponsible attitude towards government that we see here this morning.
We have, as I have said, a wide choice of subjects in the motions on the Order Paper before the Seanad on which any Minister could come in here today and hear a constructive debate. Not one is being taken. In particular, there is a Bill down here from Senators which is of real social concern. This irresponsible attitude of mind disturbs me profoundly because if democracy is going to gather the respect—and mark you, these are difficult days for democracy—that democracy deserves, then the representative institutions must be respected and there must be proper organisation and management in regard to them.
We have a situation where, in my view, the House was debased by the Minister for Local Government pushing through a gerrymander Electoral Bill, taking up days and nights in Holy Week. On this gerrymandered Bill we made constructive suggestions, put down constructive amendments on every Stage, but not a single line of a suggested amendment was adopted, even though in all logic and reason we fully proved our case in certain very specific instances.
The Senator is going very wide of the discussion on today's Order of Business.
I want to come down to this basic matter, that the important Bill in regard to the local elections is the one that is before the Dáil at the moment. That is the Bill we were expecting today. That is the Bill broadening the eligibility in regard to people standing for local elections. I think it is an excellent Bill. There appears to be no effort to get that Bill in here fast. Instead what is happening is that we were subjected here for days and weeks on end to a Bill that is now law which was designed solely to fasten and button down electoral advantage situations so far as the Government are concerned.
We have on the Seanad Order Paper a number of very important motions, an important Bill of very real social concern and we have now in the Dáil a very important Bill concerning the widening of eligibility of categories so far as local elections are concerned. Why this distortion of attitude? This is what is getting parliamentary institutions into disrepute: this lack of real priority. The gerrymander Bill had no priority. There are far more important matters of priority on the Seanad Order Paper and the Bill before the Dáil at the moment is also a matter of more priority than the Bill to which we were subjected here over long days and nights for no good reason whatsoever.
I find myself sharing many of the sentiments voiced by Senator Lenihan. I find it difficult to see why no business has been ordered. It may not be widely obvious to the public that, we have an Order Paper with no fewer than 20 items on it. Therefore the fact that no business has been ordered does not mean that there is no business for us to do. I find it extraordinary that Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper, which stands in the name of the Leader of the House, has not been moved. However the situation might be met honourably if the House were prepared to accept an amendment to the Order of Business proposed by the Leader. The amendment I propose to the Order of Business is: "That the Business of the House be Nos. 2 and 17".
I do not believe that No. 2 need detain us. No. 17, which is in the names of myself and Senator Michael D. Higgins is "That Seanad Éireann notes the Murphy Report on Adult Education in Ireland". One would like to see the responsible Minister present for such a debate. I gather that the responsible Minister is at the moment out of the country. I, nevertheless, feel that we could have a very useful discussion on this motion at this time. If we do not have a discussion of some kind on some business today in this House we will be widely regarded as participating in a farce.
First of all with regard to the amendment that Senator Horgan has just proposed, I am afraid that this party would not be able to support his amendment because we believe very strongly that it is a basic requirement for the discussion of a motion in the Seanad that the responsible Minister should be present. We feel, and we have felt this down the years, that it is a futile operation to be discussing motions, even on interesting and important topics, unless there is a responsible Minister present who is in a position to state Government policy. If Motion No. 17, which ought to be taken at an early date, was to be discussed today without a Minister present it would go off the Order Paper and no real practical purpose would have been served by its discussion whereas by leaving it on the Order Paper we may certainly hope that at an early date it will be discussed with a Minister present. We could not support, for that reason, the amendment proposed by Senator Horgan.
On the general question which presents itself to us as a result of the Leader of the House proposing that the only item of Business taken today should be No. 20, that is, the Adjournment, this leaves us with an unprecedented situation. Essentially it arises from the strange situation where a so-called reforming Government of all the talents, who came to office over a year ago, have to this day produced almost no legislation, certainly no legislation of real importance. The situation that faces us today is, taking it in general terms, a reflection of the absence of activity, particularly the absence of legislative activity, on the part of the Government.
It is also, coming down from the general to the particular, as Senator Lenihan has said, a reflection of the rather curious priorities that this Government appear to feel to be necessary. The basic problem is that the Local Elections (Petitions and Disqualifications) Bill, 1974, which should of course have reached us today and has not, was presented to the Dáil in a rush at the very last minute—one might say after the last minute, bearing in mind the date of the coming local elections.
The Minister knew a year or more ago the date within a week of this year's local elections. This was nothing sudden. There was absolutely no reason in the wide world why this Bill should have been so delayed. There is no real genuine reason; but we know the real reason was that the Minister for Local Government was so wholly and entirely bound up for the last year in his task of gerrymandering the constituencies that he, apparently, had not time to lift this Bill out of whatever pigeonhole it rested in.
As Senator Lenihan has pointed out, we had this extraordinary situation where around about Holy Week and Easter Week we were meeting for long hours to deal with this Bill on the constituencies, which was in no sense urgent. If it was passed next November it would be just the same as if it was passed last month. The really urgent Bill that we should have been discussing and that we on this side of the House would have been happy to discuss on Holy Thursday, Good Friday or even Easter Saturday, was this Bill that has not yet reached us, the Local Elections (Petitions and Disqualifications) Bill. It is urgent in the real sense of the word and there is no legitimate reason why it could not have been brought before us earlier and why we could not have been dealing with it at Easter instead of this ridiculous operation of copper-fastening the Government's gerrymandering.
That is the reason why we are faced today with the situation that there is no business before us. This Bill is an important Bill—quite a long Bill—dealing with a number of important matters. If it was presented to the Dáil in the usual way, as a simple Bill, it could have been passed in a couple of hours. The Dáil has rightly—I am not questioning at all the proceedings of the other House —decided to investigate it in some detail and I hope we will do the same in this House. All one can say is that this ridiculous situation is due to the totally false political priorities of the present Government.
I should like to support Senator Horgan in his proposal that we do discuss some business today and in particular that we take items Nos. 2 and 17 on the Order Paper before the motion to adjourn. First of all, I should like to support him that we take No. 2 on the Order of Business. This is the First Stage of the Private Members' Bill we have tabled. This Bill would make better provision for the enforcement of the obligation on the father of an illegitimate child to contribute to the support, or otherwise, of such child——
As far as I am concerned, I am agreeable.
I should like to thank the Leader of the House for his agreement to taking No. 2 on the Order of Business. As I understand it, the First Stage is not going to be opposed and it will be an advantage to have the Bill published.
As to item No. 17; the Seanad should not agree in principle, that we do not take motions unless there is a Minister present in the House or unless the appropriate Minister is present. This House is a house of record and the contributions made by Senators on various matters of public interest, or on reports which come out from time to time, such as this Murphy Report on Adult Education, have a value in providing a parliamentary scrutiny and interest in the subject. If the mover of the motion—in this instance, Senator Horgan—is prepared to go on with his motion, as he is, and to discuss adult education, it would be an extraordinary attitude of the Seanad to say that, just because the Minister for Education was not available, the House cannot discuss it. There is a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. We are not aware if he would be available, or if there is a possibility that another Minister might sit in and reply to the points raised.
In any case, it is useful to debate matters relating particularly to education in the Seanad. It is a way of noting the recommendations of the Report and for having, if possible, either the support or the criticism of the Members of the Seanad of the matters contained in the Report. It is to Senator Horgan's credit that he is ready to go on with this motion at short notice and I would like to support him in giving the Seanad some business to do.
If Senators are really concerned about our adjourning without taking business, then they should favour a positive effort to allow the Seanad to debate important matters of social concern and matters relating to education. I am surprised Senators Lenihan and Yeats do not seem to find it possible to support a positive amendment giving us some substantive matter to discuss since we have convened this morning.
With regard to item No. 2, certainly there is no problem there. That has been accepted. In regard to the other items, I should like to make a comment. If somebody who has researched something in great detail, and makes statements for the record, and the person responsible for dealing with the problems arising is not present, the effect of debating the matter in the absence of the appropriate Minister or Parliamentary Secretary is in effect an attitude that can help other people to take up attitudes and subsequently the Minister might find difficulty, if he wanted to show his willingness to do something about something, or wanted to introduce legislation; he might be faced with a situation where, based on some of the statements made here this morning adumbrating a one-sided point of view, certain people might adopt an attitude that would make the work of the Minister very difficult. When people take up attitudes it is very hard to get them to change.
I do not think there is very much point in following too deeply the line pursued by Senators Lenihan and Yeats. Indeed, there is no point in any of us trying to conceal it, even if we wanted to, that the arrangement of business for this House for the present week was to take the Bill which was expected yesterday from the Dáil. That was known to me and to Senator Lenihan and to any other Senator who attended at the opening of the Seanad meeting yesterday because we discussed it on Order of Business. That is the simple fact.
While I have no hesitation in accepting responsibility for the situation which has developed, anyone will concede that what happened was something that neither I nor any other Member of this House was in a position to foresee. These are simple facts and there is no point in going into a song and dance about undermining democracy and so on. This sounds grand and I have no doubt that, if the journalists who are present take it down and read it out slowly to themselves, they will find fine resounding phrases in everything Senator Lenihan and Senator Yeats have said.
It is really, however, their attitude that is damaging democracy. The facts of the situation are well known and it is quite obvious to the Senators on this side of the House that all we have had from the Leader of the Opposition is just so much shadowboxing. He knows the position just as well as I do.
We have a full Order Paper.
As regards Senator Yeats's contribution, he said that this was an unprecedented situation; it very nearly is an unprecedented situation, but not entirely. The last time this happened in this House was when Senator Yeats and his colleagues were sitting on this side of the House and when the then Leader of the House, Senator Ó Maoláin, had to come in here, in effect, to confess that there was an acute shortage of Ministers, because two of them had been sacked and one had resigned. Consequently, although this House had been called, we had to adjourn without doing any business.
But the Senator will appreciate there was ample legislation.
Would Senator Yeats like me to deal in a little more detail with that topic? That was the last occasion on which it happened in this House and it is not so long ago.
There was no shortage of legislation.
But there was a shortage of Ministers.
The point has been made that there is plenty of business before us. I made it clear—possibly Senator Lenihan and Senator Yeats were not listening; if that is so, I would ask them to pay more attention in future—that I was talking as the person responsible in respect of Government business and that I had no proposals in relation to Government business. Further, I went to particular pains to make it clear that it was only in the absence of a proposal regarding private business in this House that my proposal would be to deal with No. 20. In fact, there have been proposals to deal with private business in the House today and, as far as I am concerned, I am not resisting the proposals in any way. It has been proposed by Senator Horgan, and supported by Senator Robinson, that we take Nos. 2 and 17. I have no objection to that at all.
Senator Lenihan may not know— Senator Yeats should know—that the business of this House is not ordered by the Government: it is arranged by the House itself. All that is done in relation to the Order of Business is that proposals are made and decisions on these proposals are made by the House. If the House comes to the decision to take Nos. 2 and 17, that certainly will have my support. I am not objecting to it in any way.
The point was made by Senator Robinson in relation to Motion No. 17. She is quite correct in that there is an option for the Senators who have proposed the motion to proceed in the absence of a Minister if they so wish. My recollection is that the scheme which was adopted by this House to deal with motions provided that in determining the order of motions there were certain matters which should be taken into account, one of which was the availability of Ministers, but specifically we provided that the proposer of a motion should have the option of proceeding with it in the absence of a Minister. It was understood that where there were motions which necessarily involved a statement on Government policy, that such motions would not be proceeded with in the absence of a Minister. It would be a factor which would be taken into account.
So far as the wording of Motion No. 17 is concerned, it would be desirable to have the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, if they were available here, to comment on the report and the speeches made. In the time, it will not be possible to arrange for that. As far as I am concerned, Senator Horgan is entitled to request that the motion be proceeded with in the absence of the Minister. I will not oppose that request. As far as I am concerned the Order of Business can be Nos. 2 and 17, as suggested.
We have had a discussion on the Order of Business and there are two propositions before us, that Nos. 2 and 17 be taken. It would be most convenient if we, when reaching a decision, treated those two matters separately.
I find myself in total agreement with Senator Harte. It is only making a mockery of this assembly to proceed with a serious discussion in the absence of the executive who is responsible for the implementation of these suggestions. Possibly the motion could be proceeded with, but it is making a total mockery of, say, No. 2, which is a very important matter of basic reform in regard to the 1930 Illegitimate Children's Affiliation Order Act. The Minister should be present for the First Stage. The Minister for Justice would have a very real interest in seeing this piece of legislation and acting on the recommendations.
We are talking about the First Stage.
About the First Stage. In regard to the motion on adult education, a fundamental debate arising out of the Murphy Report is needed, as we had yesterday on another motion, in which the presence of the Minister for Agriculture helped enormously. His very long and constructive reply to the motion yesterday was of interest to all. He told me afterwards that he was delighted to have been present for the debate. The physical presence of a Minister—I am speaking from personal experience— in any deliberative assembly is all important in guaging the mood and views of parliamentarians. This is what Parliament is all about. To proceed in a vacuum on any matter in the absence of a Minister is reducing this Chamber of the Oireachtas——
Is the Senator supporting No. 2?
——to a debating Chamber level, which it is not. We are here to argue, persuade, debate and influence the executive of the day. The physical presence of a Minister to hear the cut and thrust of the debate is fundamental to the whole organisation of democratic debate and that of representative parliament. We are against any motion of this kind being proceeded with in the absence of the relevant Minister.
I am sure Senator Lenihan appreciates that as far as the First Stage is concerned, the only question which would be put by the Chair is whether the First Reading is opposed or not. If it is not opposed there is no question of the Minister or anyone else commenting on it. I am not trying to belittle the point of view expressed by Senator Lenihan. I appreciate it but you must look further. When Senator Lenihan has spent some years on that seat he will appreciate it. If the point of view suggested by Senator Lenihan is adopted in relation to business in this House— I am speaking non-politically from a House point of view—we will stultify ourselves very considerably. We are not able to control the attendance of Ministers. There will be occasions when Ministers will be abroad.
A question was raised in relation to item No. 1. It cannot be proceeded with because the Minister is abroad. If we adopt an attitude that we will not proceed with business except when the Minister is present, from the point of view of the House, and leaving politics out of the question, we risk stultifying ourselves very greatly. I would ask Senator Lenihan to consider that point of view. We have not, up to now, proceed with motions in the absence of Ministers, although we have made provision to allow the option to the proposer of a motion. I understand Senator Lenihan's arguments but I am also concerned with Senator Horgan's rights as a Senator. Personally, I am prepared to support Senator Horgan. It will do no harm to have the experiment on this occasion if Senator Lenihan's point of view proves to be correct. If at the end of the discussion the House feels it has not been worth while because the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary was not in attendance, then that is something we should take into account in relation to motions in the future and possibly have the matter reconsidered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Could I raise a point of order?
The debate was concluded. I allowed a supplementary statement from Senator Lenihan, having regard to his position as Leader of the Opposition. I then allowed the Leader of the House to reply. I do not think I can allow a second round of debate. If there is a further proposition, I could——
On a genuine point of order, Senator M.D. Higgins, the proposer of this motion, is not present. Presumably he does not know the motion will be taken. It seems quite improper that we should take a motion in these circumstances.
I will now put the question: "That item No. 2 be taken today."
Question put and agreed to.
Question, "That item No. 17 be taken today", put and agreed.
The Order of Business for today is Nos. 2 and 17.
I have not been given an answer to my point of order. Is it in order to take a motion in the absence and without the knowledge of the proposer?
In my opinion, yes. There are a number of adherents present. When it comes to the matter of the motion being moved, one of the other Senators could move. It would be at that time that the Chair would have to be satisfied that the person was moving it with the permission of the Senator whose name appears first on the Order Paper after the motion.
Does this mean that Senator Horgan will have to show that he has the permission of Senator Higgins?
The Chair will have to be satisfied.