Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 1974

Vol. 78 No. 3

Order of Business.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and in that order. With regard to No. 1, we are in a situation which I do not like and which I know the Minister himself has endeavoured to avoid. The position is that nominations in respect of the local elections open at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and it is necessary, if this Bill is to apply to the present local elections, that all Stages should be passed in this House today. Not only that—and I do earnestly look for co-operation in this respect—it will be necessary to have all Stages passed by 2.30 p.m., because the procedure, as Senators will be aware, is that following the passage of the Bill and the Early Signature Motion, which is No. 2 on the Order Paper, it is necessary for the vellum copy of the Bill authenticated by the Clerk to be presented for signature. Normally it would be for the signature of the President, but the President being abroad, it is necessary for the Bill to be signed by the Presidential Commission, which consists of three persons: the Chief Justice, the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil, and the Chairman of the Seanad.

When that has been done, it is necessary for at least three Ministers to make orders under section 25 of the Bill: the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Local Government. In addition to that it is necessary to transmit the orders, when they are made, by post to the various local authorities and also to notify the various authorities of the enactment of this legislation.

Quite frankly I do not like this situation developing in the Seanad where we are put in the position of having, willy-nilly, to co-operate with a shortened timetable. This has occurred on a number of occasions in the past, as Senators will be aware. I think when I occupied the seat opposite I co-operated on each occasion, but it was not something I did entirely without protest. However Senators will be aware that there is urgency of a particular vital nature in this case. It is not a situation for which any Member of the Seanad is responsible for having allowed develop. It is no business of mine to suggest why we are put in this situation, but I do know that the Minister was anxious to avoid it. In fact it was not avoided and we are faced with that situation. I would earnestly appeal for co-operation to meet this stringent timetable we have in front of us.

Mr. Lenihan

The whole business of summoning the Seanad to a meeting at 10.30 a.m. by telegram must be avoided. It is a question of the Government ordering their business in a more orderly fashion. We are anxious to co-operate here, but unless a mockery is going to be made of Parliament something must be done by the Government to introduce their business in a more orderly fashion. The behaviour of the Government in their approach to legislation before the Houses of the Oireachtas in recent months has been disgraceful. There is no other word for it. It is the height of incompetence. For a Government alleged to possess some brains, the manner in which the ordinary day-to-day business of legislation has been ordered for debate, discussion and amendment before the Houses of the Oireachtas, is appalling. This is just another example of that. If the priorities were got right by the Government this is the matter we should have been discussing weeks ago, instead of the "gerrymander" Bill.

This is a serious Bill. I am in agreement with it in many respects but there are many aspects which my party would like to see improved by way of positive amendment. I should like to emphasise that we are willing to meet the deadline of the Minister if he listens to reasonable proposals put forward by us. There is no reason why the Minister cannot accept reasonable amendments between now and 2 o'clock. I will be specific and refer to one amendment which he refused to accept in the Dáil, a matter which caused all the delay in the Dáil. On the "gerrymander" Bill he refused to accept our amendment on the Report Stage although he could have accepted it.

Similarly on this Bill we had a very reasoned amendment put down by Deputy Molloy in the Dáil, relating to page 12 of the Bill. That amendment, in effect, sought to exclude certain officers of a local authority, clerical officers, from qualification. That was a very reasoned amendment because on its merits it had much to commend itself in that it removed any outrageous situation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has given us notice of his amendment and I do not want him to go into detail on it at this stage. We are discussing the Order of Business.

Mr. Lenihan

I appreciate that. What I want to emphasise at this stage is that unless this amendment is acceptable or there is some move by the Minister towards accepting an amendment of that nature, we are going to stay here and debate this Bill all day today on the Second Stage. We will then have Committee and Report Stages because the Bill itself is not urgent for the purpose of holding the local elections. We can hold the local elections without the Bill. We do not want to make a charade out of Parliament. We have a very reasoned amendment and I will not go into the merits of it yet but unless there is real consideration given to it we are going to sit here and have a full parliamentary debate on this measure.

Mr. Yeats

I do not want to go over the ground covered by Senator Lenihan. Senator O'Higgins, if I understood him correctly, hinted that the reason why consideration of this Bill was so long delayed was due to legislative business. He delicately skated over any precise description. The implication, I think, was that because of the prolonged debates in the other House, and to a limited extent in this House, on the Constituencies Bill, it was not possible to take this particular Bill sooner. If that was what was in his mind he ought to have made it quite clear.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Would it shorten it if I said it was not in my mind?

Mr. Yeats

In that case I am unable to find out what was in his mind. The fact is we will get down to the straightforward position about this Bill. The First Reading of this Bill was moved, as I understand it, on the 9th May, 1974, when it was ordered by Dáil Éireann to be printed. More than 12 months ago the Minister knew, when he took the decision to postpone the local elections which had been scheduled for June, 1973, that the elections would be held in 1974 and in the second half of June. He knew, in other words, the exact date of the local elections to within, perhaps, seven days over a year ago.

On 9th May, 1974, the First Stage of this Bill was moved after which the Bill was circulated. I am at a loss to understand what the cause of the delay was. There are many reasons one could suggest but there is no great profit in that. When a rush of this kind is brought about, when we are being asked to meet at 10.30 by telegram and are then told by the Leader of the House that we are expected to give all Stages of this Bill by 2 p.m., we should be given some explanation as to what caused the delay in the circulation and consideration of this Bill. We would be very reasonable on a matter of this kind if an adequate reason were given as to why there was this delay. No explanation, that I know of, was given here or in the other House as to what happened to this Bill during the past 12 months.

The Minister had a year in which to draft, circulate and have this Bill considered. It is not good enough to come in, within weeks of the local elections, and say that we have to give all Stages of this Bill by 2 p.m. We must have some reasonable explanation as to what caused this extraordinary delay.

Mr. Dolan

The Leader of the House asked for co-operation from us on this side of the House. We have always been willing to give co-operation whenever we considered it necessary and desirable but a situation such as this—trying to rush a very important Bill through the House in an hour or two—shows the type of muddled thinking and lack of planning and co-operation on behalf of the Government so far as legislation in general is concerned.

There has been a tremendous scarcity of legislation since the Government took office. This Bill has been brought in at a very late hour despite the fact that it is seven years since local elections were held, and that everybody knew that local elections were due last year. I cannot for the life of me see what the Government have been doing in this respect but at the last minute they try to rush through legislation and ask for our co-operation. It is asking a bit much and it shows the ordinary individual, and the workers in particular, that this Government have not much idea of planning legislation or giving sufficient time to the Opposition to ensure that any legislation being put through is thoroughly debated. We have already had many instances of the guillotine. This treatment of Members on this side of the House is scandalous.

Mr. Brennan

I, too, like the previous speaker, find myself in great difficulty. From the point of view of travelling, because I happened to be in the city last night, my position was less arduous than that of other Senators. I understand most Members were called by wire. On inquiry this morning in the Clerk's office, I found Members got a warning notice early last Friday. I was not at home when that came, but I did get to know that the House was meeting this morning at 10.30 a.m.

This is a very important piece of legislation. No matter how the Leader of the House may try to convince us that one can deal adequately with a Bill like this just in a matter of hours, nothing could be further from the truth. I refrained from speaking on the Constituency Bill, notwithstanding the fact that I was tempted very often to do so. I have no less than 32 years experience of local government. I give myself credit for average intelligence. No intelligent person I have ever met in local government, or who is associated with local government, would ever dream of giving this right to clerical officers. I think that is what they are described as——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That point is not relevant on the Order of Business. We are discussing the Order of Business.

Mr. Brennan

The Order of Business is exactly what I am speaking about and it would not take a very deep X-ray to find that out. Actually this House is being treated with a sort of contempt that one might associate with a Punch and Judy show. This is not an urban council, or town commissioners or even a county council. It is a legislative body.

I just do not agree with the fact that you are going to rush this Bill through in a matter of hours. I think that the House should adjourn until three o'clock the hour at which it was originally intended to sit. When we were on the Government side of the House, the Leader of the House then was continually criticised for undue delay. Now we have undue haste. Which do we prefer? I would prefer undue delay rather than undue haste. I therefore cannot agree with rushing this piece of legislation through in a particular number of hours.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Just to clarify a point for the benefit of Senators, I must point out that the Chair is not rushing any legislation through.

Mr. W. Ryan

A Leas-Chathaoirleach, last Thursday evening when the Whips met to discuss the Order of Business for Friday morning the question of when we would sit in connection with this Bill came up. I agreed that we would sit on Wednesday morning at 10.30 a.m. However since then there were some changes. First of all, when the Seanad adjourned on Friday it adjourned sine die. We, in the Fianna Fáil Party believed then that it was not meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday but would meet at 3 o'clock.

Telegrams were sent out yesterday. The telegram arrived at my house at about three o'clock. I was away from home at the time. I could not be contacted by phone and I did not return home until ten o'clock last night. I am just wondering how many more Senators were placed in the same position. Even if they got the message at three o'clock yesterday afternoon it could not have been that easy for some to be here at 10.30 this morning. We met last week at 10.30 a.m. We had no objection to that because we knew well in advance and most of us were in town from the night before.

I protest again against this 10.30 a.m. meeting. We should adjourn now until three o'clock. We are placed in the awkward position that we have very few of our Senators in the House. I do not imagine that they will be here before lunch time.

Of course, as our Leader has said, if the Minister were prepared to accept the one amendment that we are anxious to have inserted in the Bill we would agree definitely to meeting at 10.30 a.m. and we would give him the Bill straight away. Probably the Minister is not in favour of doing that and is not in a position to answer just yet.

Mr. Yeats

On a very brief point of explanation, I gave the wrong date for introduction of the Bill in the Dáil. It was a couple of weeks earlier but that in no way invalidates the point I was making.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am glad Senator Yeats made that correction and I will, I am sure, be corrected if I am wrong on this point: I understand that one of the reasons for the delay was that the Minister very graciously co-operated with the Opposition in the Dáil and delayed the discussion for a week there in order to suit the convenience of the Opposition and, but for the Minister's graciousness in that respect, this Bill would have been before us earlier.

Mr. Lenihan

Let us not protest too much.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Senator Lenihan is gaining the reputation of the great protester. I recall that last week we had vehement protests about not ordering business. We were reprimanded severely; we were told that there was all sorts of business on the Order Paper and why not take it? When we did take it there was immediate opposition from Fianna Fáil, they objected to taking any business in the absence of a Minister.

Mr. Yeats

Hear, hear.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We have a Minister here today. I simply make the point. If I am wrong, no doubt I will be corrected. As regards any other reasons Senator Yeats or other Senators may like to hear about, I am quite sure that the Minister can answer for himself regarding the timetable and give whatever explanations are necessary. I have some sympathy with the point of view that, in view of the fact that the local elections are imminent and that nominations are tomorrow, it might have been possible to arrange for this discussion earlier. Irrespective of whatever views and feelings I may have on the matter, if the Senators opposite do not mind taking a word of advice, I think this is something about which they should not talk too loudly. The fact is that away back 13 years ago the courts of this country decided that the petition court which was in existence in relation to local elections was unconstitutional. That was in 1961. Nothing was done about remedying that situation until the present Government took office. So do not talk too loudly about delays and laches as regards legislation because that is something to my mind that should have been remedied by three successive Fianna Fáil Governments and nothing was done about it——

Mr. Lenihan

You can have that.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That was in 1961. When we reproach them we are now told there is no contest about that.

Mr. Lenihan

There is no contest about that.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am not talking about contests; I am talking about the inactivity which was displayed in relation to that particular matter by Governments in the past.

Mr. Yeats

The Minister has known for 15 months——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The fact of the matter is that Senators opposite can either decide that this Bill should be available to the people in relation to these elections or they can endeavour to stop that process. As far as this side of the House and the Government are concerned we feel that the Bill should be available to the people and we will make every effort to ensure that this will be done.

I am sorry if the Deputies opposite feel that they cannot co-operate in this. I do not think I have asked very frequently for co-operation. When I occupied Senator Lenihan's seat I was frequently asked for co-operation and I think that where a case was made for it it was certainly given. It may sound dramatic to talk about the Seanad being summoned by telegram. It is not the first time this happened. On this occasion it was summoned by telegram in order to pass legislation which is of considerable importance to the people in connection with the local elections. It is open legislation. It is legislation which is liberal in the sense that it is expanding the field so far as local government candidates are concerned. On the last occasion on which the Seanad was summoned by telegram I do not think the particular type of legislation which the then Government asked us to discuss fell into the same category. My recollection is that it was the Fianna Fáil Offences Against the State Act.

Mr. Brennan

We want to make it perfectly clear that the Leader of the House is entitled to ask for co-operation from this side of the House. I fully agree that the Senator should get co-operation. I personally refuse to be stampeded and I consider that this is in the nature of a stampede.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Order of Business agreed to?

Senators

No.

Question: "That the Order of Business be agreed," put.

The Seanad divided. Tá, 22; Níl, 8.

Tá

• Barrett, Jack.
• Boland, John.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Horgan, John S.
• Kerrigan, Patrick.
• Kilbride, Thomas.
• Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Russell, George Edward.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Walsh, Mary.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Aylward, Bob.
• Brennan, John J.
• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Ryan, William.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan.

Question declared carried.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is not proposed to break for lunch and we will have the additional time there.

Mr. Lenihan

Yes, that is agreed.