If agreed by the House, we will take the motion. I have received notice of amendments which I will read out. The first is "To delete ‘to-day' in line 8 and substitute therefor ‘tomorrow.'" Would Senators not interrupt the Chair, please?
Local Elections (Petitions and Disqualifications) Bill, 1974: Allocation of Time (Resumed).
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
On a point of order, we have a motion before the House. It is a guillotine motion, in effect, to circumscribe debate, and the gist of the motion is that the Bill, if not previously brought to conclusion, should be brought to a conclusion at 3.30 p.m. It is now 3.33 p.m.——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If you had allowed me to continue you might have saved that interruption. I said I had amendments which I would read out—"To delete ‘today' in line 8 and substitute therefor ‘tomorrow,'" in the names of Senator Michael B. Yeats and Senator Willie Ryan. The second one is to delete "and on the motion for Earlier Signature" in the name of Senator Yeats. The third one is "In line 7 to delete the words "at 3.30 p.m. to-day" and substitute therefor "forthwith". The fourth one is to delete "3.30" and replace it by "12 midnight." That is in the names of Senator Yeats and Senator Lenihan.
I move:
In line 7 to delete the words "at 3.30 p.m. today" and substitute therefor "forthwith".
On a point of order, is it proper that a man who has not been nominated by the people of this country can come in here and put the guillotine or order a guillotine motion——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is not a point of order.
I take it that you are accepting Senator M.J. O'Higgins's amendment to this resolution which states that the necessary questions should be brought to a conclusion. forthwith. If you are accepting that amendment, do I understand it that you are in fact deciding that as far as you are concerned the vote will be taken forthwith and that no debate is to be permitted? The word "forthwith" means "at once", which suggests that no debate is to be allowed on this resolution. If on the other hand a debate in accordance with usual parliamentary democracy outside some of the East European countries is to be permitted, then the word "forthwith" is clearly improper and the amendment ought not to be accepted.
The word "forthwith" becomes operative if the motion is carried.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
"Forthwith" to my knowledge means as soon as possible in some terms. There has been so much disruption in the House —to say the least the Chair has got very little co-operation all round——
You know who is creating it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am not passing criticism on any one person who may or may not be creating it. I am just making a statement. The House has been very unruly today. A motion has been moved by Senator M.J. O'Higgins and I have received several amendments to it. I understand that if the terms of the Bill before the House are to apply to the forthcoming local elections it must become law today. In the circumstances, I am accepting the allocation of time motion on short notice so that the House will have the opportunity to decide whether the Bill should have effect accordingly. That can be taken as meaning the Chair is accepting the motion. The motion is for debate.
On a point of order, this is a difficult situation. There can be a two-hour debate on this. At the end of it, we would be in the ridiculous position, assuming that the Government amendment, as seems likely, is accepted on a division, that we would have passed a resolution to the effect that everything was to finish forthwith although it did not finish for several hours afterwards. I would be extremely doubtful whether in fact they will have been validly passed. I suspect it could be upset legally afterwards. The word "forthwith", whatever it means, does not mean two hours.
Might I, by way of explanation, say to Senator Yeats that the position as I see it is this. There is the motion and a number of amendments which have been read out by the Chair. One of these amendments suggests another time for the operation of the motion as being 3.30 p.m. tomorrow. My amendment suggests, as an alternative, that the operation of the motion should commence forthwith. That, in effect, means that when the motion has been discussed and a decision has been taken on the motion, if the decision of the House is affirmative—in other words that the motion be adopted—the motion then as amended would come into operation and would provide for the putting of the various questions to bring this Bill to conclusion forthwith at that stage. It is only on the passing of the motion that the time becomes operative.
I am rather encouraged by this statement by the Leader of the House. He suggests that we can spend the rest of today and tomorrow discussing this and that the Government are happy that this should be the position.
If that is the interpretation—and indeed it is very difficult to put any interpretation on what has been moved here today from the Leader of the House and indeed from what we heard from the Minister— that we are now to have a reasoned debate on a motion without any abrupt dictatorial closure, then let us have a real debate on the motion. We have been prevented from engaging in a very sensible Second Stage debate.
I take it we are discussing the amendments with the motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes.
We have been prevented from having a sensible Second Stage debate on the Bill. We have been prevented from putting down practical amendments on Committee Stage, and the end result of the whole procedure is that the Seanad is now discussing a guillotine motion in regard to an important piece of legislation which has nothing to do with the nominations proceeding, nothing to do with the actual holding of the local government elections, but is a piece of legislation that is welcome in many respects, one to which we would have proposed practical amendments on Committee Stage.
I indicated in my Second Reading speech the nature of these amendments. They are matters that could have been considered by the Minister, and perhaps the Minister would then have come forward, or we would have come forward, with practical Committee Stage amendments next week when Committee Stage would have been taken. This is what parliamentary democracy is supposed to be about. That is why we are elected here and why Members of Dáil Éireann are elected—to consider legislation prepared by the Government, submitted by the Government of the day to the Houses of the Oireachtas, and thereafter a considered constructive discussion on Second Stage on general principle and then on Committee Stage by way of reasoned and constructive amendments. Otherwise the whole procedure is a farce and a charade. Mark you, when violence is done to institutions in any society it is very serious.
Hear, hear.
Some of what we have witnessed here today is a direct result of violence being done to our democratic institutions by the present Minister for Local Government and by the Leader of the House. We had an instance of it recently in regard to the Constituencies Bill when reasoned and considered amendments were put forward here, argued logically from this side of the House for hours on end and no attention whatever paid ultimately by the Minister for Local Government to constructive suggestions put forward. The point is that, pushed to the ultimate, this is the sort of situation that existed in the Reichstag when Hitler was in power—he just had people in the Reichstag to say "Heil Hitler". You had the same situation under Mussolini. You have the same situation under what passes for a parliament in Russia today.
Nobody who has any real conciousness of what democracy is about and the morality of democracy can do anything but deplore the sort of attitude of contempt that is being shown both to the Dáil and the Seanad by the present Minister for Local Government, both in the Constituencies Bill and in this measure. We have been prevented from giving mature consideration to an act of legislation because the Minister for Local Government decides that he must have the Bill today, a Bill that is not necessary and not relevant to the conduct of the imminent local elections, a Bill that can be improved and amended as we think fit. It is the duty of every Senator and every Deputy in the Dáil to advance considered amendments for improvement of any act of legislation. We have been denied this. Instead violence has been done to the democratic institutions of this State by introducing, for the second time in a matter of months, a guillotine motion; and the same Minister for Local Government responsible for a guillotine motion in the Dáil on the Constituencies Bill now brings forward, through the Leader of this House, a guillotine motion in regard to this particular legislation.
Your own party kept it two weeks in the Dáil.
I would again emphasise that this Bill is an important piece of legislation in which there are many aspects of liberalising improvements with which I am in thorough agreement. It is a Bill that can be examined through the processes of parliamentary procedure and where improvements can be made.
But we are confronted with this attitude of mind, and it is a very dangerous jackboot attitude, which says that nothing can be improved: "I want my Bill and nobody in Dáil or Seanad can improve my Bill." It is an attitude of mind which says, "Why have any parliament at all?" The logical extension of that attitude is: why have any elected representatives here, either in Dáil or Seanad? Why not let the appropriate Minister of the day, with his officials, prepare the legislation, present it and tell the people that they can have that legislation, and that is that?
There is no logic in having Dáil or Seanad sit here to consider legislation brought forward by the Government and to have an attitude from the Government representative: "This is my legislation; I want this legislation by today. If you do not pass it we will bring in a motion to stop you discussing it." This is highly unreasonable, particularly in a matter of this kind which was only introduced this morning at 10.30 on an urgency telegram summons.
You were given advance warning last week.
We have spent nearly half a day discussing it. It would ordinarily be a Second Stage debate which would be finished today, within reason, and we would have considered amendments which would be put down next week for Committee Stage. Then Report Stage would proceed the following week.
That is not our fault.
The main reason behind this indecent haste is that the Minister and the Government were so obsessed with the gerrymandering of the country that the Constituencies Bill had to take priority both in Dáil and Seanad. This House was brought together in Holy Week to debate a Constituencies Bill and not a single amendment was accepted by the Minister—again, an example of the jackboot attitude.
When did you, as a Government, accept an amendment?
I am glad Senator Halligan raised the question of not accepting amendments because any of the Senators who were here when I was a Minister will recall that I made it a practice in this House and in the other House to accept regularly amendments on Committee Stage.
Not on a Constituencies Bill.
I made a practice of this, particularly in this House where constructive suggestions were regularly put forward on Bills. I want to say this, and I should like if the Press would take it down, that I have found over the years that the Seanad, when it does its job properly, is a very good legislative chamber, one where positive contributions and constructive suggestions in regard to amendments of Bills have been made and where Bills have been improved. That can be done. There is no difficulty about doing that if the Government of the day and the relevant Minister organise their business in a proper fashion.
This is a Bill that should have been before us months ago. It is a Bill concerned with very desirable reforms and a Bill to which we would like to suggest very desirable improvements. There was no reason why at the last minute this measure should have been rushed before us when a less important matter, if the Government are serious about staying there for a period—the constituencies gerrymander Bill—was rushed through with indecent haste. This is a practical measure that I certainly should like to consider in detail. We have been deprived in this House of considering it in any way and we have been told to take it or leave it by motion put down here by the Leader of the House—the motion which suggests that forthwith we pass this measure. Follow that to its logical conclusion and every Bill would be dealt with in that manner. Why have the Dáil? Why have the Seanad? Why have a First Stage of introduction, a Second Stage of general discussion, a Third Stage in Committee, a Fourth Stage of Report on Committee and a Fifth and Final Stage? Why have these procedures at all? We have seen what institutional violence has done in the North of Ireland.
And here today.
We have seen what institutional violence has done in Eastern Europe. We have seen what institutional violence did in Germany and Italy a generation ago. This sort of flouting of democracy carries very dangerous significance and so long as we are here—we are in a minority in this House—we will not be trampled on. We are only adumbrating the basic constitutional rights written into the Constitution, the basic rights that form the warp and the weft of any parliamentary democracy—the basic rights of having a considerate discussion by the representatives elected by the people in regard to any measure proposed to those representatives by the Government of the day.
That, in basic terms, is what parliamentary democracy is about. If the representatives of the people, gathered in the parliament of the people, are not given their due time and their due right to consider whatever legislation comes forward to the parliamentary institutions from the Government, then the whole notion of parliamentary democracy goes by the board.
All of us here—this applies to Independent Senators, Fine Gael Senators and Labour Senators as well as Fianna Fáil Senators—have a very sacred duty, as the Deputies in the other House have also. We are all Members of a Parliament. The democratic Parliament in this State is concerned about viewing and reviewing and making constructive comment, and indeed adopting constructive comment, to deal with whichever legislative measures come before the Parliament and the Government of the day. Otherwise, we are into a jackboot situation. Otherwise the Government of the day or the Minister of the day get the document, say to a civil servant, "Prepare the legislation", and have a machined majority through Dáil and Senate, without any regard to whatever the elected representatives of the people may say. No honest people, or proud people, would dare to participate in that charade of democracy.
That is the situation and the attitude of mind that I have seen twice displayed in a matter of months by the Minister for Local Government. It is an attitude that is very serious because, pushed to its ultimate, it makes nonsense of all of us here who are elected representatives of the people. All of us must examine our consciences and examine exactly why we are in this House or in the other House. We want to give constructive suggestions and to propose constructive amendments to legislative measures which come before us, and we are deprived of doing so by a crude guillotine-type motion meant only for the most extreme circumstances, to prevent constructive and reasoned debate.
Senator M.J. O'Higgins earlier referred to the fact that on a previous occasion we brought in a guillotine motion here as a Government. We brought in a guillotine motion as a Government when the security of this State was at stake and when the Fine Gael Party were totally divided on how the security of the State should be organised. The Offences Against the State Act in December, 1972, introduced by us, was an urgent measure in which the security of the State, in our regard as the Government of the time, was paramount. That is the only time when we, as a Government, brought in a guillotine motion.
That is the matter referred to this morning by Senator M.D. Higgins. Of course we brought in a guillotine motion on a matter of that kind, when the people opposed to us were in total disarray, where the present Taoiseach, as Leader of the Fine Gael Party, did not have the support of the great majority of his party, when he needed to be propped up and supported by us and when legislation passed by us as a matter of urgency for the security of this State and for the protection of our society was pushed through and has not been changed one iota since then by the incoming Government. It has now been adopted and implemented in full by the present Government.
Yes, in a situation like that a guillotine motion is necessary, when the lives and the properties of our citizens are concerned; but in a matter of the kind we are now dealing with, it makes total nonsense of what parliamentary democracy is all about. When a Bill that can be legitimately improved—when constructive amendments can be made—is treated in this cavalier manner, this guillotine procedure, there are the portents of democratic negation.
As I say, this is the second time in a matter of months that this has happened—once in the Dáil on the Constituencies Bill and now it is happening here on this Bill. Of course we have plenty of other Ministers who are capable of doing that and much more dictatorial behaviour than the Minister for Local Government who is not in any way the villain of the piece in that respect. I can well imagine the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs coming forward here with any measure with which he meets some disagreement and, hey presto, a guillotine will be produced out of the hat.
Democracy is a very cherished flower which we should nurture carefully. Many people in this State who died in the past have worked so that it be cherished and maintained. It does no good whatever to do violence to the basic institutions written into the Constitution, that are enshrined in procedure and have been adopted during the years.
The most basic institution in parliamentary democracy is the right of elected representatives to go through the procedures of examination in regard to legislation coming to Parliament from the Government. If we start to flout or treat that right in a cavalier manner we are on the slippery slope, which means that we are all redundant. Let us remember that one. We can be made redundant, and unless there is a justification for Parliamentarians to be here—a practical justification shown to the people outside and shown to the people who report us here for the people outside— then the logical consequences of that is that we are redundant and that we can leave Government to whoever is there in whichever Department at whatever particular time of the year he or she happens to be there. What we must watch is the respect in which the public outside hold our institutions.
The rightful indignation expressed by Members of our group here today is a direct consequence of their rights being flouted, a direct consequence of the fact that they came here to engage in a serious debate and make a serious contribution and found themselves frustrated right, left and centre at every stage. We found, indeed, motions being introduced right through the day eventually winding up with this particular form of guillotine motion that no further discussion is to take place.
This is very dangerous procedure and I should like to finish on the note that I warn the Government we are all concerned with the survival of democracy in Ireland. Every one of us, of all political parties and Independents, are concerned with the survival of democracy. None of us wants to see a situation where institutions of democracy are debased in any way. When that happens the people outside ask: "Why have it at all". Then the way is made easy for another type of facile totalitarian alternative.
Let us consider very seriously in the future, before any Government come into either House to put down a guillotine motion of this kind, that this has happened twice in three months. It is a measure that should be used very sparingly. The only time we used it was in December, 1972, when it was essential for the security of the State to get the Offences Against the State Bill through despite the opposition of the Labour Party, despite the opposition of a great majority of the Fine Gael Party, with the honourable support of the present Taoiseach and one or two of his supporters in the Fine Gael Party of that time. We decided as a matter of extreme urgency that that Bill would have to go through Parliament and a guillotine motion was applied.
That has no relevance whatever here today. In regard to ordinary legislation this should not happen. The Minister and the Government should not indulge in pique. Nobody should engage in the type of conceit which says: "I want my Bill through." That is not good enough. It is not good enough to come forward to any House of mature people and say that. That is not what we are here for. We are here to consider the Bill and to make practical improvements to the Bill. As I said in my Second Reading speech, there were practical improvements which we would have put forward by way of amendments and we could have had a discussion on them. I am sad to see this, the second occasion on which the Minister has come forward here with legislation in which not alone has no amendment been accepted but deliberate closure has been applied at every Stage of the Bill leading up to the final guillotine motion. I should like if it were otherwise.
I want to emphasise that there is absolutely no personal animus as far as the Minister and myself are concerned. I am seeking to put this debate on a base of principle. What we are all concerned or should be concerned with here is, first of all, making representative parliamentary democracy work, and, secondly, making it appear to the public to work. Not alone should we make it work and function well but behave here in a way that is credible and understandable to the public who are concerned about what their representatives are doing. The day institutional violence of this kind is started, and the day violence is done at Government level to the procedures of this House and to Bills introduced by Government, that is the day you invite the sort of honest indignation that was expressed here on this side of the House—honest indignation when the Chair was obviously and blatantly used and abused in order to create this situation. Again, there is no personal animus in this with regard to the occupant of the Chair, with whom I am very friendly. Certainly, we will have to examine very seriously the whole conduct of the Chair in this matter today with a view, possibly, to putting down a motion of censure in that regard. It is important for the institutions of this House that the Chair not alone be impartial but appear to be impartial. We have had a gross abuse of the democratic institutions which we have cherished in this country over the years.
It is a sad day, in my view, that we should have this type of conduct. I hope that the lesson from it will be salutary as far as the Government are concerned and that the signs of arrogance which we have witnessed in recent months will not be intensified. Let us hope also that we shall not have a repetition of this mockery of Parliament and mockery of democracy which we witnessed today and which the Dáil witnessed just a few months ago.
This is a sad day for parliamentary democracy in Ireland. We have had a series of quite extraordinary procedures and precedents of procedures on the part of the Government, the Minister and, in particular the Leader of the House. The day started off at 10.30 this morning, the House having been called together by an urgent telegram, and we were told by the Leader of the House that all Stages of this difficult, complex and important Bill were to be passed by 2 o'clock. We started with the Second Reading debate, a Second Reading debate which was not half over when, at 1.30 p.m., after about two-and-a-half hours of debate, a guillotine motion in the name of the Government parties and the Leader of the House was circulated. I do not know if there is a precedent for this. I think it is unlikely that in either House of the Oireachtas, going back over 50 years, there is a precedent for a guillotine motion of this kind being moved during a Second Reading debate. Certainly there is no precedent for a guillotine motion of this kind being circulated after less than three hours of debate has taken place.
We are now discussing this motion and in a moment of perhaps undue optimism I congratulated the Leader of the House for the amendment he had moved to replace the words "3.30 p.m." by "forthwith". It was only later I realised that the implications of this change, which presumably will be voted by the troops on the Government side, are that a motion has been moved in the course of the Second Reading of this Bill by the Leader of the House, which will be supported by Government Senators, and which says in effect that all Stages of the Bill are to be ended forthwith. There is to be no more discussion for even a short period, on the Second Stage of the Bill, on the Committee Stage, Report Stage or Final Stage. It is a complete cut-off contrary to the usual guillotine practice of at least leaving a certain number of hours for debate.
More serious than this particular motion and the unreasonable and dictatorial way in which it was moved, has been the serious and quite unprecedented series of closure motions under Standing Order No. 44. These are unusual things and indeed Government Senators, in an attempt to justify this, have had to go back over past years and mention one particular instance in which one was used. They are rare, particularly in this House. I do not know how many we have had today, I have not counted them. Certainly we have had a number. It is well to consider for a moment the conditions under which these closure motions are supposed to be moved. It is stated quite clearly in Standing Order No. 44, subsection (1), that such a motion can only be put if it is clear that it is not an infringement of the rights of the minority and if it is clear that the question has been adequately discussed. The attitude of the Leader of the House to this Standing Order is shown very clearly when we began briefly to discuss the question of the amendment of the Order of Business. Before anyone had said anything, before one sentence of one speech was uttered on this the Leader of the House stood up and moved the closure of the debate. A debate which had never even begun was to be closed. The Chair rejected the Leader of the House's proposition but it does show the attitude there is on the Government side. It is not merely that they wished to shorten the debate but on that occasion they wished to end any debate at all.
Are we a democratic country or are we a pseudo-parliament of the kind they once had in Portugal and they still have in Spain and in various eastern European countries—Parliaments that have the trappings of parliamentary life without the realities? Are we to have a situation—this is a very dangerous precedent that has been created today—that a Minister can come in and say: "Here I have a Bill and you have three hours to discuss it. If you do not like it you can lump it. I will get my Leader of the House to move a guillotine motion and inside three hours the debate will be finished." This is being done today. There is nothing to stop it being done again. It would seem to suggest that the Minister, the Leader of the House, Senators opposite and indeed the Government have absolutely no respect or regard for parliamentary life. They look upon both Houses of the Oireachtas, and in particular this House, as mere instruments for rubber stamping their proposals. They are not interested in debate. Now that the Leader of the House has come back I should like to remind him that I have already mentioned that on one occasion today he disgraced himself by moving the closure of a debate that had not even begun, although the Standing Order makes it quite clear that the closure is envisaged only where there has been no infringement of the rights of the minority or the question has been adequately discussed. On that particular occasion the question had not even begun to be discussed, and yet the Leader of the House moved the closure of the debate. That is his notion of democracy. This has been a sad day for this House. It is absolutely clear that the rights of the minority have been completely trampled upon. We hope this will not occur again, but at least we will give a guarantee that when we are back in Government we will not treat the House like that.
This is the second time recently that the Minister has been in this House putting through a Bill and the second time he has attempted to introduce the guillotine to prevent debate on an important Bill. He has been in office for only 15 months and already has shown a degree of impatience and arrogance that is astonishing. If this continues it will lead to a dictatorial approach to all his Bills, and this is frightening.
If this Bill is essential for the local elections it should have been introduced a long time ago. The Minister should have known that the local elections were to take place this year. He had many months in which to introduce this Bill and had time to allow it to be properly debated. During the last 15 months there have been long periods in this House and the other House during which there was no business and there was every opportunity to deal with this Bill and to have it properly debated. The Bill has been brought to this House in an outrageous fashion, and we are asked to debate it and finish in approximately three hours.
The Bill was debated for several days in the Dáil spread over a number of weeks, yet after three hours in this House we had a motion to put the question on an important Bill of this nature. There were at least two well qualified speakers who were anxious to discuss the Bill; yet the question was put after three hours and then came the guillotine motion. By no stretch of the imagination was the debate on this Bill excessive. It could not be stated that the speeches were too long or that there was any question of filibustering on this Bill. This was not said, so there is some honesty left on the other side of the House.
This is an important Bill and there has been a blunt refusal to allow it to be debated in this House. It is against every principle of parliamentary procedure, democracy and fair play to the minority in this House that that attitude should be adopted. It cannot be defended and the only way this attitude can be pursued is by voting down every attempt by this side of the House to have the matter properly discussed.
What was the justification for preventing discussion on this Bill? What is the justification for preventing from speaking Senators who wish to speak on the Bill and who have interesting, useful and constructive points to put forward? There is no justification for the Minister, the House or the Chair taking such action. The principles in this Bill merit reasonable discussion on the Second Stage. There should have been a debate on the Committee Stage, as this is primarily a Committee Stage Bill. There were a number of points which needed to be raised on the Committee Stage. Not only is the House prevented from getting an opportunity of discussing this Bill on the Committee Stage, but it is not to be allowed to complete the Second Stage.
This is an outrageous negation of parliamentary procedure and democracy. It is of interest that one of the main items we had hoped to discuss in this Bill was the question of who should be allowed to stand as candidate for the local elections. There should have been a section in this Bill to ensure that when candidates were elected to the county council or the corporation they would be allowed to debate matters which came before them. There should have been a section in this Bill to prohibit the Minister from using his influence to apply the closure in debates in the county councils and the corporations. At the rate he is going there is no limit to how far he will go to restrict debate, to restrict parliamentary procedure, to restrict democracy in this House and possibly in the local authorities in due course, because he is the Minister in charge of local authorities.
Obviously the Senator was never a member of a county council.
There may be introduced in due course a Bill to deal with that matter and if the Minister brings forward that kind of a Bill to restrict discussion in the local authorities when it comes before us we will get only an hour or two to discuss it before the guillotine is once more applied. It can be taken for granted that in future any Bill the Minister brings before this House will be brought with the guillotine ready to be applied. In the 17 years I have been a Member of this House I have never seen such an outrageous abuse of parliamentary procedure, of democracy, and of anything which could be remotely described as fair play. This was a blunt application of the guillotine: "I want the Bill now, I want it my way, I do not want any debate. I do not wish to hear the views of any Senator." It is like a spoiled child saying: "I want my toy now and no one is to stand in my way."
This may be seen, when the vote is taken in this House, as a victory for the Government. It will be a peculiar victory. It will be a very short-term victory and one which will not go down to the credit of the Government. This may be seen as a victory for the Minister, but it is one he will regret many times in the future.
I oppose this motion, vehemently and vigorously with all sincerity. There has been a display of impatience and arrogance in regard to this measure. It is despicable that any Minister should come into either House of the Oireachtas and deliberately state he is setting a time limit of a few hours on the discussion of an important Bill.
The Bill is a very important one. It relates to local government structure, the type of candidates who will be elected to public bodies, be they county councils, urban councils or town commissioners. I am in favour of parts of this Bill. I felt there were good points in it and that the Minister was widening the scope so as to allow certain people to offer themselves as candidates. I thought we would have had sincere deliberations and some constructive talk regarding the improvement of this Bill by way of amendment.
As a member of a county council for 24 years I am very close to the work performed by county councils and their subsidiary bodies, including the committee of agriculture, vocational committees, libraries, regional development associations, and various other subsidiary bodies connected with local government. It is important that we should have men and women of the highest calibre to represent the people on these bodies. Anybody offering himself for election or occupying a position such as that should be independent and should not be placed in such an invidious position that his actions could be interpreted in a way detrimental to the esteem in which public representatives and their institutions should be held. Part of this Bill will ensure that this will not happen.
I particularly disagree with this motion to guillotine the proceedings, because on Committee Stage we should have had an opportunity of getting our amendment accepted, in that it asked that clerical officers would not be allowed to stand as members for a local body. There were many valid reasons why that should happen. I will not go into them now. One can envisage what the position would be like with a county manager and a clerical officer at a council meeting. We can appreciate that that clerical officer would not too easily— even though he felt like doing it— criticise his own county manager. It might reflect on his opportunities for promotion, and for that reason he would not be a free agent as a public representative. I do not think he should be there.
I do not know what has driven the Government to this type of performance here today. They have criticised the fact that local elections were overdue—it is seven years since we had local government elections. Surely this Government who, according to themselves, were master politicians, wonderful legislators who knew it all, should have been able in the last 15 or 16 months to draft a Bill and bring it through this House instead of steamrolling it through in a couple of hours? Do they really think that the people elected here as public representatives from all over Ireland have no intelligence or constructive criticism or suggestions to offer? Is the Minister such an all-powerful man that nobody can advise him in any way whatever or suggest even the slightest amendment that would be of any benefit to improve this legislation? We are not here for destructive purposes. We do not try to obstruct the House or prevent legislation from going through. I said that very deliberately this morning.
I think that sentiment is appreciated by everyone. This motion has now been under discussion for some time. I suggest that it has been discussed sufficiently to enable the Seanad to take a decision on the question. I would ask, in the circumstances, that the question be put.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am accepting the motion that the question be now put.
Might I say a word please?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am sorry, but under Standing Orders, once it is decided that the question be put, the Chair cannot allow any further discussion.
As I was on my feet and about to conclude my speech, I want to protest against interference by the Leader of the Opposition in my deliberations as an elected representative.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Standing Orders are quite clear on the subject. I will refer the Senator to Standing Orders on it.
Question put: "That the question be now put."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Barrett, Jack.
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Iveagh, The Earl of.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Níl
- Aylward, Bob.
- Brennan, John. J.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Halligan and Sanfey; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.
Question declared carried.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
On the Allocation of Time motion an amendment has been moved to delete "at 3.30" and substitute "forthwith". I am putting the question that this amendment be made.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Barrett, Jack.
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Iveagh, The Earl of.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Níl
- Aylward, Bob.
- Brennan, John J.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Keegan, Seán
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment in the names of Senators Yeats and William Ryan (To delete "today" in line 8 and to substitute therefor "tomorrow") and amendment in the names of Senator Yeats and Lenihan (To delete "3.30 p.m." and replace it by "12 midnight") not moved.
I move:
To delete "and on the motion for earlier signature".
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Brennan, John J.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Níl
- Barrett, Jack.
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Halligan, Brendan
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Iveagh, The Earl of.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett; Níl, Senators Sanfey and Halligan.
Amendment declared lost.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am now putting the question that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Barrett, Jack.
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Iveagh, The Earl of
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Níl
- Aylward, Bob.
- Brennan, John J.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.
Question declared carried.