It is proposed to take Nos. 1 and 2.
Order of Business.
I know this may not be a question that he can answer with any cogency but could the Leader of the House give us any idea as to whether we shall be meeting tomorrow, in order to deal with the Finance Bill?
Perhaps the Leader of the House could amplify his opening remarks in order to deal with this point.
If we are in a position to take the Finance Bill, if it is released from the Dáil, we certainly will be meeting tomorrow. At this stage I cannot say if we shall meet in the absence of the Finance Bill. However, I hope that we shall get it and that we shall start a discussion on it tomorrow.
Could I ask the Leader of the House when he may take Motion No. 25? Will it be possible to have this motion discussed before the Recess?
I would like to support Senator McGowan.
I would like to propose an amendment to the Order of Business —to insert No. 6 before No. 1. No. 6 is the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 1974 —First Stage, which is down in the names of myself and several other Senators. This Bill has been on the Order Paper for a considerable time. I am anxious to get it printed so that it can be discussed during the Recess. All the sponsors of the Bill who had an official communication from the Minister for Industry and Commerce say that he is not in principle opposed to the taking of the First Stage of this Bill. In the circumstances, I think the House should agree to this amendment.
I would like to support Senator Horgan in looking for the First Reading of the Companies (Amendment) Bill. As the House knows, this takes a matter of seconds and it would be convenient if the text of the Bill were available to Senators over the summer months so that it could be given a Second Reading when the House resumes.
The subject matter of the Bill is very important and is one of which we ought to think particularly at this time and one which the House should then consider as soon as possible when we return after the summer Recess.
I should like to confirm that I, too, received an official communication from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that he was in support of the Bill subject to his right to introduce amendments, in due course. In view of this attitude of the Minister, it is fair and reasonable of us to ask for a First Reading of this Bill. It has been on the Order Paper for a number of weeks and it has been impossible to ascertain what the Government's attitude is. We have received this communication of attitude. Therefore, I should like to support Senator Horgan in his amendment to the Order of Business.
As one who signed Motion No. 25 in conjunction with Senator Paddy McGowan, I should also like to know from the Leader of the House when it is intended to take the motion.
I would like to support Senator Horgan and Senator Robinson in asking for item No. 6 to be added to the agenda. Their argument is perfectly fair: the business of the day will not be upset for more than a few seconds and it will give people an opportunity to consider this Bill if it can be printed and distributed before the Recess. I, therefore, do not see why the First Stage cannot be taken today.
I entirely object to taking this. I think it is a sort of dual Bill. We have a Bill here entitled a Companies Bill, which provides for disclosure of the reports of the directors about what they give political parties. I maintain that if a person or a company wants to provide money for a political party, they are quite entitled to do so. However, I do not think it is right that just because——
The Senator should not wag his finger at the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
——is directed by a certain group of people—the directors know but they do not disclose what they get. I object to that Bill being taken. It should be thrown out.
I should like to point out that the remarks made by the Senator were not relevant to the Order of Business or to the First Stage of the Bill.
They are relevant.
Could I have an indication from the Leader of the House, because if——
The Senator has already contributed to this discussion.
I know, but I am hoping that the Leader of the House will indicate that he will take Motion No. 25 before the Recess. If not, I am proposing an amendment to the Order of Business.
As regards the motion Senator McGowan is interested in, I do not think it will be possible to take any private motions this side of the Recess. If it is possible—and I think it only fair to give notice of this—to take any motions, it is only fair that the House, and certainly this side of the House, would give consideration to the position of the Leas-Chathaoirleach who would desire that Motion No. 23 should be taken and disposed of. In conjunction with that motion it would be proposed to order Motion No. 24 for discussion, hopefully, at the same time. In the event of any further motions being taken this side of the Recess it may be assumed that those are the motions which it would be likely to propose.
As regards the points made by Senator Horgan and other Senators in connection with No. 6, I think Senator Horgan has dealt with this in the correct manner by proposing an amendment to the Order of Business. It is his right to do so and the right of the other Senators to support it. I have not got any strong views on the subject other than that I understand that in addition to the interest of the Minister for Industry and Commerce the proposal contained in the Title of the Private Members' Bill which is proposed also deals in part with the question of charities. That would come within the bailiwick of the Minister for Justice rather than the Minister for Industry and Commerce and obviously his views should be obtained on that. I do not propose to say anything more on it. I think Senator Horgan has adopted the correct procedure.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House if he seriously considers that Motions Nos. 23 and 24 are more important than Motion No. 25? If he does, it is a deplorable situation where the Leader of the Government parties feels that a motion to discuss the plight of those engaged in agriculture is of very little importance. I propose that Motion No. 25 be taken before No. 1 on the Order of Business today.
I appreciate that I have already spoken but in view of the fact that two amendments have been moved since I spoke perhaps I could very briefly express an opinion on them. Taking the amendment in regard to No. 6, I think that—especially since it is signed by a Government Senator, Senator Michael D. Higgins—it would seem reasonable that it should be given a First Reading and circulated without in any way committing us to supporting what is in it as one does not know what is in it. With regard to Motion No. 25, in view of the obvious great importance of the motion and the difficult situation of agriculture and farmers at present we propose to divide on the proposition that it be added.
Before this discussion goes any further, I allowed Senator McGowan to propose an amendment on the grounds that he had foreshadowed that proposition in his earlier speech. Can I take it that Senator Yeats is seconding it?
Yes.
If Senators wish to propose amendments to the Order of Business they should kindly do so at the correct time which is when they first speak. That is the only occasion on which they are entitled to speak.
I object to that, a Chathaoirleach.
The discussion on the Order of Business has concluded. I will not hear any more Senators.
Will the Chair take a vote on the Order of Business?
I will if Senators will resume their seats and allow me to put the question.
Am I in order to propose an amendment to the Order of Business?
I do not think so. I propose to put the question. We have the original proposition that the Order of Business be items Nos. 1 and 2. We have proposed and seconded an amendment that item No. 6 be added and we have a further amendment that item No. 25 be added.
On a point of order, my amendment was that item No. 6 should be inserted before item No. 1.
If Senator McGowan is in order to propose an amendment to the Order of Business how am I not in order to do the same immediately after him?
I pointed out when I accepted Senator McGowan's amendment and asked for its seconding that he had foreshadowed it in his first speech when he addressed a question to the Leader of the House and indicated that he would move an amendment if the reply was not satisfactory.
But I am rising for the first time.
The Senator is rising for the first time and he is rising late. The first proposition is that item No. 6 be inserted before item No. 1 on the original proposition. I am putting the question: "That item No. 6 be inserted before item No. 1 in the original proposition."
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Brennan, John J.
- Brosnahan, Seán.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Horgan, John S.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Robinson, Mary.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Níl
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Boland, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Markey, Bernard.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Russell, George Edward.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Whyte, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Horgan and Robinson; Níl, Senators Sanfey and Halligan.
Amendment declared lost.
The Labour Party wish to indicate that while they are in favour of the principle of this Bill they will vote for the First Reading later.
I will now put the second amendment to the House.
The question is: "That item No. 25 be added to the Order of Business."
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Brennan, John J.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Horgan, John S.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Robinson, Mary.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Yeats, Michael B.
Níl
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Boland, John.
- Burton, Philip.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Deasy, Austin.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mullen, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Owens, Evelyn.
- Russell, George Edward.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Whyte, Liam.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett; Níl, Senators Sanfey and Halligan
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.
I should like to ask a question. Last week Senator Robinson proposed a motion and before the vote was taken you asked five Senators to stand up. On two occasions today before the vote was taken you did not ask five Senators to stand up. I understand this procedure about the Order of Business under Standing Orders but I do not understand why, when Senator Robinson challenged a vote in this House last week and the vote was carried, and five Senators were asked to stand up to support——
This is a matter——
If any Senator challenges a vote and you wish five Senators to stand up, you should ask them to do so. On two occasions today votes have been taken. If you had done this you would have had 15 Senators standing up.
The question of whether the Chair——
This is discrimination against a lady Senator which I do not accept. She proposed the motion. I should like an explanation, please.
It is a matter for the Chair to ask Senators to stand in order to see if there are sufficient Senators to warrant a division. The person occupying the Chair must use his or her judgment. If the Senator will look at the record down through the years he will find that the judgment is usually justified.
I do not accept that explanation.
If the Senator is dissatisfied he has a remedy.
What remedy?
The first remedy is to look at Standing Orders.