It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 5, 1, 2 and 4.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, it is a matter of some concern to us in the Fianna Fáil group that sufficient business is not coming forward to the Seanad for discussion, particularly in the form of legislation from the Government. It is a primary duty of the Government to bring forward legislative business to this House. To put it bluntly, they are not fulfilling that duty and we want to register our protest in this manner. We wish to state that the responsibility lies with the Government to bring in legislation and have it expedited so that we get a volume of legislative business.
Many of the motions on the Order Paper have lain there for quite a considerable time. I should like the Leader of the House to bring forward some practical proposals on having Seanad meetings at which we can discuss the backlog of motions. I suggest that we do this irrespective of the presence of a Minister.
There are a number of motions on which we could have constructive debates. Motion No. 24 from our group states "That Seanad Éireann notes with concern the deteriorating state of the national economy". It is a pertinent motion in view of the very serious state of the economy at present, which is causing growing concern among people in all walks of life. On this issue there is a massive silence from the Government, both in the Houses of the Oireachtas and outside. I wish to point out to the Leader of the House that we shall insist on this motion being taken on the next sitting day of the Seanad.
Which motion is the Senator talking about?
Motion No. 24. It is a matter of real concern to all sections of our community. It is a motion which could give rise to a meaningful debate on the current state and the potential future state of the economy. It would command wide public interest and rightful concern. I want to give notice that we will insist on that motion being taken on the next sitting day of the Seanad. I ask the Leader of the House to make the necessary arrangements so that we can have an agreed and meaningful debate on this serious issue.
I should like to join with Senator Lenihan in wishing that the Seanad would meet more often for business, but I would place a different emphasis on the role of the Seanad. I do not agree with Senator Lenihan that we are a second Chamber dependent on what is happening in the Dáil or even dependent on business coming from the Dáil. This House has its own role to play and it must play it more frequently and more actively. It is possible to initiate legislation in this House. We could play a very constructive role in this way. It is possible for the Government to initiate legislation through this House. We should meet on a more regular basis to discuss motions.
Senator Lenihan mentioned one motion. I think he is trying to queue jump in this respect, but that is a matter for the House. Rather than take a motion, however significant the subject matter may be, we ought to evolve a much more definite system for dealing with the Order Paper of the Seanad and for getting through that Order Paper quite independent of whether the Dáil is sitting or not.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House a specific question as to whether it is proposed that the Seanad will sit tomorrow if the business for the day has not been completed when we rise tonight?
I hope I will not be accused of queue jumping if I ask the Leader of the House to take Motion No. 21. It has been a year on the Order Paper. As a Member, on the agricultural panel I can make little contribution here if I put down a motion asking that this House discuss the serious plight of those engaged in agriculture and it takes one year for the House to consider that motion. I would have to admit to those people who elected me that I am wasting my time. It is my duty to bring to your notice, Cathaoirleach, my utter disgust, because this is the most ineffective body that one could sit on. A local agricultural committee of any county council would be more effective.
At the present time the plight of the farmers is very serious. They are being hammered and are trying to survive. Therefore the House has a duty to discuss this motion. In a month's time it will be too late. At the present time those engaged in agriculture are being forced to pay £100 a ton for fertilisers which the merchants purchased at £50 a ton. This is racketeering in the very basic commodities.
I am afraid the Senator is going on to discuss the subject matter of the motion.
Rather than trying to score points, I am trying to justify the urgency of my motion. I am going to press for a division. I hope that the people in the Government benches are equally as concerned about those engaged in agriculture, and that they will not walk into the lobby and oppose the motion being taken today. I propose that you include No. 21 on the Order Paper for today, sir.
I wish to support the plea made by Senator Lenihan and other speakers for more action in the Seanad and in particular a quick programme to get through as many of the motions as are relevant.
I would support the suggestion that the equivalent of No. 24—in other words something that would give scope for a general debate—be given priority. At Christmas the debate on the Appropriation Bill was most unsatisfactory. It was rushed through a couple of days before Christmas. I think we got a tacit assurance then that scope for a more general debate would be provided shortly.
I ask the Leader of the House to provide the scope for that more general debate. Perhaps four or five of the motions before the House could be merged. When we do get that general debate six hours is not enough to discuss topics as wide as the state of the economy. I appreciate there must be a limit put on it, but I suggest that the limit of six hours is totally inadequate. It should be increased at least to 12 hours or perhaps more. The limits on individual contributions should also be increased slightly from the half-hour allowed in a regular motion for consideration of what is in effect a general debate motion. A limit of 45 minutes might be adequate. We are all anxious to contribute whatever we can by way of constructive debate and, accordingly, I ask the Leader of the House to facilitate the House as soon as possible in this regard.
I want also to support those who have already spoken on this, in particular Senator Lenihan and Senator McGowan. The motion pertaining to agriculture has been on the Order Paper for months and months. It should be made known to the public in general that Senators on this side of the House do not call the House together. If the legislation is not coming through from the Government side, then the Seanad does not meet. This point should be made very clear. I have a vivid recollection of a Parliamentary Secretary appearing on television and blaming the Seanad for meeting only two days inside the last term. He neglected to point out to the public and to the media at large the reason for this. The Senators are anxious to meet and do their business if the business is given to them.
Is Senator Dolan seconding the amendment of Senator McGowan?
Yes.
I should like to add my voice to that of the Senators who have spoken already if only to dramatise the increasing sense of discontent being felt with regard to the number of times the Seanad meets and to the long list of neglected but very important issues enshrined in those various motions on this Order Paper, which perhaps will never be discussed. I want to give notice that Motion No. 20, which Senator West and I have down almost for a year, is a matter of extreme urgency. It reads:
That Seanad Éireann, in view of the present rapid increase in urbanisation, mining, industrial development and other sources of pollution, is of opinion that a separate Department of the Environment should be set up with responsibility for the preservation of the country's scenery, wild life, fisheries, architectural and archaeological riches and other cultural and tourist amenities.
Many things have happened since we put down that motion, including spillages in Bantry Bay, which makes that an issue as urgent as any of those mentioned already. It seems disgraceful to me that the Seanad is not called together more often and allowed to sit in a more continuous way so that a number of those very crucial issues on the Order Paper can be openly discussed and reported. In this way the Government could inform themselves, at least to some extent, on the opinion of this House with regard to these very important international issues.
I, too, should like to add my voice to the protest regarding the small number of occasions on which the Seanad has met. As has been pointed out by Senator Dolan, a Parliamentary Secretary stated on television that the Seanad was to blame for the small number of occasions on which it met last year.
We are fully aware that it is a matter for the Government to give us business to do. Because there has been lack of legislation in the last year we have met on only a few occasions to deal with it. Even so, if the Government are not presenting legislation to the House, we could still meet and deal with motions. Nobody is trying to queue jump, as has been suggested. We feel that Motion No. 24 is one that needs immediate consideration. People are walking frightened through this land at the present time, frightened for their jobs, frightened of the whole state of the economy. The Ministers involved are not coming to the Houses of the Oireachtas to make statements or asking suggestions for the improvement of the economy. The only statements ever made are made outside the Houses but in such a fashion that people are still left unaware of the state of the economy.
During the debate on the Appropriation Bill the Minister gave what I am satisfied was an undertaking, although perhaps that word might be too strong. I would ask the Leader of the House to look through the debates on the Appropriation Bill and he will find that the Minister for Finance said he was quite prepared to give as much time to this House as the Seanad wanted. I feel this motion should be taken and whenever within the month it suits the Minister to come we are prepared to hear what he has to say and to offer our contributions. We feel many things are being left unsaid and that we have things to say that are important. The few occasions we have met and dealt with legislation has been remarked on in public by the Press and various other people. This is a slight on the Seanad. The fact is, of course, that the Government are not doing their business and are not presenting legislation to this House we can deal with.
I wish to add my voice in support of the plea to have Motions No. 22 and 24 debated on the next sitting day of the Seanad. I do so because of the urgency of the problems that affect the economy both in the agricultural and economic fields.
In fact, we cannot dissociate one from the other because both are linked with the state of the economy. For that reason I appeal to the Leader of the House to make time available to us next week to have a worthwhile discussion on the state of the economy.
We are being criticised because we are doing no work. It should be made perfectly clear that we are anxious to discharge our duties as public representatives. We are anxious to carry out useful work on behalf of the Irish people but we are denied the opportunity. I feel a positive and worthwhile effort must be made now to ensure that Seanad Éireann plays the role which it was intended to play in the first place. For that reason I strongly support the plea to have Motions Nos. 22 and 24 debated at the earliest opportunity.
So many Senators have made reference to the few occasions on which the Seanad met that I should like the opportunity, for a couple of minutes, to put some facts on record with regard to the number of times the Seanad has met. It may come as a surprise to Senators to hear that the Seanad met last year on 38 occasions. If we exclude the year 1971, when the Seanad met on 47 occasions, one would have to go right back to the year 1946 to find a year when last year's total sittings was exceeded. In fact, in the life of the Seanad since 1922, the average number of sittings per year works out at 29.9—I suppose you could call it 30. Also, in the lifetime of the Seanad last year's number of sittings, namely 38, has only been exceeded in nine years as follows: in 1923, 1924, 1925, 1929, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1946 and, as I have already said, in 1971. If the House desires to hear the full facts before me I can go right through from the year 1922 to date and give the exact number of sittings per year, but this information I have elicited is available to any Senator who wishes to check it. I should just like to place it on the record.
It is a pity when Senator Sanfey was giving us these details that he did not go a little further in this research and tell us the number of Bills that came before the House in 1974. It was not the wish of the Government that the House sat on 38 occasions. It was due to the vigilance of the Fianna Fáil Opposition in this House who insisted Bills, such as the Constituencies Bill, be debated long and fully. I remember the Leader of the House standing up week after week during the last few years and saying exactly what we are saying today. He was ably joined by his colleague Senator Alexis FitzGerald. It was completely wrong for Senator Sanfey to give the impression that, because the Seanad sat on 38 occasions in 1974, the House dealt with more legislation.
I never mentioned legislation.
I know but the Senator gave the impression that the House dealt with more legislation in 1974 than in the previous years.
I never mentioned legislation. I referred specifically to the fact that the Senators on the other side said the Seanad met so few times.
I am not with it.
I stuck exactly to the facts——
Whether a Senator is "with it" is really a matter for the Chair. The Chair is having some doubts whether the speakers in this debate are entirely with it, "it" being the motion that the Order of Business be agreed to.
I should like Senator Sanfey to continue his research and on another occasion tell us the amount of legislation presented to this House by the Government in 1974. It was the main reason this House met on so few occasions since last August. The reason should be made known loud and clear.
I must intervene here. The Senator is going very wide. This is not a debate on the way in which the Seanad carried out its business during the past year. The discussion is concerned with what business the Seanad propose to transact today.
I should like the Seanad to transact more business and I should like to think that the present Cabinet could be made capable of introducing legislation and so giving us more business. It is nine months ago since a motion was tabled in my name and in the names of Senators Dolan, Killilea and Keegan, asking the House to take note of the discussion document on Local Government reorganisation. Despite requests by us to have this motion debated nothing has been done about it. It appears to me that the Government and the Minister for Local Government are afraid to face this motion, bearing in mind the promises the Minister for Local Government made concerning local government reorganisation, not alone before the general election but particularly after it.
It is bad enough that we do not meet to discuss legislation, but that we fail to meet to discuss motions would give me the impression that members of the present Cabinet are just too lazy to come into this House to hear these motions being debated. I would ask that an opportunity be given, at the earliest possible moment, to have Motion No. 17 discussed in this House.
On a point of order, I hope Senator Sanfey, for whom I have the height of respect, will convey the information he has already given to the House to the Party Whip who made a statement on television that was very misleading because it was referring to the facts as given by Senator Sanfey.
That is not a point of order and the Senator was not entitled to intervene. Senator Willie Ryan.
I wish to support Senators McGowan and Dolan in their proposition that we take Motion No. 21. It has been on the Order Paper almost 12 months. At the time it was put on the Order Paper the decline in agriculture was only commencing. Since then it has gone on and we have not had an opportunity of speaking on it or of hearing replies from the Minister on it. I appeal to the Leader of the House to accept our proposition that Motion No. 21 be taken today. Like other speakers, I feel very strongly about the remarks passed by one of the Whips of the Dáil. It is something that should be taken up by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, in particular the remarks passed by Deputy Barry Desmond.
Senator O'Higgins to reply to the debate.
I did not hear the remarks to which Senator Ryan referred. If he thinks that it is proper that they should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of this House he has the course open to him to do that.
This has been a useful discussion. I was tempted to start by saying that it would be worthwhile for the Seanad to meet more often, if only to avoid debates on the Order of Business. Jokes apart, it has been a useful discussion and it has been a discussion which has been free from acrimony. Possibly one of the reasons for that is that Senator Lenihan and others who contributed are aware that, so far as I am concerned, in relation to Seanad meetings they are pushing an open door.
This House has a very important role to play in our parliamentary democracy. Members of the House should not become discouraged by the kind of criticism that undoubtedly has been aroused by the failure, or apparent failure, of the House to meet more often. Indeed the meetings of this House in the last few years, since the change of Government, have been well up to, if not more than, the average. Quite apart from the number of man hours which Senators may spend in meetings of the House, the importance of this House to our parliamentary process is the manner and quality of the work of revision and of discussion that takes place in this House. I can testify, as a person who has had a certain amount of experience here and elsewhere, that as a general rule the average standard of work, the average standard of scrutiny of legislation, of constructive suggestions made in the Seanad—and I include both sides of the House in this—is extremely high. It is that kind of work and that kind of standard we should set as our target to adhere to in the future. I hope that it will be possible to arrange that the Seanad will meet more frequently— certainly as frequently as possible.
There is no point in any of us closing our eyes to the facts. While I appreciate and understand and I do not argue against the point of view of Senators who urge meetings merely for the discussion of motions, I do not think that is the important role of the Seanad. I agree that when Senators take the trouble to put down motions they should be entitled to have those motions discussed and disposed of within a reasonable time. However, it is not always possible to arrange for that. One of the reasons— and this is why I say there is no point in closing our eyes to facts— is that particularly since we joined the EEC it is not always possible to have Ministers available.
We do not need them.
I was about to come to that, if the Senator would contain herself without interrupting for a minute. It has been agreed in the scheme of procedure in relation to motions that it is open to proposers of motions to go ahead in the absence of Ministers. I have no objection in the world to Senators who are sponsoring motions deciding to exercise their option in that regard, but it has been pointed out in the past that when that was done it did not result in a very satisfactory debate, certainly not as satisfactory a debate as otherwise might have taken place. But that option is open to Senators.
As regards the motions which have been referred to by Members of the Fianna Fáil group, I think it is right to say, and possibly some of those who spoke in this discussion may have overlooked the fact, that we invited the Fianna Fáil group to let us know their order of priority with regard to motions. That invitation has so far not been responded to except to the extent that references were made today. The reason we asked Fianna Fáil to do that is because it is recognised, and it is implicit in the scheme which was adopted in relation to motions, that it is time a Fianna Fáil motion, if I may call it such, was discussed in the House. As far as this is possible we will be glad to facilitate them if we get the order of priority. I gather from Senator Lenihan's remarks today that he regards Motion No. 24 as the one which should receive priority so far as the motions from his group are concerned.
I would add Motions Nos. 17 and 21.
Let me take No. 24 first. As regards Motion No. 24, the position is that as soon as the Minister for Finance has finished with the Budget discussions in the Dáil he will be available to deal with it. I agree with Senator Lenihan that, so far as the subject matter of the motion is concerned, it is a matter that would be well worth discussing; it is a matter that would be of immediate and real concern.
Senator Robinson spoke of the role of the Seanad—I do not remember quite what her words were and I do not wish to misquote her—to the general effect that we might have some more satisfactory procedure for fixing matters in the Order of Business. I am wide open to any concrete suggestions that may be made along those lines. We could certainly have them considered at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to see if there might be any more satisfactory methods worked out.
The discussion was a good one and I trust my contribution to it has not introduced acrimony which was lacking up to this. Ministers will attend as often as they can but I do not think any of us should be asking too much. We all know that in present conditions there is extreme pressure on Ministers. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I understand, will be introducing legislation in this House shortly. I would certainly suggest, and I hope to make a suggestion that I hope will be well received, that other Ministers might follow that example as far as possible. It would be a good idea and would assist the House generally. It would also assist the public understanding of the role of this House as part of the legislative machinery of the country if more Government legislation was introduced here. I hope that it might be possible to arrange for that.
I am thankful for the constructive response to our suggestions from the Leader of the House. I am aware that the real problem in this matter does not lie with him. I am aware of his personal views, which he has often expressed, of the importance of having more regular Seanad meetings, discussing motions with or without the Minister being present, and initiating more legislation. Above all else, I recognise that it is not the fault of the Leader of the House but the Government's fault that a sufficient volume of legislation is not going into the Dáil and not coming here. The basic trouble lies in a Government who apparently cannot agree to real legislation among themselves.
We in our group regard Motion No. 24 on the state of the economy, Motion No. 21 on the serious plight of those engaged in agriculture and Motion No. 17 seeking a debate on the discussion document on local government reorganisation as being our three most important motions. I give the three to the Leader of the House because they cover three separate areas of administration and three separate Ministers. If Deputy Ryan, the Minister for Finance, is not available for Motion No. 24 we would hope that Deputy Clinton, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, will be there for Motion No. 21, and if either of those or both are not available, then Deputy Tully, the Minister for Local Government, will be available for Motion No. 17. In that way we are giving the Leader of the House a range of choices between three Ministers.
We will not press for a vote at this stage, although I can appreciate Senator McGowan's disappointment when one considers that his motion on agriculture has been there a year. We will not press for a vote if we get a guarantee that all of those three, or one or two of those three motions, can be taken from our group at the next sitting day of the Seanad. If we get a guarantee from the Leader of the House then we would bring the matter to finality for this day.
I have asked a specific question which the Leader of the House has not replied to. I want to ask again whether, if the business that has been ordered for today has not been concluded——
I am sorry I did not mention that. The House will sit tomorrow if we do not finish the business ordered for today.
I know Senator Lenihan is not trying to be clever in this but he will appreciate that off the cuff, at a moment's notice, I would not be in a position to give anything in the nature of a firm guarantee in reply to his request. All I can say is that we had reasonably firm hopes that the agricultural motion would be taken fairly early and I still hope that that is possible. I hope that one or other of the three motions he wants to have discussed may be taken either at our next meeting, or within the next few meetings anyhow. I cannot put it further than that without consultation with the Minister.
I want the Leader of the House to ensure that, if possible at the next meeting, but within the next two or three meetings, we will have one, two or all of these motions.
That will be our aim.
Order of Business agreed to.