It is proposed to take No. 1 only and it seems likely that it will be a two-day discussion. I suggest that, possibly, we might have an understanding that the Minister would get in to reply, say, immediately after the tea break tomorrow if he has not concluded earlier.
Order of Business.
We can discuss that matter during the day.
On the Order of Business, and as a matter of urgent public importance, I should like to raise the matter of Defence Force Regulation Amendment No. 83 made recently by the Minister for Defence in regard to certain Army promotions and to have it discussed now in view of the very serious import it has on the security of the State and the morale of the Defence Forces of the State.
The Chair has already had under consideration an application to raise this on the adjournment tomorrow night. In considering this being raised now, I think the Chair would have to refuse it to be allowed for immediate debate as a matter of urgent public importance. That does not prejudice in any way the question of the possibility of its being allowed for adjournment debate tomorrow night.
Would the Chair inform us during the day as to whether or not a decision has been made to have the debate on the adjournment tomorrow night on this matter, which is of very great public importance and is causing grave disquiet at present?
The position is that there would not appear to be the degree of urgency contemplated by the Standing Order for this to be raised now and the Chair will communicate in the course of the day with the Senator concerning the question of a possible adjournment debate.
I am obliged to the Chair.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House if any progress has been made in getting a time for the Tánaiste to come into this House to take the Second Stage of No. 6 on the Order Paper, the Family Planning Bill. When I mentioned this last week the Leader of the House said that he had no personal objection to and would, in fact, be in favour of the Second Stage of this Bill being taken and that he would—as I understood it, but I have not checked the record—make inquiries about it. I appreciate that there is a great deal of business for this House to debate before the recess but I would like that time be given for the Second Stage of this Bill which has been on the Order Paper now for several months, since before Christmas.
In view of the very dismal financial headlines in this evening's newspapers, and particularly in the morning papers, concerning the fall in the value of sterling as a currency, I should like to ask the Leader of the House and the Minister for Finance, who is here with us, to consider the possibility of a debate on Motion No. 30, arguing that a Select Committee of the Seanad be established to examine the implications of varying disparity in exchange rate between the Irish £ and sterling. We all know how low the pound sterling has sunk in the last few days—it is in banner headlines—and on this evening's newspaper there is a report that the Minister for Foreign Affairs suggested that the possibility of a break with sterling could not be ruled out. On the other hand, in the same report the Central Bank give the impression that there is no thought of a break in the link with sterling.
The whole object behind the motion in the names of a number of Senators from both sides of the House is to have the various difficulties and the various possibilities debated here and given some airing so that people are able to make a judgment on this. It would seem that this is becoming more urgent every day. Sooner or later, if the value of the currency declines further, the Government will have to make a decision. There is an argument for not having such a debate if a decision is going to be made and will be made swiftly and if there is a policy that something will be done. But if the situation is going to drift on in the way it is drifting now, the argument for a debate of this type is exceptionally strong.
As an Independent, I do not think this is a political matter. It is a matter in which we all wish to do the best for our country and to protect our currency. I am in a strong position, as an Independent, to say this. I do not think there is a division. I think we will take the course which is in the best national interest. There are factors to be weighed up on either side. It is a very difficult, serious and grave matter and requires serious consideration. If the Government are not going to take some instant action we should have a debate on Motion No. 30 in this House before the recess It is a matter of such tremendous importance, that I do not think we can go on any longer as we are going.
Perhaps this could be referred to Senator Halligan because he seems to have all the answers.
I did not catch what Senator Dolan said, so I cannot comment on it.
If you want enlightenment I would refer you to one of your own colleagues there on the front bench, Senator Halligan. He seems to have all the solutions in this matter.
Essentially I think there are two points raised. Senator Robinson's was in connection with the Family Planning Bill. I am sure she did not intend putting a gloss on what I said last time. I mean that; I am not saying it sardonically. In case her remarks should have misled anyone as regards my attitude, what I said or intended to say on the last occasion was that, subject to the availability of the Tánaiste and to time being available, as far as I was concerned the discussion could proceed any time. I did not intend that to mean that I was in favour either of taking the Second Reading or of the Second Reading when it would be taken; I intend to oppose it as strongly as I can. As far as the question of the discussion goes, the position is still the same. I do not know when the Tánaiste will be available and at the moment I am not in a position to say how we will stand as regards time. We seem to have a very full programme which, on the face of it, will extend well into August. If the position alters and if the Tánaiste is available, then the Second Reading can be arranged.
As regards Motion No. 30, I do not know whether the Minister would wish to comment on it at this stage or not, but there are difficulties in this matter as well. The principal difficulty is the physical one as well as the workload under which the Minister for Finance is labouring at present. The Minister has a very full programme in the Dáil and at present he is here in the Seanad with the Appropriation Bill. I am afraid he will have a long, hot summer in both Houses in dealing with the Capital Gains Tax Bill when it comes before the Seanad and the Wealth Tax Bill in the Dáil and subsequently in the Seanad.
I do not know to what extent it is appropriate under the Rules of Order to refer on the Appropriation Bill to the arguments in favour of the type of Select Committee envisaged in Motion No. 30. If it were permitted on the discussion on the Appropriation Bill——
Perhaps the Chair should intervene now to indicate that it would be outside the scope of the Appropriation Bill.
Then the helpful suggestion which I was going to make need not be made, when it is not possible to refer to it on the Appropriation Bill. We will have to leave it until the Minister is free to deal with it specifically. I do not think the Minister would regard it as giving any secrets away to say that everyone would regard the question in the motion as one deserving the importance which Senator West attaches to it. In those circumstances I am quite confident that the Minister and his advisers would give it their serious concern. I can appreciate that a discussion might be helpful to the Minister but time seems to defeat us at the moment.
Would it be possible for the Minister to make a short comment on the problem?
A brief discussion is in order on the Order of Business except for the fact that Senator O'Higgins may have concluded. On the other hand, he may merely be yielding to the Minister.
I can be regarded as yielding to the Minister at any time.
The normal practice is for the Seanad to have an economic debate on the Appropriation Bill. While I can understand your ruling, a Chathaoirleach, on the appropriateness of a particular motion to the Appropriation Bill, it seems to me that the question of the link with sterling is a general economic matter which could be dealt with in this debate, apart from the specific question as to whether or not a Committee of this House should be established to consider it. If there is a discussion on this general matter in the course of the debate I will reply to it at the end of the debate.
The only response the Chair can make to that is that, in saying it would be outside the scope of the debate, the indication was that it is outside the scope of the debate as it has occurred in previous years. If it is the unanimous wish of this House to broaden the scope of the Appropriation Bill in order to include this matter, then the Chair will not obstruct the House. Procedure is the servant of the House in carrying out its business. If there were no objections to the broadening of the scope of the Appropriation Bill, this matter could be discussed.
I am very encouraged by that ruling and I hope that this can now be done, not the motion as such but the substantive question can be——
If the Minister made even a brief reference to the question in his opening speech, the hounds could follow the hare in the course of the debate.
I should like to indicate that, while I would welcome an opportunity to make reference to the link with sterling in this debate, it would not in any way—as far as I am concerned—compensate for the discussion and, I would hope, the adoption of this motion by the Seanad. I believe the approach set out in the motion is far more appropriate to a discussion of such an important and complicated matter apart from being, to a certain extent, an innovation in the use of this House in matters of public affairs. I would hope that all parties would agree to pass this motion with very little debate. In other words, that we should agree upon the establishment of the committee so that it could begin work quickly, irrespective of one's attitude towards the matter under discussion.
If, in fact, the House wished the motion to be taken with the Appropriation Bill in a combined debate, the motion could, perhaps, be put at the conclusion of the Second Stage of the Appropriation Bill. Again, this is naturally a matter on which the Chair would seek the agreement of the House.
I should like to state that this question of the motion in the names of Senators Halligan and other Senators is one of such fundamental importance that in no circumstances could it be agreed that it be passed here without a debate on it in a House of the Oireachtas. That suggestion is one, like the budget introduced last week, which takes from the whole strength and functioning of our parliamentary institutions. This is the place in which this fundamental matter should be debated, just as the Minister last week should have taken the appropriate action and announced it in this House of the Oireachtas. I would not, for one moment, condone a major matter of this kind being passed off to some committee of experts by way of a motion without debate. It is an outrageous suggestion and it shows the contempt felt in certain quarters—and which appears to be felt by the Government also—towards the democratic parliamentary institutions of the State. We will have a full debate in this House on that motion and I agree with Senator Halligan in his estimate of its importance. I consider the Members of this House as well equipped to deal with that important matter as any body of experts to whom we may refer the matter after full debate for the examination of the minutiae.
In case there is any misunderstanding it has not been suggested that the motion should be taken with the Appropriation Bill. I think Senator Halligan expressly objected to any such procedure. What has been suggested in view of the case made by Senator West regarding the gravity and urgency of the matter is that the scope of the debate might be broadened to allow reference to it when we have the Minister present because of the physical difficulty for the Minister in finding time to discuss motions and that in the course of the Appropriation Bill that reference to the subject of the link with sterling might be allowed. That is all that is suggested.
I appreciate that but I take it the Minister for Finance would be present for a separate debate on a matter of that kind.
Yes, but I do not recall whether Senator Lenihan was able to be here at the time when this was discussed previously on the Order of Business, a discussion in which the Minister took part. The Minister explained the difficulties in regard to the timetable. Those difficulties still exist. It is the Minister's intention, whenever he can, to be present for the discussion on this matter, but it is not suggested that the motion be coupled with the Appropriation Bill, merely that the debate be broadened to permit reference to it.
Would the Minister consider dropping his useless and irrelevant wealth tax and use the time saved to come in here and discuss this far more important subject?
If we could get the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill dealt with in a reasonable manner in the House we might find time for the discussion of this important matter.
In my intervention I did not anticipate that the temperature of the Chamber would have been raised even beyond its present very high level. I regret that particular fact. I hoped that Senator Lenihan would approach this matter with a little less heat and a bit more light because if he was to read the motion in my name and the name of other Senators he would clearly see that there is no question of establishing a committee of experts unless one is to believe that the nine Members of the Seanad who would so constitute the committee are themselves experts. I believe that might be a reasonable way of looking at it.
Far from having a contempt of the House I have such high regard for this House that I believe that the appointment of a committee consisting of nine of its Members would be the most appropriate way for a discussion on this matter to proceed. It would bring in a report which would be the subject of a debate within the entire House. This would be an appropriate way for Members of the Oireachtas to consider a matter of such critical and fundamental importance. What I was really hoping for was that the Opposition would see the merit in this approach—that the committee is a prelude to a full scale debate in this Chamber—and if they so regarded the committee mechanism as a suitable way of discussing the matter in this Chamber, then the motion could be passed with very little debate and it would be left to us to decide the members of the committee among ourselves.
We would require a very full debate on that matter.
I would just like to make a comment in support of Senator Halligan. The whole problem, as Senator Lenihan knows, is that the £ sterling may go through the floor long before we have a chance to have any debate. We would all be sitting here huffing, puffing and blowing and making nonsensical comments when the point is: are we ever going to face the problem? We can talk about having full debates but this is something which is of such grave national importance that I do not think it is really the occasion to make all these political comments.
That is a matter for the Government. It is the Government's job to guard the currency.
We have some sort of say in this whole business or else we should not be here.
To some extent it is amusing to find a motion such as Motion No. 30 tabled in this House. I am at a loss to know if my learned friend is as innocent as he pretends to be——
I am very innocent.
I can see it written all over him. The Senator must be well aware that if this Select Committee would come up with something different the question would arise as to whom we would link our £ with. Does the Senator suggest the franc or the dollar?
This is going very far into the merits of the motion.
To try to take this motion with the Appropriation Bill is just fooling and playing around.
It is not suggested.
I beg your pardon; it is, I understand.
The Chair suggested that as a possibility, but no Senators supported it.
I thought the Chair was at least as important as any other Member here. You did suggest it here and I am going to oppose it. Senator West cannot be as innocent as he pretends if he agrees to that.
I respectfully suggest that this is a matter entirely for the Government. I would suggest that the Minister invite Senator Halligan to his room. He is the financial wizard, according to what we heard over the media, so far as the £ sterling and breaking the link is concerned. I think it is very unfair of a Coalition Government to deprive them of the tremendous advice that can be rendered to them by a man of the calibre of Senator Halligan.
Fulsome praise of Senator Halligan is out of order on the Order of Business.
Before the discussion on the Order of Business concludes, could I ask the Leader of the House to clarify one point? I certainly did not want to misunderstand him. His views on the subject of family planning are as well known as my own. I understood that the Leader of the House indicated that the Tánaiste would come into the House for the debate and I also understood that the Leader of the House would be in touch with the Tánaiste as to a suitable date. If that is not the position—that the Leader of the House undertakes to see whether Ministers are available for debates and what times might be suitable for them, subject to these being suitable for Members of this House—I should like to be informed on the matter so that I could perhaps try to contact the Tánaiste more directly.
The Senator is, of course, free to contact the Tánaiste direct regarding the matter. What I intended to indicate is that I had not any further information than was available to me last week with regard to it. I think Senator Robinson will appreciate that it has not been very easy to get Seanad business, outside of Government business, lined up at the moment. The Government have for some time past been heavily engaged on financial matters. I will try to ascertain the position within the next couple of days. I do not know the position at the moment.
It would appear that several Members of the House are in favour of the scope of the debate on the Appropriation Bill being widened to include general reference to the question of the position of our currency and its link with the British £ and that no Members present object to that procedure. Accordingly, by agreement, the scope of the Appropriations Bill will be widened to include such matters.
Order of Business agreed to.