It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 2, 3. If business has not concluded at 1 p.m., it is proposed to break for lunch from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. As regards No. 1, I fully appreciate the position of an Opposition faced with a guillotine motion but, clearly, it is necessary from the Government's point of view in the exceptional circumstances which exist in relation to banks. Once the Government decided as a matter of policy on bringing in the Bill, clearly in the present circumstances it is necessary that it should be passed. So far as I am concerned while there is a deadline set out in motion No. 1, I am prepared to adopt the attitude that either acceptance or passing of this motion need not rule out subsequent agreement with regard to time but in that connection all of us would wish to remember that this is Friday, that Members of the House will be seeking to catch trains or buses to travel home and for that reason it does seem that the hour of 4.30 p.m. would be the appropriate one.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, the reality of the matter is that it includes once again, very shortly after a previous guillotine motion on the Finance Bill, yet another guillotine motion which is, of course, basically a denial of democratic expression in Parliament. It is a matter that should only be introduced as a matter of extreme urgency. That is its basic end and for that reason we must oppose the Order of Business.
Furthermore, the guillotine motion relates to a Bill that has been brought into the Oireachtas by the Government in a panic reaction to a situation where negotiations are still taking place. The real action in regard to this unfortunate bank dispute is not taking place in the Oireachtas. The real action is taking place elsewhere from 10.30 this morning under the aegis of the Labour Court in negotiations between the parties involved. We are going through a charade here in this House, as happened in the Dáil yesterday. This is Government by bluster and Government by bluff and it has all arisen as a direct consequence of the intemperate announcement of the Minister for Finance and I cannot describe it as anything else, last Thursday week as published in last Friday's papers. It was an announcement in which he sought to wield the big stick, to threaten people into a settlement of the dispute, an industrial dispute in which negotiations are still proceeding. Furthermore this legislation is seeking to pin a section of the community to the national wage agreement of 1975 which is a totally unreal situation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must interrupt the Senator. I think he is going around the merits and demerits of the proposed Bill. We are dealing with the Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, we are opposing the inclusion of this motion for two reasons. First of all because it is a guillotine motion designed once again very rapidly after a previous guillotine motion, to interfere with the ordinary process of democratic debate in a national Parliament. We are opposed to the Order of Business and the inclusion of this guillotine motion for that reason.
Secondly, we are opposing it because it is a massive irrelevancy having regard to the fact that negotiations are proceeding now and the reality of power and decision in this matter rests within a negotiation room away from this Parliament and does not arise in this Parliament. We are going through a day's charade here in debating a matter that is in reality being really settled and discharged elsewhere. On those two grounds I am opposing this guillotine motion and opposing the Order of Business that includes with it a Bill that is a total irrelevancy as item No. 2.
A guillotine motion is in its essence and by its very definition a restriction on the freedom of speech and the curtailment of the debate in this House. It is something which should be used very rarely and very sparingly by any Government. I find it very strange that the Leader of the House in setting out the proposed Order of Business starts with the guillotine motion and then uses the words "and if business has not concluded before 1 o'clock the House shall break for lunch". In other words, the Leader of the House does not believe that this motion will be necessary. By these words he does not believe that the debate will carry on even until 4.30 p.m.
This type of motion should be very much in reserve if it is absolutely necessary and should not be trotted out in order to prescribe a debate which should take its natural course. I would ask the Leader of the House to vary the Order of Business at this stage and to take just items No. 2 and 3, the Bill and the motion for early signature by the President, and if at lunch time it appears that the debate is going to carry on an unreasonable time then he can retable the guillotine motion.
I should like to support the suggestion of Senator Robinson. I think it seems very reasonable that before putting down a draconian motion such as No. 1 on the Order of Business some regard should be had to the way in which the debate goes. This Government appear to be getting into the habit of rushing in with these guillotine motions before any thought has been given to the question as to whether they are necessary. We are opposing the Order of Business as it stands because all three items are items which ought not to be on it.
The guillotine motion—Senator Lenihan has spoken about this—is an undemocratic procedure which ought to be used only if it is absolutely necessary. Apart from the question of the length of the debate —and no one can tell at the moment whether it will be such as to render in the Government's view a motion such as this necessary—one must query whether this Bill is urgent in that sense of the word or whether in fact it might be of some benefit to the country, and in particular some assistance to the negotiations now taking place, if this Bill did not pass into law until next week. After all, the Government have now published this Bill. They have made known its terms. All the parties concerned are aware of the terms and of the implications and the mere act of passing it into law does not appear to alter the position except in a negative sense that it makes it more difficult to conduct the negotiations. The Bill is now there. It is known to all the parties in these negotiations. I would have thought that not merely is it not necessary to pass it today, but there would be real advantages in leaving it over until, perhaps, next week. We oppose also the second item on the Order of Business, the Regulations of Banks Bill, because it is not required by the present circumstances. It is wrong in principle and, of course, we will be dealing with it later. We oppose the idea of taking it today.
I oppose also No. 3 on the Order Paper where, for the seventh time since last December, we have a motion requesting the President to sign a Bill at short notice, presumably today. I notice, incidentally, that the remarks made the last day about vellum copies of Bills, and so on, apparently do not apply this time. The President will have to sign without the vellum copies which we were told on the Finance Bill were so essential. I would have thought there would be some slight advantage in holding up the signing of the Bill. From the point of view of those taking part in the negotiations there would still be no law. It would not become law until it was signed by the President next week. For that reason alone motion No. 3 seems quite unnecessary.
In any event, the whole frame of this Order of Business appears to show that the Government have ceased to pay any regard to the Parliamentary process, the democratic process which this Parliament stands for. They appear to feel they can take decisions, come bounding into both Houses of the Oireachtas, rush Bills through, and ramrod Bills through in any way they like without giving adequate time for consideration. For these reasons we cannot agree to the Order of Business.
I want to support this proposal opposing the inclusion of this item on today's Order of Business. On the question of the principle of the curtailment of discussion and debate, Senator O'Higgins may be correct in so far as the business may not be continued at undue length. The imposition of the guillotine is very rarely justified but, if ever justified, it could only be after attempts by the Opposition to harass the Government and, by means of filibuster or some calculated prolongation of business, to make it impossible for the Government to continue their business. There could be no question of that happening here.
Secondly, it seems to me that the obvious lack of control is becoming more and more common, not only of the national finances by this Government, but over the business of the Oireachtas. One reads of the other House going through an enormous amount of work, and so on. Here we appear to be faced with a position where the Government are attempting to undo the damage they are very obviously facing. They are in complete disarray in facing great crises, not just with the banks, but the whole economic situation. They are trying to undo the damage done by the Minister for Finance in his intemperate and improper intervention in this dispute earlier on in the week. There are all the signs of a Government who have lost their nerve and are attempting to redeem the near disaster situation brought about to a considerable extent by the Minister for Finance.
They seem to be faced with a crisis on Monday and we are being asked to intervene in order to save the Government from their own mistakes and try to undo the damage. In the circumstances, Senator Robinson's suggestion should be seriously considered and, if the Government find themselves in continued difficulties, we could reconsider the matter again. On the face of it, it is a bad precedent for a Government to introduce a guillotine in these circumstances.
I said most of what I want to say with regard to motion No. 1. I do not want to duplicate discussion on it, assuming the Order of Business is accepted. Senator Lenihan describes this as Government by bluster, Government by bluff, and a charade. I recall that the last time it was necessary to move a guillotine motion in this House, Senator Lenihan also described it as a charade. That was some days before the two by-elections and, as I recall it, Senator Lenihan on that occasion was talking very much for the hustings and, in fact, was calling for a general election. Today he uses the word "charade" again, but merely as a residue of his pre-by-election speech. We do not hear any calls for a general election today, because the two by-elections have taken place in the meanwhile.
We are told this is a mass of irrelevancy by Senator Lenihan. That is a point of view, I suppose, but we should remember this situation has not been brought about by, and has not been sought by, the Government. It rests with the Government to deal with the situation which has come into being, to deal with it as a matter of urgency, and to deal with it immediately. That is what the Government are doing. The university Senators made what I can only describe as debating points. Senator Robinson took my normal courtesy in advising the Seanad of the arrangements of the day as a profession that I did not believe this motion was necessary. I assure Senator Robinson that she is quite mistaken in that. It was merely as a matter of normal courtesy to Members on both sides of the House that I suggested if business was not concluded we would break from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock for lunch.
I am fully confident of the ability of Senators facing me and, indeed, of Senator Robinson and Senator Browne as well, to carry on this debate for as long as they like. No Senator who has any experience of politics will be naive enough to believe that, if we break for lunch from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock and then decide it is necessary to introduce a guillotine motion at 2.30 p.m., any Opposition members who were opposing that motion would not have the ability to talk it out until 4.30 p.m. We have had experience here of filibusters, of one speech lasting something over seven hours. I do not think we should approach a serious motion of this nature—and it is serious; I agree with Senator Browne on that—by putting up what could only be regarded as university debating society points. I wish Senators would consider it seriously. The motion is necessary for the reasons I have already given.
I want to repeat again the offer I made at the outset. Acceptance of this motion does not, as far as I am concerned, rule out reasonable discussion and negotiation and possibly agreement with regard to the actual hour, if it is felt the discussion should proceed beyond 4.30. My own view is that the majority of Senators would not desire that. If there is a strong feeling that a minority in the House are being placed under a disadvantage by the curtailment of discussion at 4.30 p.m., that point can be discussed and possibly some extension agreed.
I am sure Senator Lenihan, in particular, as a former Minister will appreciate the unfortunate position we are placed in in having to bring forward this motion. It is not something I like doing. It is, as a number of Senators correctly pointed out, a curtailment of the liberty of Members of Parliament to discuss anything, so long as they are relevant, for as long as they like. But, circumstances have dictated the necessity for this step—circumstances which neither I nor anyone on this side of the House is in a position to control.
Senators who contribute to the discussion may find that, if they cast around for views outside the city of Dublin, their point of view in this matter will not obtain very widespread support. Senators from rural constituencies will find that the feedback to them is that the Government are right, that they should take this step, and that it is essential for the Government to do whatever they can in this situation.
Tá
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Boland, John.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Codd, Patrick.
- Connolly, Roderic.
- Daly, Jack.
- Deasy, Austin.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Harte, John.
- Kerrigan, Patrick.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Mannion, John M.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Toole, Patrick.
- Sanfey, James W.
- Walsh, Mary.
- Whyte, Liam.
Níl
- Brennan, John J.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick (Fad).
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Robinson, Mary.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Yeats, Michael B.