It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 3, 2 and 4 in that order.
Order of Business.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House about motion No. 11 on the Order Paper which is concerned with Northern Ireland. I believe we should have a debate on it as soon as is practically possible. When I raised this matter before I mentioned that there was a very good reason for having this debate at the earliest possible moment. The parties are considering a review of Northern policy. There have been frequent calls, particularly from the SDLP, for the parties in the Republic to spell out what they mean by Irish unity. Of course we all know about the impasse in Northern politics at the moment and it is our duty to have a debate on this topic in the Seanad. We have had two extremely sympathetic and sensitive debates on Northern Ireland since the present troubles began. I can understand the view that it is not an appropriate time to have this debate while the parties are in the middle of a review of their policy but as everybody knows, inertia is the enemy to progress in politics.
I would hope that the parties will be stimulated into getting on with and concluding their review of Northern Ireland policy as soon as possible. Senator Eoin Ryan said on 22 February that in due course he hoped to take this motion. I hope that it is of such importance that he will attempt to have this motion taken at the earliest possible opportunity.
Senator Eoin Ryan to reply.
I am not in a position at the moment to indicate when it will be possible to take that motion. I will certainly bear in mind what the Senator has said.
I should like to remind Senator Ryan——
I am sorry to interrupt the Senator but Senator Ryan has already replied to the Order of Business. That concludes the discussion on the Order of Business.
It is about a different matter concerning the Order of Business. It is not the same question.
The opportunity was given to debate the Order of Business. Before Senator Ryan replied I called on him to do so, and that concluded the discussion on the Order of Business.
I did not realise that I should have spoken before Senator Ryan had answered. My question concerns the impugning of the motives of women's organisations by a member of the Government. There is a motion on the Order Paper to do with that.
If the Senator is confused about the procedure, which I can understand, I will allow her to make a short statement.
It is a very brief statement. This matter has become more urgent since I put it down on the Order Paper because once again the motives of women's organisations have been impugned by a Minister of the Government. Women's organisations have been accused of acting either from financial self-interest or political party motivation on a very important question of principle. This accusation was made three times and the last time as recently as last Saturday. I have been contacted by many women's organisations who are extremely anxious that——
I cannot allow the Senator to continue to make a speech on this. You are only allowed to say why you want the matter raised.
I want to raise it because it is a matter of extreme concern to women's organisations who feel they have a legitimate right to lobby on their own behalf.
Like Senator Hussey, I thought Senator Ryan was replying specifically to Senator West's question. I should like your permission to make a very brief statement arising more generally out of what Senator West has said. Hope was expressed on opening day and during the lifetime of this Seanad that the House would realise its potential as a deliberative Assembly. Notwithstanding the frequent promises of the Leader of the House that we would be given an opportunity to debate Members' motions, the progress to date has been very disappointing. It is a contradiction when the Leader of the House, on 1 March, column 634 of the Official Report, said: "We may not have enough business to sit next week."
Surely the items referred to by Senator West and items like No. 9 on disarmament and No. 14 on school closures are pre-eminently the kind of business that profitably can be discussed in this House rather than in the other. Yet the House did not sit on Thursday, March 2, and not at all last week. I understand that the presence of Ministers is not strictly speaking necessary for debates on these motions, but if the presence of Ministers is necessary surely one Minister out of 12 or more could be found to listen to such business. This is scandalous disregard of the House. Either the Government spokesmen are serious about wanting to take these motions or they are not. If they are not, the acceptance, which has hitherto greeted Government business, cannot be guaranteed to continue.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges agreed and recommended to the House that one private motion should be taken each month, and that is being adhered to. If the Senators are not satisfied with that arrangement they should take it up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Order of Business agreed to.