It is proposed to take No. 1 until the end of the Second Stage, then to move to No. 3 and at the conclusion of No. 3 to go back to the Finance Bill, to the Committee and remaining Stages of the Bill and on their conclusion to take No. 2.
Order of Business.
We will be opposing the suggestion that we will go back to the Finance Bill today. We feel that with a Bill of this complexity there should be a reasonable interval between the conclusion of Second Stage and the commencement of Committee Stage so that the various points put forward on the Second Stage debate can be considered. Those who are taking a special interest in the Bill can consider amendments or whatever is open to them in this Bill. Consequently to ask for all Stages, in effect, today is unreasonable. I understand that there is no administrative or legal reason why it would not go until next week, that the temporary collections divisions run until Friday, 27th. If the Committee Stage is put off until next Tuesday we could undertake to have it concluded on Tuesday and that would then leave ample time for signing it before Friday, when time runs out.
I should like to support what Senator Cooney has said. That is, in an economic sense, the most important Bill in the year. The Bill had a very substantial amount of time in the other House so it is lacking in the regard which is due to this House to suggest that we might complete Second Stage and then, with a short interval for minor legislation, go straight through to the later Stages. I do not think that is fair to us or reasonable and it is not in the traditions of this House on legislation of this significance. We will be supporting Senator Cooney on this.
Two days ago a lot of Members on this side and indeed on the other side, expressed considerable concern about the necessity to give the Sexual Offences Bill, 1980, a Second Reading and the Leader of the House said he would bear in mind the representations that were made. It was not on the Order of Business yesterday. In the meantime, we have had considerable rumours about possible Government legislation on this issue. I see no Government Bill before us whereas all Senators have had a Bill in their hands for some time and we have a Bill to discuss. We must fix an Order for Second Stage and we must fix it today in order to leave time for a full debate of the Bill. Having printed and circulated the Bill, it is responsible and constructive for the Seanad to decide to debate it. Therefore, I am moving that item No. 11, the Sexual Offences Bill, 1980 be added to the Order of Business today before No. 1.
I should like to support Senator Hussey's request. Although we would not agree with the entire contents of Senator Hussey's Bill, we agree very strongly that the Second Stage should be ordered. She made reference to rumours that the Government intend to publish a Bill, presumably along the same lines, and I strongly suspect it is to get over the difficulty of ignoring Senator Hussey's Bill this side of the summer vacation. I urge that time be given for a Second Stage debate on the Sexual Offences Bill.
I also support Senator Hussey's proposal that time be given to deal with the Second State of the Bill this side of the vacation. I know we heard that there is to be a Government Bill but I feel this is a kind of reflex action which happens every time there is a Private Members' Bill. I should like to remind the House of what Senator Robinson said two days ago about the necessity for accepting the reasonableness and the importance of having Private Members' legislation, rather than simply sweeping it away every time and saying "We have a Government Bill" instead.
We had a Criminal Conversation Bill brought in and there was supposed to be similar Government legislation but we have seen no sign of it. We had a Private Members' Family Planning Bill and we were told that there was to be a Government Bill. Look at the Alice in Wonderland legislation which followed. We had an Adoption Bill from the Labour Party and the legislation which followed, prior to the referendum, left out many vital aspects that were dealt with in the Private Members' Bill. I find it very difficult to accept this reflex action, or is it, perhaps obscure jealousy on the part of the Government? Every time a Private Members' Bill is brought in which may actually do something practical and useful the immediate reaction is, "No, we cannot deal with this, we will bring in a Bill ourselves". Firstly, I distrust that they are going to bring in a Bill at all and secondly I distrust what kind of a Bill it will be because of past experience. I urge that even if the Government feel they need to amend the Bill brought in by Senator Hussey, which I am sure many people do, they should at least give it a second Stage reading.
I should like to support the proposal to order the Sexual Offences Bill, 1980 for Second Stage and have a debate on Second Reading before the House rises for the summer. I strongly support that for reasons already given and for other reasons mentioned today by Senators. I should also like to support Senator Cooney's proposal. This should be an amendment to the Order of Business as well. The Order of Business proposed by the Leader of the House is that we take item No. 1 for Second Stage, then item No. 3 and then go back to Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. I would like to propose the deletion of that part of the Order of Business proposed by the Leader of the House, and that we do not go back to try to take Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. It is an extremely important Bill. It contains very many matters which Senators did not have an opportunity to deal with in detail on Second Reading. It was not even appropriate to deal with them in detail on Second Reading and I do not believe that we will be doing our job responsibly if we try to crowd all this into even an extended sitting today. As Senator Cooney said, there is no legal urgency or requirement that we complete the Finance Bill today. It is a very reasonable proposal that we take the Committee Stage next Tuesday. I should like to make that a formal amendment to our Order of Business and to delete the provision that we would take Committee and remaining Stages of the Finance Bill today.
I would like to support the proposal. When we talked about this on the Order of Business on Tuesday, there was a suggestion that we were rather close to the summer recess and that this is one of the reasons why we could not deal with this and other matters. I find that argument particularly specious. There is no reason why we cannot sit in the weeks ahead, if necessary from Tuesday to Thursday. There is no reason why we cannot sit late into July as we did last year, up to 25 July in fact, and what a waste of time that was, dealing with the Family Planning Bill. The time element and the time objection to Senator Hussey's proposal I find particularly pointless. It is not, after all, as if Senators were suffering incipient nervous breakdowns from overwork.
I imagine the fact that the other side of the House admit that the Finance Bill is most important should make it all the more reasonable that we get on with it, and not give time to matters which are not as important. The Bill has been available for a long time and, if people have amendments, they should be ready to take the Bill today. Senators are not so busy that they could not study the Finance Bill and be ready to take amendments today.
We got the Bill on Friday last. That is not sufficient time to examine it in detail.
I should like to oppose the granting of a Second Reading to the Sexual Offences Bill. Senator McGuinness said that we should for a change do something practical and useful. Despite what Senator Murphy said, we could sit here all summer discussing the very commendable Bill put forward by Senator Hussey but it would serve no practical or useful purpose. The other House is going into recess and, even if this Bill were to pass all Stages in this House, it still would not be possible to have any new legislation implemented before the autumn. For that reason, we should not be sitting here like a leisurely debating society in the middle of the summer discussing something that cannot be practical and useful and put into some sort of legislation in the near future.
As regards the Sexual Offences Bill, it is more than a rumour that there is a Government Bill about to be introduced. The Minister has had under consideration for some considerable time the introduction of a Bill dealing with the crime of rape and the preparation of that Bill has now reached a late stage. The Minister is hopeful that he will be able to initiate it in the Seanad before the recess. That being so, it would not be appropriate to have two Bills dealing with the same subject under consideration by this House at the same time. In these circumstances, I cannot agree to allow the Second Stage to be put on the Order Paper. From a practical point of view, what Senator Harney said is correct: there is no question of the Bill going through this session before the recess. The Minister's Bill will certainly be available, if not before the recess, certainly long before we resume in October.
In regard to the Finance Bill, although it may be theoretically possible to take the remaining Stages next Tuesday, from a practical view it would be much too late and, consequently, I see no reason why the Committee Stage and remaining Stages cannot be taken today. Senator Keating said it was against the traditions of the House. It is not against the traditions of the House. In 1970, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976 and 1978 the Finance Bill was taken and completed in two successive days. If we are talking about tradition and talking about what successive Ministers for Finance have asked the House to do we are very much in the tradition of the House; we are doing nothing out of the ordinary. We are doing what has been done in almost every year in the past. I cannot agree to put off the remaining Stages until next week. The House will have every opportunity to take the Committee and remaining Stages today. I am proposing that we sit beyond the normal time, that we sit as long as is necessary to take the remaining Stages. It is true that the Bill has been available for some considerable time and if Senators had wished to put down amendments, they have had adequate opportunity to do so.
It is proposed to rise from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. for lunch.
Could we hear from the Leader of the House why it would be impractical not to postpone this until next week? He offers us a bland statement that it is impractical. There is a resolution for an earlier signature. Could he tell us, in response to what Senator Cooney said about the relevant dates, why it would be impractical?
The debate on the Order of Business is concluded and the Leader was replying to it. Is Senator Hussey pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Question put: "That item No. 11 be inserted before item No. 1."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Howard, Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Keating, Justin.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McGuinness, Catherine.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Staunton, Myles.
Níl
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cranitch, Micheál.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
- Doolan, Jim.
- Goulding, Lady.
- Harney, Mary.
- Herbert, Anthony.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Lambert, C. Gordon.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Mulcahy, Noel William.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Whitaker, Thomas Kenneth.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Hussey and McGuinness; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan.
Question declared lost.
There is now another amendment: To delete "Committee and remaining Stages of the Finance Bill" and item No. 2.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cranitch, Micheál.
- Crowley, Flor.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
- Doolan, Jim.
- Goulding, Lady.
- Harney, Mary.
- Herbert, Anthony.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Lambert, C. Gordon.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Mulcahy, Noel William.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
Níl
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Howard, Michael.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McGuinness, Catherine.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Staunton and McAuliffe.
Question declared carried.