It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1 and 2, with No. 1 concluding this morning, the Minister to come in at 12 o'clock. It is proposed to adjourn from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., to begin No. 2 at 2 p.m. and to conclude at 5 p.m.
Order of Business.
May I make an inquiry about Nos. 7 and 8 and, in particular, No. 7? The understanding given to us at the end of the session before Christmas was that at the first opportunity in Private Members' business these motions dealing with education would be taken. In fact, my understanding up until late last week was that they were scheduled for today. Perhaps the Leader of the House would explain the reason for this blanket of silence. I have made inquiries but I find I am simply being told that it will not be taken, not even that it will be taken next. I would like to know what exactly has happened. Is it the same old excuse about legal proceedings?
As my name is on the two motions I would like to support Senator McGuinness in her inquiry. I would also like to add that we were told about these legal proceedings before Christmas and that this motion would be taken in the first week when we came back. I presume the answer will now be that it is because of legal proceedings again, but I ask the Leader of the House the reason we are not taking either of these two motions or taking them together.
My memory of this controversy about whether we should take these two motions is that in the opinion of this side of the House there was legal action pending. It was on assurances from the other side of the House that there was no such legal action pending that the assurance was given by the Leader that we would take these after Christmas. Indeed many of us were anxious that they would be taken. But since the assurance was given by the Opposition that no such legal proceedings were being instituted, it has been confirmed by the secretary of the INTO that such an action is pending. I certainly would not recommend that this House should discuss something which is likely to end up in court. I think it would be most prejudicial to anybody's case in this matter. I agree with the Leader that this matter should not now be taken in view of what has been said by the INTO.
I would like to clarify one point. Assurances were never given by the Opposition that litigation would not be taken. Our point last term was that at that stage proceedings had not been instituted and, consequently that there was no reason for not having the motions taken. Certainly we did not give, nor would we be in a position to give, any assurance that litigation was not going to be taken.
Members may speak only once on the Order of Business.
Senators will be aware that I gave an undertaking before Christmas that the motions would be taken at the first possible opportunity after the Christmas recess. Indeed, I an sure that Senators will accept that that was a firm intention made in absolutely good faith. It is the view of this side of the House that the situation has changed considerably since then. In fact I have here a sheaf of newspaper cuttings since Christmas and almost everyone of them carries a threat of imminent legal action. This culminated in — as the Leader of the Labour group in the Seanad has just said — a very definite statement on the radio on Monday, 18 January 1982 by the General Secretary of the organisation concerned that it was their intention to go ahead with legal action at the earliest possible opportunity. We regret very much that this should have changed the situation. We had decided and had hoped to have a very good debate in this House on those motions, but it is considered extremely inadvisable in the circumstances that this House should involve itself in a full-scale debate on an issue which is apparently coming before the courts quite early.
On a point of the privilege of this House, not on the Order of Business, is it to be understood that if any Tom, Dick or Harry says in the papers that he is going to issue legal proceedings but has not, in fact, served a writ, that this House is to be muzzled in discussing it?
The matter does not arise at this time. The Leader of the House has concluded and the question is that the Order of Business be agreed.
This is a challenge to the privileges of this House.
Order of Business agreed to.