It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Order of Business.
On the order of Business, it has been suggested by the Leader of the House that we should take items Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The Social Welfare Bill is a measure on which I think a great deal of agreement will be found since if a graphologist examined the manuscript version of the Bill he would find that the origins of virtually all the sections of the Bill lie before the time of the present Government entering office. Also, item No. 3 is not one on which there would be contention. The House having come together, and Senators having been drawn in from many parts of the country where they would rather be at work endeavouring to ensure their return to this Chamber, this is really a scant programme to have put before us. I understand the probability is that we will have to be brought together again in regard to a Rent Restrictions Bill.
It might be appropriate that the Seanad should take up today, briefly, some of the resolutions on the Order Paper and discuss them. There are some which may fall because Senators who put their names to them are no longer with us. There are others which it might be inappropriate to discuss because there has been a change of Government. But there are other motions here which we could quite readily discuss, such as Motions Nos. 10, 12, 14, 16 and 17. My name is to Motion No. 17. This is an urgent matter to discuss because it calls on the Government to continue something which they may well be tempted to discontinue before we meet again or before a new Seanad is formed. So I move that item No. 17 be added to the Order of Business.
I join Senator Dooge in requesting Senator Ryan to include Motion No. 17 because it concerns a matter to which this House had given a specific commitment. Indeed, the previous Taoiseach honoured this House by his presence to initiate this review. Whereas the debate concerned the various elements of the Constitution which should or should not be changed, the whole House accepted the principle that a review was necessary. The very fact of a message from the President that he has refused to sign the Rent Restrictions Bill indicates how important a constitutional review is. It is a matter of grave urgency that it should continue. When the findings of the review come before both Houses of the Oireachtas we can then discuss what should or should not be included in a possible referendum.
We welcome the announcement recently that a pro-life amendment is being accepted as a necessary constitutional change. Many of us would agree with that and welcome it, but there are other items that need review as a matter of great urgency. Certainly No. 11 should be discussed, because this is a matter which will probably run into some kind of constitutional problem. It would be a matter of urgency for us in the Labour Party that No. 11 be taken as soon as possible, today or whatever other day the Seanad meets.
Certainly the inclusion of No. 15 in the Order of Business would be agreed by many of us on this side of the House, and it has been signed by our colleagues on the other side of the House. We would like to see GAA grounds exempt from rates because they provide a social amenity. We would have no objection to that being taken and agreed.
I am sure Senator Robinson will talk about item No. 16 as a matter that needs to be included in any Order of Business if this House is to resemble an institution which is serious about dealing with the problems in our country. There are many problems that would benefit from a constitutional review. I formally second the motion that we add to the Order of Business. We have no objections to Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in that order but I second the motion that we add these further items to the Order of Business.
Which items?
Items Nos. 11, 15 and 17 and Senator Robinson probably wants No. 16 as well.
I agree with Senator Dooge's point that many of us were, perhaps, torn away from the campaign and that to justify our existence here we should transact more business than Nos. 1, 2 and 3. It would be good for our frayed nerves to be gainfully employed.
I do not see the point of Senator Ferris's suggestion that several motions be added to the Order of Business. We must be realistic about this. I support the suggestion that No. 17 be added to the Order of Business because this is one of the last sitting which this Seanad will have and the item in question comes under the heading of continuity of business in that as an Independent in an entirely non-party spirit I would like to have a brief discussion according to the terms of the motion. It would not take very long. I do not think people want to cover the same ground as we did when we discussed the constitutional review.
I might anticipate an objection. It has been suggested that this is a lame duck Seanad, that we are in our dying days and that somehow our mandate to discuss these matters is somewhat weakened. I have thought about this suggestion and I cannot see that we are any less valid as a Chamber than we were seven months ago. I would support Senator Dooge's suggestion that item No. 17 be added.
I also support the proposed amendment to add item No. 17 to the Order of Business. I would agree with Senator Murphy that it is more realistic to accept that only one of the motions on the agenda could be taken today but I would agree that there is time to take it and that there is urgency in looking for a continuation of this review of the Constitution because we are getting some very conflicting statements in relation to the amendment of the Constitution.
The only commitment we have got to amending the Constitution is in an area where it is not, I would argue, necessary to amend the Constitution. We have not been told what the form of that amendment would be but it is not one which appears to be clearly necessary. There are a number of other crucial areas, for example, the prohibition on divorce, the provisions whereby children who are born in wedlock are ineligible for adoption even if they have been abandoned by their parents and are growing up in institutions and, as Senator Ferris said, the provisions relating to the protection of property. I do not on the Order of Business want to go into detail on these.
I want to make clear that I originally opposed the reference of the review of the Constitution to a legal committee under the aegis of the Attorney General because I felt at that time, and to some extent still feel, that it is politicians who need to be discussing this and who need to be facing the difficult issues and doing it on the basis of an understanding of the Constitution and then we would have a more realistic debate. I believe that this review is very necessary when the only commitment this incoming Government will make is to amend the Constitution where amendment is not necessary. They have not specified how or what the text would be but it clearly shows the need for this review.
It is not in order to debate the merits or demerits of a case on the Order of Business.
I am explaining why I support and, if necessary, second the proposal of Senator Dooge that No. 17 be added to the Order of Business today.
I cannot agree that the business today is anything less than important. It is a very important Bill. It was necessary to meet for a very important Bill. The fact that the debate on it may not take too long is not relevant.
In regard to the question of discussing any one of these serious motions that have been proposed, it would be inappropriate to discuss them today. Motion No. 17 in particular, has been suggested. This is a very important motion and I am sure that Senator Dooge and the seconder would want it to be given very serious consideration. Because of the fact that many Members of the House are somewhat preoccupied at present, I doubt very much if it would receive the serious consideration today that the proposer and seconder would want it to have. In these circumstances, I would not agree that it would be appropriate to have it or any of the other motions discussed today.
There is the other difficulty that I have had no notice that it was proposed to take this motion or any of the others mentioned and it would be quite impossible to have a Minister here to deal with a motion at such short notice. I would be against taking any of these motions today. It is correct to say that probably we will be meeting again in approximately a week's time. If the Whips get together we could agree to take some motion at the next sitting. That is the best way of dealing with the various proposals that have been put before us.
Is it in order for me to answer the appeal of the Leader of the House?
Very briefly, to indicate if the amendment stands.
It has been suggested that there are a number of reasons why we should defer these matters, possibly until our next sitting day. I think there is particular urgency in regard to Motion No. 17. I do not think it will be a substantial debate. As the proposer I will be making the opening speech; I will be talking about the desirability of continuation, not the merits of the case. This should not take very long.
In regard to the question of lack of notice and the question of a Minister not being present, Senator Eoin Ryan and I have been colleagues for a long time and he knows my mind on this: it is now, and has always been the case that the Seanad will never be master truly of its own business until it goes ahead with motions even if Ministers are not present.
Is it intended to press the amendment?
Yes.
On a point of order, is the amendment to add item No. 17?
The question is: "That Item No. 17 be added to the Order of Business".
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided; Tá 23; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Bolger, Deirdre.
- Bulbulia, Katherine.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Byrne, Toddie.
- Dooge, James.
- Fausset, Robert.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, James.
- Kearney, Miriam.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Lawlor, Patsy.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Connell, Maurice.
- O'Leary, Seán A.
- O'Mahony, Flor.
- Reynolds, Pat Joe.
- Robinson, Mary.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Whitaker, Thomas, Kenneth.
Níl
- Cogan, Barry.
- Cranitch, Mícheál.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Ryan, William.
Tellers: Tá, Senators O'Brien and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Cranitch.
Amendment declared carried.
Is it proposed to press the second amendment?
No. Instead, I would ask Senator Ryan to agree to take the other motions on the next sitting day. We have agreed to alter the Order of Business today, but in fairness to the Leader of the House, perhaps he would agree on the next sitting day to take Nos. 11, 15 and 16. This is a courtesy to the Leader of the House as he had not been notified of this earlier.
I was suggesting that as a compromise, but the rule of the House is that we have a motion only once every month. If we take a motion today I cannot give an undertaking that we will take several more motions next week or the next time we are sitting. If the business does not take very long, we will give serious consideration to having a motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order of Business, as amended, agreed to.