It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 23. It is proposed to adjourn for a tea break from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Is there no time to take No. 4?
I have ordered Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 23. No. 23 is a Private Members' motion. Only one Private Members' motion can be taken at a time.
I was under the impression, from my communications with the Seanad Office, that the item on divorce was to be taken today. Indeed, I put this motion down specifically for this reason this week, under a certain amount of pressure. I was told it would certainly be taken this week and that this was agreed to by all parties. I do not understand why it is not being taken today.
To corroborate what Senator Ross has said, it was also my distinct impression that this motion would be taken today.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown, which is mentioned for discussion in this particular independent group motion, I would be unhappy if this motion were taken outside Government time because the net effect would be to ensure that Senators who wished to contribute — I imagine there would be a great number of them — would be restricted in their contributions to the debate to a period of 15 minutes. Senator Ross——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Much as I dislike interrupting you, I cannot allow you to make a speech at this point.
I would not dream of making a speech or in any way upsetting you. Referring back to a Seanad debate on Thursday, 23 May 1985, volume No. 108, column 731, in answer to a question on this matter from Senator Ross, Senator Dooge stated that the Government motion had been put down to ensure that there would be unrestricted debate on this matter. There would be no limitation on the time of speeches or on the total time of the debate. He went on to state that he anticipated that this would be taken some time during June. I cannot understand why the bona fides of the Leader of the House could not have been taken as such by Senator Ross and why he wished to truncate the debate to stifle the freedom of expression on what is a most important issue.
How could we possibly, in the space of 15 minutes, hope to do justice to the report of the Committee on Marriage Breakdown which took almost two years to compile and which engaged the energies and commitment of so many Members of the House? We would be doing a disservice to the whole question of marriage breakdown in our community. We would be ensuring that the debate would be a very abbreviated one and would not in any way further the issue, which I am sure we all care about deeply.
I propose as an amendment to the Order of Business that we take item No. 4 today. I propose this specifically because there is an absolute breach of the rules of this House. It is quite extraordinary that No. 23 should be proposed for today because Senator McGuinness is not in the House. Senator McGuinness will not be able to be present, as far as I know, this evening at any time. The agreement of this House is that the Independents' time is taken this evening. I want to answer Senator Bulbulia's statement——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are now going into debate. This is what I asked Senator Bulbulia not to do. I cannot have this chat across the House when I am still trying to clear the Order of Business. If you could state precisely your amendment——
That No. 4 be taken at 6.30 p.m. and that, to facilitate what is being said, it be made an open-ended debate. The reason why I put this motion down for today was that Senator Dooge had said that he had anticipated taking that motion in June. I tend not to take the anticipations of politicians on the other side of the House terribly seriously. That is not a commitment. That is an anticipation. I want the issue of divorce debated in this House now.
To stay strictly within your guidelines on the Order of Business, I should like to say that personally I am in favour of item No. 10 rather than item No. 4. I feel it would help matters if the Deputy Leader of the House in replying to this exchange on the Order of Business indicated a time for item No. 10. I want to concur, without straying from what is strictly relevant to this exchange, with some of the points made by Senator Bulbulia. I would only like to make this point, lest we have a division on the Order of Business, that, as Chairman of the Labour Party, I can say that we have no difficulty whatsoever in relation to calling for a referendum without delay on the subject of the removal of the constitutional ban on divorce.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator may not go into the details.
Of course, thank you for recalling me. The second principle we have to decide is the timing and the circumstances of this discussion. A discussion limited to 15 minutes would certainly be less effective than one which would be open-ended. Senator Bulbulia has a point.
On the Order of Business — and I do not intend to say much on this — Senator Ross said there was an agreement on all sides of the House that No. 4 be taken. On this side of the House we had no indication at all that No. 4 was on the Order of Business. We were dealing with Private Members' motions today and there was no motion of this nature on the Order of Business when we got it. Under no circumstances should it be construed that we want to curtail debate on this very important issue. This debate is too important to have it allowed to be taken——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You cannot make a lengthy speech.
I do not intend to. All I am saying is that I do not think it is appropriate that this debate should take place with the consent of a 15 minute limit on speakers. It would not do justice to the subject which is of paramount importance to everybody in this House.
I would just like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House one or two questions. First, Independent Senators have time allocated to them; does motion 23 fall into that category? If not, what exactly is the precise position in regard to Independent Senators' motions? The second point I would make is that I feel that what both Senator Bulbulia and Senator M. Higgins said is very important. It was confirmed by Senator Lanigan that this is a matter of great concern, not only to people inside this Chamber but to the people of Ireland. We do want to have a very full and extensive debate. I would like to ask as my second question to the Leader of the House, is it his intention to have this debate shortly or not?
On a point of information, my understanding is that it is unlikely that the House will be sitting during the next fortnight. If that is the case, is it likely that we would be able to have a debate on this matter in the month of June?
I want to support the Order of Business as proposed and to agree with the Senators who have pointed out very clearly the importance of the discussion the House should have on the report of the Committee on Marriage Breakdown and that there certainly should be no curtailment of the debate on that very important topic. Senator Robb raised the question, and I would just like to say that it is my experience that the House itself decides on the Order of Business and on all procedures in the House. From that point of view the House can easily change its mind as it has done in the past several times during a day.
I hope I can stick to the Order of Business. I would just like to make one point clear. It is a question of trust and understanding of the position regarding Independent Members' rights. I do not know where that all-round agreement came from. As Whip of the Labour Party, I was not involved in coming to any arrangement that this item would be taken today. Now that is the procedural position. In that sense, I do not see myself breaking trust with the Private Members. The other thing is that I would be prepared to support the proposal that the fuller motion should be on the Order Paper for the next sitting day and I am sure that will take place before the end of June.
Senator Brendan Ryan rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Brendan Ryan, I think you have already spoken.
I have not spoken on any amendment to the Order of Business.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You supported the amendment, I thought.
I did not speak on Senator Ross's amendment to the Order of Business before this I am sorry.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Ryan to continue.
There are a number of questions related to the amendment that I would like to ask. The first is: does the Deputy Leader of the House have the permission of Senator McGuinness to introduce item 23? The second is: how does a motion which is seconded by a member of the Labour Party become Independent Members' time? The third is, why, if it was not anticipated that it should be taken there is a Government amendment to the motion from the Independent Senators? I would suggest that failing an amendment as proposed by Senator Ross what the Government parties have done is decide for themselves what Independent Members are allowed to have discussed in this House which, of course, makes an entire mockery of it.
Nonsense.
We thought we had a motion down on a specific issue, it appears to me now that the Government have decided what we are going to discuss in Private Members' time which, of course, is a complete shanghai-ing of the traditional rights of Members to have whatever issue they wish discussed in this House when they wish, however inappropriate other Members of the House might regard that. It is not for anybody else to judge.
We did not decide.
It is not for anybody else in this House to judge what is appropriate for us to raise as Private Members on a motion. It is for us to judge; if we are wrong they have the voting majority to deal with it accordingly, which is to vote down the issue.
On the Order of Business, perhaps Senator Ferris could tell us when it is proposed to have the Land Tax Bill in the House. I asked him last week and he told us that it would arrive some time but I hope that since then he has found out when "sometime" is. No doubt now, it will be after 20 June and as well——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You have asked the question. I am sure Senator Ferris has got the message.
Is Senator Ellis——
If Senator Loughrey could keep his good Donegal accent to himself while I am on my feet I would much appreciate it. I would further like to know if it is possible to suspend the House under Standing Order 29 for the House to debate the recent incursions by the British Army into this country and to know what the Government are going to do about them.
It is a matter for the House to decide on the Order of Business. All I can do as Leader of the House is to propose the Order of Business and, as the Leader of the Labour Party and as Deputy Government Leader of the House, no consultations have taken place with me about motion No. 4.
On a point of order, how could there be no consultations when there is a Government amendment in the name of the Leader of the House?
I admire the Senator's enthusiasm. It is my prerogative to put amendments down in the name of the Government at any time to any motion. It does not necessarily mean that I had agreed to take the motion. I am proposing the Order of Business and it is a matter for this House to decide on it. In case there should be any confusion in Senators minds, apart from the problem of 15 minutes which was suggested there is a problem that a Private Member's motion is confined to three hours. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that three hours is not enough time to debate this important motion or, indeed, the Government motion No. 10. The committee spent two years discussing it and there are people in this House, apart from the Independents, who want to express their views one way or another on this issue and within three hours that might not happen. That is one of the reasons I wanted to ensure that we would take No. 10 at the appropriate time. I would propose now, in response to my colleague, Senator Michael Higgins, to ask the Leader of the House to order — or, if he is not acting on that day, I would order — No. 10 for 26 June which would give the opportunity then to the Independents to put an amendment down if they consider that No. 10 is not sufficient for them. They can amend that in any way they like including some of the requirements that they have written into motion No. 4. It is not unreasonable to propose No. 23 which in itself refers to very important social legislation. I am quite sure that many people on both sides of the House would like to know it and Senator Catherine McGuinness is the leader of the Independent group——
On a point of order, has the Deputy Leader of the House Senator McGuinness' permission to order item No. 23?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think that is a point of order.
It is out of order for somebody to put something on the Order of Business like this if the Member is not aware that it is being put on.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Ferris is Leader of the House today and I am trying to clear the Order of Business. I wonder could I have some order.
Through your good offices I want to assure the House that if No. 23 is agreed on the Order of Business there will be a proposer available for it. I propose that the Order of Business be agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is Senator Ross pressing the amendment?
I just want to make quite clear what the amendment says. The amendment proposes that No. 4 be taken today at 6.30 p.m. but that it be open-ended and unlimited in time.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Are you pressing the amendment?
Yes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am putting the question: "That the amendment be made".
Senators
Votáil.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?
Senators Ross, Robb, B. Ryan and O'Donoghue rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I declare the amendment negatived as we do not have five Senators claiming a division.
Question: "That the Order of Business be agreed" put and agreed to.
In the light of the behaviour of the majority today there are no rights for minorities in Ireland and our brethern north of the Border are perfectly right in their assessment of what will be done. They run away from a difficult issue because they cannot handle it and they behave in a most disgraceful way. It is the most disgraceful abuse of a majority I have seen in four years in this House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The names of the Senators who rose will be recorded in the Journal of the proceedings.