Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1985

Vol. 108 No. 10

Order of Business.

Professor Dooge

It is proposed to order Nos. 1 and 2 today and I might indicate that it is proposed to take Nos. 3, 4 and 5 tomorrow. I would like to explain to the House why we are adopting the somewhat unusual format of a statement followed by permitted statements, rather than a motion, in regard to the question of developments in relation to European Union. The Taoiseach did say in his statement in another place, following his return from the Brussels Summit, that he hoped to have a discussion on European Union in Dáil Éireann before the Milan Summit. There were a number of developments since, most of which added to the uncertainty regarding the preparations for Milan and for that reason a debate in the Dáil was delayed until this week, until after the Taoiseach had some bilateral meetings last week. And, since the Taoiseach leaves for Milan at lunchtime tomorrow, it is necessary that any discussion that takes place should be completed today. As Senators know, the business of the Dáil today from 10.30 a.m. until 7 p.m. is devoted to a series of statements on this issue and it was thought appropriate that we should follow the same procedure here. This procedure is allowed under our Standing Orders. It is proposed that the Taoiseach should make a statement and it is proposed that the permission of the Chair be sought for a number of statements following this. I had discussions with the representatives of the groups and there is agreement that there should be statements from not more than two members from each group and no statement, except the initial statement of the Taoiseach, to exceed 30 minutes.

I might say in this regard that I discussed with Senator Catherine McGuinness the question of the Private Members' motion. She was willing that if time were not available for that this evening, it should be deferred until another evening. In making that proposal, I am allowing for a suspension of sitting from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. If, however, it was thought desirable that an opportunity should be given to more than the eight Senators, two from each of the four groups, it would be possible for the House to forego the usual hour of suspension and that would allow for one further speaker from the Government side and one further speaker from the Opposition side.

In regard to the business I foreshadowed for tomorrow, in accordance with an undertaking given here some weeks ago, it is proposed to devote tomorrow morning to the discussion of the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown and in the afternoon to take the Electoral Bill and possibly the Road Transport Bill, as will be explained tomorrow. There is an element of urgency in regard to the Electoral Bill, not that there is liable to be an election in the near future, but it is necessary to have the Bill and regulations under it made before the new register is assembled.

Mr. Lanigan

On this side of the House we are disappointed that there is a curtailment of the discussion on this extremely important report by Senator Dooge and also on developments relating to European Union. Possibly no more important item has come into this House in the last ten years, because of the vast implications it could have for us from an economic point of view, from a social point of view and, in particular, in view of the fact that over the next few days' discussions which might affect other countries' attitude towards our neutrality could be debated. It is extremely wrong that no statement except the initial statement of the Taoiseach can exceed 30 minutes and that the House is being limited in numbers to two from each grouping.

I can see that Senator Dooge is in a quandary here. I cannot see why the fact that the Taoiseach is leaving at lunchtime tomorrow should preclude debate on this item. I cannot see why we cannot continue in the morning because I am certain that communications, which are bad enough in certain areas, are not so bad that anything said in this House in the next couple of days could not be transmitted to the Taoiseach at whatever meeting he is attending. The reason for this problem that I have in regard to curtailing speech is the essential importance of this debate. I am sure Senator Dooge and his ad hoc committee will not be too happy when he discusses in Europe with his European colleagues who sat on that committee the fact that it was possible to have only a four or five hour debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas and that the report was shoved under the carpet. Here we are in a sense, discussing the union which would do away with the Community and which would be a union of the stronger States, and another grouping which would not have at all the powers that this——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I can allow you to make your point, Senator, but I cannot allow you to expand it.

Mr. Lanigan

I have stated my reasons for my unhappiness and our unhappiness on this side of the House at the curtailment of this very important debate.

Mr. E. Ryan

I would like to support Senator Lanigan. There has been a feeling among those who have studied this proposal for a European Union that people in this country do not seem to realise what an important development is taking place. We are perturbed by this fact. Those of us who are interested have been advocating the necessity for widespread and prolonged debate on this. It seems in these circumstances that to curtail the debate here today would certainly not be the most desirable situation. There are certain difficulties — the Taoiseach has to go away tomorrow — but is there any reason why the debate should not go on and should not be adjourned so that everybody in this House — maybe not this week — within the next week or two would have an opportunity to say what they want to say about this extremely important matter?

Mrs. Robinson

I share the concern that has been expressed about the importance of this issue and the importance for Ireland of the proposals for future European Union but as I understand it — I would just like to have the Leader of the House clarify this — the proposal to allow statements to be made today is not to replace a full debate and that there will be a full opportunity later. Otherwise, I too would be anxious that we would not simply confine the view of this House to a number of statements. I would nonetheless feel that it is better that this House be afforded an opportunity to join in effect with the other House in having statements about the importance of this matter — some of us would lay emphasis on some aspects of it and some on others — prior to the European Council in Milan on the basis that we would then have a full opportunity to discuss the broader issues and, indeed, a full opportunity to discuss the report of the Joint Committee on European Legislation which was adopted in the Spinelli Draft Treaty and which has a bearing on the issues which will arise at the European Council.

Mr. B. Ryan

First, I am very glad that the House has returned to its normal procedure of arranging business by agreement. I sincerely hope we will never again in my time in this House have evidence of the tyranny of the majority that we saw here a fortnight ago. I am somewhat taken aback to hear members of all three other groups being very concerned about the restriction on time available. They had the last two weeks to discuss issues but when Senator Ross and I suggested that we should meet both last week and the previous week, nobody in this House would support us. It is a bit much now to be complaining about the shortage of time. They chose their priorities. Perhaps some of us have different priorities which are this House.

Mr. Lanigan

I think I heard Senator Dooge agreeing with Senator Robinson that there was not going to be a curtailment of debate but that rather today we would have statements made and afterwards there would be an allowance for a full debate on this very important topic. We could go along with leaving the speakers as suggested so long as we have a guarantee that within a fortnight from now we can address ourselves totally to that particular item.

Professor Dooge

I am sorry I did not make that clear. The objective of having statements here today is so that the Taoiseach will have the benefit of these statements, as well as the statements made in the other House, before he goes to Milan. The last time we discussed generally the question of developments in the EC the debate went over three separate sitting days and, quite obviously, if we had started the debate now it would be impossible to conclude it before the Taoiseach goes to Milan. If we had introduced a motion today and then curtailed speakers, it would have been worse because then we would have precluded ourselves from discussing the matter for another six months. By operating this flexible procedure of statements we are not interfering, in the slightest, with the question of our normal six monthly discussion on developments in the EC, which I sincerely hope will take place before the end of July, before the House rises for the summer. In this way the House is able to have an input and to make certain opinions clear before the Taoiseach goes to Milan and then we can have a full debate on the question of the draft treaty, the comments of our own Joint Committee on the proposed draft treaty, a more detailed debate on the report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Institutional Affairs and on the outcome of Milan, because while I am hopeful I am not sanguine enough to think that complete, final and utter accord is going to be reached this weekend at Milan.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before we agree on the Order of Business, I wonder if Senator Dooge would clear — for my sake later on in the evening — if we are back to the two speakers from each side? Is that agreed?

Professor Dooge

I am in favour of flexibility and I would suggest that we agree on two speakers from each side and that we agree to discuss, during the course of the afternoon, the question of whether we want to fit in two extra speakers, from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

Order of Business agreed to.