It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 6 in that order. It is proposed to adjourn for tea from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, item No. 3 was adjourned and it was intended that the remaining part of that motion should be taken today. That motion was put down by us before Christmas and by arrangement and agreement — because there were continuing discussions going on with the Minister for Education — we decided that we would go along with the Minister in her efforts to achieve an equitable end to that dispute. I have absolutely no doubt that the reason this item is not on the Order Paper today is that a vote is to be taken tomorrow evening in the Dáil on this matter and, therefore, this House will not have an opportunity to discuss this item, which is of major national importance. The Deputy Leader of the House is doing a disservice not alone to this side of the House but the whole House, in not allowing this debate to continue for the remaining 30 minutes. I know there are other speakers who have a lot to say on this matter and we feel extremely strongly about the fact that this motion is not on the Agenda for today. There has been an attempt to muzzle the Opposition in this House on the situation regarding motions right through this whole session and we will not tolerate muzzling any longer.
Perhaps other Senators want to expand on what Senator Lanigan is saying, but I want to go back to an earlier point about matters raised on the Adjournment. You stated you were taking Senator Lynch's motion this evening and then you said that Senator Fitzsimons and I could give notice of our motions. I am giving you notice now that I understand that my motion should be taken tomorrow evening in chronological order.
I do not see why it should not, at the moment.
I want to support Senator Lanigan in relation to the Order of Business. We agreed to the suggestion on 18 December that there would be one hour of the remaining hour-and-a-half of the motion taken on that evening in the hope that the Minister for Education would enter into meaningful talks with the teachers' unions and that a settlement of the dispute acceptable to all sides would be achieved. That has not happened and that is why we want the remaining half hour of this motion taken this evening. It should be taken because tomorrow will be too late. There is still time for the Government to change course on this issue and I believe that this House should avail of the opportunity this evening to call on the Government to change course and even at this 11th hour and 59th minute to enter into meaningful discussions with the teachers' unions in order to achieve a settlement.
I would like to comment briefly on the failure to order the remaining 30 minutes of this motion on the dispute relating to the teachers' arbitration award. I, in fact, participated and made my contribution when this matter was ordered and I support the view that is being expressed by Senator Lanigan that it had been agreed to reduce the time allocated for that debate because there were very delicate discussions going on. Everybody in the House understood that it was adjourned. I certainly understood it and I am very surprised that it is not ordered for today and I am particularly surprised that the Deputy Leader of the House has not made any reference to it in announcing the matters that will be taken today because, not only has this motion not been ordered for the remaining time in order to complete it but he has made no reference to the fact that no motion is being ordered in what has become the tradition of having Private Members' Time on Wednesdays. It is important that we re-establish the regular practice of having Private Members' Time and that we have some explanation why, first of all, this particular motion is not being ordered for today and, secondly, why there is apparently no time being given as is customary on a Wednesday.
May I remind the House that the Deputy Leader seems to believe he has a sort of divine right to decide what can be proposed by Private Members, because Senator Ross and I had a similar experience with him some months back when he suppressed a motion of ours and decided which motion from Independent Members was to be taken. I fully support the leader of Fianna Fáil in his call. This is obviously quite a cowardly ducking for cover by the Government to avoid completing what was agreed to be completed many months ago, a simple discussion on a simple motion. If the Government believe they are right can they not come into this House and do what they believe to be right? Running for cover on an issue like this, which has been quite reasonably deferred by the majority party in Opposition in order to facilitate discussions, will put a sour taste in the mouths of many of us about being reasonable in regard to future decisions on agreements which may then be abused in order to avoid some embarrassment to the Government.
I also wish to support the view that the remaining part of this motion should be taken today. The amendment to the motion gives ample reason why it should be taken today. The amendment obviously if taken next week or the week after would be totally irrelevant. The whole motion in that regard would be totally irrelevant. It makes common sense and simple logic that the remaining part of this motion be taken today and concluded. If there is a vote tomorrow on the motion in the other House, and there will be, the motion or the amendment will have no relevance whatsoever.
I am also concerned about this postponement because I had a contribution to make. Since I came into this House, no motion was treated in this unusual manner; we dealt with the motion in two periods of one and a half hours each. What has been done here is a tactical manoeuvre to undermine the effect of the motion. By postponing it in this way the motion will lose its effect. I support Senator Lanigan.
I would like to add my voice to those of Senators who have asked for this motion to be continued today. It is an issue that is very much in the public mind at the moment. It appears from what has transpired in the last few days, that we are in a situation of positive crisis with regard to education. It is essential that this House should be allowed to discuss this subject today. I would certainly support any move to amend the Order of Business in order to have this motion finished today.
Would Senator Lanigan move the amendment?
Yes, I would, but I believe one of the reasons why this motion is not being taken today is that the Minister will not be available. I would like to put it to the Leader of the House that there is no actual reason that we should have the Minister in the House because he has actually come in on this debate and replied in substance to it. What we are trying to do is to raise the matter and get it to a conclusion so that the attitude of the Seanad can be put to the Minister. If the Deputy Leader will not change his mind, I would propose an amendment:
That item No. 3 be taken this evening at 6.30 p.m. and that the Order of Business be items Nos. 1 and 2 with amendment No. 3 being taken at 6.30 p.m.
First, I want to put on record that I am grateful to the Fianna Fáil Party whose motion is the subject of this question whether we should take the balance of the motion or not. We are not trying in any way to run for cover on this issue. It was felt in discussions we had over the weekend that because of the very delicate situation arising from the impasse between the Department and the teachers on this question, it would have been appropriate to allow every available moment to the Minister and the teachers to elapse before people would come down on one side or the other on this issue. I suggested in discussions with the Whips of the Fianna Fáil Party, and the leader of the party that it might have been inopportune to proceed in view of the fact that in principle all of us could agree with either the motion or the amendment because both concede the principle of arbitration and look for discussions which could lead to a settlement. We all agree that there is a problem which we all want to see settled. The subject matter is not in dispute on either side of the House. The question is whether a useful purpose would be served this evening in the Seanad by taking the 30 minutes allowed for completion of the motion. The Labour Party spokesman on Education, Senator Brendan Howlin, actually has the adjournment and has been involved over the past ten days on behalf of the Labour Party in trying to reach a settlement in this particular impasse. Naturally, if he is still in the position that he can negotiate he might do more in that way than by actually speaking in the House, which might cause further problems. Indeed anything that might be said might cause a problem between the teachers and the Government on this very delicate issue.
I concede that in the normal course of events there would be no problem about the motion and that it would be the right of the Opposition to claim their time. It is a matter for the House now to decide whether it is appropriate or not.
The Minister was not available. I consulted with the Minister and the Leader of the House about the possible availability of the Minister. If the House decides that this should be taken, I would make efforts to have a Minister of State available. Whether that Minister of State will intervene is a matter, according to Standing Orders of this House, for them to decide at any time if they so wish if there is something constructive to be said. I accept that the Opposition, in the meantime since my consultations, have had a Parliamentary Party meeting at which they decided they should look for this time. Of course, that is their right, and I accept that. I have made it quite clear to Senator Lanigan that I would understand that. As a responsible person in the responsible position I hold today and in the interests of trying to achieve a settlement of this problem, I felt it was inopportune to order the 30 minutes debate that was left in case it might prejudice any settlement that could be arrived at between now and tomorrow's vote. Nobody will know what will arise out of tomorrow's vote. I do not want to prejudge the other House.
(Interruptions.)
We would all agree in principle that people who have a disagreement should discuss the matter with one another and they should not necessarily have predetermined ideas on how discussions should take place. If there are any of either side involved listening to us, I would suggest that, if there are any areas of agreement that can be reached, I would certainly welcome it. I have put the Order of Business as fairly as I can in the interests of everybody concerned in this and it is a matter for the House to decide if that is acceptable or not.
Is the amendment being pressed?
On a point of clarification, Senator Ferris has said that we had consultations. I had a conversation with the Leader of the House last Wednesday or Thursday and he said that he felt the Minister would not be available today and he himself would not be here either and he said he would prefer if the motion could be adjourned for another week. I told him I would consult with my leader and that I would have to put it before our party meeting today. I consulted our leader and it went before our party meeting today and our party decided that they wanted it today. That is the position.
I take it the amendment is being pressed?
Yes.
Senator Lanigan has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "That item 3 be inserted after item 2 and that item 3 be taken at 6.30 p.m." The question is "That the amendment be made."
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 22.
Tá
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Ellis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lynch, Michael.
- McGuinness, Catherine I.B.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Smith, Michael.
Níl
- Browne, John.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Conway, Timmy.
- Daly, Jack.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Ferris, Michael.
- FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
- Harte, John.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kirwan, Chris.
- Lennon, Joseph.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McGonagle, Stephen.
- Magner, Pat.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Leary, Seán.
- O'Mahony, Flor.
- Quealy, Michael A.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Séamus de Brún; Níl, Senators Daly and Harte.
Amendment declared lost.
Before we proceed, there was a certain amount of confusion at the voting point there. I would hope that on such an important issue it would not happen again.
It has just been brought to my notice that one of the independent Senators was told that the Fianna Fáil side of this House had agreed 20 minutes before the House sat today not to take this motion. I want to make a categoric denial. It was said to Senator Brendan Ryan, who came to me. The only discussions that took place on this particular item were that the Leader of the House approached Senator Willie Ryan——
Senator Willie Ryan cleared that completely.
Yes, but it has been said to a Senator of the House that, 20 minutes before, there were discussions and that we had agreed. I want to make it quite plain that under no circumstances did we agree. I want to say that to Senator Brendan Ryan because he said it to us.
I want to put on the record that Senator Brendan Ryan has misquoted what I said to him. I said I was notified 20 minutes before the House sat that there was a change. If that is all the Senator has on his mind it is pettiness. This House should be ashamed of him. The Senator is only a trouble maker, and he knows it.
I must have a decision. Is the Order of Business agreed?
I know what I stand for and I regret the fact that Senator Ferris does not seem to know what he stands for.
Order of Business agreed. Item No. 1.
The Order of Business was not agreed. We did not agree to it.
The only objection was the amendment I received. However, a quick point on the Order of Business, Senator.
I want to raise two points. The first is: has this House any power to instigate a debate or indeed a directive on a matter which is of great concern to the House? It is of great public concern and causing disquiet. I am referring to the incapacity or the apparent incapacity of a district justice to perform his function properly.
That does not arise under Standing Orders.
I am asking——
When I leave the Chair I will certainly try to help you.
On another matter — and I am sure I am in order this time — we all got a publication during the week, a book entitled Leinster House. I want to say — and it must be in order — that it is a delightful publication.
Senators
Hear, hear.
It is very well presented and the reason I want to refer to it is that the author is our own eminent Clerk of the Seanad, Mr. Jack Tobin. It is a beautiful publication. There is no price on it. It should be on sale from every bookseller. I would suggest that it should be put on sale in this House and I am sure it would become a best seller.
In conclusion I would like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to our eminent Clerk, Mr. Tobin. In my time I have come across many helpful people but I have never got the help, civility and the understanding from anybody that I have got from Mr. Tobin. I would like to say that it is a delightful publication, and I pay tribute to him.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I would not like the day to pass without paying tribute to a former colleague and former Senator in this House, ex-Senator Seamus Mallon. As everyone in this House knows, ex-Senator Mallon, a man in poor health, has given of himself unstintingly and with great courage over many years to the cause of human rights in Northern Ireland. He is one of the great champions of Justice and equal opportunity in relation to law, good law and order. It was, therefore, a great delight for me, and I am sure for many others here, to read of his election to the Westminster Parliament in the recent elections in Northern Ireland. I congratulate him and send him my very best wishes as a former colleague who sat beside him here through five very pleasant months.
Order of Business agreed to.