I move:
That, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, on any Thursday the Cathaoirleach (unless on the Order of Business the Seanad otherwise orders) shall, where a division is claimed on a question "That the Bill be now read a Second Time" (or on any amendment thereto) or on a Motion (or on any amendment thereto) ordered in the Order of Business to be taken on that day, postpone the taking of every such division until 5 p.m. on the next Wednesday on which the Seanad shall sit until that hour.
This deals with how this House conducts its business and in particular with how this House conducts its divisions. I would like to explain to the House why it was thought proper to bring in a motion. I would like to explain why there is a motion standing in the names of the three political groups in the House urging a change in the way in which we take divisions. The way in which taking divisions varies in different parliamentary institutions is very interesting. We in this country have inherited from the British the idea that the only way to take a division is to take it immediately at the end of the debate and by the bodily passage of a Member through an aperture of some sort, whether it be necessary to carry him on a stretcher or whether he is able to walk through freely.
This is not the universal practice. For example, in the European Parliament to which we send Members they debate a number of matters during the week and on the final day they have their votes on all of these questions. In some countries in Europe, Whips are authorised to vote the full strength of their party. In the Congress of the United States they have an interesting procedure which I have seen in operation whereby when a vote is actually taken, within a certain period — I do not know if it is five minutes or so — a person can change his or her vote having seen the result of the initial vote. I do not know if in another part of this building some members would like that practice introduced but I do not think there is any need to introduce it in the Seanad.
Why then have we brought forward this motion? This House has, in the past year or so, gone from the question of sporadic meetings, first to the question of a regular meeting on every Wednesday, and then to regular meetings two days a week. When the idea of meeting regularly on Wednesday and Thursday was agreed to, I put it forward to my fellow Senators on the basis that I would endeavour to do my best to ensure that there would be no controversial business on a Thursday; that we would tend to devote Thursday to the discussion of reports of joint committees.
Due to the fact that I have been unduly successful in getting Bills introduced in the Seanad, we now have quite a large backlog of legislative work and it will be necessary in the weeks ahead to order legislative business on both Wednesdays and Thursdays. Accordingly, I initiated discussions with the other groups in regard to this question.
We have put forward here a proposition. It relates only to motions and to the Second Stages of Bills: it does not relate to Committee Stages. The effect of this motion to postpone a division from a Thursday until the following Wednesday releases a Senator from the obligation, having made a contribution to a Second Stage of a Bill or having made a contribution to the debate on a motion, of having to remain for the remainder of that debate in case there were divisions.
There are arguments against giving such a dispensation. In an ideal Seanad, anyone who spoke should be forced to listen to everybody else and I acknowledge the strength of that argument. The realistic position is that Senators are not in the habit, having made a speech, of listening to the remainder of the debate. This is an acceptance of the realistic position, a reluctant acceptance of the realistic position. I want to point out to Seanadóirí that this provision, while it will be made the presumptive procedure, can be varied on any Thursday on the Order of Business. Any suggestion that this procedure dispenses Seanadórí and allows them to go home on Wednesday night would lead to quite a dangerous practice on their part. The question of whether this customary procedure will remain in force or whether it will be dispensed with on a particular Thursday will be decided on the Order of Business of Thursday.
I do not move this motion with any great enthusiasm or view the attendance in this House on Thursdays with any pride, but I do feel that this is a recognition of the position as it stands. As it is, the position on a Thursday is that the Leaders and Whips of the group are pestered by Members throughout the day: "Is there going to be a division on this?" Perhaps Members should be left to wait around and see. We are coming towards the end of this Seanad — we may have varying views about how quickly the end is approaching — and I think we should try this as an experiment for the remainder of this Seanad. I do not think it is going to improve our attendance. It may improve some Senators' nerves and perhaps that is a good thing.