Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Feb 1988

Vol. 118 No. 8

Allocation of Time: Motion.

Mr. W. Ryan

I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders the following arrangements shall apply in relation to the debate on the motion noting the 50th Anniversary of Bunreacht na hÉireann:—

(i) no time limit on speeches shall apply;

(ii) the debate shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, the 11th February, 1988, with the Minister being called on to conclude the debate not later than 4.30 p.m. on that day.

Senators are aware of the reason for tabling this motion. Otherwise there would be a 15-minute time limit on speakers. The debate is to finish at 5 p.m. on Thursday next 11 February. In saying that I should point out that there is a slight change in the motion. Instead of the Minister being called at 4.30 p.m., it should read: a speaker from the Government side.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the motion agreed?

Mrs. Robinson

I was going to raise this on the Order of Business. I thought it would be more orderly to wait until the item itself had been called even though Senator O'Toole raised it and the Deputy Leader of the House adverted to it on the Order of Business.

I am opposed to this motion because I think it will exclude a number of Senators from contributing to the debate. It would be preferable if we did put the normal limit on contributions, or fix a time limit. The motion is an extremely broad one. It is perfectly conceivable that Senators could speak for an hour or an hour and a half on the subject. We might well have, for example, two speakers only before lunch. We have already agreed today that the last speaker will be taken at 4.30 p.m. It would appear that the debate will be adjourned until next Thursday when the last speaker on that occasion will be a Government speaker at 4.30 p.m. That could allow for approximately ten speakers only out of the potential membership of this House. Given the nature of the motion surely it is possible for any Senator to make his or her contribution within 20 or 30 minutes and still have a genuine and valid contribution to make?

It is equally possible to have over long contributions, some of which could be very repetitive. It is unfair to start off with long speeches — which is what is going to happen — and then, next day, be curtailing people to perhaps ten or less than ten minutes in order that the number of Senators wishing to contribute will be able to do so. It would be much better to start off with a reasonable limit. There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in asking people to confine their contributions to either 20 or 30 minutes. Certainly I can make any contribution I wish to make within either of those limits. I am sure the same would be true of other Members of the House.

Professor Murphy

I support the case argued very eloquently by Senator Robinson. There are two extremes about what could happen this debate. On the one hand, it could arguably fizzle out. Perhaps that is the reason the no time limit motion has been tabled. It would be much worse if Members went on endlessly without any time limit and, in the end, Members could not get in next week. We should all do a rethink on this matter.

Mr. Ferris

I join in the sentiments expressed by the two previous speakers. I had reservations about this in the beginning. Certainly I am not an expert on the Constitution. But I felt that some of the Independent Members of the House, who are experts, would need a much longer time in which to contribute than I would, and perhaps many other Senators also. I was afraid to suggest that, by having it open-ended, there would be just four or five major contributions with everyone else being excluded. I was worried about that.

Now that that suggestion has come from Senator Robinson who is a recognised expert on the Constitution and bearing in mind that if she feels she can make her contribution in a limited time, all of us should agree that having it open-ended particularly in the earlier stages of the debate, would indeed restrict people's ability next week to contribute when we would be faced with a major decision to try to extend business for another day. Perhaps we could agree now that speakers would confine themselves to 15 or 20 minutes. I am open to a suggestion on that when those Members wishing to contribute today would have more value.

Mr. McGowan

I welcome the sentiments expressed by Senators Murphy and Robinson which allay the fears some of us might have in this respect. We got the impression that we would be treated to a lecture on the Constitution. Senator Robinson and Murphy and others who are involved in professional law and the Constitution daily could easily speak for hours on this subject. There might be no end to their contributions which would be very uninteresting and difficult to listen to. I appreciate the consideration being given to this matter before we begin because other Members who might not be as eloquent might like to contribute in what we might claim to be a practical manner. I welcome Sentor Robinson's initiative and hope that we can conduct the debate on the fiftieth anniversary of the Constitution in the spirit portrayed already.

Mr. Norris

My contribution is now almost redundant because I want to support what has been said. It does seem to me that if we go along with the original proposal, we are in danger of creating two classes of Senators, those with a right to speak today for unlimited time, and then the second-class citizens who speak next week. I must say that if my friend and colleague Senator Mary Robinson, can confine herself to within half an hour to 20 minutes, surely it behoves the rest of us to do at least that although I do not share Senator McGowan's sentiments about the capacity to listen with pleasure and enjoyment to this debate. May I say that, since Senator Robinson has represented me very ably in consitutional matters, every single word she utters is sweetness to my ears.

An Cathaoirleach

Is there an amendment to the motion being proposed?

Mr. W. Ryan

I discussed this matter with the Opposition Whips. We examined the matter and felt that if we were to confine speakers to 15 minutes that might be unfair. This is a very important motion. There are speakers who could say what they want in perhaps ten minutes but, to be fair to others, we felt they might not be able to confine their remarks to 15 minutes. Perhaps to leave it without any time limit is going too far; it might prevent some Members contributing on Thursday next. I am quite happy — if the House agrees to, say, 30 or 40 minutes, but not more than 40 minutes.

Senators

Thirty minutes.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Question put and agreed to.