It is proposed to take Items Nos. 1, 7 and 16. In relation to Items No. 16, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the debate on the Second Stage of the Freedom of Information Bill, 1988, shall be subject to the provision of Standing Order 41.
Order of Business.
Might I ask the House to extend its sympathy to the family of the late Martin Finn, who was a Member of this House for a number of years, who died suddenly yesterday in the course of the discharge of his public duties? He was a very colourful personality who left his mark on the politics of his native county. I would like to extend our sympathy to his family.
On the Order of Business could the Leader of the House indicate the urgency about taking Item No. 7 which we only heard about this morning. I did not understand what the Leader of the House meant about the procedure for Private Members' time this evening. Perhaps he might explain in more simplified language what the procedure actually will be this evening.
Finally, in in the course of a debate last week in this House a charge was made by a Member of the Government side, Senator Lydon, about the ramblings of deviant Senators. The charge was made in the context of a debate on AIDS. It was not a political charge. It has caused great offence both inside and outside the House and I would ask that the charge be withdrawn or that the Senator would explain to the House what he meant.
On the same point, matters were discussed here last week in my absence. A reference was made to me and I feel that the Chair should at least protect the integrity of Members of the House. A reference was made to deviant Senators. I am not sure to whom it referred. Apart from that——
There was no personal reference made to you. I was in the Chair when that speech was made.
I beg to differ from you. I have the debate here in front of me and there is reference made to me. I will read out the very clear reference from it for the record: "Senators a few moments ago encouraged mutual masturbation." I was the only Senator who referred to that in my speech. I will read what I said: "I am not making any proposals here or telling people what they should be doing with their private——"
We cannot have a debate on the Order of Business on a debate that took place last week.
I do not intend to have a debate but I intend to ask the Cathaoirleach for an explanation as to why a Member of this House can stand up and refer to another Member of the House as being deviant without having the protection of the Chair.
You are not entitled to cross-examine me as Cathaoirleach.
I am asking for a ruling. If that kind of terminology is allowable that is fair enough, but I want it put on the record that we have now reached a low level of debate where name calling is permitted as a mode of behaviour. If this is the standard of debate which we have reached in the House, I find it totally and utterly unacceptable.
I can raise my voice and shout just as well as you.
When other people are shouting I wish you would raise it in defence of Members of the House. That is precisely my reason for raising it.
In fairness, there were very few Senators present in the House when this contribution was made. I was in the Chair. I intervened and allowed another Senator to express the hurt and sadness caused by the particular remarks. This is not a matter for debate on the Order of Business. If you feel so strongly that people were hurt, it will have to be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges by you, not by me. I thought I had handled the matter with care at the time. I did not want any Senators who were not here to protect themselves to be hurt. This is not a matter for debate on the Order of Business today because we are talking about something that took place last week.
I am asking for your ruling on the use of the work "deviant". Is it an acceptable word?
I have to make a ruling today on a word the Senator takes a poor view of which was used in a debate last week. I said last week that the record of what was said speaks for itself. Senator Bulbulia was here at the time.
A Chathaoirligh, there were two Senators in the House and you were in the Chair. I attended the entire debate and listened to every single contribution. I listened with great patience to Senator Lydon making his contribution. In the course of that contribution he made reference to the ramblings of some of our more deviant Senators. I did not interject at the time but, at the conclusion of Senator Lydon's contribution, on a point of order, I asked if he would withdraw what he had said, which he did not do, and if he would care to give an explanation of what he meant. In giving an explanation of what he meant he referred back to the contribution of Senator O'Toole, indicating that he had advocated certain sexual practices. I then said — I am speaking from memory because I do not have the black sheets with me——
I do not think you need something in front of you. I asked Senator Lydon to clarify what——
He clarified, but the point is that he did not withdraw. In the context of a very serious debate about health care and a preventive health care policy the use of the word deviant is very serious indeed. I am not somebody who shouts anybody down and I do not intend to, but I want to say that the use of the word "deviant" in the particular context was absolutely unfortunate. It was not a political charge and I recommend that the matter be handed over to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because I take it we have standards in this House. Standards of debate and normal political charges and robust debate are all right, but this was unacceptable in my view.
On the Order of Business the matter is closed. There is the forum of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If people are hurt and upset, that is the place to take it.
Not hurt and upset: anger and indignation I would think.
I am glad that any misunderstandings there were about Item No. 16 have been cleared up and that we are going to take it today, because there was some uncertainty about it. I fully support Senator O'Toole both in his feelings and his expression of those feelings. It was a very sad day for this House when that remark was allowed to go without being withdrawn. It was a disgrace to this House.
I join with Senator Manning in the vote of sympathy to the late Martin Finn. As Senator Manning said, Martin Finn was a man of character. He was a very good public representative for many years and I would like to join with Senator Manning in the motion of sympathy.
Regarding his query on Item No. 16, basically it means that the usual time limit put on Private Members' Motions will apply. There will be an overall three hour limit on the debate with 15 minutes being alloted to each Member, half and hour for the proposer and 15 minutes for the reply.
Order of Business agreed to.