It is proposed that we take items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 today, item No. 4 to be taken from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. It was our intention to take items Nos. 5, 6 and 7 tomorrow. I regret we will not be taking item No. 6 tomorrow for reasons outside our control but I am sure the House will agree that it is preferable that the Tánaiste should be here for the debate on item No. 6, which will be taken next week. Item No. 7 will be taken tomorrow with item No. 5.
Order of Business.
The Order of Business, such as the business is for today — and it is a very slight amount of business — is agreed but I have the most serious reservations about what the Leader of the House has told us about tomorrow. On item No. 7, the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988, the Explanatory Memorandum to that Bill has not yet been circulated so I do not know how we can be expected to take the Second Stage of the Bill tomorrow when, as yet, we have not got the Explanatory Memorandum. The abandoning of item No. 6 goes back on a solemn pledge given to us last week by the Leader of the House after a great deal of pressure. I cannot understand why this has happened and we will not agree to it.
I would like to support what the Leader of the Opposition said——
I do not wish to interrupt the Senator, but I am trying to clear today's business and we have gone into a discussion about tomorrow's business.
On a point of order, will we be able to have a discussion about it? We were informed at 2.30 p.m. that arrangements made last week are now being changed without any consultation whatsoever.
Could I explain personally that I have taken three days holidays and I have an arrangement with people to come down from Northern Ireland tomorrow to listen to this debate and here we are at the last moment with the whole thing changed and whole organisation that is involved in trying to attend an important debate like this has got to be reversed. I feel there is something wrong with the management of this matter which is possibly the most important matter in the whole country. I am referring to item No. 6 on the Order Paper. We have been waiting for it: we were led to believe it would take place tomorrow and now at the last moment we are told it will not take place.
It should really be decided on the Order of Business tomorrow morning.
On the Order of Business, I would like to ask the Leader of the House——
I appreciate the Senator's concern but——
This is a matter of grave concern. It has been discussed, and discussed and discussed. Last week we had this matter down for debate in Private Members' Time and once again we got a solemn commitment from the Government that it would be dealt with on Thursday of this week, namely, tomorrow. It is untenable for us to be asked to live with a situation where at five or six minutes notice we are suddenly told that the whole planning and the whole commitment of the week is thrown awry without any adequate consultation. We have always been reasonable on these matters but I think this goes beyond the bounds of reasonableness — to ask us to live with this. It is disgraceful. It is insulting to the Members of the House, on both sides who have gone to a lot of trouble preparing for this debate tomorrow, probably the most important debate that we have faced up to for quite a period of time, to be told it will not now take place. I cannot accept that this is any acceptable way of running business. I would plead with you, a Chathaoirligh——
Senator O'Toole, I only want to get today's business out of the way. You have made your point. I accept what you are saying.
I would request of you, a Chathaoirligh, that for the sake of the good name and reputation of this House you would comment on this type of slipshod arrangement and the lack of accountability——
I cannot involve myself in a comment on this. I understand the atmosphere at the moment, but in fairness to the Leader, of the House, if I heard him properly, he did say that the Tánaiste was out of the country and that the House might like the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to be here. I am not taking any sides now, but I do think that it is the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs who should be taking this debate. I still want to get back to today's business and let us have another discussion tomorrow morning on tomorrow's business.
May I suggest that there might be a compromise available to us, because obviously it is important to us that we discuss this subject as soon as possible.
Would the Whips get together in the House this afternoon?
As the Leader of the House has introduced the problem to us now on the Order of Business, perhaps we might just try to clear it this way publicly, because the public expect us to debate this tomorrow. May I suggest that, as it is an important subject, possibly two days will be required, and perhaps we could begin the discussion and allow all parties to contribute so that we can wind up the debate in the following week with the Tánaiste present? I am suggesting a two-day debate on this with the Tánaiste present on the second day.
All this is suitable matter for discussion outside the House, not here on the floor of the House.
But could the Leader of the House possibly respond further on this?
There are rules here that I have to adhere to; but because I give way a bit every Wednesday to all of you, whom I consider my friends, I find the thing going out from under me. We have to get back to today's Order of Business.
On the general conduct of business — and my remarks are not meant to be the slightest reflection on yourself, a Chathaoirligh, because as some of us know, ruefully, you run a very tight ship, nor are they supposed in any way to exonerate me from what I want to say — I have noticed again within recent weeks — the amount of general inattention in the House in the course of debates in general, and I find it very irritating. I admit being at fault myself. I am not above facetiously colloguing with my colleagues here at the back on whatever takes my fancy, but I must say at the same time there seems to me a lot of consultations going on which are not at all urgent between Senators, between the Chair, if I may say so, the Clerk and the Minister's advisers. I just want to draw attention to this to see if we can embark on a general campaign of reform in which I hope to amend my ways also.
Having said that, I do not wish to embark on discussion of tomorrow's Order of Business, but in a sense when we come here on Wednesdays we are talking about the Wednesday and Thursday package. It is relevant to say, briefly, that I hope the Leader of the House will change his mind on tomorrow's Order of Business. There is an atmosphere of expectation. To defer this debate tomorrow or even to interrupt it by substantial other business tomorrow would be an outrageous insult to this House and one on which we on this side of the House should take some exceptional action.
I must, first of all, appeal to the Cathaoirleach to remind us of the rules of the House, because I did not understand that we could have a situation where the Leader of the House could say something and we would not be allowed to comment on it. If there is a rule of the House that I am unaware of, which conveys such a privilege to the Leader of the House, then I would be extremely grateful if you drew my attention to it.
I allowed Senator Lanigan to make the remarks so as to try to bring some kind of harmony back into the House. Every week Members want to know what is happening the following day and the following week. Today he mentioned what was happening tomorrow. Perhaps I should not have allowed him to mention what was happening tomorrow and it would have made it easier for myself, but I thought it would help everyone. Therefore, I allowed it. It is a no-win situation for me. The only decision is on today's business.
I can only say, in response to what the Cathaoirleach has just said, that when I was a Member of the previous Seanad the then Leader of the House was able to tell me what we were doing this week, the following week and as far as four weeks in advance. There were exceptions. It is not normally a role that I take on to defend members of the Fine Gael Party, but the then Leader of the House did manage under difficult circumstances, and with a Government that had difficult problems, to let us know what we were going to do.
Nobody had more respect than I for Senator Dooge but, with the greatest respect to him, I do not want his CV here this afternoon.
I am sorry the Chair should object to these remarks. I was simply responding to what the Cathaoirleach said about the way this House is conducting its business. I did not know, a Chathaoirligh, that I was precluded from doing that, either. I cannot accept an excuse that the Minister is not going to be present. Any Government Minister is capable of articulating Government policy. We have collective responsibility, and Government Ministers have replaced the Minister for Foreign Affairs at meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference and apparently did the job quite adequately. I absolutely reject the fact that this debate is not taking place simply because the Minister for Foreign Affairs is away. It is a matter, obviously, that does not suit the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the House that if the Government will not take him seriously, then he ought to consider his position because if he cannot be taken seriously by the Government he is not doing either himself or this House any good service by continuing on as Leader of the House.
I would like to ask with regard to the business ordered for today whether the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will be in the House to take the motion on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the motion on Developments in the European Communities and the motion on diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. These three motions are highly important and significant matters. If the Minister is not going to be here in the House to take them, why has the Minister told the House that his presence is a sine qua non for holding a debate that was signalled for so long and for which assurances were given? I would like to put on the record of the House that I think it is monstrous that such an insult should be offered to the one Member of this House who actually lives in the area of the country where this problem is most urgent and who has made special arrangements to be here.
I would like to say that I would also take it as deeply insulting to those of us who have spoken repeatedly on matters of foreign affairs if we are told that other Ministers are not competent in some way to deal with this business. This appeared to be an implication. It would be very pleasant, very nice and very informative to have the Tánaiste here but, as Senator Brendan Ryan said, there is collective responsibility.
I would like also to say this will have further consequences because we all attempt to order our lives so that we can pay the greatest respect to this House and to the office held by your good self. It would be very difficult if there were to be a sudden shift in the timing of the racial hatred Bill for example, for which I have made arrangements to be here. I would appeal for a proper ordering of every day's business in order to avoid what the Cathaoirleach has deplored, that is continual wrangling on the Order of Business which, however, is not undertaken lightly but is undertaken in the interest of the dignity of the House.
I would just like to ask one or two questions about the Order of Business today and about the Order of Business generally. I will be specific as to what Senator Lanigan raised if that is what he wishes. It is quite obvious to me that the business of this House is in a state of complete chaos.
I accept to a certain extent what the Chair has said, that we should have restricted ourselves to discussing the Order of Business today but the logical conclusion of that is that we do not know what we are discussing tomorrow until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. The way the business of this House is being run means we can have any Bill sprung on us at a moments' notice and it means the Seanad cannot do justice to any debate or any Bill at all. It is not unreasonable that we should know in advance, on the Order of Business today what is coming tomorrow, and what is coming next week. That would be treating Senators as intelligent human beings and we are not being treated as such at the moment by the Leader of the House.
As regards tomorrow's debate, I would like to make two suggestions. One is that we take the Northern Ireland debate possibly today and the second is that if we cannot take it today, the Minister for Justice who, presumably will be taking the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988, tomorrow is quite acceptable for taking the intitial part of that debate tomorrow.
On the Order of Business and specifially with regard to Item No. 6, I have never considered that because of my proximity to Northern Ireland I know that much more than anybody else in this House about it, neither do I think because I live at a point more northerly than possibly anybody in this House, including my colleague Senator Robb, but I have an ordinary and a genuine concern about Northern Ireland and I cannot understand why this debate has been continually postponed.
Senator Loughrey, I appreciate your position but you are not going to make your contribution on Item No. 6 now.
Nor do I intend to. In another forum I attended today I heard articulated what is presumably Government policy at that level and it is in stark contrast to Government policy as I understand it——
Senator Loughrey, that is a speech.
It is not intended to be a speech. I am genuinely concerned——
I still want to clear today's Order of Business and you are not going to make a speech on Item No. 6. The Leader of the House to reply and conclude.
I just want to say that the Explanatory Memorandum has been circulated on Item No. 7. If the Leader of the Opposition did not get it his post must not have got to him because every other Member of the House has got it. It is intended that Items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be taken today.
There has been a lot of comment made about the fact that there is a change in the Order of Business. Basically I have been doing the House the courtesy of telling them what is happening. If I did not offer them that courtesy they would be attempting to have a go at me because I did not do that. I have indicated what the Order of Business will be for tomorrow and because of that, apparently there has been some flak. The Order of Business for today is Items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and we will take Item No. 4 from 6.30 p.m. to 8 o'clock.
The question is: "That the Order of Business be agreed to."
I am sorry I cannot agree. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business. This has been a disgraceful performance by the Leader of the House. I wish to ask the Cathaoirleach to accept an amendment to the Order of Business.
I cannot do other than I have done.
Unless we get an assurance from the Leader of the House I will have no choice but to lead my party out of the House. Unless we get an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Order of Business tomorrow will include the long-promised debate on Northern Ireland, I will have no other course open to me. I have been patient; I have talked to the Leader of the House; I made my request in a very reasoned way, as have other Members. Unless Item No. 6 is taken tomorrow we will not be able to participate in the work of this House for the rest of today.
On a point of order, I understand that the Leader of the House has agreed to a two-day debate——
That is not a point of order.
I did not reply to the query raised by Senator Ferris. I think the query he did raise was a reasonable one and I am sorry it escaped me during the debate. Yes, we can allow a two-day debate on the Anglo-Irish motion.
I am putting the question: "That the Order of Business be agreed to." I think the question is carried.
Senators
Vótáil.
The question is: "That the Order of Business be Items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4." On that question a division has been challenged.
At this stage perhaps we could forget about the vote.
I have to put the question.
All right, but at the end of the day the vote might not mean anything.
If my point of order had been accepted, it would not have been necessary at all.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Loughrey, Joachim.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Robb, John D. A.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Cregan and McCormack.
Question declared carried.
Order of Business agreed to.
On a point of order, I understand the Government Whip is to endeavour to see if there can be part I of a limited debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement tomorrow. In view of that and in view of a commitment to return to the House within an hour, the action which the Opposition has threatened is suspended for that time.