Vol. 121 No. 9
I move:
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the proceedings on the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments include only amendments from the Government.
With great regret I have to strongly oppose Item No. 1 on the Order Paper today. What we have witnessed and experienced for the past hour and ten minutes has brought this House into greater disrepute than it has been in since the inception of this Seanad, and it has all happened without any need or reason whatsoever. I greatly regret that what this House wanted to do, which was to get ahead very quickly with the debate on Anglo-Irish relations, has been set back and is likely to be set back now for some considerable time. What we have seen this morning is the total, crass mismanagement of the running of this House. There is no reason whatsoever why we should be in this situation at this point.
The Bill referred to in Item No. 1 was debated here last week and passed Second Stage without any difficulty. It is a Bill upon which there is general agreement. This Bill was scheduled to be taken in Committee Stage at 4 o'clock today. A number of serious amendments were down which almost certainly could have been disposed of with goodwill and in good faith here this evening. Instead, the Leader of the House — maybe not of his own doing — has put down a guillotine motion on a Bill about which there is general agreement and for which there is general welcome, asking this House to rush through legislation in the very week when the House is sitting only one day, when we, on the Opposition benches, are prepared to sit tomorrow and were prepared to sit yesterday, to give this Bill its proper processing. What we are seeing now is the rubbing out of the motion of the promise of reform which was made by the Leader of the House, by his party and strongly endorsed by all groups at the beginning of this Seanad.
On a point of information, is the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs representing the Minister for Justice in this debate?
The Minister is sitting in the House, I think, in anticipation of the next debate.
It seems to me to be improper that the Minister and his advisers on an entirely different matter are present at this debate when there is no presence from the appropriate Minister and his advisers.
The Minister asked me a moment ago if it was necessary for him to be here because he had already recognised the fact that we were not discussing his particular business. Item No. 1 is a procedural matter. This is entirely a matter for the business of the House and the Minister can be excused if he so desires.
My suggestion is that we do not take Item No. 1 until the Minister comes into the House at 4 p.m. We are debating an item for which the Minister for Justice should be here but he was not informed to be here for it. If Members wish to take it without the presence of the Minister for Justice that is all right; take it now and be done with it.
On a point of order——
Before Senator Ross's point of order, Item No. 1 is a matter entirely for the House, being in the name of the Leader of the House and we do not need the presence of any Minister of any Department.
This is an important point of order. I welcome the Minister of State to this House and I am delighted to see him at any stage but I would like to point out to the Government that we could not discuss the Anglo-Irish affairs last week because the Tánaiste was not here. How can that be consistent with the Minister of State being here today?
That has absolutely nothing to do with Item No. 1.
On a point of order, I genuinely welcome the suggestion made by Senator Ryan and would certainly be prepared to move the adjournment of Item No. 1 until 4 p.m. if that is procedurally possible. I want the debate on Anglo-Irish affairs to go ahead; I want the time to be used for that and if it is possible within Standing Orders, I certainly would agree to adjourning Item No. 1 until 4 p.m.
There is a proposal before the Chair that we defer consideration of Item No. 1 until 4 p.m. It is proposed and seconded. Is that agreed? Agreed. Will Senator Manning move adjournment of Item No. 1?
I move the adjournment of Item No. 1.
I call Item No. 2.
