Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1988

Vol. 121 No. 9

Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988: Allocation of Time (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
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.
—(Senator Lanigan.)

I said at the outset that it gives nobody on this side of the House any pleasure to be involved in a debate on this motion. The circumstances which have led to the situation should never have arisen and would not have arisen had the normal basic courtesies been observed, had there been any forethought in the planning of the business of the House and had there not been an attempt to steamroll this legislation through the House. The simple fact is that this legislation was produced last week and the House gave it a Second Stage reading. There are a number of substantial but not obstructive and not unduly lengthy amendments tabled for debate, most of which come under two main headings. Had this guillotine motion not been brought in, probably the time available would have been adequate to get through the amendments. If not, what, may I ask, is wrong with meeting tomorrow or the day after or meeting on Tuesday of next week or setting aside time next week to complete this debate?

We began this session of the Seanad with a great sense of optimism that this House was taking stock of itself, that we were taking a look at our procedures and that we were determined to make this one of the most productive and enlightened Seanad in the history of this House Unfortunately, the good intentions of that time have all now fallen by the wayside. We are staggering on here from week to week, not knowing sometimes what business is coming up, more often than not having entirely insubstantial business before us. All of this contrasts with the sudden rush to get through this Bill, which is not enormously complicated, immediate, difficult or urgent and which all sides of the House welcome.

For those reasons, a Cathaoirligh, I intend to oppose the taking of Item No. 1 today. I do not wish to indulge in obstructive tactics or to play parliamentary games. We have a very serious responsibility to discharge our duties in as constructive and honourable a way as possible. For that reason I do not propose to delay or detain the House, other than to put on record my total opposition to the way in which business is being handled today and to say that we will not be part of any handling of business in this way. We want to register our protest in the strongest way possible and that we can do by simply voting against Item No. 1.

In dealing with the business of the House, I and the other Members understand that a certain process has to be complied with. Before I took my seat in this House after being elected, I took a lot of time to get to know and understand the workings of the House and the Standing Orders. For that reason, whenever I see a motion which begins "Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders ...." I look at it very closely indeed. We have now reached the classic situation, where everything possible is done to pervert the well-oiled workings of the legislative process. In terms of where we are and where we are likely to get arising from this motion, we need to be very clear that we are now faced with the prospect of dealing with legislation which we got into our hands for the first time ten days ago. If we look at the history of that and at the significance of the proposal now before us, it seems that we are dealing with something with undue and unholy haste. What, after all, is the business of a bicameral legislative process? It has been outlined time and time again that in the first place we have a role in initiating legislation and on this occasion this is precisely what we are about. We are now putting together legislation which, having passed through the Houses and been signed by the President, will determine attitudes and the workings of the law in a particularly sensitive area of living for a long number of years.

If the Leader of the House, in proposing this motion, had put forward an explanation as to why we are where we find ourselves, people would have looked reasonably upon it. But, in proposing a motion which, as far as I know, departs from all the traditions of this House and goes blatantly against the spirit of the Standing Orders of this House, simply to say, "I move", and leave it at that, is certainly insulting and contemptuous. It is not something that any of us can go along with. This method of dealing with legislation is something which can be countenanced only when there is no option available to us. I understand that the Leader of House may want to intervene at this point. I would give way to him on that point.

So that we can get on with the business of the House and without going into any recriminations or comment on one side or another, I will withdraw Item No. 1 on the Order Paper and we will continue with this Bill. If it is not finished at 10 o'clock tonight, it is proposed that we sit tomorrow morning to conclude this item.

Is that agreed?

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Top
Share