It is proposed to take Items Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The debate on Item No. 2 shall conclude at 4 p.m. and we will go on then to Item No. 3.
Order of Business.
There is no way in which I can agree to the Order of Business. As regards Item No. 1 they are bringing in a guillotine on an issue which is important and one on which there are a number of substantial amendments but about which there is no urgency or time pressure and I ask the Leader of the House not to introduce it. It is a totally undesirable practice. It is totally unwarranted in present circumstances and if he goes ahead with it we may find that a large part of the time today is spent wrangling about the guillotine on the debate.
The only purpose of this is to facilitate the Minister. We are the second House of the Oireachtas. We are not here for the convenience of or to suit the timetable of Government Ministers. I oppose the item very strongly and ask the Leader of the House to withdraw it. I am mystified to be told that there is a limit of 4 o'clock on the debate on Northern Ireland. That was not my understanding.
On a point of information, the full debate is not being concluded today at 4 o'clock.
Then, my indignation is stilled on that matter. I thought it was to conclude but I still oppose the item.
I object strongly to the proposed Order of Business. We never heard of the incitement Bill ten days ago. Now we are told it is a matter of absolute urgency and that we must deal with all Stages today. That is not the way to order Parliamentary business and ensure an informed debate. Why could we not sit tomorrow and deal with it then?
My first objection is that we are not being given a full run at the Anglo-Irish debate today. To adjourn the debate at 4 p.m., to chop it up like this when we have barely begun debating the most important motion on the Order Paper, is to diminish its importance, to fritter away its relevance and its significance. I shall be proposing that we take Item No. 2 only today and deal with Item No. 1 if there is time.
You are proposing an amendment, Senator Murphy?
Yes. I would crave your indulgence to mention one other matter which is of urgent public importance. I decided not to try to secure a hearing by way of Standing Order 29 because it would waste the time of the House. I crave your indulgence to say something in 30 seconds, namely, that it is highly appropriate in view of the present crisis in Anglo-Irish relations that the Seanad should affirm its complete confidence in the Attorney General in the performance of his statutory duties under the Extradition Act.
Senators
Hear, hear.
Relating back to the Order of Business for today, and tying in with it the statement of the Leader of the House last week that the Members of the House should give precedence to their work in the House as legislators and as Members of the Upper House of the Oireachtas, it seems strange that in the light of that we are still trying to cram into today's business what should be a week's work. It highlights the lack of authority which the Leader of the House is bringing to bear on the ordering of business in this House. It is not acceptable for a Minister to dismiss this House as if it were a Parliamentary party meeting, as happened last week.
I cannot allow the Senator to make an accusation like that. If it is a face-to-face——
I accept your ruling. I will wait until he is back in the House because if he wants to teach us about procedure he will learn a lot of it before we finish with this business.
Hear, hear.
Senator Norris, you should have been here last week——
I object in the strongest possible fashion to that and I ask you to withdraw that remark. It is outrageous.
You gave a ruling to a member of our group a fortnight ago that was inappropriate to refer to the absence of a Member of the House. On that basis it is not acceptable for you to now single out a Member of the House and make reference to his absence on a particular occasion.
You look after yourself and Senator Norris will look after himself.
I raised a matter on the Order of Business and I will not accept from any side of the House the fact that decisions can be made on a less than even-handed way. It is not appropriate for you to say to me to withdraw something which I am prepared to do, and which I do, while at the same time, you overturn a ruling of your own.
Senator Norris and I are personal friends, as I am with all my colleagues. I am responsible for the working of this House. What was sad about last week was that I went down the House after what happened and it was nearly said to me face-to-face that I was in cahoots with the Minister for Justice to get this through. I have never carried on like that in this House, whether I was Cathaoirleach, Leas-Chathaoirleach or on the floor of the House. It is not my style to be in cahoots with anyone. It was sad that that interpretation was put on what happened here last week. I do not do that.
What I said three minutes ago was that if the Minister wishes to use procedure, implying that that is what he used last week, and dismisses the House as if we were a parliamentary party meeting, then we all have a great duty to teach him about the procedure of this House. We should begin that lesson today.
On a point of information, the second Stage of that Bill was completed in a proper procedural way last week.
That is precisely what I am saying. We are talking about procedure. As regards comments that were passed about Members giving precedence or otherwise to the House, we should also recognise that the people who commit themselves to the workings of this House do so out of a sense of duty and responsibility and in a way that is very poorly responded to in terms of remuneration. It is time that we looked in a very serious way at the remuneration we give to Members. If we are to be paid less than those people taking up employment in the Bank of Ireland, whom the Bishops are rushing to defend, we should have a look at where we stand. However, I accept that is not on the Order of Business.
With regard to Item No. 14 and what Senator Murphy said, it seems that the whole mess about extradition has arisen because nobody sees justice in action. I ask the Leader of the House to order Item No. 14. It is a very topical matter which reflects what is happening in Ireland at the moment. We need to see justice being done. This Bill allows it to happen in open court. I ask that Item No. 14 be ordered. I ask the Leader of the House to look at Item No. 37 which is a motion to bring us into line with the European conventions on telephone tapping. It is about time we started to talk to the Minister for Justice and explain to him that there are regulations and legislation which should be looked at in his Department.
On the question of where we stand now with the Order of Business today, there are two issues of note. One is the Anglo-Irish debate which is now being reduced to a three or four hour debate. This, in effect, fragments the debate. The idea was that the House would respond over a period of time. I appreciate what the Leader of the House has said, that he intends the debate to go on another day, but what I do not appreciate or accept is that somebody outside the House can pressurise the agreed position of the House. It is being done for one of two reasons. Is it because one side of the House are not prepared to sit on a second day this week or is it because forces outside the House have demanded that we re-order our business to suit them? I suspect it is part of both. It is time we had this out in the open. It is not acceptable to have a fragmented discussion with no direction, going on over a long period of time. We need to have a proper approach to this.
You are repeating yourself and that is not a bit like you.
On the question of the guillotine motion, I appreciate the fact that it is on the Order of Business and that is an advance on where we were the last time around when, with no notice, the matter was just moved in the House late at night. Again, in order to suit a member of the Government we now decide to guillotine the debate. I want to make it clear that what is being planned by the Leader of the House is that all Stages of this Bill be disposed of today whether we agree with them or not. It is a contemptuous approach to the business and traditions of this House. I do not believe that any Member on either side of the House or on the Independent benches would say that this is an acceptable way to deal with legislation. As the Chair has pointed out time and time again, the great value of this House is that it allows legislation to be teased out, examined and voted on, if necessary.
The Senator is making a speech. In fairness, he has been on his feet for ten minutes now. Please ask a question and sit down.
Should you decide to guillotine me on my reference to a guillotine motion, it would be unfair. I condensed what I had to say into a very short period of time despite a lot of interruptions. It is not acceptable. I will second the motion that the Order of Business be opposed and I will also object to this procedure being brought into this House. It goes against the traditions and the workings of this House. It is not acceptable.
I want to be associated with the remarks of condolence to the Tánaiste and the Minister for Education which were passed just before I entered the Chamber. On behalf of the Labour Party I want to be associated with those remarks and extend our deepest sympathy to the family.
I disagree with the Order of Business as outlined by the Leader of the House and I will deal with my objections if and when the Order of Business has been agreed on by a vote. The procedure that is outlined here occasionally takes place in the other House, usually by agreement with the Whips. This is an unusual procedure to be brought in here and, therefore, we should have an opportunity to debate it. I put it on the record that Senator Ryan told me that he intended to do this.
I object to the procedure because it gives a preference to the Government in having debated whatever amendments they want to put down and it eliminates the possibility of other Members of the House having amendments debated on Committee Stage. This House should not stoop to that kind of procedure but I will deal with that when we are discussing Item No. 1, if it becomes Item No. 1.
In relation to Item No. 2, it is important that this House hears the response to the Tánaiste, as the responsible Minister, to the debate in Seanad Éireann. Was it an omission on the part of the Leader of the House not to include Item No. 4 in today's Order of Business as it is time for the Labour Party to have its Private Members' time and that would take place between 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. in accordance with procedures that have been agreed? I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that it is included in today's Order of Business.
In a non-cavilling way, may I point out that I have some difficulty in following the discussion on the Order of Business because the second page of the Order Paper I received is entirely blank and I am not sure whether this is a further attempt to guillotine my participation in the debate. In any case, it is a serious matter and I would like in future to receive full Order Papers.
I did not associate myself with and was not aware of any remarks impugning your reputation as Cathaoirleach or any collaboration in the unfortunate events of last week. I completely accept that you were not so involved. However, it was clear to me last week that we had descended into the politics of the wink and the snigger and it is regrettable that some people found themselves at home in that area.
I am trying to clear the Order of Business for today. Would you tell me what has the wink and the snigger to do with what I have in front of me? I have the print, you have not.
I have the first page on which this quite extraordinary and outrageous attempt to guillotine the business of this House once again emerges. Why is there this attempt to abridge discussion on an instrument that is of national, and also international, significance?
What you are talking about comes up under Item No. 1, if we get to it.
I am speaking about the fact that I consider this a most extraordinary way of ordering business and I wish, if I may, to reply to certain remarks that were made on the Order of Business, including the one I think inadvertently made by yourself referring to the fact that I was not here last week. In fact I was, as you know: I was in the House the whole day. I came from a hospital to get here on time. I consistently rearranged my business to be here. I left for two minutes to make a telephone call to cancel a further professional appointment so that I could speak on the Bill. It is very interesting that sections of the Video Bill were withdrawn for the same reason — because the Minister is terrified of hearing what I have got to say about it.
That has nothing to do with what I am trying to do here. Will the Senator please address himself to the Order of Business?
It has to do with remarks that were made here today. I consider it monstrous that attempts were made to silence people by what I would refer to as the politics of wink and snigger and I will oppose it.
Resume your seat, Senator.
I will be opposing the Order of Business and I look to you, a Chathaoirligh, to regulate the behaviour of all people who attend the House, including Ministers.
That statement should be withdrawn. The remark about the behaviour of Members of this House and members of the Government is most unfair.
Senator Norris, in fairness, remarks are passed here that can mean more than what is said. I do it too and you have done it now. You have cast a slur on every Member of this House including Ministers. I ask you to withdraw that last remark. I am sure you did not mean it. Please do not make another speech with the withdrawal.
In order to expedite the business of the House, I understand that a technical ruling has been given that what I said was inappropriate.
Thank you.
Can the Chair clarify a point of order for me? I understood that your normal procedure was to have a list of speakers for any debate. It would be very helpful to the House if the Chair were to indicate whether she had people on that list last Thursday who did not offer and who had indicated that they would speak.
It has no bearing at all on a list of speakers. I watch certain Senators at times to see if they are going to speak or if they are not going to speak. That list I have here has no bearing on it whatsoever. I have had names a thousand times on hand and then the Senator in question could decide to leave the Chamber and not participate in the debate. I tried to facilitate everybody. I called on Senators to suit their times. The list has no relevance at times other than to make the House work. The Leader of the House to reply.
I asked a question. I sat down out of respect for the procedure of the House when you were speaking. I was not finished. I regret the fact that you find it impossible to answer my question. I object not to Item No. 1 to which I will object when we come to it, but to Order of Business today and I want to explain clearly why. Business ought to be properly notified in advance to the Members of this House so that we know what we are going to debate. I did not know that Item No. 1 would be on the Order Paper until I got my Order Paper this morning. I do not regard that as acceptable notice. It was not indicated to us last week that there would be any problem——
That motion was circulated in advance.
It may have arrived on Monday but I do not live in Dublin.
That has nothing to do with us here on the Order of Business. Surely there is a Whip——
I am not here to be lectured by anybody, including, with respect, you, a Chathaoirligh, about how Independent Members conduct their business.
Senator, will you decide whether you are agreeing or not agreeing with the Order of Business and resume your seat?
I will resume my seat at your direction on any occasion you tell me to do so, but I understand I had a right to speak on the Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, yes.
I am getting fed up with Senator Lanigan's interruptions. I had to put up with him last Wednesday night when I was speaking on the debate on Nicaragua. I ask for the protection of the Chair. I, like the Leader of the House, am entitled to speak without interruption. At least that is the way it used to be.
The position is that a promise was made last week that we would begin the Anglo-Irish debate and continue it this week. I understood, as did most Members on this side, that it would be a full day debate this week. The nub of my objection to the Order of Business is to the order of the business. I can discuss, with reasonable fluency, the items of business as they arise. The Order of Business makes a mockery of this House. It jumps around from one item to another. It gives undue notice of some items and undue prominence to other items. What is beginning to happen in this House is bringing it into disrepute and since you are the official representative of this House, what is being done to this House is bringing you into disrepute. I appeal to you, therefore, to use your considerable influence to ensure that the Government or certain members of it are not allowed to continue to bring this House into disrepute because that is what the sort of Order of Business we were given today is doing.
On the Order of Business, I have listened to the Chair getting four lectures on how this House is being brought into disrepute, by the very same people who are constantly doing it.
I want that remark withdrawn immediately. The Senator is some arbiter about who brings the House into disrepute.
May I continue?
I ask the Cathaoirleach if that remark is going to stay on the record of this House?
I will suspend the sitting if Senators cannot behave and decide on the Order of Business and get on with it.
A comment was made that the people who spoke here are bringing the House into disrepute. I will not allow that on the record of the House.
You said the same thing. The Leader of the House to reply and conclude.
I did not say the same thing.
(Interruptions.)
I suspend the sitting of the House for five minutes.
Sitting suspended at 12.25 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.
Senator Ross.
I wish to formally second the amendment to the Order of Business moved by Senator Murphy — that Item No. 2 be taken today. That item is:
That Seanad Éireann takes notice of recent events affecting Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations.
I believe that the Anglo-Irish debate should take top priority in this House if it is to have any impact, and I cannot understand why the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill is suddenly such an urgent matter before this House. We have been asking for a full debate on Anglo-Irish relations for over a year. Now it has been granted in some type of piecemeal fashion which is lacking the type of impact which this House should have on a matter of such urgent importance.
On a point of order, there seems to be universal conversation in this Chamber. I think that that in itself is disgraceful while a Senator is speaking.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House — and it is on the Order of Business and it is a matter of important procedure — to answer this question, as he never answers any questions asked by anybody on this side. Specifically, why cannot the Seanad sit tomorrow? Why has the Seanad not been able to sit on Thursdays very often since September? Why does the Seanad not sit on Mondays? If the Leader of the House on the Order of Business last week was able to say that we are not giving top priority to Seanad debates or Seanad business, can he explain to us why we cannot sit on Mondays? The reason is that everybody has county council meetings which, for some extraordinary reason, take precedence over the Business of the Oireachtas of this House.
You are making a speech now. What people do with themselves on Monday, whether it be county council meetings or otherwise, has nothing to do with the Order of Business here today.
The Leader of the House raised it on the Order of Business last week.
Ask a question and let him answer it on the Order of Business.
That is what I am doing.
You are going down many a boreen to get the answer.
In response to what you said, the Leader of the House raised this question himself last week when he was replying and this has been my first chance to reply to him. I want to know why the Seanad cannot sit on Mondays and Fridays specifically if we are not attending to our duties, which apparently we are not. The prohibition of incitement to hatred Bill, apparently, is ordered as Item No. 3 and apparently it is being taken with a guillotine.
I have been in the House for only about seven years, but the way this House is being ordered on the Order of Business is deteriorating and is the worst I have ever seen by a long way in that seven years. We are having a guillotine now on a matter which we did not even know about a week ago. We have not been told what is the great urgency. We have not been told why we cannot deal with it next week. We were not told why we could not deal with it last week. We have not been told why the guillotine is necessary. The House has a right to know if the legislation is not going to get proper consideration in this House. The House has a right to know if we are going to be guillotined on any Bill, on Committee, Report or Second Stage at the whim of the Government.
I have to say the Independents are reaching the end of their tether with the way this House has been treated. The House is becoming a farce, it is becoming——
Senator, you have asked your question and you have made your point.
I have another point. The House has become a laughing stock in other places——
That has nothing to do with the Order of Business today.
I was diverting. I apologise to the House for doing that. I should not have done so.
It is interesting that you apologise to Senator Cassidy and you do not apologise to the Chair for your carry on.
I apologised to Senator Cassidy. He was saying the same thing as you were. I will apologise to both of you. I do not know who was prompting who. On Item No. 1, I want to say specifically that if the Government are going to put down motions of guillotine and make a practice of it, let them say so. As I pointed out in the debate on Nicaragua last week, the Leader of the House is on record as saying "Put the question" in the middle of a speech which I made and you interrupted him. I told him he could not do it just because he did not like what I was saying. If the Leader of the House is putting the question this evening because he does not like, for instance, what Senator Norris is going to say——
Senator you are making a speech. If you do not know what a speech is, you are now making one. I am telling you; I am not in your world at all. You are now making a speech.
I am addressing the Order of Business. I want to know if Item No. 1 is going to become a feature of this House at the whim of the Government. If they want to railroad legislation through, let them tell us.
Senator McGowan. You cannot speak on Item No. 1. You had spoken already.
I stood up here to respond to something. A statement was made to which I totally object, that is, that you, as Cathaoirleach of this House or any member on the Government side, by their actions or by the ordering of business were bringing the House into disrepute. I responded by saying that those who continually float kites in the House are the people who, collectively, are bringing the House into disrepute. If the House is being brought into disrepute they are the people who do so. They do it in a collective manner. We have to come in here every day. It is like a trailer——
You cannot make a speech, either. The Leader of the House to reply and conclude.
I am not making a speech. I respect the Leader of the House, but it is like watching a trailer of the big picture that is going to come. It is continually here. I am serious about being a Member of this House. I do not take as serious statements that come from people who are totally insincere.
On a point of order, in the interest of harmony and the working of the House, could I ask the Leader of the House before he replies to withdraw Item No. 1 today? The House can then proceed and do its business.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I am not withdrawing Item No. 1 from the Order Paper. I suggest that the Order of Business be as I laid it out in the beginning with the exception of the arrangement for 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. — that we take Item No. 4. It was a mistake on my part. On Items Nos. 14 and 37 — they can come up on the Order of Business some other day.
Senator Murphy has moved an amendment to the Order of Business, that Item No. 2 be the only item of business to be taken today. The question is: "That the figures Items Nos. 1 and 3 proposed to be deleted stand." Is that agreed?
Senators
No. Vótáil.
The question is: "That the figures Items Nos. 1 and 3 proposed to be deleted stand." On that question a division has been challenged.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- 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.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Murphy and Ross.
Question declared carried.
Is the Order of Business agreed to?
Senators
No.
The question is: "That the Order of Business be Items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4."
Senators
Votáil.
The question is: "That the Order of Business be Items Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4". On that question a division has been challenged.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Conchubhair, Nioclás.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Loughrey, Jaochim.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Cregan and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Order of Business agreed to.
Before we take Item No. 1, I want to make it clear to the House that the motion before the House deals with the time at which all Stages of the Bill should conclude. I would ask everybody to try to confine himself or herself to the actual motion and the amendments and there is plenty of scope there. The merits or the demerits of the Bill which will be taken at 4 o'clock today do not arise at this stage but can be discussed when the Bill itself is taken. I am not pinning anyone down on time or cutting anybody short. I am just indicating the scope of the debate.
On a point of order, can you give me some guidance as to how I could explain why I do not approve of Item No. 1 without explaining why I think the item referred to is important? I cannot understand why I cannot make reference to the merits of the Bill.
That is a matter for you to decide; it is not for me to give you guidance on that.