I move:
That the amendments to Standing Orders relative to Public Business recommended in the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (T.278) dated the 2nd November, 1988, be adopted with effect from the first sitting day after the Christmas Recess.
In moving this item I would like to say that the report recommends three changes in Standing Orders in regard to recording dissent and divisions. Originally these recommended changes were part of the committee's ongoing review of Standing Orders but it was decided to go ahead with these ones as the committee felt they should be implemented as soon as possible. The changes are relatively minor but it is hoped that they will go some way towards making the working of the House run more smoothly. The main recommendation is to provide a new additional procedure to allow Senators dissenting to be recorded by name without recording a vote.
The other two recommendations are minor and concerned with (1) reducing the time during which bells are rung for divisions and reducing notice for a division where it occurs immediately after another division. When the record of divisions for this Seanad indicates (1) a significant increase in the overall number of divisions over a previous Seanad, and (2) up to 25 per cent of these record votes on one side in single figures and in many cases record votes of less than five, the minimum required to claim a vote, this obviously means that a sizeable proportion of the calls for votes emanates from minority groups and are realistically aimed at recording dissent rather than affecting or challenging a decision of the House. This goes back to the point I made earlier that dissidents can be recorded by name without requiring a vote.
The significance of this trend is twofold. It means that minority groups are perhaps more active or rebellious in seeking so many votes or that there are rather rigid procedures and they have no other recourse open to them but to force a vote in order to have their dissent recorded. Dissent cannot be indicated in any other way. The committee and we on this side of the House have no desire to restrict the rights of Members to call for a vote. That is an absolute right of any Member who disagrees with a measure before this House. However, whether that right extends to Senators who agree with the measure but who stand and support a claim for a vote on it is another matter.
Another outcome of this trend has been the inordinate number of times all Members have been summoned to the House for a division that may never take place. It was with these factors in mind that the committee adopted the new procedures which, in effect, are a halfway house or compromise between those on this side of the House who would have liked to see wider changes than those proposed on the other side who would view any change in this area as an attack on their democratic rights.
The record of dissent procedure has been drawn up to meet these various but complementary needs. It provides for greater flexibility by allowing Senators to record dissent by name other than by vote. By being able to be implemented by proxy in signing the register in advance all Members are not required to be summoned in order for dissent to be recorded. This is an additional new procedure and does not interfere with how decisions are determined in the House or the right of a Member to claim a vote. In fact, when the Chair declares the result on the question under the procedure a claim for a vote can still be made which would supersede the record of dissent procedure. It should do away with the need for Senators to stand and support a claim for a vote on behalf of their dissenting colleagues although they themselves are not against the measures before the House. The committee will review in 12 months time how the new procedure works in practice and will see if further wider changes are required.
I will comment briefly on the other two minor recommendations. The second recommendation is to reduce the time during which bells are rung for a division to once for four minutes instead of twice at present for six minutes and one minute. The overall notice of eight minutes for divisions from the commencement of bell ringing to the locking of doors is unchanged. I stress that the overall notice of eight minutes is unchanged. All that is being reduced is the time for the ringing of the bells. It was felt that having the bell ringing for seven out of eight minutes was far too long and unnecessary.
The third recommendation is to reduce the notice for a division where that division occurs immediately after another division. In this case the bells will ring for two minutes and the doors will be locked after a further two minutes, that is, an overall notice of four minutes. It was felt by the committee that the full notice of eight minutes is unnecessary for a second or subsequent division occurring immediately afterwards. At that stage all Members would have assembled for the first division so it is reasonable to reduce notice of a second division which is four minutes. As a means of informing Senators of the reduced notice the Vótáil signs on the close circuit TV will indicate "Vótáil ceithre noiméad." The suggested different sounding bell for the reduced notice was regarded as not being feasible and could lead to confusion and was not proceeded with.
It should be remembered that all that is being proposed is a reduction of four minutes overall in the notice of the second division. In addition, the second division must occur immediately after the first one. Therefore, there would be no debate in between the business. All that would be allowed would be the formal moving of the amendment or whatever was to be voted on. If any debate intervenes the full eight minutes notice will be required for the other division.
The recommendations in this report are only minor but, perhaps, are significant in their own way. They represent part of the ongoing progress of the review of Standing Orders which has been undertaken by a sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges since June of last year. Some changes have already been agreed upon such as discussing urgent matters under Standing Order 29 and the making of statements under Standing Order 30. These changes are awaiting final adoption by the committee in conjunction with other changes to the first 50 Standing Orders. When the committee have completed their examination of this interim report covering these 50 Standing Orders the committee will report to the House. Alternatively, the major changes could be taken one by one as they are agreed and that might be a better way of seeing them implemented.
The trouble with a long report covering 50 Standing Orders is that it tends to get bogged down and never see the light of day. The best method of approach is something the committee can take up in the first instance. The review of the first 50 Standing Orders is only a beginning. It is hoped that wider areas of reform can be addressed in the near future. I recommend the adoption of the report to the House.