I now call on Senator Seán Fallon to announce the Order of Business.
Order of Business.
I propose that items Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be taken today.
We will be opposing the Order of Business and I will be proposing an amendment to Standing Orders to delete items Nos. 1 and 2 and substitute items Nos. 3 and 4.
On this issue we have no intention of fighting any sham battles or of creating any false sense of outrage about what is proposed by the Leader of the House. We feel very deeply that what is proposed is ill-judged, unnecessary and counterproductive and, emphatically, not in the interest of doing the job we are all here to do, that is, the proper processing of legislation through this House.
This composite motion, to put through Bills under a guillotine, is unprecedented in the history of this House. There have been guillotine motions of single issues in the past; usually this has been on the Finance Bill where there is a time constraint.
Senator Manning, with no discourtesy to you, I do not think it proper that we should enter a debate on the Order of Business.
Yes, it is.
With respect, we are opposing the Order of Business. We are opposing it strenuously. What is proposed is unprecedented and we have no option but to give our reasons and arguments why what is being proposed is unacceptable.
Hear, hear.
I would ask for the co-operation of the Members. The position is that item No. 1 affords you an opportunity to debate the issues as you see fit. On the Order of Business we should adhere as strictly as possible to the Order of Business rather than entering a major debate at this stage.
Your assurance, a Chathaoirligh, is that item No. 1 does give us an opportunity to have a full debate on the Order of Business for the week.
It will allow you an opportunity to debate the merits or otherwise of the Order of Business as set down in item No. 2.
On a point of order, there seems to be a growing development in the House that speeches are not allowed on the Order of Business. There is neither precedent nor Standing Order to cover that. There is a long established——
There is a ruling.
On what basis, a Chathaoirligh?
I do not have to explain the reasons I rule.
Are you accepting the fact that you are establishing a precedent? There is no basis by which to rule people out of order like this.
The basis on which you must be satisfied is that I have made a ruling and I am not going to allow a debate to develop on the Order of Business.
The Orders of the House indicate there must be a debate on the Order of Business every day.
As a matter of courtesy, Senator Manning was in possession and he should be allowed to continue. Please acknowledge what I have said, Senator Manning.
I have to oppose what you have said, with respect, because item No. 1 specifies that there shall be no debate on the issues in question. If we accept item No. 1, we are then accepting that there can be no debate on the item in question.
So far as I am concerned, you will be allowed an opportunity to debate it when item No. 1 is moved, if we get to that point.
I am in a quandary here. I want to oppose item No. 1. Item No. 1 is proposed as the Order of Business.
You are opposing the Order of Business.
I am opposing the Order of Business of which item No. 1 is a part.
In the normal course your amendment, properly put, will be taken.
Surely, a Chathaoirligh, I am allowed to speak to my amendment.
Of course he is.
At this stage we are not in a position to discuss the merits or demerits of item No. 2.
We are dealing with the Order of Business. I am opposing the very presence of items Nos. 1 and 2 on the Order Paper. I am opposing the Order of Business, and surely I am entitled to give my reasons.
I would ask you to confine yourself to that and not to engage in a lengthy speech. That is what I said to you at the outset.
This is something upon which we, on this side, feel very strongly, that the composite motion which has been put today is unprecedented in the history of his House. There have been guillotine motions in the past but they have always been on single issues. Never before in the 60 years of Seanad Éireann has there been an attempt to ram through three items together in this way as we are experiencing here today. If there was some need for this then I could see that the Government would have a case. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for what the Government are going ahead with today. The one thing we have in this House is plenty of time. Time is something of which there is no shortage of supply to debate all of the issues on the Order Paper today.
If I can put things in perspective, in the 60 years of this House the guillotine has been used so sparingly that it is absolutely the exception. Even in 1934, when Fianna Fáil, in a temporary aberration, proposed to abolish this House — a policy adopted since by the Progressive Democrats — that issue was debated without need of recourse to the guillotine. Certainly, today the introduction of the guillotine, or the rosary of guillotines which have been brought in this morning, is something which is utterly unacceptable.
There might be some case for the guillotine if the Opposition had been obstructive over the past number of weeks or had been non-co-operative. The truth is we have been fully co-operative and there are some on my own side who would feel that, perhaps, we were even too co-operative over the past number of weeks. In some ways that was a result of the courtesy we received from the Leader of the House, and the Government Whip. This House has operated on the basis of co-operation. Courtesy is given by both sides and is extended right around the House. What we are saying today is going to put a very severe dent in that practice and tradition in the House.
Contrary to what was implied in one of the newspapers today, this side of the House was quite prepared to sit next week, if necessary, to get the business completed in an orderly way. There is in this House a good atmosphere, genuine co-operation, but what is happening today is not the way to respond to the co-operation which has been extended over the past year. What is worse is that this is being done at the behest of the Chief Whip in the other House. What I find utterly unacceptable is that the timetable of this House is being dictated by outside forces; by the Government Chief Whip in the other House. That is simply not acceptable and we will not accept it.
There might be some reason for what is happening today if there was a sense of urgency about these Bills. We have had weeks of very light business, weeks when any one of these three Bills could have been brought in and debated in a proper way. Now, however, in a rush, we are getting three major pieces of legislation all in one week. It is a rotten way to do public business and reflects no credit on the Government side of the House. I should like to make a distinction between the Bills whose fate will be decided on the Order of Business today. The Pensions Bill is important, but not contentious. There is no difficulty from my party and I suspect none from the other parties, about the Pensions Bill. It is an important Bill but most of the problems relating to it have, in fact, been ironed out in the other House. The other two Bills are deeply contentious. The Insurance Bill marks the first measure to privatise one of our State industries. It is a Bill which——
The merits or demerits of the Bill do not arise on the Order of Business and I have to remind the Senator that when the Bill is being debated in the House is the time for him to discuss the merits or otherwise of it.
We are considering guillotining it, and it is important to know what we are guillotining.
That may be the Senator's view. I am pointing out to Senator Manning the position I must ask him to abide by.
With respect, a Chathaoirligh, I am not discussing the merits or the contents of the Bills, but I am pointing out the enormous importance of the Bills and how it is proposed to deal with them in the House today, and over the next couple of days. I am making the important distinction that we have two highly contentious and divisive Bills, each of which has enormous implications for major aspects of State policy over the coming years. The Government are asking us to put these Bills through in a hurry, without proper consideration, without the reflection which this House has as one of its main reasons for its existence. The Insurance Bill has enormous implications. It should not be rushed through in one day. There are enormous questions of principle and of future procedure to be teased out and the procedure being proposed by the Government side today is bad and will have very serious long-term implications.
The Broadcasting Bill is the most controversial Bill to come before us in the past ten years. It is a bad Bill. It was botched in the other House and now we are being asked to participate and condone what happened in that House. No Bill has had a worse parliamentary handling than the Broadcasting Bill. In this House there was an opportunity to redeem that Bill and to redeem our parliamentary process but what the Government are now saying to us is "no, more of the same; we are going to rush it through". What is worse again is that we are being asked to participate in a farce, as far as the Broadcasting Bill is concerned. The Bill comes into effect on 1 October. The Dáil does not resume until late October; clearly the Government have no intention of accepting any changes in the Broadcasting Bill from any side of the House. We are being asked to pretend that this Bill will have gone through a proper Committee Stage, that it is considered legislation but we will not be part of a con trick on the Irish people under any circumstances. How in conscience can we participate in a Committee Stage we know to be false, to be a farce? We cannot do it and we will not do it. For all these reasons, a Chathaoirligh, we oppose Items Nos. 1 and 2 to day. I propose to amend the Order of Business, I propose also that the House adjourn so that the Whips can meet and a proper Order of Business be drawn up.
I think it is fair to say that we may have had our ups and downs before in this House, but we have never been pushed aside as we have been on this occasion. It is quite clear that once again we in this House are not going to cover ourselves in glory. It is quite clear also that if one of the Coalition parties in Government have not succeeded in abolishing this House, they have certainly succeeded in by-passing it quite effectively today.
I appeal to you, a Chathaoirligh, this Order of Business today is an attempt to circumscribe the Constitution. One wonders what is the purpose of this House. Our purpose is to legislate and do whatever is outlined in the Constitution. It seems to me that what the Government are saying to us is that "a majority gives us a moral authority". It does not, and it never will. The reality of what the Government are attempting to do today is the total castration of democracy. Over the past number of weeks we have seen a eunuch being made of the parliamentary and democratic process. That is the reality of where we are. The purpose of parliamentary democracy is to ensure that issues may be addressed, matters may be debated, content may be argued, proposals to modify it can be considered and eventually that tight effective legislation can be enacted.
It seems to me that without any shadow of doubt what we see here today is an abuse of power. I do not understand why. I am going to put it quite clearly, a Chathaoirligh, to the Leader of the House that my objection today is based on a number of different grounds and on the broad general principle of getting the personal bits out of the way first. We, in this group, have over the past number of months made every possible effort to deal with the problems that the Government have had to face in running the business of the House. We have dealt with the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip in the House. We have tried to co-operate and find a solution to whatever the problems were.
I feel hard done by because there were occasions when many of us would have liked to do things another way but there was a certain element of compromise, an element of agreement to "make the thing work as we have had a bad number of months in the House". It now appears to me that the first occasion when things get tight for the Government, the first occasion when the Government can no longer deal with the difficulties, they say "there is no need for further debate; there is no further need for discussion; we do not need you now any more; this is the last week and we will impose the guillotine". I would like to say, a Chathaoirligh, why I object very strenuously to this.
A number of weeks back — precisely because I saw this difficulty ahead — I asked the Leader to outline a programme of work for the next number of weeks. Apart from anything else one of the constant retorts from the present Leader and the previous Leader of the House, was that we never ordered the business for more than one day. That precedent has been trotted across this floor time and time again: "we are only here to discuss the Order of Business for today" and you, Sir, have heard that on a number of occasions.
Here we are today ordering the business for the week. It has never been done before in this House. It is totally without precedent and I believe it is contrary to Standing Orders and the way this House operates. This House operates on a day by day basis ordering the Order of Business for the day. Here we are trying to do it for the week in effect. That is not the case.
The reality, of course, is — and I am not making any cheap gibes — that we could sit next week and, more importantly, we could sit for whatever period was necessary. I have put it to the Leader of the House and to the chief Whip on the other side that we could also come back during the first week of September if necessary. I find it totally and utterly unacceptable that legislation which will not, by what is written into it, become operative until 1 October, has to be rushed through the House in the middle of July. It is unnecessary and it is an abuse.
I very strongly agree with the points that were made by the previous speaker that what we have here today is a totally anaesthetised Government side who no longer count in this operation. These decisions were not made by any Member of this House but by the Government Chief Whip in the Lower House. I resent that and the control he appears to have over the Government side in this House. It seems that the Progressive Democrats also have something to answer for on this occasion.
Some months ago we listened to fine speeches about the nature of this Chamber, the need to make it effective and efficient, the need to make it more topical and the need for it to respond to the needs of the people at a given time. These are major items of legislation which are of public importance. In deference to yourself, a Chathaoirligh, I am not going to discuss them now but will wait until the due time to do so. It is the responsibility of public representatives to reflect that importance and put the case for and against this legislation over a due period of time. This cannot be done under the guillotine. I ask the Leader of the House why a guillotine has become necessary at this time? What exactly was the proposal he claims to have discussed at length with this side of the House but could not get agreement on? No members of this group had any such proposal put to them last week. The Leader of the main Opposition party has indicated to me that no proposal was put to him as to how this business might be dealt with over the next number of weeks. I have made it clear that we were prepared to sit next week and I have pleaded with the Leader of the House and the Government Whip to give a clear indication of when we would return, and that we should return in September.
Another reason the Order of Business is so utterly unacceptable is that we have to listen all the time to complaints about the length of the Order Paper. We went to the trouble this year of printing a two-speed Order Paper — one Order Paper on the long-term motions and another on the day-to-day business. The Leader of the House recently agreed on the Order of Business that we would try to deal effectively with the outstanding motions and legislation which we put forward. We have at least three pieces of legislation on the Order Paper which have not been dealt with by the Government or opposed by them. Those Bills need to be dealt with. Item No. 8 on the Order Paper deals with the discrimination against girls seeking secondary school education. I have pleaded time and again for this motion to be taken as it is clearly anathema under the Constitution, is opposed to every European position on equality and is in breach of the spirit and terms of the 1977 legislation——
On a point of order, what has the motion on secondary education to do with the Order of Business? It is not provided for under any heading——
While I accept what you are saying, Senator, that is not a point of order. I must remind the House that it is not the intention that we should have long debates at this time. I have allowed considerable latitude to you, Senator O'Toole, as I did to Senator Manning, but I did so on the basis that there were certain matters on the Order of Business to which you wished to make a forceful objection. I am allowing you to do that but in the interests of getting the Order of Business concluded and getting a reply in the meantime from the Leader of the House, I ask you not to be repetitive and not to widen the scope of the debate.
I can assure you, a Chathaoirligh, that I have not been repetitive; I have not repeated one point since I began. I am also aware of what I am entitled to say at this stage. I could, in fact, refer to all the legislation on the Order Paper. I am not querying your ruling and I accept completely that what Senator McGowan raised was not a point of order.
Lengthy speeches are not in order, and I have afforded you, as the group representative, reasonable latitude.
They have been allowed every single day.
Please, Senator.
I am pointing out that lengthy speeches have been allowed regularly.
They are not allowed regularly.
They are.
They are not.
I suggest you look at the record.
I am not going to allow an exchange of words between ourselves in the House this morning. I am simply saying that lengthy speeches are not appropriate to the Order of Business.
I am certainly not going to go down the road of dealing with the legislation to which I referred in passing. I was simply giving an example of some of the outstanding legislation which needs to be dealt with. I was making that point because I believe it should be dealt with on the Order of Business. This is not the first time I have said this; as the House knows I have been saying it every fortnight for the past six months. It was not out of order then and it is not out of order now.
The main point I want to make is that the Members on the other side who would claim to be representative of the music industry and put the case for RTE will no doubt do their regular trick of speaking against the proposals and then voting for them, as they have done consistently——
That is rubbish.
This kind of cynicism has no place in this House.
On a point of order, I want to ask the Senator to withdraw that outrageous remark. It is a personal insult and an attack on Members of this House——
The Senator had better not hold his breath while he is waiting for me to withdraw that remark.
The Senator should stop lecturing us about our industry; he knows nothing about it.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Senator please contribute to the order of the House. Senator O'Toole——
I think Senator Hugh Byrne contributes to the music industry.
If we put all the interruptions together we might eventually get a speech. Despite the level of co-operation which has been available to the Leader of the House, the Government Whip and their predecessors, the Government, when faced with legislation about which they are not too happy, take the easy option of guillotining the Bill and silencing everyone. This is not acceptable to us because it is not the way a Parliament should conduct its business, it is not the appropriate way to enact legislation and it was never envisaged by our Constitution. This proposal is totally and utterly unacceptable to us and is a cowardly response to an urgent matter.
It seems the Leader of the House and the Government Whip are doing this House no justice at all. By putting forward this proposal this morning they have brought this House into disrepute, have further fuelled the fires of those who question what this House is about and have left us on this side of the House questioning what we are supposed to be doing. The way the Order of Business of the House has been ordered is ineffective and is a waste of taxpayers' money. This is not the way legislation should be enacted. It is a scandalous proposal. I shall certainly be opposing the Order of Business.
The Labour Senators will also be opposing the Order of Business this morning and will be proposing instead that item No. 104 be taken first. We will be opposing the Order of Business for a number of reasons. First, we believe that the proposal before the House is not in order. What is happening, in effect, is that the Standing Orders of the House are being suspended. Standing Order 123 states: "Any Standing Orders or Orders of the Seanad may be suspended for a day's sitting, and for a particular purpose, upon motion made after notice". The Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order 49, are being suspended for a three day period so that three Bills can be guillotined.
If what I am saying is true, we are behaving illegally and are in conflict with our own rules. We will be opening up the vista of Members of this House or members of the public taking the Bills which have been enacted under this proposal to the courts so that they can be declared invalid. This is a very alarming prospect and I again appeal to the Leader of the House to reconsider his proposal on those grounds.
We are also opposed to the Order of Business because we believe the Government side are taking the hatchet to the Standing Orders of this House after they have taken the hatchet to RTE. This is unacceptable to us.
I want to refer to a number of points which have been raised. I want to refer first to the three day ordering of business versus the one day ordering of business. It seems that the three day ordering of business should be more acceptable to the group who at the start of the term were looking for reform of the Seanad. The three day ordering of business would be far more efficient and effective than the one day ordering of business which is used by the people on the other side of the House every day for cheap political gimmicks. I believe that if they looked into their souls they would realise that the proper way to reform the House is to order business for three days and go ahead with it——
It may well be——
Is the Senator rewriting Standing Orders?
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. Senator O'Keeffe without interruption.
Is it in order to rewrite Standing Orders while on one's feet?
I will not get involved in a flight of fancy.
Will the Senator confine himself to the Order of Business?
The Leader of this House, the Chief Whip and the Members on the Government side have no difficulty in ordering business themselves and do not have to take any orders from the Chief Whip of the other House. Of course, that claim is a fallacy and it is time to lay it to rest.
(Interruptions.)
We heard claptrap from the far side about agreements and the level of co-operation. May I bring to the notice of the Members on the far side that we had consensus agreement over the past number of weeks, which was broken in at least two instances, in relation to the Criminal Justice (No. 2) Bill and the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1990. Therefore, the co-operation and effective operation of this House these people are looking for is being hindered by them in this House.
Senator Manning said that he will not have enough time to discuss the Broadcasting Bill; we will have 25 hours' debate on that Bill. The Members on the far side have wasted two or two and a half hours in claptrap and ráiméis instead of getting down to the real issues of the Broadcasting Bill. We will have plenty time to effectively discuss this Bill if the Members on the far side give it their attention and speak effectively on it.
I second the amendment which my colleague, Senator Manning, so ably put, namely, to delete items Nos. 1 and 2 and to take items Nos. 3 and 4 today. We are specifically proposing today to take item No. 3 backed up by item No. 4. With respect, we urge the Leader of the House to accept our amendment as a very reasonable way to proceed.
In the interests of brevity, I will put a couple of very short questions to the Leader of the House and perhaps he would be good enough to respond at the end of this debate on the Order of Business. What has happened to the principle of reasoned and reflective debate in this Chamber on Bills that have passed through Dáil Éireann? Are we stating today that that principle no longer exists, that one of our main raison d'être has gone as far as the present Leader of the Government side of this House is concerned? If so, that is a major tragedy. Let us be honest and admit it now if that is the case.
Secondly, I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether the principle of democratic decision has been redefined by the Government side of this House this morning. Does the concept of a majority decision now mean as far as the Government side of this House are concerned that the bully-boys take off, because effectively what you are asking us to do this week on the Broadcasting Bill means just that? The bully-boys rule, the bully-boys take all. If our amendments which will be put from all sections of this House cannot be taken and will not be taken by the Minister and the Dáil, effectively, you are saying that we can talk about what we like, propose what we like but that they are not listening and that the Broadcasting Bill will come into effect before the Dáil reconvenes.
The tragedy of much of the past nine months of Seanad Éireann apparently is with us again. In recent weeks we had good, reasoned, long and serious debates on many important Bills. I urge you, as Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, together with the Leader of this House, to ensure that the final few weeks — because we will sit next week and the week after if needs be — of this session reflect credit on this Chamber and on the job we have been elected to do.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Please allow Senator Doyle to continue.
We expect the guillotine, the closure motion to put a more delicate title on what we are doing here, and that type of more polarised political behaviour in the other House. When I say that I may not be reflecting credit on my time in that House or what goes on there at the moment, but it is expected in the greater polarisation of the political parties in the other House. It is not expected and it is not the normal procedure in Seanad Éireann, given that we are all trying to make it a vocational Chamber and genuinely contribute to issues about which we are concerned and have a little knowledge.
I am sure that you, a Chathaoirligh, want to ensure that this Seanad session and the next few years of this Seanad reflect glory on the Chamber and reflect the Chamber as it truly should be seen by the people. Please do not let us finish the session in this appalling way that has now been proposed. Do not allow a guillotine motion on three vital Bills. Through you, a Chathaoirligh, I urge the Leader of the House to accept our amendment of the Order of Business. Let us proceed with item No. 3 backed up by item No. 4 and do credit to the important legislation before us. Let us reflect on these items, refine them and have our amendments accepted by the Minister and the Government.
I must point out that the Order of Business of this House is not a matter for the Cathaoirleach; it is a matter for the House.
Through you, Chathaoirligh, I was speaking to the Leader of the House.
I formally propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that we should take item No. 4, the Broadcasting Bill, 1990, first, followed by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 1989, item No. 9, because they are two very important Bills which should be treated seriously by this House. I do not have to remind you, Sir, because you are well aware of it, of your responsibility to uphold the Constitution in this House. For this reason this is the most extraordinary Order Paper I have seen in my brief three and a half years in this House. I was very interested to hear my distinguished colleague, Senator Manning, say that this is unique and unprecedented in the annals of Seanad Éireann. That leads to a situation where it is proper to have an extended address towards the principle of the way in which the business of this House is ordered on this morning's Order Paper and that is precisely what I wish to do.
It is clear there is unseemly haste in what is happening today. I know about the cynicism; Senator Manning referred to it as being a feature of this morning's newspapers. I have not read them but I heard Senator O'Keeffe make just about the most cynical intervention I have heard in this House. It was monstrous because Senator O'Keeffe knows perfectly well — and he is a decent man — that, for example, throughout last week we co-operated. We wanted to discuss matters in a civilised manner and we agreed that late at night we would not call futile votes that would have no impact. If Senator O'Keeffe cannot remember any of these instances I can give him one of last Wednesday when I waited until 12 midnight — and I was very glad of the courtesy of the Leader of the House which allowed me the opportunity to introduce a debate on the Adjournment on the case of Raoul Wallenberg because I thought it important. I knew there was no possibility of it being reported but I hung around and we got it done. We did not call a vote on any of the business towards the end of that evening because it would have been futile and we had agreed on that. That, Senator O'Keeffe, is called co-operation. I know it has three syllables but it is a word that is usually absorbed by moderately intelligent people.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
It is a pity that Senator O'Keeffe made that intervention, because I know there is cynicism and that it was openly said around this House — and let it now be said in public — towards the end of last week and yesterday, for those of us who were around, that the Government's attitude was, "Let them have their fight on the Order of Business and get it out of their systems because they will all want to be galloping away the same as the rest of us". The kind of intervention Senator O'Keeffe made only serves to underline that kind of attitude.
It is extraordinary that this series of guillotines should be introduced. In a way it is laughable. A week or so ago we had the Government happily abolishing the death penalty and wailing at the ghoulish notion of referring the instruments of death to the National Museum — although I noticed the Director of the Museum showed quite an appetite for them afterwards. Perhaps it is not so inappropriate in a way because obviously they wanted to retain the parliamentary guillotine here, and they are quite bloodthirsty when it comes to executing democracy in this Chamber.
I feel that, in a way, this is all part of the growing contempt with which this House is treated. Again, I have to say there is nothing personal in what I say with regard to, for example, the Leader of the House and I do believe this is being forced upon him. There is a totally undemocratic intervention which can be lifted from the other House, and from the Chief Whip of the other House. Let us not put too fine a point upon it. Have we really got such short memories? Do we not remember the way in which last week, for example, there was an attempt, clearly at the direction of the Chief Whip or because of his activities, to ram through the televising of this Chamber without any discussion whatever? It was only because a few of us on this side of the House simply refused to accept that that we got any debate on it at all. We got a measly half hour, and again, let me say, I do not think we called too many votes on that either. That is a very clear example of the kind of thing that is happening.
We were told that our Whip had agreed with that. That is one of the reasons we are getting a little bit suspicious of this kind of co-operation. Senator Manning is right when he says that maybe we have been a bit too easy, maybe we have been a bit too trusting. Maybe when we are told on this side of the House that our Whip has agreed something, we ought to have it in writing on each individual desk in front of us before we agree to it because we cannot rely on getting correct statements from the Government side.
That is not fair.
(Interruptions.)
I will give you a few more. What about the way——
Senator Norris——
One point I agree with——
Resume your seat, Senator O'Toole.
(Interruptions.)
Senator Norris, I want to remind you also that long speeches are not in order. I would also remind you that reference to last week's business is not contributing to the Order of Business this morning.
I am simply saying on a point of clarity that there has been no co-operation.
On a point of order——
It is a mystery to me how you can demonstrate co-operation if you do not refer to the record of the House.
I was here last week and I raised a point on the Order of Business and I was quickly told by the other side of the House to sit down. We are now getting a lecture on business that took place two or three weeks ago.
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order.
(Interruptions.)
Sir, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the previous speaker from the other side gave two examples of last week's business. I think it should also have been brought to Senator O'Keeffe's notice that he was doing it. I know you let tolerance prevail at the time, but it is a bit unfair that a speaker from this side responding to last week's business which was raised——
When a Member over-indulges, as Senator Norris is doing, in relation to last week's business I must remind him. I want to give reasonable latitude to individual Senators to make their point, but I am not going to allow the introduction of irrelevancies which do not contribute anything to the debate.
I appreciate that, Sir, and I will be brief. I have three further points I would like to make because I think the House has been regularly treated with contempt. I am not going to refer to last week's business. I am going to refer to the business of this entire session where Ministers have been late, Ministers have not been there, Ministers have had to go to the Dáil and inappropriate Ministers have taken legislation.
That is not appropriate on the Order of Business.
That is the first of my final three points. Second a very serious reason for opposing this is that it raises constitutional issues. The ordering of business today raises constitutional issues in my opinion, and this has been underlined——
It is a matter for the House to decide its business, and there is no situation developing here where the House is doing anything other than conducting its own business; and it is entitled to do that.
Let me assist it to conduct its own business by pointing out that with regard, for example, to the Broadcasting Bill, in the other House there was no Second Stage discussion, but there were 70 hours or something on amendments. Here if we proceed with this, we are going to have——
The business of the other House is not a matter for Seanad Éireann.
——Second Stage curtailed and no discussion whatever on amendments. Let me point out to the House through you, Sir, that the function of this Chamber is to revise——
A point of order, Sir, I would like to bring Standing Order No. 44 to the attention of the Senator.
We are not going to get into a debate on Standing Orders.
I think he should read Standing Order No. 44.
Senator I ask you to resume your seat. Senator Norris, will you conclude please?
I am concluding, and thank you for your indulgence, a Chathaoirleach. The point I was trying to make is that we have a very dangerous situation because the Second Stage was effectively guillotined elsewhere. Here we are having no provision for discussion of amendments. This House is intended to provide amendments and the discussion of those amendments.
My final point is this. I take this so seriously. I think it is disgraceful, it is monstrous, it is undemocratic.
You have said all that on more than one occasion. You are being repetitive.
If the Government proceed with this guillotine, if they effectively destroy debate on the Broadcasting Bill, those Members who are opposed to that Bill — including perhaps some honourable people on that side; perhaps even the poodle dog party might develop a bark or a bite — should secede from this House, we should take the Mansion House and we should discuss the merits of the Bill with the Press so that it may be fully reported, otherwise we are not going to have one slightest bit of impact on this dictatorial Government.
I am asking you to resume your seat, Senator.
I want to make a brief intervention to ask a question of the Leader of the House. Like all Members, I have sat here for the last 45 or 50 minutes. I think it was Sartre who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Senators
Voltaire.
Voltaire, I am sorry. I knew my learned colleagues would correct me.
They have a contribution to make though you might not think so.
I thank them for it.
Sartre wrote Nausea which would be rather appropriate——
Senator Norris, I ask you to desist from interruption, please.
Yes, Senator Norris please stop. There is more than one personality in this House.
And you too, Senator Cassidy.
My apologies, Sir.
I thank my colleagues on the Independent benches but I hope they get the gist of what I have been attempting to say. I have listened to them and they have every right to fight their corner, to say what they did, and to continue to say it. All I am concerned about is that the drift of this debate has been in the direction of suggesting or inferring that decisions which have been arrived at by agreement between all the Whips have subsequently been changed by this side of the House. At least that is the inference, and I would like to ask the Leader of the House in his reply to clarify if the inference — I will make it no stronger than that — that agreements reached by the various Whips in this House are subsequently changed by the Government side to suit the Government side. I ask this for the benefit of all Members of the House because, let me add for the information of the other side of the House, we as individual Senators on the Government side are not privy to the discussions between the Whips when it comes to the arrangement of business. We have to accept what is said. If that suggestion is true, it is a very serious development indeed.
On a point of order, I understand what Senator Mooney has been saying. I want to make it perfectly clear, and I am sure the Government Whip will confirm it, that I made it absolutely clear at the Whips' meeting that I was not agreeing to a guillotine this week.
There was no agreement.
My party are opposing the Order of Business today for a few very important reasons. The House should seriously consider the fact that the public are watching today's proceedings with great interest. The public perception of this House, of the parliamentary process, of how we do our work as public representatives will be very much affected by today's proceedings. There is a lot of justifiable scepticism in the country at the moment. That scepticism centres around this House and around the length of the parliamentary holidays. In the interest of giving the public confidence in our democratic process, in this House, in our maturity as parliamentarians, it is incumbent on the Leader of the House to, at this late stage, withdraw today's Order of Business——
Hear, hear.
——and to bring forward an amended schedule. In doing that, the Leader would do a lot for the democratic system.
What is justifiably bothering the people is not just the guillotining of the Broadcasting Bill, but what has far more serious implications, the perception that is now there that we could not possibly talk about amending the Bill in the circumstances of the Dáil being closed down. That is a terrible situation and it is particularly dreadful because it is not immediately necessary. It is shocking that a House of Parliament should meet for no reason. Ultimately our discussion on the Broadcasting Bill will be meaningless drivel because we cannot amend it. It is obvious that we cannot amend the Bill. On that basis I finally appeal to the Leader of the House in the interest of restoring public confidence in our work here and in the parliamentary process, to amend the Order of Business.
I will just make two points, the first, to protest at the indecent haste with which these Bills are being pushed through, in the light of the fact that other legislation is still languishing in limbo, for example, the Marine Institute Bill which should be passed expeditiously. This Bill has still not gone through the legislative process even though it is much more important that that be implemented because it has financial implications. I share the misgivings of my colleagues on the Order of Business, on that ground. Secondly, what the Government side propose is really in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Bunreacht na hÉireann sets limits to the power of the Seanad, very severe limits, and we accept that, but it does not set a time limit, or at least it provides a very generous time dimension to the deliberations of Seanad Éireann, because as Senator Doyle implied that is the raison d'etre of the House. The House is supposed to be reflective House and a reviewing Chamber. The intent of these guillotine measures to subvert that whole purpose of Seanad Éireann. I therefore suggest that the proposed Order of Business is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and that the Government party are conniving at that violation.
I suggest that for the Government to propose a fixed date for the implementation of any legislation before it has gone through the proper process in both Houses is also in contempt of the spirit of the Constitution but, as has been pointed out recently here, it is no surprise to us that the Government have repeatedly regarded this House with contempt in so many different ways. I would remind the Government party that their founder, the founder of the Constitution and the founder of this House, had his own rather limited view of Seanad Éireann, but he meant it to be there and he meant it to be a vocational Chamber, and he meant issues like this Broadcasting Bill to have lengthy and effective deliberation. Therefore, he must be turning in his grave, in fact, at this point the sepulchral gyrations must be taking on positively seismic dimensions.
I forcefully oppose the disgraceful Order of Business and second the amendment that was proposed by my colleague, Senator Upton, namely that item No. 104 be taken first. In the last couple of weeks we had more Bills coming before the House to be dealt with in a short space of time than we have dealt with in the previous two months. A huge plethora of legislation has suddenly come upon us, being rammed through and there is a bottleneck of legislation. In many cases minimal notice has been given as in the case of the Broadcasting Bill which appeared before us on the day it was to be debated. That in itself, considering the traditions and the purpose of this House which is to be reflective, to inquire as deeply as possible into legislation and ensure that there is a good check put on legislation, is bringing the House into disrepute and undermining its function.
Today three Bills are proposed to be put through all Stages during the next three days. With the Dáil having gone into recess there can be no amendments. That takes away from the possibility of this House being able to deal with this matter as constitutionally intended. As suggested by Senator Upton and Professor Murphy there is a major question mark around the constitutionality of this procedure. It has already been pointed out by Senator Upton that there is a major question mark around the legality of this procedure in relation to Standing Order No. 123 which refers specifically to any type of guillotine motion to be in the context of a single day. Certainly in the context of the Constitution, the spirit of the Constitution would seem to be seriously infringed by this approach.
This is a guillotine first of all, on the business for the week. It is a guillotine upon a guillotine. It is a guillotine on a debate. It is prohibiting the debate and it is prohibiting amendments. This is totally unprecedented, a departure from the procedure in this House, an emergency motion of closure on three successive days when there is no emergency.
The final part of the proposition deals with a further suspension of Standing Orders in relation to Standing Orders Nos. 28 and 29. That prevents further normal activity in relation to Adjournments and emergency motions by Members on this side of the House.
The Insurance Bill could be taken in the autumn. It is a matter of considerable controversy but there is no immediate timescale on it. It should not necessarily have to be taken in a short period. That legislation represents an attempt to privatise a semi-State body and it could easily be dealt with in the autumn. I am disappointed with the Leader of the House who had maximum co-operation from us in relation to Bills that have come before us in recent weeks. Contrary to what Senator O'Keeffe said, we have given co-operation in the processing of Bills when it was requested by the Leader of the House and the Whips. It is a shame that that having been the case, the Leader of the House should suddenly introduce this guillotine and thereby spoil the situation that was developing and will no doubt further cause all sorts of disruption in future sittings of the House.
In relation to item No. 104 which states that when the Broadcasting Bill——
I will not allow the Senator to discuss item No. 104. We are on the Order of Business. I will not repeat myself.
I am seconding an amendment to the Order of Business and I am referring to the amendment. I am entitled to comment on it. On foot of an amendment from the Minister for Communications this Bill is to become operable on 1 October. What I am offering here is an alternative to the proposal to guillotine the debate to allow the House go into recess as it will if the motion is passed. I am sure it will get the support of the Members on the Government side of the House. I am suggesting the setting up of a select committee, comprising 13 Members, who could meet, say, tomorrow week and continue their deliberations during the summer and report back to this House on some date in September when there could be a full debate on the Committee Stage of the Bill. As we are aware, the debate was guillotined in the Dáil. Therefore, it is very important that there be a debate on the Bill but it is very unlikely that we will reach Committee Stage today given the number of Senators anxious to speak on Second Stage. I propose that we set up a select committee, comprising 13 Senators, with the power to send for persons, papers and records and to then come back to the House.
This is not appropriate to the Order of Business and I have reminded the Senator of this on more than one occasion. I am not going to continue to do so.
They could come back in good time to the House.
On a point of order, the Senator is commenting on the merits or otherwise of his motion which is totally inappropriate on the Order of Business.
It is quite appropriate to explain the reason the motion should be taken.
Not in that way. I have given the Senator considerable latitude and I am asking him for the final time to conclude.
The final point I wish to make is that I expect support from the Progressive Democrats for this motion. They are a body——
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the Order of Business and I ask the Senator to resume his seat.
I expect that while they are in the House, they will——
I am asking the Senator to resume his seat.
——participate in the legislative process.
The Senator is ignoring the Chair and I am asking him to resume his seat now.
First, I would like to respond to Senator O'Keeffe's comment, "long-winded claptrap". Last week, there were three speakers on the Fine Gael side, our Leader whom I would never accuse of being long-winded, Senator Pól Ó Foighil, who made a very impassioned plea with regard to the Broadcasting Bill——
He spoke for almost two and a half hours.
This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
I should be allowed to reply to the accusations made by Senator O'Keeffe.
This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
I should be allowed to respond.
This is not a contest between one side and the other. We are dealing with the Order of Business.
What else is it?
It is not a contest but——
It is the bullyboys take all.
The fact that one Senator may be out of order——
(Interruptions.)
It is no contest. It is bullyboys take all.
Senator Doyle would be very good at that.
Senator O'Keeffe was given sufficient time to make those allegations and I would like to say in response that in his contribution which lasted two-and-a-quarter hours Senator Pól Ó Foighil made an impassioned plea that the Bill should include some reference to the need to revive the language and——
This is irrelevant on the Order of Business.
It was not irrelevant when Senator O'Keeffe made his accusations.
Senator Pól Ó Foighil has not been mentioned by any other Senator.
He spoke for two-and-a-quarter hours. I was present——
As this contributes nothing to the Order of Business, I am going to ask the Senator to resume her seat.
This trivialises the Broadcasting Bill. As far as I am concerned I stuck to the point and referred to the two major aspects of the Bill. Like other people with social consciences where divorce descends into——
The Senator is not contributing to the Order of Business.
The Senator was under instructions to speak for a minimum of one hour irrespective of the content.
I hope we are given sufficient time to address the major issues and Senator O'Keeffe withdraws his comment about "long-winded claptrap". That shows a disregard for the contributions made to date.
I was waiting to hear whether there would be a contribution from the Progressive Democrats in which they would explain the reasons that party support the proposal to guillotine the debate in this House. I am disappointed we have not heard that they will explain but no doubt they will reply.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. Senator Ross, without interruption.
I do not share the outrage of my colleagues at the proposal to guillotine the debate in this House because to be quite honest I am not a bit surprised by it. Indeed, I would be surprised if there was no proposal from Fianna Fáil, at the end of this session to guillotine debate because there is no doubt that this symbolises the total contempt shown for this House throughout the session. Let us be honest, it has been a disastrous session for the Seanad. It has been a fiasco since last September or October and it is ending on the same note. We have utterly discredited ourselves over the past eight months and the Government are simply giving another weapon and more ammunition to those who say we should be abolished. Indeed, many on this side of the House are wondering what on earth we are here for. Senator Fallon, typical not of himself but of his party's arrogance, has not explained the reason he has introduced this Order of Business today.
On a point of order, last week on the Order of Business I was shot down when I tried to raise an item on the Order Paper but now I am listening to speeches from the other side of the House——
This is not a point of order.
There should be no speeches on the Order of Business.
The Senator should resume his seat. I call on Senator Ross and what I have said equally applies to him.
Of course, but not quite.
Do not test it.
That is typical of the point I made. Fianna Fáil treat this House rather like a county council. They treat it with total contempt and just want to rush legislation through.
I ask the Senator to withdraw that remark.
Senator Kiely, I ask you to resume your seat.
I would like to take up——
The Senator knows nothing about county councils.
What would Senator Ross know about them as he was never a member of a county council?
Thanks be to God, I never will be.
Senator Ross, without interruption.
(Interruptions.)
The troops are getting unruly. I would like to respond, as other Members on this side of the House have, to the points made by Senator O'Keeffe. The position is quite simple. The Order of Business is not decided by the Leader of the House. I know perfectly well that he has no wish to guillotine the debate on these Bills during the next three days. As Senator O'Toole said, the order comes not just from the Government Chief Whip but from the Taoiseach and the Cabinet. It is quite obvious that the Leader of the House gets his instructions from elsewhere and has to implement them. I would like to see the Ministers who want the debate on this legislation guillotined paying more attention to the House. They frequently do not turn up and send in junior Ministers who know nothing——
(Interruptions.)
This has nothing to do with the Order of Business.
I ask Senator Kiely for the last time to resume his seat.
Those same Ministers, and the Taoiseach, who only turns up for the television cameras, send in juniors who know nothing about the portfolios they are discussing. They do not turn up themselves but leave——
The Senator's contribution is not relevant to the Order of Business.
I am indicating who gives the orders with regard to the Order of Business and it is not the Leader of the House.
This is not relevant.
I think it is relevant.
I am the person who decides whether it is relevant or not and I am saying it is not relevant. I ask the Senator to be relevant or else resume his seat.
I will move on then to my next point. It is worth emphasising what I have said and I hope the Leader in the next session will bring in Ministers who know what they are talking about to discuss a portfolio——
The Senator is ignoring the Chair.
As has been said, it is quite extraordinary, given that the Government consistently refused to tell us what the order would be week after week, that for once we are getting a preview of business. Suddenly, when they get instructions from above, we are being told that the debate on each Bill must be guillotined. What should have happened is that the three relevant Bills should have been introduced in the first place in this House. For half of last year, we had nothing to do and for half of this year we were squabbling among ourselves and had no legislation to discuss. Now, three important Bills are not even being brought to this House in the right order. If this legislation had been introduced in this House first we could have done it justice and it could then have gone to the Dáil. The reason is that everyone wants to go on holidays and do not care what happens here.
The comments on the council were quite inappropriate. Since I became a Member of this House, my admiration and respect for what goes on in Dublin City Council has increased considerably because of their far better Chamber where one goes into debate with the possibility of influencing the outcome. The situation in this House is that it does not matter whether we sit and debate for 25 hours, 250 hours or 2,500 hours; the reality is that there is no prospect that we can change one comma, one line, or one word of the Broadcasting Bill. When the Minister came in here last week I asked him if he could give an undertaking that there was that prospect. The whole thing is a sham, a totally futile farce. What is the purpose of staying here for five minutes discussing it if we do not have the opportunity to improve the Bill? Apparently some people come in here to waffle on and to listen to themselves, other people come in here simply to be reported. I understood the purpose of the House was to improve legislation which is sent to us from the Dáil, to consider it in a measured way, to review it and to make improvements and changes.
Senator Cassidy took exception to my contribution on Second Stage when I said it was my understanding that no amendments were to be taken. He challenged me as to how I knew that. We all know that is the situation. I would much prefer to support Senator Norris, that as a protest against the futility of what is going on, we get up and go to the Mansion House and discuss it where we would have more impact than we would have here. I formally second the proposal of Senator Norris.
I do not understand how the Leader of the House or the Government Party can be accused of ramming through, rushing or guillotining the business of the House when we are now one hour listening to people who want to let off steam.
We want to do business.
We are getting a lecture. It is obvious there is an outbreak of expertise on the Constitution.
We want to do business.
Senator McGowan is entitled to speak without interruption. I have given protection to other speakers.
There are other people in the House——
The Constitution is a nuisance, of course.
It is not a nuisance but it has been tested and the experts backed off very fast. I find it difficult to take Fine Gael and Labour seriously because they were in a Coalition Government for at least three years when that same Bill was debated——
The Senator's party are in coalition now and are in love with it.
——and they could not agree among themselves to push the Broadcasting Bill. Now they are expressing concern and shedding crocodile tears. Why did they sit on their tails and do nothing when they had the Broadcasting Bill there?
This is not our Bill.
Senator McGowan, you are not addressing the Order of Business. It is not relevant.
I would ask——
I will have to ask the Senator to resume his seat. The Leader of the House, Senator Fallon, to reply.
A number of speakers, 15 or 16 in all, have contributed to the Order of Business and in almost every case they referred, in some way or other, to what they called a guillotine motion. Senators Manning and O'Toole spoke. Senator Upton proposed an amendment. Senator O'Keeffe, Senator Doyle and Senator Norris asked that item No. 9 be included — which obviously we are not taking. Senator D. Kiely and Senator Mooney also made comments, as did Senator O'Reilly. Senator Murphy made two points about the spirit of the Constitution and about the Marine Institute Bill. Senator Costello seconded the amendment to the Order of Business. Senator Jackman and Senator Ross also spoke. I would point out to Senator Ross that I have gone out of my way — and he knows that — to get many items of legislation introduced in Private Members' time and in Government time in which he and some of his colleagues had a particular interest. Senator Hederman also spoke, as did Senator McGowan.
Perhaps I could take all items together and acknowledge, since I am Leader of the House, the courtesy of Senators from all sides of the House. I would like to think that courtesy was reciprocated by me. I went out of my way to get business ordered, even where I thought I would not be able to get it. I followed up various matters and succeeded in getting debates in this House.
In relation to this matter before us today, there are two aspects, one is the procedural aspect and the other is the practical aspect. First, I will deal briefly with the procedural aspect. As has been said and as Senators will have seen from the Order Paper, there are two allocation of time motions before the House. As the House is aware, where there is prior agreement between the Whips the practice has evolved over recent years that arrangements for debating an item of business are proposed by the Leader of the House on the Order of Business. One could say that arrangements over the years have been of an ad hoc nature. These arrangements have in the past included, first, time limits on debate, examples of which can be seen from the debates in this session of all-party motions on Thursdays such as the Adelaide Hospital which was debated some time in May. Secondly, a time limit applies where a Minister is called to reply and so forth. The arrangements have also included — this is of particular relevance to item No. 1 on the Order Paper — the taking of an item of business without debate as happened on the establishment of various joint committees of the Houses on 6 December 1989. It is because there is no agreement that items Nos. 1 and 2 are on the Order Paper today. I will refer to that again.
In this case, formal notice of item No. 1 on the Order Paper has been given, even though the practice no longer requires it. For the reasons outlined, item No. 1 does not break new ground in proposing that item No. 2 be taken without debate. Where new ground is being broken, to my knowledge, is in proposing to take item No. 1 without amendment. There are various reasons for this. First, if there is to be no debate on an item, the question of amendments would serve no purpose other than perhaps subject the House to a multiplicity of divisions. Secondly, to a great extent allocation of time motions provoke an element of controversy and are "a take or leave it" measure. There is no half-way house position as I know from my attempts to achieve a compromise in my discussions with other groups. I will refer to that again. Thirdly, and most importantly, a protracted debate with amendments in the allocation of time would not serve the interests of this House and would further erode time which obviously the Members would like to have to discuss these Bills as they have indicated. Fourthly, allocation of time motions are procedural and are of narrow scope and do not involve major aspects of public policy or substance which would lend themselves to amendment. The allocation of time provides the best means for the House to expedite its business for this week.
The motion setting out the week's business is designed to allow the House to devote maximum time to the Bills before it. There will be no time lost and there will be no Order of Business on Wednesday and Thursday. Senator Manning and others referred to the fact that this was an unheard of precedent. Of course, there have been precedents. It is not uncommon to have procedural motions dealing with arrangements for debate taken across the floor on the Order of Business. On 6 December 1989 a number of motions dealing with the establishment of joint committees were taken without debate. On 6 July 1989 we had the remaining Stages of the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Bill, 1988, and on 4 December 1987 the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1982.
Special debates have been a feature of this session on Thursdays and generally speaking, they have all been subject to some form of restrictive debate. The motion on the Adelaide Hospital to which I referred is an obvious example. The now traditional debate on the Appropriation Bill which takes place in January each year is subject to an allocation of time motion, as were the debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 21 November 1985 and the debate on agricultural aid on 20 October 1985. Over the years the many Bills have been the subject of a formal allocation of time motion; it is nothing new at all. Other examples are the Finance Bills of 1976, and 1980, the Regulation of Banks Bill in 1976 and the Local Elections Bill of 1974. I stress it is nothing new.
The other matter on which I would like to comment is the question of, if you like, the political implications or whatever one likes to call them. I accept that, in this House, we are political people; a man has got to do what a man has got to do type of thing. The same applies to myself, Senator Manning and Senator Upton. We are presented with political challenges and are expected to be political from time to time.
I would have to say that last week I tried very hard to get agreement to bring about a successful conclusion to what is obviously a controversial Bill, the Broadcasting Bill, 1990. Nobody can deny my endeavours. I spoke with many Senators, many leaders of the groups. I offered an extra day or two days next week. I could get no agreement that, if that time were given, it would be finalised that evening or on, say, next Thursday, if it were to be debated next Wednesday and Thursday. I could get no agreement that such finalisation would be reached the following week, the week thereafter or even into September. Therefore I was faced with having to do something positive about it. I spoke with some Senators on the far side of the House who even suggested: why not continue until, say, 6 o'clock the following morning? I do not think that is necessary; it is not emergency legislation. There is no need for the House to bring back staff — reporters and so on — until 6 o'clock in the morning, but that was suggested to me.
Therefore, I came to the conclusion that the allocation of time motions on the Order Paper today were the best way forward. I do not accept for one moment that we have a guillotine motion. As I said previously, in a parliamentary sense, a guillotine means to cut short a debate on a Bill or motion. By tomorrow evening we shall have devoted 25 hours to the Broadcasting Bill, a short Bill of 20 sections, if you like, one of limited content. For example, on the two most important Bills over a two-year period — the Finance Bills of this and last year — we did not have 25 hours of debate. We debated the Social Welfare (Amendment) Bill this year, comprising 51 sections of vital importance to our people, as indeed is the Finance Bill, when, by agreement, we have five hours debate.
I want to stress that I went out of my way — having spoken to many people including the Independent Members — to bring about a successful conclusion last week. I asked for extra time; I suggested I would give another day or even two days, asking whether that would be sufficient. I could not get agreement although, in fairness, I would have to say that I think such agreement might have been forthcoming from some of the Independent Members — but not from the bigger players. It is not a guillotine motion; it is an allocation of time motion. I came to the conclusion — and this has been referred to — that obviously what is intended is a major filibuster. If one examines the meaning of "filibuster" one finds it means a process of obstructing legislation by way of long speeches and other delaying tactics. I predict that tomorrow we are in for many filibusters in this House, as we had last week——
Cite Parnell and O'Connell.
The Leader of the House without interruption.
When there are legislators who engage in such tactics as filibustering, time does not matter — an extra two days, an extra four days or even an extra ten days will mean nothing because, at the end of the day, it will continue and continue. I went out of my way to get agreement to bring about a successful conclusion.
We just do not want the Bill.
That is not true — there are 25 hours to be devoted to debate on that Bill——
Yes, but we just do not want the Bill.
Senator Norris has made his contribution.
I do not want to continue much longer; I could——
And the Senator would be filibustering.
It is not emergency legislation. Certainly it warrants time, I accept that, and has received over 50 hours debate in the other House. I am saying that the time being given, 25 hours, or more next week — and I offered it next week — would have been plenty but that agreement was not forthcoming. Indeed, it was with regret I had to table these motions — I do not like doing it — but, as Leader of this House, I have a job to do which is to get legislation through. I should say this action was taken by myself without consultation. I can assure Senators that the Government Whip in the other House did not instruct me to do this in any way. I debated this matter to myself over a long time, with some of my own colleagues and indeed with colleagues on the other side of the House, many of whom were saying: look, lads, we want the holidays but, at the same time, we would like extra time; they said that repeatedly. As Leader of this House, in an effort to get legislation passed, I did what I did. I should have preferred not doing so; I want to stress that yet again. I went out of my way to get agreement and could not; therefore I was forced into tabling these motions. That is the position with which we are now faced.
On a point of order, a Chathaoirligh, may I ask you for a ruling on my suggestion that what is taking place here today is in conflict with the Standing Orders of this House?
That is not a point of order.
It certainly is a point of order.
We have a number of amendments to the Order of Business. I will take them in the order in which they were tabled. The first is amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Manning who has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "To delete items Nos. 1 and 2 and substitute therefore item No. 4". Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Question put: "That items Nos. 1 and 2, proposed to be deleted, stand".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Howard and O'Reilly.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Senator Upton has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "To insert item 11, Motion 104, before item 1". Is the amendment being pressed?
Senators
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Upton and Costello; Níl, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Senator Norris has moved an amendment to the Order of Business: "To delete items 1 and 2 and substitute 4 and 9". In view of the decision on amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Manning, that items 1 and 2 stand, Senator Norris's amendment falls and cannot be put to the House.
Is the Order of Business agreed to?
Senators
No.
The question is: "That the Order of Business be items Nos. 1, 2 and 3."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Howard and O'Reilly.
Question declared carried.
Order of Business agreed to.