It is proposed to take item No. 2, the Companies (Amendment) Bill, 1990. Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders it is proposed that all Stages of the Companies (Amendment) Bill would conclude by 2 p.m. today by the putting of the question from the Chair. There will be a sos from 2 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. we will have the statements/discussion on the Middle East. Also, No. 3 will be taken immediately on the conclusion of No. 2.
Order of Business.
I find myself in a dilemma at the moment. The Whips agreed yesterday that Second Stage of the Companies (Amendment) Bill would be taken until 2 o'clock, the Committee Stage until 4 o'clock and there would be a 15 minute time limit on Second Stage speeches. I was informed, as was Senator Joe O'Toole, on the way in this morning about this need to finish the Bill today at 2 o'clock and that there were urgent reasons for doing this, but we were not told what those urgent reasons were. I do not wish to be disruptive. If there are urgent reasons for doing this then we will do everything we can to facilitate the Government in getting the legislation through, but it is a bit cavalier to be told on the way into this House that this has to be done and no reason given for doing so.
I do not want to waste time on the Order of Business because this is a very important matter. I do not want to have a row on the Order of Business, but I am concerned about what is happening. If the group leaders could meet afterwards with the Minister or his officials and be given reasons for this overwhelming urgency, I could then talk to my own group and we could agree to the Order of Business. What has happened is unacceptable. I do not want to call a division on the Order of Business. I do not want to waste time on the Order of Business, because there are many speakers who want to make important points on this legislation.
To solve this problem perhaps the Leader of the House could arrange a meeting so that we can learn what these reasons are. I cannot agree to the Order of Business as proposed.
I would like to say "ditto" to that. This is unacceptable. We have made it quite clear that in terms of facilitating the Government to debate this legislation we would do everything possible. It is just not good enough having tried to reach agreement to find ways of doing business, to discover changes being made at short notice. As we said earlier in the summer here the guillotine now seems to have become standard practice. It seems to be the way to do business. There are a number of issues involved here. I understand it is impossible to contact the Supreme Court after 4 p.m. in order to implement what is proposed in this legislation. I still think there is a long gap between 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock. The signing of the legislation by the President is something that could be done in 20 minutes, one would imagine.
This legislation was discussed earlier in this House as section 9 of the Companies Bill and we took a long time dealing with the issues contained in it. It now raises many other topical issues which deserve discussion. I cannot agree to hurry this legislation through without being giving a compelling reason. I have not heard why this debate cannot wait until tomorrow. I believe the further two hours could be used for debate. It is unfair to the people who have a contribution to make. I find myself in the position of having to oppose the Order of Business unless the Leader of the House can qualify or modify what he has proposed or to give other assurances.
I, too, find myself in disagreement with the Order of Business. This whole business is becoming more and more incredible. It has now become a matter of urgency that has to be resolved by 2 o'clock. Last week it was a routine matter. What are we to believe? What is credible and is not credible? The figures being thrown around vary almost by the second. I am wondering if this whole business is in accord with Article 24 of the Constitution, particularly in relation to necessities to consult the Council of State, resolutions from the Dáil and so on. I raise the point for consideration. I certainly have doubts about it.
I want to refer very briefly to the statements on the Middle East. I believe the Leader of the House yesterday stated that this debate was partly in response to a request from Members that we should have a debate on Middle East issues. I accept that time is limited. I accept that these statements should be made and that there has to be a time limit, but I do not think the statements made here this afternoon should be regarded as a debate on Middle East issues. I hope the Leader of the House does not take it as a precedent and tell us subsequently that that debate has occurred. What I am saying, in essence, is that I believe that here in the Seanad it is necessary to have a substantial debate on Middle East issues for which I and some of my colleagues will be pressing at a later date.
I also have to oppose this proposal. It seems to me to be quite outrageous. I wonder why the Seanad exists. Yesterday we met for ten minutes and were treated with contempt by the media, and perfectly correctly in my opinion: it is complete and utter nonsense. The Minister is a member of the Progressive Democrats Party, and members of that party in this House have told us that they are committed to the abolition of the Seanad. If they are going to treat the Seanad in this way, as partners in Government why do they not get ahead and abolish it because it appears to be absolutely no use whatever? We are not allowed to have any impact on legislation. Legislation is rammed through in a time scale which prevents us from doing our constitutional duty which is to refine legislation and to put down amendments. I wonder if the Progresive Democrats policy has infected the entire Government and if this represents the final stages of contempt which will lead to the abolition of the Seanad.
I must remind the Senator that Progressive Democrats policy has no bearing on the matter before the House.
It seems to. The Government's attitude towards the Seanad appears to be one of contempt which will, inevitably, lead towards its abolition.
The Senator is not helping.
I am. That is a matter of opinion and if the Senator persists in interrupting me I shall move item No. 78, that Seanad Eireann calls on the Government to establish a proper assessment therapeutic unit for girls with severe conduct disorders.
I would like to ask why we cannot meet tomorrow because there is not just this matter to discuss. I would point out to the House that the other House has provided time for a discussion which is directly relevant to this matter. We are expected to gallop in here to the assistance of friends of the Fianna Fáil Party, through pickets from Gateaux and Irish Shipping. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the Gateaux strike and also one, which is long overdue on Irish Shipping? I realise that no complete answer can be given to the following question today but I would like to signal to the Government that a considerable number on all sides of the House are interested in it.
I would like to ask the Leader to ask the Government what plans they have to follow up the incitement to hatred legislation with anti-discrimination legislation, which was indicated at the time. There will be a general welcome in the country for it. I realise we cannot get a complete answer, but I will be asking this again when we reconvene in the late autumn. Perhaps, the Leader will ask the Government what their plans in this regard are.
I should like to dissociate myself from my colleague's reference to item No. 78. I thought his remarks were surprisingly sexist, flippant and only moderately funny, for which I cannot forgive him.
The Senator got in in front of me in that regard.
I am uneasy about the suggestion that item No. 4 be given only two hours. Many of us will have more things to say on what should be more properly called the Gulf crisis than the Middle East situation, if I am not being too pedantic, than we will have on item No. 2. I would ask the Leader to either be more generous with the allotment of time for that discussion or else to make sure that the time limits are such that each interested contributor will be accommodated.
A number of points were made by Senators. What Senator Manning indicated was correct and I cannot deny that. Agreement was reached yesterday on giving 15 minute per speaker. It was agreed we would go on until 4 o'clock. Initially, we agreed to go on until 2 p.m. and then we agreed to go on until 4 p.m. We were called back to discuss this legislation last evening at 6 p.m. If that happened we could have had much more time and gone on until 11 p.m. or midnight. That did not happen and we are discussing this legislation this morning. The reasons given to me why all Stages must be concluded by 2 p.m. is that the Bill, to become law quickly, must be signed by the President shortly afterwards. Members will agree that this legislation is a matter of grave urgency. The urgency is obvious. That is the reason we are saying 2 p.m. rather than 4 p.m. It will not be two hours extra because the plan is for a sos of half-an-hour. It will be an extra hour and a half.
This Bill is, effectively, Part IX of the Companies (No. 2) Bill. That Bill, which was initiated and debated at length in the Seanad, went to the Dáil for a long Second Stage debate. The Committee Stage of Parts I and II were debated by the Dáil and because of the complex and highly technical nature of the Bill it was decided that a select committee of the Dáil should complete the remaining sections, including Part IX. Part IX, from section 154 to section 185, is what is before us for debate today. This legislation has been well discussed and agreed by all sides of the House. It deals with court protection for companies.
I will now refer briefly to the point made by Senator Manning. The Whips can meet after the Order or Business is agreed, but at the moment the Order of Business stands. We can talk later. We may agree to a change but I have to say at this point that the Order of Business is as I have indicated. My reply to Senator O'Toole is similar to what I have indicated to Senator Manning, and the same applies to Senator Upton.
Senator Staunton referred to statements and I should like to say that, as I indicated yesterday, we can call them statements or a discussion on any aspect, whether it is the Brian Keenan affair, the Middle East problem or the Gulf crisis. It will be a broad debate. I see nothing wrong in having an extra hour, Senator Murphy, if that is what Members want. We are free to do that, particularly with time on our hands this evening.
I have to support my colleague, Senators Lanigan and Murphy in their comments regarding a certain statement. I was not impressed. I have no intention of having a debate on the Gateaux or Irish Shipping issues. I have noted Senator Norris' other comments. He was making the point, like Senator Manning and other speakers, about the short time for the debate on the Bill before us.
Everything the Leader has said has convinced me that he is wrong in what he is doing. First of all, we are saying the President must sign it in two hours. That is constitutional contempt. I suggest that the Supreme Court be contacted.
I do not wish nor do I intend to take any proposals at this stage, Senator.
Could the Supreme Court be asked to wait on after 4 o'clock? It would not be the end of the world if they were asked to wait on one or two hours if there is a matter of such grave importance. Otherwise we must oppose the Order of Business.
Is the order of Business agreed?
Senators
No.
Question put: "That the Order of Business be items Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, all Stages of item No. 2 be brought to a conclusion not later than 2 p.m. today, item No. 3 to be taken immediately thereafter and item No. 4 to be taken from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Seán.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Harte, John.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Murphy, John A.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators O'Reilly and Jackman.
Question declared carried.
In a reply to a query from Senator Murphy, I wish to say that I have no objection to take item No. 4 from 2.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. if the House agrees.
The Leader of the House, in reply to a request from Senator Murphy, has asked me to put it to the House that an extra hour be given to the debate on No. 4. Is that agreed? Agreed.