Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Dec 1990

Vol. 127 No. 2

Companies (No.2) Bill, 1987: Allocation of Time.

Mr. Fallon

I move:

In the case of the Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987, and not withstanding anything in Standing Orders:—

(1) the debate on the Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration" shall not exceed a period of 12 hours in the aggregate and at the expiration of this period, the proceedings thereon, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion by the putting of one Question from the Chair; and

(2) the debate shall be divided in accordance with the following timetable:

Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil (Amendments made by Dáil) — Time allowed for debate: Parts I to IV, three hours; Parts VI and VII, three hours; Parts VIII and IX, three hours; Parts X and XI, three hours.

and Senators shall be entitled to speak once upon the content of the amendments made to each such division.

Mr. Howard

I wish to oppose item No. 3 and to give my reasons for doing so. As I said earlier, there is a full commitment on this side of the House to ensure that legislation is introduced to deal with what is a totally unsatisfactory scene in the matter of company law. My problem in relation to the time is simple. I understood the Leader to say, when replying to the debate on the Order of Business, that a document had been circulated by somebody this morning for the guidance and assistance of Senators. I understood you to say that it was circulated by the Cathaoirleach. I have not received this document.

An Cathaoirleach

On a point of clarification, I understand it is with the ushers.

Mr. Howard

Thank you. At least I have received it now. I do not know what it relates to. It is a further example of the difficulties that I have encountered in preparing myself to deal with what is a very serious piece of legislation. I said that what is now proposed in the time allocation is that we would devote three hours to debating the amendments related to five very important sections — Three hours, 180 minutes, to deal with 147 amendments or 121 sections.

In the second three hours that have been proposed we would deal with Parts VI and VII of the Bill 60 amendments to 48 sections. In the third period of three hours we are expected to deal with Parts VIII and IX — 13 amendments to 11 sections; and in the final segment of three hours we are expected to deal with 77 amendments to eight sections. That is a virtual impossibility. This entire series of amendments took over 21 days to be disposed of in the Dáil Committee. I do not wish to go over ground that has been already dealt with, but in 12 hours we are expected to do the work of 21 days in the special Dáil Committee.

Again, in the first segment of three hours dealing with the first five Parts of the Bill, there the preliminary sections and sections dealing with investigation, transactions involving directors, the disclosure of interests and dealing with the very important issue of insider dealing. Even if I only had access to what I had access to at midday yesterday, and even if I had access to it for a longer period of time that the space of three hours, there is no way I could do justice to the very important matters contained in that legislation. We cannot give to the Bill itself, to the amendments or to the sections, the type of examination that is required and expected of us.

Senators referred earlier today to the fact that representations and correspondence had been received from many bodies. Indeed, I have been the recipient of a substantial body of correspondence and representations from interested parties. There are no means available to me within the time scale suggested, and now being proposed, in which I can put forward the points of view that have been conveyed to me, that I can argue these or that they can be dealt with in any way. I believe that that is a denial of the right of the organisations, the bodies and the persons concerned, who have a right to expect of me — they believe that I have a duty and I accept that I have one — to put forward reasoned and well argued points of view in relation to so many aspects of it. We cannot be expected in the time allocation for today and tomorrow to put forward these points that we have made. I understand there is a consolation being offered to us. We are being told that, if it is possible, we can put down amendments and we can argue these. We are told if it is posible for the Minister to accommodate us by implementing these — provided we can first persuade him — through order or regulation that that will be done. That is poor consolation; it is inadequate and therefore it is unacceptable.

There are aspects of the Bill, as I have read it in the short time available to me, that I am not happy with. There are other aspects that require clarification. I am being denied, by virtue of time constraints, a satisfactory manner of dealing with both the reservations I have and extracting the clarifications that I am entitled to. Therefore, what I am saying is that, as a legislator, I am being denied the opportunity of doing my duty. I am being denied the right of being satisfied on an important piece of legislation which, as I said, will form the basis of company law certainly for the next decade and, perhaps, further on. I am not in a position to be satisfied whether the many sections of the legislation or the many amendments to it are good, bad or indifferent, or that the legislation is good, bad or indifferent in either its entirety or in its parts. The public at large, and in these circumstances the industrial and commercial sector, expect of all of us in this House to act responsibly and in a manner in which we can be satisfied that the legislation we are bringing in is good legislation. As I say, I am not in a position to say whether it is good, bad or indifferent because I have not been given the opportunity of getting the time required to study this and to analyse what is involved here. I am satisfied I cannot properly discharge the responsibility the public expect of us because I am being denied the time necessary to digest and analyse a Bill of 200 pages and almost 300 sections.

I reject the attitude of the Government, not just because of the disadvantage in which it has placed me, but more importantly in that it would appear to reflect a rejection by the Government of the appropriate functions and duties of this House. The manner in which the Bill has been presented amounts to an invitation to the House to rubber stamp legislation that it has not considered, examined or dealt with adequately. As a Member of this House I have a right to protest at that attitude of the Government towards the Seanad. This protest is related to what is being done to the Seanad. I want to make it absolutely clear that the criticisms and reservations I have expressed are not to be interpreted as reflecting on the work that was done by the Select Committee of the Dáil. I have read the reports of that Select Committee — all 21 of them. My difficulty is to relate them to the document I received yesterday.

Mrs. Honan

Let the Minister in. He might clear it up for you.

Mr. Howard

We will certainly put him through his paces when he does come in. I have read the reports of the Select Committee and I feel the members of that committee should be complimented on the work they did, the time they took and the many amendments — almost 300 — that they dealt with over 21 days. They put a massive amount of work and consideration into it. In complimenting the members of that Select Committee on the work they did, I cannot but contrast the time and opportunity which was allowed to that Select Committee to do what was considered necessary and to point out how it is in such sharp contrast with the time and opportunity that is being allowed to the Upper House of the Oireachtas. We are, in effect, being told to take it or leave it.

My difficulty is that because of the time constraints, because of receiving the amendments and the Bill as it left the Dáil at midday yesterday, in addition to having received, just minutes ago, a document that the Leader indicated this morning would be a considerable help to me in guiding me through the situation, I am put in a position that I have to conclude my remarks at this stage by saying that I regret that I will very likely not be in a position to deal adequately and effectively with what is probably very necessary and comprehensive legislation. But of that fact I am not sure, one way or the other. Having being placed at this disadvantage, all I can say is that I am opposing the time allocation motion. I am repeating what I said earlier: a willingness on this side of the House to come back in the new year to spend whatever time is necessary to ensure that we can be satisfied that the legislation that we would agree to put on the Statute Books would be as effective and thorough as it could be to deal with very pressing requirements.

Mr. B. Ryan

I understand that it would have been in order for me to move an amendment, but I want to make one small statement. I am not going to propose an amendment to this of the nature that I attempted to propose on the Order of Business, but which did not reach the floor for reasons we need not go into now. They were more to do with mistakes than any malice. Out of deference to the remarks of one of the people in this House that I hold in the highest respect, Senator Jack Harte, I would not have pursued the amendment to the Order of Business that I proposed, because he is a person whose opinions on this House and the operations of this House I greatly respect. That does not in the least bit affect my attitude to the guillotine; but I would have — out of deference to Senator Harte and for no other reason — withdrawn the proposal I made on the Order of Business. He is a person whose stature in this House I hold in the highest esteem and his arguments persuaded me not to pursue that ambition.

At this stage I am more upset than angry about this whole matter. I was very proud of the role this House played in regard to the Companies Bill. As I said when we were discussing the Order of Business, I was proud of it notwithstanding the fact that not a line of what was done was properly reported anyway. This is not a criticism, it is a fact of life. The Committee Stages of complicated legislation are not the meat of detailed newspaper coverage or coverage in the media; but they are the meat of Parliament. In my view that is what Parliament is really about. It is the fundamental role of a House of the Oireachtas, to deal with legislation carefully and in detail. It is important to remember that the discussion of this now-to-be-guillotined Bill when it first time came through this House did throw up a considerable number of anomalies, of errors, of contradictory sections. Our recently elected President played a major part in that debate as did many other Senators. It was a serious debate conducted without as much as a single word of rancour or anger. It was a serious discussion on a serious issue.

I do not understand and I am absolutely flabbergasted — because I know and respect the Leader of the House and have considerable affection for him — why this is necessary. There is no national emergency that I am aware of which dictates that this Bill should be rushed through. Let us remember that this is the Companies Bill, 1987; it is not the Companies Bill, 1990. This has been around for three years. It spent a long time in this House because the then Government took a very long time to be ready for a Committee Stage of the Bill. It is easy to understand the reason. Companies legislation is complex and detailed and it was an education for all of us to go through that experience. It is therefore more hurtful than anything else to have what is and was our Bill that we dealt with — and dealt with considerable responsibility — suddenly rushed through without adequate and proper debate on the amendments.

I will not be participating in the debate on the Companies Bill for a variety of reasons. I am not going to play games. Part of the reason is because the decision to take it today and tomorrow came at rather short notice. I did not actually believe last week that there would be an insistence that it should go through before Christmas, because I could not see the point. I could not see the point last July of another piece of legislation going through, but at least in that one there were timetables inserted in the legislation which dictated that the Bill would have to go through before the Summer Recess. I might have disagreed with them, but there were internal reasons in the legislation. There is no internal reason in the Companies Bill why this Bill could not be postponed and taken, with time and with due consideration by this House, after Christmas.

I am at the stage now of being beyond being angry. I am just disappointed, because every so often things are done to this House in the name of the Leader of the House which are a total contradiction of the attitude of and the way the Leader of the House deals with people. It appears to me that he does these things because he is told to do them by people outside this House. It seems to me that, sooner or later, some Leader of this House is going to have to stand up and say, whatever his party credentials, because it has happened before, "No. I am the Leader of this House. We operate according to the way this House should operate". It is important to put on the record that it is not Government that runs the Oireachtas; it is not the Government who control the Oireachtas; it is the Oireachtas which controls Government. Government is accountable to the Oireachtas; it is not the boss of the Oireachtas. That is the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy. The Government are accountable to the Oireachtas. They do not own, control or run the Oireachtas. If that principle is turned upside down and make Government the agent or the decider and Parliament the rubber stamp, then you make a mockery of parliamentary democracy.

Unlike perhaps some of my colleagues, even on the Independent benches, I would not like to overstate the significance of Seanad Éireann — it is the secondary House of the Oireachtas. But it is precisely that secondary nature that makes it an appropriate vehicle for proper discussion of issues that are not enormously politically juicy. They are issues perhaps that do not capture the public mind or media attention, but they are issues which are important. This has been shown on many occasions on many issues by the Members here. In particular, Senator Honan from the Fianna Fáil side has been a consistent contributor on the detail of many pieces of legislation both when her party were in Government and when they were in Opposition. Therefore, it is all the more regrettable that we have this motion before us. This is not the sort of legislation that needs or deserves to be rushed through.

I have to say, on a slightly rancorous note, that I find it particularly ironic that it should be legislation being handled by a Minister who is a member of the minority party in Government and which will be rushed through in a way which shows a less than wholesome respect for the role of Parliament. The Progressive Democrats have contributed considerably in their public statements to an assertion of the dominance of Parliament over Government and of the need to restore the balance so that Government is accountable to Parliament, so that Parliament has a genuine decision-making role and is not simply seen as a rubber stamp of Government. It is therefore somewhat ironic, to say the least, that this second exercise of a guillotine in less than six months should be apparently at the behest of a Minister of a party which has made a virtue out of institutional reform. It is particularly ironic that the party with that alleged commitment to institutional reform when it runs up against a minor obstacle — the possible delay in the passing of the Companies Bill for another four to six weeks — forgets all about its commitment to institutional reform and simply says to the second House of the Oireachtas, the secondary House of the Oireachtas: we will decide how much time you must have, we will not bother to wait even until you have time to read the amendments.

We must remember that it is not simply the timetable here that is objectionable; it is the timetable imposed 36 hours after Members got their hands on the amendments that were to be debated here. If somebody had told us that in the middle of January we are going to allocate two days to the Comanies Bill to discuss all the amendments from the Dáil, I probably would have objected — it is the nature of people on the benches I sit on to object. But it would have been reasonable to suggest having a month to consider those amendments, to read them, to read the submissions made — it is important to remember that there is not necessarily anything like a consensus in the business world about the worth of this Bill as it stands. It is important to remember that all of us — not just Senator Norris, he gave that impression when he was speaking — receive substantial representations from many business agencies, many people in the business world, about what is wrong with this legislation. Indeed, we received it before we actually knew for certain in some cases what was going to be done with the legislation. That is wrong. It is wrong that legislation introduced by people and supported by people in front of me and on the other side, who actually claim to be far more pro-business than I am, should now suddenly be rushed through before taking into account all of the legitimate concerns of interested bodies with a considerable fund of expertise.

I found this expertise enormously helpful when this Bill was introduced first in this House three years ago, particularly that of the accountancy profession whose interest in this issue I found enormously useful and also that of the CII and indeed of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions at that time. The accountancy profession's detailed analysis of the Bill as it stood was enormously helpful. I did not agree with all of their views, but it was a measure of the significance of it. We are now in a similar position where we all have a large volume of correspondence. It is ridiculous to suggest that adequate consideration can be given to the Bill as amended, and to the amendments from the Dáil in particular, in the time available, with the short notice available and with the limited period for preparation people have. It would have been appropriate that Members of this House would have gone and discussed these submissions with the various bodies. It has been done before and it should be done again. It works extremely well. We did it on major items of legislation which we initiated in this House and the result was that that legislation was in many cases significantly and dramatically amended. It is entirely wrong that that process is now being short circuited for no reason that I can see.

I can understand, and I have supported, emergency legislation going through this House where people were prepared to indicate precisely why; but nobody has given us a reason why. Let us remember, the Leader of the House stood up and said "I move" and sat down again. That was the depth of his justification for this proposal. The only thing he has elaborated on is to say he thinks it is reasonable. He has not told us why it needs to be passed before Christmas. He has not told us why he has decided that three hours is a reasonable time. He has not told us who it is who told him to pass it before Christmas. We have not been given any reason for this. It is not my experience and it is not my memory of either this House or my knowledge of the other House to suggest that items like this should be rushed through on the nod for no particular reason other than perhaps the impatience of some or other members of the Government.

It is not the business community who want this legislation passed in a hurry. Our information is that the business community are worried about aspects of this legislation and aspects of the amendments passed by the Dáil and want the matters discussed. So who wants this legislation through before Christmas? Not those, apparently, who are most affected by it, because they are telling us what is wrong with it and they want us to talk about it. I am not for a moment trying to overstate our significance. But the business community most affected by the implications of this legislation raised a large number of issues with many Members of this House, probably all of us, and asked us to discuss them. They effectively said: slow it down, talk about and find out what all this means because it is important. It is not the business community who want to have it passed. It is not the Members on this side of the House who want it passed and it most assuredly was not the Members of the other House. They took their time, quite rightly, in a Special Committee to discuss this.

Who is it who wants this Bill rushed through? I do not believe it is Fianna Fáil. I do not believe the Fianna Fáil Members of this House want this legislation rushed through. If they could see the urgency for it they would have explained it to us. If they had a plausible reason that could be put on the record as to the reason for this urgency they would have told us. They are not shy about expressing their opinions. I have to assume that somebody is telling them what to do and they are doing it, presumably most reluctantly. That is not the way to deal with this House. If it is the Minister who is responsible for this, then he is showing considerable contempt not just for this House but for the business community who have made representations to this House about this Bill. It is a rather contradictory view for the Minister responsible for this legislation to take, to talk about the importance of this legislation for the corporate sector and then refuse to allow time to have an adequate debate on the issues raised by them in relation to amendments contained in the Bill.

That is why as I said at the beginning of my contribution that I am not at this stage even in the humour to be angry. I am simply extremely disappointed since this is legislation which I, for one, was very proud of because of the role this House played in its introduction and development. The House showed that it was capable and willing to listen to many professional bodies and they came back to us with their further considered reflections on the amendments, assuming that this House would do the same job again, conscientiously, and without party political point-scoring on an issue on which there is no party political division. Now they discover, this time around that this House is what the public have always been told it is: a rubber stamp. It is a constitutional irritant which many Ministers find tedious and a nuisance. In this case it has been stated quite specifically that we will be given our token time in which to make our token input and then it will all be passed — cheerio, happy Christmas, go home. It is really as bad as that.

The House had reason to be proud of this legislation and now one role at the end of it will be demeaning and almost squalid as a result of the way in which it is being rushed through. The other major concern is the lack of time in which to allow people to prepare for this Bill. Our biggest objection is the short time allowed to discuss it and the even more abbreviated time in which to prepare for this debate because we are not geniuses. Notwithstanding the impression Senator Norris gives from time to time, we are not geniuses on the backbenches. We actually have to learn from other people. Senator Norris may be a genius, but I am not.

Mr. Norris

We are all geniuses.

Mr. B. Ryan

Senator Norris has a more elevated view of humanity than I do.

Mr. Norris

"Genius" is the latin for spirit. We are all spirits. I am an exceedingly spiritual person.

Mrs. Honan

We are certainly spirits this morning.

Mr. B. Ryan

I did not intend, notwithstanding the impatient look on the Government Whip's face, to delay this unnecessarily. I am simply recording the distaste with which I view this proposal, the illogicality of it and also the considerable contempt shown to those who, using the democratic organs that were available to them made vigorous representations to us about this legislation. It is the wrong way to do things. It is unnecessary and does not help us in our attempt to make this House what it should be, the secondary, but important, House of the Oireachtas where issues can be discussed properly without the perpetual contention of party politics that perhaps is more visible in the other House.

Even at this stage, the Leader of the House could consider an open-ended debate on the format taken, where Parts I to V would commence now and we would see how long it would take and then when they were completed Parts VI and VII could be dealt with. We could continue the debate in the New Year. I cannot understand why it has to be passed this week and I would appreciate an explicit, detailed, elaborate explanation from the Leader of the House on this. I do not believe there is a good one, other than that somebody outside this House is telling him that he wants it through and the Leader of the House has no choice.

Mrs. Doyle

Will the Leader of the House explain why the hurry? That is basically what we need to know. If there is a crisis of any kind in the business or the corporate sector, if there is something happening in the Stock Exchange that we do not know about, if there is something in the corporate sector that could be of such proportions and do such damage that this Bill must be enacted by tomorrow night, or in the next few days, we are reasonable people and we will go along with the Leader. What is the hurry, in the absence of a crisis of some kind or another in the corporate sector?

As a Member of the other House I was very much aware of the length of time and the excellent job Seanad Éireann did on the Companies Bill when it was initiated here over three years ago. It passed here over two years ago. I think the bones of a year were spent in teasing out the details. There were no political divisions. Each Member contributed, a wonderful job was done and many amendments were added to the Bill. It was a proud record of just what Seanad Éireann can achieve when the Bill went to Dáil Éireann. It was so complicated then, notwithstanding the hours of work that had gone into it, that the Dáil sent it to a Special Committee. There were no Senators on that committee as it was a Dáil committee. I think 21 sessions of that committee took place before the Bill left Committee Stage and was recommitted back to the Dáil. Interestingly, I understand that three of those 21 reports of the Special Dáil Committee are unavailable, they are not in the House or in the Library of the Oireachtas. Three of the reports on the Bill we are supposed to be discussing today and tomorrow are not even available to us.

The point has been very well made, I underline it because it is particularly pertinent to those of us who were not Members of the Seanad when it considered the Bill, that the Bill, as amenmded in the Dáil, landed into us yesterday at lunchtime. Yesterday was the first time Members of this Seanad saw this legislation, the bones of 300 sections and 300 amendments. We had to decipher the original Bill and add to that the amendments that were put in the Seanad when it was discussed here two to three years ago. We had to add to that the amendments put in by the Committee in the Dáil and we had to consider in depth the professional representations we all received from the various bodies around the country in relation to their serious concerns about the Bill.

We received the amendments last night. We have not had 48 hours in which to consider very important legislation. Some Senators have a slight advantage in that they were Members of the House when this was first considered. Others, like myself, were in the Dáil when the Bill was in the Seanad and in the Seanad when the Bill was in the Dáil. Thus, I have had no opportunity in either House to speak to the substance of the Bill or consider a Second Stage contribution to the Bill or to examine it in such depth that one would have a feeling of what one is trying to achieve.

I fully support the view that there is a questionable constitutionality about what we are doing here. Senator Norris mentioned it this morning. Some of my colleagues have also offered this opinion. If we look back at the Seanad Official Report when the Bill was initiated there is a comment attributed to Justice Ronan Keane. If certain sections of the Bill were questionable at that time, the procedures we are now going through in jackbooting the Bill in this House must make it seriously flawed from a constitutional point of view. I wonder if this is the Bill on which our new President will cut her teeth when it comes to referring Bills to the Supreme court? It would be rather interesting when one considers it in that light. I hope we do not renege on our responsibility and that it is not because of what we do or fail to do in this House that results in this Bill going to the Supreme Court.

We put down a marker to the Government. We want to give the Bill the time it deserves. We want to go through it section by section and I am proposing that because of the difficulties and the time constraints on us in studying the Bill in detail, it be recommitted. I so propose the amendment that this Bill be recommitted to allow proper consideration of the seriousness of the issues, the professional representations we have all received and to allow some of these points be taken on board by the Minister. It would afford those of us who have not had an opportunity before to go through the Bill in detail to do so now. It has been pointed out that the House has been treated with contempt by the Government.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Naughten)

I should explain that if this motion is opposed under Standing Order No. 91, the Chair allows the proposer to explain, through an explanatory statement, the reasons for the proposed recommittal and a statement from the Senator who opposes the motion before he puts the question on the motion. Is the motion to recommit agreed?

Mr. Farrell

We oppose the motion to recommit.

Acting Chairman

The motion for recommittal is opposed. The Senator can explain why she is asking for a recommittal.

Mr. Doyle

Thank you. I was doing that before you chose to instruct me on the proceedings of the House but I stand advised by you.

Acting Chairman

It was not formally opposed at that stage.

Mrs. Doyle

I did not expect the Leader of the House to consider what I was proposing by way of an amendment. The Leader of the House has joined us and I would like to point out to him that I feel strongly that it is not his wish that the Order of Business is being imposed on us as it is. We are being constrained in our debate on this most important legislation. I ask the Leader to assert the independence I know he has for the sake of the integrity of the House as part of our bicameral system of Parliament. I urge the Leader of the House not to allow us to be used as a rubberstamp.

It would appear that the Government have come round to the view of their Progressive Democrat colleagues in Cabinet, that really we are irrelevant. They put up with us as long as we are here. They will go through the motions of shovelling stuff through us but the quicker it gets in and out the sooner they will get on with the real business. We are just an irritation on the whole spectrum of Irish politics. I ask the Leader of the House to confirm that is the Government's view. I ask him to state what the rush is and why we cannot proceed with this on Committee Stage. At the very least we need a weekend in which to consider the Bill from the Dáil and the list of amendments so that we can understand the representations being made by the professional bodies. We have all discussed with different bodies — CIF, CII, CCAB, ICTU and others—their views, concerns and wishes in relation to this Bill. They all would like to see it enacted but they would not like to see it rushed through or our legal people being given field days for months and years ahead because we reneged on our responsibility.

We have an opportunity here to do an excellent job for the corporate sector. There is much that needs to be done. Concern about insider dealing and other issues triggered this off. The provisions of this Bill are badly needed but bad provisions would be worse than the situation we have at present. Knowing the length of time it takes to get Bills through the parliamentary draftsman and on to Order Papers, both in the Dáil and Seanad, God knows how many years would elapse before we had an opportunity to go back over the details again.

A very good point was made on the Order of Business which recalled the rapidity with which the Government called all Deputies and Senators back in August and September to deal with what was effectively a section of this Bill originally, when a crisis arose. We were not found wanting in terms of responding, looking at the regulations before us speedily and getting on with the business. There was a crisis in a sector of industry at the time. As the Leader of the House is unable to explain to us what crisis is there now, what the hurry is and what the panic is, I am asking him to recommit the Bill, to allow us sit through the night and tomorrow night. We will be here again next week. We need time to do justice to the Bill. In the absence of justification from the Leader of the House for the unseemly haste, the jackboot tactics, and the rubberstamping exercise, we cannot accept his view.

Mr. Hourigan

I formally second the proposal.

Acting Chairman

Is the Senator dealing with the motion to recommit? That is now being discussed.

Mr. Ross

Then we will come back to the original motion after that has been discussed.

Acting Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Ross

At the risk of being repetitive, it is important that we put our feelings on record because we will not get a chance to do so on the Bill. The problem today for the Leader of the House is that the Seanad has been found out. Like many Members of this House, I have had numerous representations on this Bill in the last few days, some personal and some in writing. Quite honestly, it has been acutely embarrassing for Senators to explain to members of the public or the business world that what is happening today is a rubberstamp operation. I was speaking last night to the secretary of one of the largest public companies in the country. He had written a long letter to me the day before with his suggestions about the Bill, about the serious inadequacies in the Bill and the serious problems that lay down the road if the Bill was not amended. These representations were made without rancour with the objective of making the Bill a better organised Bill from the point of view of the business world. I had, like everybody else in this House, to explain that, yes possibly it was worthwhile to have a discussion, that we were going to get these amendments back in the next two days but if he thought the Government were going to allow any amendments or improvements to the Bill he was wrong. It is acutely embarrassing to have to explain to people outside this House that what we are doing in this House in the next two days is purely cosmetic and is window-dressing.

This Bill is going to go through this House unchanged. The suggestions from this side of the House will be ignored and the Bill will not be improved. The Government have decided that the Bill should no longer be improved because there is a hurry. Senator Doyle asked a question which I hope the Leader of the House will answer; why can we not take it next week or after Christmas? What is the hurry? The reason is that the Bill has been around since 1987 and somebody somewhere, presumably the Minister, has suddenly got fed up with it and said let us get it through. That is not the way legislation should be dealt with.

I am pleased to say I was fortunate enough to be in this House in 1987 when the Bill came before the House. It was a matter of great pride to those of us on all sides who were here, that the Bill was amended in a very constructive way. Numerous amendments were proposed by the Independent Members, by Fine Gael and Labour and I am sure by the Government. The debate took place in a non-contentious, non-party political atmosphere.

I take this opportunity to say the attitude of the Minister, Deputy Brennan, at the time was extraordinarily helpful and constructive in that he took amendments on board and said he would consider them. He went away and we were sceptical as to whether he would come back with them but he came back with the amendments proposed by the Government written into the Bill. That was a source of enormous pride to the Seanad as a whole. It is something which I point out to detractors of the Seanad's worth ever since. There were about 100 amendments which were proposed and accepted.

What we are doing today is destroying that achievement and the message that this House is capable of doing something constructive. That was a very proud moment for us. It was something which we can point out to many like the Progressive Democrats when they say the Seanad is not worth anything and to Senator Cullen who was here for what he called the photo opportunity of the Order of Business.

I do not know where the Leader of the House got the idea from that we could somehow deal with this Bill in 12 hours. I do not know why it is divided in this extraordinary, random way. It is true that none of us received the documents before yesterday. This is a new Bill. There are 300 amendments to it. The business world is laughing at the Seanad today and is extremely disappointed. The business world is pleased with this Bill as it stands but wants genuine improvements. What we are doing today is accepting the jackboot from the Minister or the Government and, as a result we will pass bad legislation.

I support the motion for recommittal.

Pól Ó Foighil

Tá mé féin ag tabhairt tacaíochta don rún go gcuirfí an Bille seo ar ais ina iomlán go dtí an Seanad le go bhféadfaí é a phlé. Tá roinnt fáthanna bunúsacha agam féin mar Sheanadóir maidir leis an iarratas sin. I dtosach báire, is duine de na Seanadóirí nua mé, sa mhéid nach raibh mé sa Teach nuair a bhí an Bille so ag dul tríd, agus cuireann sé sin laincisí an-mhór orm go pearsanta mar Sheanadóir nua, agus ar na Seanadóirí nua eile chomh maith liomsa, is cuma cén taobh den Teach ar a bhfuil siad. Laincis uafásach isea é. Tá sé díreach cosúil le cornasc a chur ar ghabhar nó ar chaora amuigh ar an sliabh. Cuireann tú laincis nó snaidhm timpeall a gcos sa chaoi is nach bhfuil siad in ann rith ná siúl. Sin díreach atá ar bun sa Teach seo inniu. Tá laincis nó cornasc á chur ag an Teach seo ar mo leithéidse mar dhuine nua sa Teach, nach bhfaca riamh an Bille seo, nach raibh aon eolas agam faoi, gur rud nua uilig é, scun scan. Lena iarraidh ormsa go mbeadh rud le rá agam faoin mBille seo, rud a bhfuil an-suim agam ann, agus a bhfuil an-suim ag muintir na hÉireann agus lucht gnó ann, teacht isteach anseo agus a rá go bhfuilimid réidh leis tar éis 12 uair, ní amháin go bhfuil sé seafóideach ach tá sé mífhéaráilte agus mímhorálta go n-iarrfaí a leithéid orm.

Tá mé chomh trín da chéile sin go bhfuil m'intinn ina cíor thuathail. Chuir mo pháirtí dualgas orm labhairt ar chodanna áirithe den Bhille seo, agus dúirt mé go raibh mé sásta sin a dhéanamh ach an t-eolas cuí bheith agam. Cén chaoi, in ainm Dé, agus in ainm na tíre, go bhféadfadh mo leithéidse rud ar bith a rá faoin mBille seo agus gan eolas dá laghad agam faoi go dtí inné. An rud a cuireadh os mo chomhair inné, an leabhar mór toirtiúil seo, is geall le leabhar a bheadh agat agus tú ag déanamh scrúdú na hArdteiste, scrúdú dlí nó scrúdú ollscoile. Is leabhar 200 leathanach é seo, tugadh dom é agus dúradh liom go gcaithfinnse dul isteach agus é seo a phlé sa Seanad.

Nuair a bhí sé sin réidh agam tugadh leabhar eile dom, ceann uaithne nó, más maith libh, green, agus tá sibh ag ceapadh go bhfuil imid uilig green istigh anseo leis an gcineál sin a chur os ár gcomhair. Tugadh leabhar eile dom inné, ceann buí agus feicim go bhfuil 300 leasú ann. Thosaigh mo chloigeann ag dul timpeall. Ansin thosaigh mé ag dul trí leabhair bhána, iad seo go léir a bhí ag plé na hoibre seo. Cuireadh seo uilig os mo chomhair — trí leabhair atá ann, ceann glas, ceann bán agus ceann buí. Ba gheall le bratach na hÉireann a thabhairt dom ar dhul isteach sa Teach seo dom agus mo dhúthracht a chaitheamh ag iarraidh rud éigin a rá faoin méid seo stuif. Níl a leath de anseo agam. Tá cuid den rud ann nach raibh mé in ann a fháil in áit ar bith, agus tá tuairiscí ann nach bhfuil ar fáil ach oiread.

A Chathaoirligh, tá mé ag impí ort, in ainm Dé agus ar son dea-thoil an Tí seo, go dtabharfá éisteacht liom agus le chuile dhuine againn. Nílimid ag iarraidh ach an rud ceart a dhéanamh. Níl aon aighneas eadrainn faoin mBille. Is Bille fíorthábhachtach é, agus má tá tábhacht ag baint leis an mBille seo, cén fáth nach bhfuil am le fáil againn? Is Bille nua é fad agus a bhaineann sé liomsa. Tá sé ráite ag an taobh eile den Teach go bhfuil sé ansin ó 1987, tá sé in am fáil réidh leis. Ach maidir liomsa, níl sé in am fáil réidh leis.

An bhfuil sibh ag iarraidh fáil réidh liomsa chomh maith leis an mBille, gan aon chead bheith agam staidéar a dhéanamh air i dtosach sa dóigh is go bhféadfainn teacht isteach agus rud éigin a rá faoi agus mo chuid tuairimí a nochtadh, agus go n-éisteofaí leo. Ceaptar go mbeidh 12 uair sásúil, ó thaobh ama dé, leis seo a phlé. Níl aon chiall leis sin. Tá rud in iarthar na tíre ar a dtugtar fóidín mearaí agus is é an chiall atá leis sin ná go dtéann fear nó bean isteach i ngarraí nó i mbád agus cuirtear a n-intinn tríd a chéile chomh mór sin, agus stuif mar seo acu, go dtéann siad timpeall i gciorcal agus níl siad in ann dul amach as an sáinn in a bhfuil siad. Tá fóidín mearaí curtha ormsa de bharr go bhfuil an taobh eile ag iarraidh an rud seo a bhrú orainn anseo inniu. Níl sé bunreachtúil.

Tá ceisteanna an-tábhachtacha le plé againn, agus tá mé ag impí go dtabharfaí am dúinn an t-ábhar seo a phlé i gceart. Ná déanaigí dearmad gur seo aimsir na Nollag agus deirtear go dtarlaíonn rudaí aisteacha faoin Nollaig ó thaobh an Tí seo de. Cúpla bliain ó shin, arís in aimsir na Nollag, cuireadh dlí tríd an Dáil agus an Teach seo faoin famous rod licence — chuala sibh faoi sin — agus i ngan fhios do dhuine ar bith cuireadh tríd é. Anois táimid ag dul an bealaigh chéanna. Níor fhoghlaim muid aon cheacht as. An bhfeictear cad a tharla faoin mBille ar an rod licence a cuireadh tríd gan deis cheart labhartha a thabhair do dhaoine.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator, we will have to stay with the recommittal.

Pól Ó Foighil

Certainly. No problem. Má dhéantear an rud a rinneadh cheana, beidh sé seo le rá, nár tugadh dóthain ama, nár pléadh é, nach raibh mo leithéidse agus daoine eile mar mé in ann labhairt air, a bheag nó a mhór, agus nár tugadh seans dúinn é a chíoradh i gceart; go bhfuil an Rialtas ag iarraidh é a chur tríd, díreach mar a tharla an tseachtain seo caite nuair a thug Aire na Mara Bille eile isteach ach a tharraing sé siar go hansciobtha é nuair a chuala sé an méid a bhí le ra ag daoine faoi. Mar an gcéanna leis an rud seo. Tá mé ag iarraidh freagra díreach amháin ón gCeannaire ar an taobh eile ar an cheist seo, cén fáth go gcaithfear é a dhéanamh inniu agus amárach? Cén fáth nach féidir linn é a phlé inniu agus amárach agus teacht ar ais tar éis na Nollag agus é a phlé arís, os rud é go bhfuil 300 leasú le plé againn. Caithfear go bhfuil rud éigin ann nach n-eol domas. Tá an taobh eile ar ais leis na seanchleasa, ag iarraidh rud éigin a bhrú tríd gan aon aird a thabhairt ar intinn éinne eile faoi.

Ní thógfaidh mé ach cúpla nóiméad eile, ach tá mé ag caint ar an ábhar — ar eagla go gceapfar nach bhfuil; I am still talking on the subject — agus ag fiafraí anois cén fáth nach féidir an Bille a chur siar go dtí tar éis na Nollag. Tá a fhios agam go maith go gcreideann an Rialtas ina gcroí istigh go bhfuil an modh oibre seo mícheart, go bhfuil sé as ord, agus go dtarraingeoidh sé droch-cháil ar an Teach seo.

B'fhearr liom féin, ar a laghad ar bith, go dtabharfaí am domsa agus mo leithéidse é a léamh agus staidéar a dhéanamh air. Níl an Rialtas ag tabhairt seans dom nó do Sheanadóirí eile. B'fhéidir go bhfuil Comhaltaí sa Teach seo go raibh an seans sin acu cheana mar go raibh siad sa Dáil nó sa Seanad nuair a bhí sé ag dul tríd an dá Theach, ach ní raibh deis riamh agamsa breathnú air go dtí inné. Fiú, ar a laghad, dá dtabharfaí deireadh seachtaine dúinn le staidéar a dhéanamh air agus leis na doiciméid eile nach bhfuil agam a fháil le go bhféadfainn breathnú orthu, b'fhéidir ansin go mbeadh ciall éigin leis an rud atá ar bun againn inniú. Mura dtugtar an deis sin dom ní fhéadaim bheith ag taobhú, a bheag nó a mhór, le go gcuirfí tríd an Bille sa dóigh sin mar a rinneadh cheana. Beidh sé an-suimiúil, má dhéantar arís é, nuair a théann sé chomh fada le hUachtaran na tíre, cad é a déarfaidh sise faoi bhunreachtúlacht an Bhille seo.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will have to stay with the recommittal of the Bill and I would ask for brevity. I am not suggesting that Senator Norris would not be brief.

Mr. Norris

You can live in hopes. I would hate to be cut short in my prime. Like Miss Jean Brodie, I am in my prime and I would very much appreciate being allowed to have my say, directly relevant to this matter of recommittal. Having been advised by the Clerk of the technicalities of the matter, I would like, first of all, formally to propose an amendment. I sincerely hope that you are not experiencing the hearing difficulties that the other occupants of that Chair occasionally appear to experience, so that you will recognise the fact that I here now, solemnly and formally, propose an amendment to item No. 3: "That paragraph 1, which contains the time limit that the debate on the question ‘That the Bill be received for final consideration' shall not exceed..."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand you should wait until we deal with the recommittal which has been proposed and seconded. A proposal to recommit the Bill has been proposed by Senator Doyle and seconded by Senator Hourigan. If you want to make a further proposal on it when we deal with this recommittal motion——

Mr. Norris

After the vote on that? I see. I was told something slightly different earlier, that I could not, but I have your undertaking that I can come in then?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is my understanding.

Mr. Norris

Good. I was told that I could only speak once, so that if I used this opportunity there would be a problem. I am quite happy to abide by your ruling. Therefore, I can come in again and make this proposal after the vote?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is my understanding.

Mr. Norris

Thank you very much. I appreciate very much your guidance on this matter. I will be proposing this amendment. However, I am very glad to support the motion from Senator Doyle for the recommital of this Bill to Committee Stage. It is, in fact, much preferable to the amendment I will be proposing. The amendment I will be proposing is very much a second option. It is second best for the following very simple reason, if we take this item as it now stands on the Order of Business, we will not be able to amend the Bill in any way. We will be able to make our recommendations; we will be able to discuss it, but we will only be able to approve the Bill in total or to reject the Bill in total. That is not a serious option.

I recognise, as everybody in this House recognises, that this is a very important Bill. A lot of work has gone into it and by and large, it is extremely good. The business community are awaiting it anxiously and it would be highly irresponsible and foolish of us to oppose the Bill in total. It would not be realistic. We would be bringing discredit upon ourselves by so doing, apart altogether from the fact in any case the arithmetic of the situation would indicate perfectly clearly that we might as well not waste our time. It would be a totally symbolic gesture. For all those reasons, I say this is an unreal situation with which we are faced. It is not a debate at all, really. We are being permitted to welcome the Bill. We are not being permitted to have any impact on it whatsoever.

I am very glad that Senator Doyle picked up on some of the points I was making earlier when I expressed the doubt as to the constitutionality of the proceedings. There are two reasons for my so doing. The first reason is that I believe implementing this guillotine seriously subverts and undermines the constitutional requirement placed upon this House to act as a refining Chamber for legislation. It is charged with the responsibility of improving and amending legislation. We are quite clearly prevented from so doing by the operation of the guillotine, particularly in the form in which it exists on the Order Paper. In other words, I am raising a serious doubt as to the constitutionality of the method of the Government's procedure at the moment with regard to this Bill for the reason that this Chamber is charged with very particular responsibilities which it is not capable of discharging if we are prepared to accept this particular guillotine. I believe, with Senator Doyle, that in addition to there being a perhaps not fully deliberate subversion of the constitutional role of the Seanad here, if the Bill is passed by this method it could, in fact, be impugned consitutionally because it would not have been properly passed by the Seanad. I was most interested to learn from Senator's Doyle contribution that my instinct as an amateur enthusiast of the law was apparently correct and was supported by as distinguished an authority as Mr. Justice Ronan Keane as quoted in a Member's contribution in this House. The fact that this point was apparently made some years ago in a similar instance would indicate that the Government would be wise to take this question, this doubt about the constitutionality of the legislation very seriously indeed.

Although I am a very litigious person, I would not welcome this kind of conflict. I do not think it would be an auspicious beginning to the Presidency of Mrs. Robinson, a distinguished former Member of this House, if she was placed in the invidious situation of having to examine this Bill. It would be wise if the Government could seek some method of avoiding this form of conflict and I appeal to them so to do. This obviously was going to come as a head-on clash. The principal Opposition Party, Fine Gael, have quite properly adopted an adamant position. I wonder if sufficient efforts were made by the Whips to arrive at a resolution of this difficulty? It seems that this has not been done at all. If it has, there has been an extraordinary failure on the part of the Whips, a failure which put the business of this House in very considerable difficulties.

I would like to turn to the substance of the reservations I expressed earlier today on the Order of Business because they bear very directly on this matter. I appear to have been rather arrogant, unwittingly, by giving the impression that I felt I was the only person who received these various submissions. I know I did say that I have received these submissions but I did not intend to suggest that nobody else had also. It seems rather interesting that I was the first person to draw the attention of the House to them. Perhaps this rubbed some people up the wrong way and if that is the case, then I regret any misunderstanding. I certainly did not wish to imply that I was in any sense the best briefed person in the House or in possession of an exclusive brief and I very much regret if anything I said appeared to cast a reflection on the considered positions of my colleagues. Finance is not an area in which I have any great expertise, but I can read a brief and take it on board fairly quickly.

I am not going to deal with the substance of the submissions I received, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain aspects of the language of the submissions. That indicates to me that the professional bodies competent in this area are concerned that we should play the proper role I have just outlined as that of the Upper Chamber. I quote from a letter of Mr. John Bowen-Walsh, Secretary of the Parliamentary Law Committee of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies in Ireland:

Dear Senator, I enclose herewith copies of certain documentation which may be of assistance in your considertion of this Bill which I understand will be reconsidered by the Seanad later this week.

We are not being given an opportunity, with the greatest of respect, to consider it. We are not being given an opportunity for the reconsideration of this Bill, although it is in the anticipation of the business community that this is precisely what we are about.

I will just give two other instances; I do not want to be tedious and waste time but just to indicate, through an analysis of the language, what are the expectations of the business community with regard to our constitutional responsibility as a revising Chamber. On page 2 of the submission Mr. Bowen-Walsh says:

This submission seeks to identify matters which, in our opinion, still require resolution and to tease out the implications of certain amendments made by the Special Committe after February 1990.

It is perfectly clear from that that the professional body operating within this field at a highly technical level feels that certain aspects of the Bill still require resolutions.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On a point of clarification, at present we are discussing motion 3 and an amendment to recommit by Senator Doyle. If you wish to move an amendment, you cannot do it now but you can discuss the thrust of that amendment and content of the amendment now, if you wish to do so. The reason for this is that there is an amendment before the House. The House can only deal with one amendment.

Mr. Norris

I understand. Both sets of advice I got in that case were perfectly correct, but one is an amplification of the other. I am most grateful to you for guidance on that and thank you for your assistance in this matter. I would like to finish the point about the quotation I made from this briefing document. It is perfectly clear that the best advice available in this country indicates that, good and all as the Bill is, it requires further teasing out and further examination with a view to achieving greater refinement. I would like to mention the next section briefly. I will not be too tedious about this. It is on the same page very early on in this lengthy document where he says that:

In various circumstances provided for in this legislation, particular information must be delivered to the company concerned. We believe compliance would be enhanced and the relevant administrative procedures simplified were the Bill to require consistently that such documentation be sent to the Secretary of the company at its registered office.

I do not want to deal with the technical substance of that. It would be inappropriate, but I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the phrase "we believe compliance would be enhanced". In other words, there is still a margin of appreciation by which the Bill can be improved. We have three points. It is possible to identify matters which require resolution. It is necessary to tease out the implications of amendments made after February 1990. The application of the Bill will be enhanced by this proper consideration. It is for those reasons, in addition to the constitutional reservation I have expressed, that I believe we should support Senator Doyle's motion for recommital. That is the only procedure that will allow what the professional bodies require — the teasing out, the further examination and the enhancement of the Bill. I believe the Leader of the House, being a responsible person, will wish the Bill to be enhanced.

I endorse, with Senator Doyle and Senator Howard, the view that if there is an emergency somewhere let us know about it. Is the country on the brink of economic collapse if we do not pass this Bill within 12 hours? I do not believe it is, but if it is, well then let us know about it so that we can act responsibly. I suspect that this is a little Christmas present for Dessie so that he can hang up on the tree this weighty document and say, "well, I got it through. None of the rest of them could, but I got it through". I know this is a very human feeling to experience. We all wish the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, a Happy Christmas even if he has to wait outside a little bit longer but I do not think that is the best method.

He is a very serious and responsible politician. May I say — and there is no point in my saying it is not patronising because of course it is blatantly patronising — that he is a very fine Minister? He has made an extraordinary and valuable contribution to this Government. Because of that, I would expect that he would treat this Bill seriously and take into account what I said with regard to the question of the capacity of this Chamber to introduce refinements and so on. For that reason, I believe it must be referred to Committee. Again I am realistic and I know that the mathematics are against us——

Mrs. Honan

Would you sit down?

Mr. Norris

I will sit down when I am finished, Senator Honan, through the Chair. The real Leas-Chathaoirleach has spoken and invited me to resume my seat, in her usual charming and gracious way, but it is an invitation which despite the festive season I feel compelled to decline. But I will sit down shortly. I would like to mention my amendment, which I understand I can then formally move after the vote on this proposal. I realise it is highly unlikely that we will be able to defeat the Government on this matter, but I will then be proposing an amendment which I would like the Leader to consider seriously. It is intended to ameliorate the situation somewhat. I will be proposing the deletion of paragraph (1). That would remove the time limit.

If I can be quite cyncial and Machiavellian, might I suggest to the Leader of the House that this will draw the teeth of the Opposition and that those who have displayed an alarming appetite for the technicalities of a highly specialised Bill might suddenly find they had business elsewhere and they were disinclined to spend several days rabbiting on on this matter? He might, in fact, get the business concluded for more rapidly than anticipated if he removed the time limit. It would also allow those who have received submissions which they take seriously at least to place these on the record of the House.

I may be a little bit cynical. I may be a little bit Machiavellian, but it is my intention to be helpful. I would like the Leader of the House to consider seriously accepting the removal of the guillotine. We would also have to remove the time allowed for debate and so on. This will still leave the discussion of the Bill divided into four Parts, so that people will be able to speak four times. I am sure the Government will welcome the fact that it will still prevent anything other than the acceptance or rejection of the Bill in full, so there will be no amendments accepted at that point. This at least is some measure of compromise. If something along that nature was discussed by Government, we could proceed and get down to the proper discussion of the Bill. Having said that, I would simply like to voice once more my support for Senator Doyle's motion for recommittal.

Mr. Fallon

I have very little to add to what I said this morning. All Members of the House know the position. As they agree themselves, this Bill has been with us for a long time, the best part of four years. It has been said by many Senators that the world of business would like to have the Bill as quickly as possible. Furthermore, could I just make the point that for the past three, four or maybe five weeks Senators have been asking us, "When are we going to get the Companies Bill?" It is now with us.

Mrs. Doyle

We got it yesterday.

Mr. Fallon

I consider that we made a major compromise in the way we are dealing with Report Stage. Instead of having just one speaker on Report Stage, as is normal. Senators will have a chance to speak on four occasions. That is a major consideration.

It has been suggested that it is a brand new Bill. That is not the case. As Senator Ross said, and as we know, when the Bill came to us in 1987 we made many changes. The net effect when it left us was that it was a Bill with 207 sections. The net change is that we have now a Bill of 262 sections. That was brought about by the fact that many amendments were made in the other House. In particular, both the Seanad and the Dáil overhauled Part III. The Dáil added two further parts. I accept a point that was made to me that many people contributed on Report Stage who had been members of the Select Committee.

Having regard to the fact that we had the Bill ourselves for such a long time, with the 12-hour debate we are offering, and the way that we are doing it, we are providing an adequate opportunity for Senators to make known to the Minister what they would like to have in the Bill. As I said last week we should let the Minister come in and speak to us. I have no doubt that he would explain in detail what he can do and what he cannot do. I am sure there is room for flexibility. This might be of benefit to Senators. They might consider it to be appropriate. Certainly I would hope that we could get on with the debate on the Bill and see what happens. Maybe when it comes through, we will all be agreeably surprised. I have no doubt the Minister and his officials will help us along in this debate as much as possible.

Mrs. Doyle

Is there another Goodman out there we have not been told about?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The amendment proposes "to delete all the words after ‘Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987‘, and substitute "That the Bill be recommitted wholly."

Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Murphy, John A.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• O'Reilly, Joe.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and McKenna, Níl, Senators Howard and O'Reilly.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the motion agreed?

Mr. Norris

No. I indicated, and I had taken the clerk's advice on the matter, that I wished to move an amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

I think you were informed that you could discuss the content of your amendment.

Mr. Norris

Yes, I now formally propose——

An Cathaoirleach

You will have some difficulty there because as a result of what we have just voted on the House has decided that the words proposed to be deleted will stand. Consequently, your amendment cannot be taken on the basis that it would attempt to alter something that has been decided just moments ago.

Mrs. Honan

Does the Senator understand that?

An Cathaoirleach

Is the motion agreed?

Mrs. Doyle

On a point of order, earlier I witnessed Seantor Norris being advised how to handle the point he is now trying to make and I think in fairness he should have been allowed to make it as part of the debate we had before the last vote.

An Cathaoirleach

He was informed of his position by the Leas-Chathaoirleach and he accepted that. The question that has been decided related to your amendment and, consequently, the moving of an amendment by Senator Norris at this stage would not be in order and I must disallow it.

Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 15.

Tá

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Conroy, Richard.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Dardis, John.
• Fallon, Sean.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Foley, Denis.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Honan, Tras.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Michael.
• Lydon, Don.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Brien, Francis.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• Ryan, Eoin David.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Howard, Michael.
• Jackman, Mary.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Ó Foighil, Pól.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and McKenna; Níl, Senators Honan and O'Reilly.

Question declared carried.

Mr. Fallon

It is proposed to take a sos between 2.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. and a sos from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. this evening. We propose to sit until 12 midnight.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.