Notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the following arrangements shall apply in relation to Items Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Second Stage of which are being discussed together: The Minister for Justice or a Minister or Minister of State nominated by him shall be called on not later than 6.15 p.m. today to make a speech in reply to the Second Stage debate which shall not exceed 15 minutes; and the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 6.30 p.m. today by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively the questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion and any divisions demanded thereon shall be taken not earlier than 6.30 p.m. and Business shall be interrupted from 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. today.
Death of Former Member. - Order of Business.
Yesterday I agreed to the Order of Business as announced by the Leader but something very important has happened which raises a problem for this side of the House. That is, the European Court judgment. I have not had time to read the full text of the judgment and I doubt if any Member has had time to do either. I have heard only the radio reports. I have taken legal advice this morning to the effect that it has implications for the Bills we are now discussing. It seems to be an act of folly for us to plough ahead discussing Bills of this type. This is the last full day there will be in either House of the Oireachtas to have the implications of that judgment spelled out to us. I am not sure how we can tackle that but I am going to oppose the Order of Business this morning.
My party believe the debate should be adjourned until we can have the full implications of this judgment spelled out to us. We would be in neglect of our duty if we were to plough ahead regardless of what has happened. The Government were warned tha this judgment was coming out today. They were asked to defer this debate until this judgment could be heard and, if relevant, the factors could be taken on board. That was not done. We now have the situation where the court found against the State and against the Attorney General. It would only be common prudence that this debate should be adjourned until this afternoon, perhaps for a special debate where we could have advice from the Attorney General. The other parties would have a chance to read the judgment. We could then at least see that what we are doing is in accordance with normal prudent practice. For that reason, I oppose the Order of Business today.
On this occasion I agree with Senator Manning. I was quite happy with the proceedings as we had agreed yesterday. There was reasonable time. This is an entirely new situation. We are in a position where the State must take the convention seriously even if the Government do not. Their record on taking the European Convention on Human Rights seriously is not the best. The State must take it seriously and we have an obligation to take it seriously.
The perception that the best way to deal with problems is to ignore them, which seems to be something this Government practise, is not one that I share. Therefore, I must say that the sensible, rational and prudent thing to do would be to adjourn this debate until we know precisely the implications of the judgment in terms of the wording of a constitutional amendment and in terms of how it affects the whole application of Article 40.3.3º. I am not listing things I know about. I am listing things I do not know about. It is a ridiculous position to be in. We are going to vote tonight and then going on to a Committee Stage debate tomorrow to discuss something when we do not know what we are doing anymore. Therefore, I agree with Senator Manning. The sensible thing to do would be to change the Order of Business and adjourn this debate and if we cannot get the Leader of the House to agree to this course I would have to vote against the Order of Business.
I share the concern of the two previous speakers. We should pause now and analyse the judgment. It has very important implications, particularly in relation to Article 40.3.3º. Indeed, we may well be on our way to a further referendum shortly after Christmas. We should consider what is involved. We have nothing to lose by doing so. In the present chaotic political situation that is the wisest course of action.
I would like to second Senator Manning's proposed change in the Order of Business, if it has not already been formally done. I do not think the Government will show the slightest sensitivity towards judgments of the European Court. They have displayed a flagrant contempt in the past four years, as has the current Minister for Justice. While I am suggesting that it would be the moral thing to do, in view of the complexion of this Government I do not think it would have the slightest impact on their political decision. I would like to formally second Senator Manning's proposed change in the Order of Business.
While I welcome this morning's news and the encouragement from the European Court to make us grow up, I have some difficulty in understanding why we should interrupt our proceedings at this stage. The thrust of this Bill on information is surely in line with the encouragement given by the European Court. It is not as if we were going to proceed to do something directly in contradiction to the European Court's findings. Therefore, I must, with reluctance, disagree with my colleagues here.
Dissent at last.
I would remind Senator Mooney that I have more than once made my own independent judgments on matters. Another matter I want to refer to is the memorandum on decorum which was circulated to Members at the commencement of proceedings in this session. Paragraph 9 discourages the practice of reading speeches. It is a very wise injunction because we all know how unpleasant this appears on our televised proceedings. Last evening I drew the attention of the Leas-Chathaoirleach to the fact that a Senator was reading from a typescript, as was my duty in accordance with this memorandum and, unfortunately, I was led to appear disruptive and obstreperous rather than helpful. No attempt was made to discourage the Senator from continuing with his reading. I would like your observations on that matter.
It is not relevant on the Order of Business, but I will comment on it.
As a former colleague of the late Senator Ned McGuire——
I do not wish to block any expressions of sympathy, but it has been done by the Leader for a very good reason.
With respect, I would like on behalf of the Party to be associated with the vote of sympathy so generously proposed by the Leader of the House. I should have done that when the Leader of the House spoke. Senator McGuire was here for over 20 years. He was a marvellous colleague. He was one of the country's leading businessmen at that time.
On the Order of Business, will the House get an opportunity to discuss the political situation in the country next week or at the earliest possible opportunity?
It is fine.
Somebody is not telling the Senator.
What are you worried about? We are doing fine.
Let the people decide.
(Interruptions.)
Will the ladies in the front rows please remain quiet?
There are no ladies here. You do not get in if you are a lady.
Perhaps we could amend the suggestion made by Senator McDonald that we should have the debate. There may not be any opportunity next week to have a debate on the Government or the future of the Government.
Do not worry.
Senator, do not invite interruptions.
In relation to the call by Senator Manning that we would pause for a while and have a debate later today on the implications of the European decision in relation to the Convention on Human Rights, I agree with that. The case was taken on the basis of freedom to impart information and on access to information. It seems to have been decided thoroughly in favour of that freedom of information. We do not have the full details at present, but it seems at best it makes the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution irrelevant and, at worst, it could have implications which could bring about further changes in relation to the constitutional amendment. I also ask that we have an opportunity to delay the proceedings today and that we have an opportunity to tease out the implications of the European Court decision.
I ask the House to consider sending congratulations to Noel C. Duggan in Millstreet for success in arranging for staging the Eurovision song contest. Indeed, for the people of that part of the country and in that small village in the South of Ireland, it will be one of the major events to take place over the next 12 months.
That is totally out of order. It is precisely why the memorandum on decorum was issued to cover such suggestions.
It may seem insignificant and it may sound strange coming from a Senator from Dublin but it was a marvellous achievement for people in the small village.
You are out of order, Senator. Before calling the Leader to reply——
I would like to tell my colleagues that, on behalf of Fine Gael, I have sent the same message to Noel C. Duggan this morning. Indeed I welcome the achievement of Millstreet in staging the Eurovision Song Contest.
On a note more relevant to the Order of Business may I through the Chair, ask the Leader to seriously consider Senator Manning's request for an Adjournment so that we can study the judgment from the European Court of Human Rights? If we adjourned until 2 o'clock today we could get copies of the judgment which could be used relevant to what we are discussing now. I urge the Leader to accede to that request. I understand business is to continue until seven or eight o'clock tonight but could continue quite happily until 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. to make up the hours we would miss. I ask the Leader to accede to that request, because I think it is very relevant to what we are debating.
Before calling the Leader may I make a reply to Senator Murphy? The Committee on Procedure and Privileges discussed the memorandum on decorum. It was agreed it could be circulated, not just for the question of the reading of speeches but for other items, like expressions of sympathy and votes of congratulations. I am sure you have all read it. I accept that Senator Murphy has a point, but the Chair at all times seeks the co-operation of Members in carrying out this code of decorum. If Members fail to abide by those rules, there is very little the Chair can do. All I can say, is that at all times I seek the co-operation and goodwill of Members in meeting the high standards the Committee on Procedure and Privileges feel is necessary. At the same time it is important that each Senator should have the same interest in maintaining the very high standard of debate in the House. We all subscribe to that view. I call the Leader to reply.
I agree with Senator Murphy's view on this issue. It is a vindication of the Minister's Second Stage speech.
One paragraph.
It is a vindication the Minister's Second Stage speech in the Dáil and in this House yesterday.
Which is why the State lost the case.
One paragraph.
With regard to the comments on enterprise next week or the week after we will have a chance to speak about enterprise. I hope that, whatever decisions are made about the personnel involved, Noel C. Duggan should be top of the list for any board.
Is the Order of Business agreed?
No.
On the Order of Business, the question is "That the Order of Business be Items 1, 2 and 3 and that notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the following arrangements shall apply in relation to those items, the Second Stage of which are being discussed together: (1) The Minister for Justice or a Minister or Minister of State nominated by him shall be called on not later than 6.15 p.m. today to make a speech in reply to the Second Stage debate which shall not exceed 15 minutes; and (2) the proceedings thereon shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 6.30 p.m. today by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively the questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion and any divisions demanded thereon shall be taken not earlier than 6.30 p.m. and business shall be interrupted from 1 p.m. to 1.30 p.m."
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- ÓFoighil, Pól.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Fitzgerald and E. Ryan; Níl, Senators Neville and O'Reilly.
Question declared carried.
Order of Business agreed to.