Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Apr 2000

Vol. 163 No. 3

Order of Business. - Business of Seanad.

Mr. Cassidy

I wish to propose an amendment to the Order of Business. I have been informed by the Government that the ethics committee established under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1997, will consider the Labour Party Private Members' Bill on lobbyists which was defeated in this House. The committee will also consider proposals from the Government for legislative changes in the area of lobbying. It is expected that the committee will meet over the Easter break and it is likely that the Government's proposals will follow after that. In view of this and in view of the fact that this matter is before the Flood tribunal, it would not be appropriate to proceed with the matter by way of statements today.

It has also been brought to my attention that the Chair has consistently ruled that issues which are currently before tribunals of inquiry should not be discussed in the House and that the House must not be seen to encroach on the functions of a tribunal or interfere in its proceedings in any way. Accordingly, I wish to propose that the Order of Business be amended by the deletion of statements ordered for 4 p.m.

Mr. Manning

I utterly oppose this unprecedented and brazen attempt to alter the Order of Business. What was sought this morning and willingly given by the Leader was agreement to discuss a motion in the names of Senators Ross, Costello and Norris in regard to the introduction of a register of political interests. That is exactly the same issue which was the subject of a Bill introduced by the Labour Party which was voted down. We simply wanted to discuss the matter again.

Is the Leader saying that a committee takes precedence over a House of Parliament? Is he saying that because this issue is due to be referred to a committee which will meet in the near future, one of the two sovereign Houses of the Oireachtas is to defer to that committee? If that is what the Leader is saying, it is in contempt of this House and the decision taken here this morning. Will the Leader tell us the real reason behind this? Did somebody get at him and tell him that this matter could not be discussed?

The debate was not an attempt to encroach upon the affairs of the Flood tribunal. There was no question of that. We merely sought to discuss a matter which has been on the Order Paper for the past five months. I do not accept the reasons being advanced by the Leader. There is some cover-up going on here, an inability or fear on the Government's part to come into this House and inform the public why it will not set up something as simple as a register of lobbyists' interests. I feel sorry for the Leader in regard to what he has to do here this afternoon, but the amendment is in contempt of this House and of a proposal which the Leader voluntarily advanced this morning. We will reject this and fight it to the end.

Mr. O'Toole

The Leader's announcement undermines any trust or confidence we have in regard to this House's system of organising its business. We are witnessing the undermining of the constitutional role of this House and the requirement under the Constitution and under our Standing Orders for the Seanad to order its own business. The Leader received agreement from the House on a particular Order of Business but he now tells us that some Member or Members of Government interfered with that.

On what basis is the Government entitled to interfere with the manner in which this House orders its business? I believe that is unconstitutional and I ask the Leader to explain to us where the Government gets the authority to undermine the Order of Business of this House. It would have been something had the Leader come into the House of his own volition and given us a reason for this amendment, but the reason he has advanced is that the Government does not agree with the statements being taken. We are witnessing the Shakespearean vista of cowards dying many times before their death. This is a nettle which must be grasped at some stage.

This decision does not merely undermine the functions of this House, it also undermines the democratic process. We are being muzzled and gagged by an amendment tabled to the Order of Business in a manner which, in my experience, is quite uncommon. That is utterly unacceptable. Senators have prepared for a debate on this matter. This morning, the Leader walked away from an amendment to the Order of Business which would have required a division on the issue and it was decided to allow statements which would have allowed everyone to express their points of view without causing offence.

If we are at the stage where this House is unable to order its business without external interference, that is an appalling affront to the democratic process as we understand it and as we abide by it from day to day. This was not an attempt to encroach on the work of any tribunal. We decided to discuss an issue which is on everyone's minds and which is being publicised in every organ of the media.

At a time when we are attempting to provide some distinction to the role of public representatives, we let ourselves down once again. On a day which has seen the greatest assault on and diminution of the reputation of political representation in the history of the State, we decide to walk away from the central issue. That sends out a message that we have something to hide or that we are afraid. The message being conveyed from this House is that all politicians are the same. We are all tainted by this issue and we are entitled to put our positions on record. I am not taking any high moral ground here. There are good people in all political parties. This House is being steamrolled by a Government which is afraid of what it might hear or which fears embarrassment through this House doing its duty by the electorate. This is an appalling decision and we will oppose it all the way.

Mr. Costello

I entirely agree with the comments made by Senators Manning and O'Toole. The Cathaoirleach will recall that this morning I proposed that we should deal with No. 22, motion 18, "That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to introduce a register of political lobbyists."

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator proposed an amendment to the Order of Business which was put to the House and defeated.

Mr. Costello

The Leader offered the alternative proposal of taking statements. We were not happy with that because we wanted to vote on the matter. Now, without any consultation with Members of the House or the Whips, the Leader is proposing an amendment to the Order of Business agreed on this morning at a time when very few Members are present. The reason he advances is that it would not be proper to hold a debate on this matter while a sitting tribunal is dealing with it. I remind the Leader that we are merely proposing that a register of political lobbyists should be drawn up. Labour Party legislation on this precise matter was debated one year ago while the Flood tribunal was sitting and no suggestion was made that such a debate might have been inappropriate.

This is a total camouflage. Somebody got at the Leader and told him not to hold this debate, obviously because somebody in the Government has something to hide. He is now trying to kick it to touch to a committee which has been set up and which has no bearing on the authority of this House, or the Lower House, to arrange its business or deal with matters which are of prime consideration and importance to it.

I am disgusted that we should now be faced with this situation, when the debate was to take place at 4 o'clock and people were preparing themselves for it. It was to be an exceedingly important debate on a subject which is being discussed all over the country, yet none of us in the House can say a word about it. We are being muzzled by the Government of which the Leader of the House is a mouthpiece. He is not ordering the Business of the House in accordance with the rules or wishes of Members. He is doing it in accordance with somebody who has got to him, and that I am sure is at the highest level of Government, unless he is prepared to say the contrary.

Mrs. Jackman

It is seldom that I have been assertive or aggressive in the House on an issue on which I feel so strongly, but I rise in anger. This is the eve of Good Friday. We waited and we prepared for a debate. This morning we were assured that we could discuss the register of lobbyists interests Bill and we were to have statements on the issue. The whole country is talking about this. When I return to Limerick this evening I will be asked in no uncertain terms what I am doing about it. I will have to explain that a debate was scheduled but was cancelled. I will then be asked what my role is in the Seanad and if such a thing can happen in the space of a few minutes. It was purely by chance that we realised at 3.30 p.m. that the debate was to be suspended. Until when is it suspended? It will not be taken because that Bill has already been voted down.

I feel shocked and appalled. All our reputations are at stake on this issue and it has nothing to do with the tribunal. If we are waiting for the tribunal to finish, this matter will never be discussed in the House. We are being held back. We could have been told the matter was out of order this morning. Who suddenly made the decision that it was so, when it was not deemed to be out of order this morning? This is a sad and sorry day for Seanad Éireann at a time when I thought we were moving towards reform and having a decent reputation as public representatives, not just here but as ordinary councillors also. I am very saddened by this and it is not the end of the matter as far as we are concerned on this side of the House.

Mr. Coogan

The relevance of the Seanad is in its capacity to respond immediately to issues of national importance. In agreeing with that sentiment this morning, the Leader allowed a debate on an issue that is on everybody's tongue. We should show leadership. We should be analytical and be able to say what we believe is going on and what should happen in future, but we are being stymied. I do not think it is the Leader's fault because his hands are tied. If any issue arises at a tribunal, whether it has the slightest relevance to an issue that is going on outside, we can be stymied and gagged by the argument that it is before the tribunal, even though it could be there for years. Such issues include planning and other matters. I am afraid that every time we may wish to raise an issue of importance we will be told that it has some relevance to a tribunal so we will be precluded from talking about it. This House is not subservient to a committee or any Minister.

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to draw the attention of Senators to Standing Order 44.3 which states: "A matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner that it appears to be an attempt by the Seanad to encroach on the functions of the courts or of a judicial tribunal." We have, therefore, a Standing Order in relation to these matters.

Mr. Coogan

It does not encroach.

Mr. O'Toole

On a point of order, I have read that Standing Order carefully. I do not wish to challenge your ruling, a Chathaoirligh, and I notice that you have not ruled.

An Cathaoirleach

I have not ruled, Senator. I have just drawn the attention of Members to that Standing Order. Actually, I have given much latitude to speakers to make their points on the amendment the Leader has proposed.

Mr. O'Toole

Yes. May I ask you to confirm, a Chathaoirligh, that the discussion on lobbyists does not in any way encroach on the work of the tribunals?

An Cathaoirleach

I have quoted the Standing Order and I would ask Senators to be conscious of it. I am not putting the Standing Order in any particular context.

Mr. Coghlan

I appreciate the Standing Order to which the Cathaoirleach has referred. However, I wish to express my annoyance. Having briefly touched on this subject on the Order of Business this morning and having subsequently voted the way I did, as a good democrat I accepted the will of the majority to order the business as they so choose. I stayed on here with my colleagues to speak on the business as ordered. As I understand it, both sides of the House are agreed on the need for a debate on this issue. I always fully respect your rulings, advice and guidance, a Chathaoirligh, but the House is well capable of focusing on the business as ordered and on the specific issue without encroaching on the work of any tribunal. The important thing is that we get to deal with it or we will be treated as irrelevant and not taken seriously. There is a need for the Executive and the Houses of the Oireachtas to deal firmly and fairly in banning lobbyists from making political contributions.

Mr. Walsh

I was looking forward to the debate and had agreed to remain on to participate in it this afternoon. To be fair to the Leader, he was accommodating this morning. As a number of speakers have said, this issue casts a shadow across the whole body politic. My sympathy lies with those 99% of politicians—

An Cathaoirleach

We are not going to debate the subject matter, which it was proposed to debate, in these statements.

Mr. Walsh

I have no intention of debating the subject matter, but to finish the sentence, my sympathy is with those people, all of whom operate to the highest integrity. All Members of the House will agree that if people have gone outside the normal acceptance of integrity, which should apply in politics—

An Cathaoirleach

I will not allow you to proceed along those lines. We are discussing a proposed amendment and that is all we are discussing.

Mr. Walsh

I agree with Members who say that the House must regulate its own business. However, where we get advice which indicates that we could in some way be impinging upon the work of the tribunal, we have to take it into account, although it may mean delaying the debate. As somebody who in the past may have queried the pace at which the tribunal was working, I welcome the tribunal's current situation and I hope to see it come to a satisfactory conclusion.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not debating the tribunal either.

Mr. Walsh

While having sympathy in that regard, equally we have to recognise that having received advice on the matter, it is incumbent on the Leader not to ignore the advice and to act prudently. That is the dilemma he has and we should respect that.

Mr. J. Doyle

It is ironic that we are having this discussion at a time when we are also dealing with the Containment of Nuclear Weapons Bill because yesterday the body politic was hit by the biggest missile the country has seen for a long time. It was in order to ensure that would not recur that Members were anxious to put in place measures such as a register of lobbyists. I regret that the House has been denied that right.

Mr. O'Dowd

I was delayed coming here for the Order of Business this morning. I understand that a decision was taken to have this debate with the consent of all concerned. Now a third party has interfered with our right to have a reasonable and rational discussion on an issue of vital importance to the country. I object to what is being done.

People expect us, as elected representatives, to be able to speak clearly and firmly with one voice, as we all would on this issue. To deny us that right in this House of privilege, where we are all adults, know the issues about which we are talking and will not infringe on any tribunal or anybody else, is anti-democratic and unacceptable. We are being dictated to by outside forces on an issue of critical importance to the body politic.

Mr. Cassidy

I have listened to everything that has been said and I can understand the views expressed. I was proposing an amendment to the Order of Business because the Chair had consistently ruled that the issues which are currently before tribunals of inquiry should not be discussed in the House. Since I became Leader of this House, we have discussed over 80 Bills. There was no guillotine on any Bill. I try to be as accommodating as I can to facilitate all Members' requests in the House. I did that to the best of my ability this morning. However, when this was brought to my attention, I did not have any option but to propose an amendment to the Order of Business today.

Question put: "That the Order of Business be amended by the deletion of the statements ordered for 4 p.m."

Tá

Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cassidy, Donie.Chambers, Frank.Cregan, JohnDardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Tom.

Gibbons, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Kiely, Daniel.Kiely, Rory.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Coghlan, Paul.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Joe.Jackman, Mary.

Manning, Maurice.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Toole, Joe.Ridge, Thérèse.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators J. Doyle and O'Toole.

Question declared carried.