No. 1 is a motion re Council framework decision on combating terrorism.
Council Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism: Motion.
On a point of order, yesterday the Leader indicated that an error had been made on No. 1 and that the Order Paper should have read that the motion was "to be taken with debate" rather than "without debate". This morning he again indicated that the motion would be taken without debate. Which statement is correct? What is the position?
The motion will be taken without debate.
In response to a query from Senator Regan, the Leader indicated the motion would be debated today.
While I accept the Senator's point, the purpose of the Order of Business is to raise such matters.
I will clarify the matter, if the Chair wishes.
Yes.
The issue arose on Tuesday rather than Wednesday when a typing error was made. It would be wrong for me to anticipate on Tuesday what the impact of a committee's deliberations on Wednesday would be on the business of the House on Thursday.
Did the Leader indicate on Tuesday that the motion would be taken with debate?
No, I have checked the Official Report since it was said to me. I could not state on Tuesday that a motion which the Whips and party leaders had received and which was due to be deliberated in committee on Wednesday would be taken in the House without debate on Thursday. I apologised for the typing error on Tuesday. The issue was not raised yesterday but on Tuesday.
On a point of order——
I would prefer if the Senator had raised the issue on the Order of Business.
When I asked the question on Tuesday, I specifically highlighted that the House was passing motions without debate and that these were being passed in committee without debate before being referred back to the House, again to be taken without debate.
The Senator should raise the matter on the Order of Business.
The Leader gave a firm commitment.
The purpose of the Order of Business is to raise such matters.
On Tuesday the Leader expressly stated the motion would be taken with debate on Thursday. It is not a question of a typographical error but a commitment the Leader gave.
I call the Leader on No. 1, motion re Council framework decision on combating terrorism.
We object to the Order of Business.
The Order of Business has been agreed.
I raised a point of order before the Order of Business was agreed.
The Senator intervened after the Order of Business was agreed.
No, it was not afterwards.
A dispute has arisen on the Order of Business.
On No. 1, I call the Leader to move the motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure:
a proposal for a Council Framework Decision amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism
a copy of which measure was laid before Seanad Éireann on the 20th day of November 2008.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Brady, Martin.
- Butler, Larry.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Cannon, Ciaran.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Corrigan, Maria.
- Daly, Mark.
- de Búrca, Déirdre.
- Ellis, John.
- Hanafin, John.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Leyden, Terry.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Hannigan, Dominic.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Kelly, Alan.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- Norris, David.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Regan, Eugene.
- Ross, Shane.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Twomey, Liam.
- White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and John Paul Phelan.
Question declared carried.
On a point of clarification, we are not against the motion per se, but rather against it not being allowed to be discussed. That was our reason for calling for a division.
Hear, hear.