It is proposed to take Nos. 10, 9, 3, 4 and 5. It is further proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that: (1) Business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m.; (2) No. 10 shall be decided without debate; and (3) The Second Stages of Nos. 3, 4 and 5 shall be taken today and No. 9 shall be decided without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 39, Motion 46.
Order of Business.
May I ask if Item No. 1, that business be interrupted at 10.30 p.m., is agreed?
In relation to that matter, the business scheduled for today, tomorrow and Thursday relates to the Constitution. An attempt is being made here today to guillotine the debate on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. The arrangement being proposed is quite unacceptable. We are being asked to debate major changes to the Constitution in a matter of nine hours over three days for Second Stage and a further seven hours for Committee Stage.
I propose that we sit until midnight tonight, not until 10.30 p.m. As you know, a Cheann Comhairle, I have an amendment to the motion before us. I urge the Taoiseach to at least extend the sitting time today until midnight. We will then proceed to deal with the motion before us.
With regard to the business scheduled, as one of the Deputies who wishes to contribute to this very important debate, I know for a certainty that I will have no opportunity to contribute. I ask the Taoiseach at least to extend the sitting time for today and, if necessary, tomorrow to facilitate those Deputies who wish to make a contribution.
I observe that Item No. 1, that business be interrupted at 10.30 p.m., is being challenged. An amendment has been moved by Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
Will the Taoiseach not even respond?
I am putting the amendment in the form of the following question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Byrne, Eric.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies McCartan and Rabbitte.
Question declared carried.
It is agreed that business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m.? Agreed. Is it agreed that No. 10, in respect of the motion from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, be decided without debate? Agreed. Is it agreed that Second Stages of Nos. 3, 4 and 5 shall be taken today and No. 9 shall be decided without debate?
In regard to No. 9, which is a time allocation motion in regard to the three constitution Bills, I propose that it should not be taken without debate but rather that a debate lasting no more than one hour be allowed on that subject. The issues dealt with in the constitutional Bill are profoundly fundamental. They concern the right to life of women and the right to life of unborn children. They are important issues of human rights and issues which have to be reconciled. If the Government believe that these issues are important enough to put in a Constitution, surely they are important enough to be discussed in this House for a period longer than 16 hours. Rushing this sort of issue epitomises all that is wrong with politics in Ireland at present. The politicians now in Government have found this issue — the substantive issue — too difficult to handle in this House. They are afraid they might not bring all their members with them on the detail of the issue. Instead they decide to dump the issue on the heads of the Irish people and into the hands of the courts rather than deal with it themselves as they are elected to do.
The Deputy's party were in Government on the last occasion.
It is profoundly wrong to impose an artificially abbreviated timetable for any debate on an amendment to the Constitution. In amending the Constitution we are making a decision for the next generation of Irish people and not just for the term of one Government. When the 1937 Constitution was debated in this House no artificial timetable was imposed. When amendments to that Constitution in regard to PR and in regard to membership of the European Community were debated in this House no artificial timetable was imposed on the debates here. The only time in recent memory when an artificial timetable was imposed was in 1983 and it is significant that it is precisely because the House did not debate that issue properly that we now have to debate it again so soon.
That should be adequate at this stage.
I believe, Sir, that it is wrong to have a timetable of 3 December for his matter. The House should have sufficient time to debate a matter as important as this over several weeks so that the appropriate consensus can be reached. As far as this party are concerned we have sought reasonably to achieve consensus even within the artificial timetable imposed by the Government. Attempting to get this House to do its solemn business in such a way is wrong particularly when it affects the right to life of women and the right to life of unborn children. It is wrong, it should not be done and this House should not agree to it.
I want to object in the strongest possible terms to the ordering of business under Item 3 today. There are two grounds on which I want to object. The first is in relation to the ordering of the 12th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. My concern, and I have put this to the Taoiseach very strenuously, is that we are going down exactly the same path as we were forced down in 1983. Everyone in this House will remember the division and the divisiveness that was caused by that debate and also the mess we are in because of it. I have to say to the Taoiseach that what he is proposing in this House today is a major error in terms of constitutional development in this country. Even at this late stage the Taoiseach should reconsider what he is doing. It is his responsibility not to diminish the value of our Constitution. What the Taoiseach is proposing today in terms of Second Stages of Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the Order Paper is, I believe, not upholding his responsibility as the protector of our Constitution.
Secondly in regard to No. 9 on the Order Paper today this is a global motion in terms of ordering our business. It is a new device which the Government have discovered in the past two years. It is basically undemocratic and not in the best interest of how we should conduct our business. I would urge the Taoiseach, on both counts, to reconsider what he is about to do and what would be the disastrous consequences of what he is putting before the House today.
The Taoiseach is not going to listen to anything we say on this side of the House at this stage given that he was not prepared to add even an hour and a half to the debate tonight to enable some additional speakers to participate in what is a major change in our Constitution.
The proposals before us will limit contributions, assuming each speaker takes their full 45 minutes on the Second Stage. This will limit to 14, out of 165 Deputies, the number of contributors from this House to the debate. That is a disgrace. The Taoiseach who, on the one hand, declares that he is for openness and is anxious for consensus, is trying to mislead people both inside this House by proposing a guillotine in this way on this debate. We are not dealing with a simple matter. We are dealing with the lives and the health of women and they represent more than half of our population. We have no right, as a House dominated by men to take this decision lightly. It is a disgrace that the Taoiseach is insisting on forcing this debate through in a matter of three days. I would urge him, even at this late stage, to reconsider because what he is doing, in effect, is building up anger outside this House in relation to what he is trying to do.
On a point of order——
I have heard the views from the Leaders of the various parties and I will hear now the comments of Deputy Garland.
I would like to express my disappointment that these Bills are to be railroaded through the House. I am particularly disappointed with the time allocations. I thought we made some progress in the Electoral Bill where we had 20 minute slots for speakers which was reasonable. Now we have 45 minute slots, which, as Deputy McCartan has stated, will allow only 14 Members from this side of the House to contribute. I consider this is gravely injurious to me and to the other Independent Deputies.
I am putting the question——
Before you put the question I would like to say that our approach to this matter has always been open and constructive. We have tried through the Whip system, to order the business of this House but we have not received any co-operation as to what time was required by the Opposition parties.
You promised time for debate.
What do the Opposition parties want? Do they wish to sit through the night, all day tomorrow and through tomorrow night, or to sit next Friday, next Tuesday or next Wednesday to discuss these Bills?
The Fianna Fáil party have just voted against a motion extending the debate tonight.
Let us have no hypocrisy, please. Let us put the record straight.
The Government could have all this done before the Christmas shopping.
Let us put the record straight in relation to what way this House wants to run its business. In the absence of any constructive approach, the Government have a responsibility and a duty to order the business of the House.
They also have a responsibility to the people outside this House.
Having said that, I have no objection to people sharing time, I have no objection to the Whips meeting again to discuss the matter. Now that the Deputies have had their say in the House, have had their little charade and have put on their little show, if they want to sit down and work out times, they may do so.
This is a disgrace.
The jackboot in the velvet glove.
The Deputy is mixing his metaphors.
I want to protest in the strongest possible manner to the remark that having a referendum is dumping something on the Irish people. It is not doing any such thing. I gave my word to the Irish people earlier this year that I would bring proposals before them on this issue. I am prepared to keep my word to the people. It is up to others to sort out their situation for themselves. If they want a constructive debate with plenty of time, it is for the Whips to decide what time is to be made available.
Is that what you call consensus?
I tried, and if people are serious they can still have consensus. I will not be party to any hypocritical show. We know where we stand, it is up to everybody else to sort themselves out. So far as I am concerned the Whips can meet to arrange more time if that is what Deputies want but I am not sure that it is.
On a point of order, before you put the question——
Deputy, please allow the Chair to deal with this matter. It is too important now for points of order. Deputy McCartan, please resume your seat, I am on my feet.
Before the question is put, this House should be heard.
Before the question is put, the Chair feels it is its bounden duty to ascertain from the House a consensus as to the view expressed by An Taoiseach that the Whips might meet in respect of this matter.
On a point of order, we are faced with an order for a motion. Is the Government withdrawing the motion?
Do the Whips wish to meet in connection with this matter?
Is the motion withdrawn?
I will withhold the motion, Deputy, if I get a consensus from the House that the Whips should meet to discuss the question of time. Is that the position? Agreed. In that case I suggest that we adjourn the House until, say 4.40 p.m.
(Interruptions.)
This party have no difficulty in so far as meeting with the Government Whip is concerned. We have made it perfectly clear that we object to the mechanics of putting this referendum through by 3 December. When the Taoiseach says he is quite prepared to give time, does he mean extending beyond 3 December the date of the referenda? We would not have any difficulty in that regard.
I propose to adjourn the House for 20 minutes to afford the Whips an opportunity to meet and to come back with a consensus on this matter.
Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.
The Taoiseach, in respect of the up-to-date position on the Order of Business.
In respect of Item No. 3, we are making some headway. Business shall be interrupted at 12 midnight and the Second Stages of Items Nos. 3, 4 and 5 shall be taken today. The speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 45 minutes and time-sharing will be permitted. We could have avoided that if we had been able to reach agreement yesterday.
Is that satisfactory?
I take it that Item No. 9 on the Order Paper is amended by the deletion of the Taoiseach's decision in paragraph (i) (iii) and the entirety of paragraph (2)?
It is still on the Order Paper. I understand the Whips are meeting again tonight.
Can I take it that Item No. 9 is not being taken today and is being withdrawn?
The Order of Business is as I read it. The Whips are meeting tonight and I hope we can get the same co-operation in sorting out tomorrow's business.
Do not take so long over it tomorrow.
I am not sure that everybody heard what the Taoiseach had to say. I certainly did not hear him. Can I take it that we are agreeing to the proposal I made earlier, that we sit until 12 midnight and that we are not at this stage ordering any of the business for tomorrow, that all we are doing is ordering the Second Stage debate until midnight tonight and there is no closing motion?
That is so.
I welcome the fact that this agreement was achieved in the presence of the Whip of the Democratic Left.
The Whips shall meet later this evening to determine the business for tomorrow and onwards.