Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1965

Vol. 60 No. 1

Business of the Seanad.

An Cathaoirleach

I have considered the application from Senator Sheehy Skeffington to raise, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House tonight, the following matter:

The changes recently made by the Department of Education in the Rules for National Schools.

I consider that this matter is one of such a nature that it should not come forward for discussion on the Adjournment but rather by way of substantive motion. Such questions cannot be regarded as proper subjects for the Adjournment owing to the inadequacy of the debate and the lack of provision for coming to a decision.

Accordingly, I rule that the application is disallowed.

I have notified Senator Sheehy Skeffington of my decision.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I accept your ruling but I should just like to plead with you to reconsider your decision in view of the fact that it is perfectly possible, as has been shown in the past, to raise matters on the Adjournment such as corporal punishment, the export of horses for slaughter, the Fethard-on-Sea boycott, the behaviour of a District Justice in Killaloe, the Raharoon school inquiry or matters of that sort, all of which I successfully raised on the Adjournment and several of which gave rise, subsequently, to a motion.

It seems to me we are losing something in the Seanad if our power to raise matters on the Adjournment is thus to be restricted. If we raise matters on the Adjournment it does not prevent anybody putting down a motion but such a motion may not be discussed for six months or more. I would plead with you to reconsider this matter, and I would plead with the House to consider whether we are not, in fact, losing a privilege and diminishing our status in not being able to raise such matters on the Adjournment.

Professor Stanford

From the point of view of the status of the House I support Senator Sheehy Skeffington in this matter. We could have had it both ways very advantageously. This matter could have been dealt with very expeditiously on the Adjournment and again it could have been developed further in the subsequent motion. The matter which Senator Sheehy Skeffington wants to raise is one of national interest and urgency at the moment.

Professor Quinlan

I wish to support Senator Sheehy Skeffington on the matter of the status of the House and the very inadequate use that has been made in the past of this time for motions on the Adjournment. It is a pity this matter could not be raised. It could, perhaps, have been followed later by a motion.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not wish to enter into discussion on this matter. I think the House, on reflection, will agree with me that the course of the debate on some of the matters mentioned by Senator Sheehy Skeffington showed the wrong approach was by raising them on the Adjournment.

Professor Stanford

On a matter of order, would the Cathaoirleach consider giving a ruling on what he considers is the right nature of a matter for raising on the Adjournment? It would be helpful to the House if we knew just where we stood on this matter.

An Cathaoirleach

I think it better to deal with these matters as they arise.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On a point of order I should just like to say that when I raised the matter of corporal punishment, the then Minister, General Mulcahy came in and replied to me. Senator T. J. O'Connell, who was a teacher, reproached me for not putting down a motion on the matter. I did then put down a motion, which came up for discussion six months later. I was the only Senator who spoke on the motion. No other Senator said anything. This is what happened when a motion was, in fact, put down for general discussion.

An Cathaoirleach

That is outside the scope of the functions of the Chair.