Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Mar 1970

Vol. 67 No. 15

Business of Seanad.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I move:

That in relation to motions other than Government motions the following provisions shall apply until the adjournment of the House for the Summer Recess:—

1. Where it has been agreed that such motions are to be taken, then, in each week in which the Seanad sits on Wednesday such motions shall be taken on the Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at which time proceedings on the motion then under consideration shall be interrupted.

2. The time allowed for the debate on a motion shall not exceed a period of four hours in the aggregate and at the expiration of this period, if the proceedings on the motion have not previously concluded, the Cathaoirleach shall put forthwith the question or questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion.

3. The speech of a Senator proposing a motion shall not exceed thirty minutes, and the Senator proposing, or such other Senator who has not already spoken as he may authorise in that behalf, shall be entitled to not less than fifteen minutes for a speech in reply; the speech of any other Senator in the course of the debate shall not exceed twenty minutes.

This speaks for itself and I do not think there is any necessity for me to go into it at this stage.

Mr. O'Higgins

Would the Senator say if this motion is in the same terms as the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

That is the way I interpret it.

Mr. O'Higgins

I just want to know if there is any alteration between the terms here and the actual recommendation which was made?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

In effect, I do not see any alteration.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am not suggesting there is. I am simply asking for information.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not see that there is.

Professor Kelly

I do not know if this is the appropriate time to ask this but would Senator Ó Maoláin indicate whether in the Government's view a distinction is entitled to be drawn between motions which have a statutory effect to annul regulations, for example, and other motions? It seems to me that there is a special duty on the Government to make time available one way or the other for motions of the first category. I do not want to press the Leader of the House at the moment if he has some other arrangement in mind but I think we should make it clear that in laying down our own regulations in regard to the taking of motions a distinction like this must be made and must be maintained. It seems to me to be an absolute requirement of the law which gives power to either House to annul rules and regulations or orders that the Government should permit this distinction to be attempted to be made; otherwise the law is being frustrated.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not see any difficulty of the kind arising under the arrangement we have made.

Professor Kelly

I accept entirely that that is Senator Ó Maoláin's idea. I simply wanted to draw the attention of the House to the possibility that motions of this kind in which delay can be fatal are in quite a different category and a situation might arise which would require a special regulation over and above what we are now doing in order to get it on. I am thinking of a motion in the name of Senator Alexis FitzGerald and myself which has been on the Order Paper since November and for which only six days are now left.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I appreciate the Senator's point in that regard.

Mr. Horgan

Will the House, in view of the lack of notice which affects discussion on this particular matter at the moment, accept amendments without notice? I have given two sets of amendments to the Clerk and I should like to have them discussed if at all possible.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I put down this motion at the request of the Cathaoirleach and in response to a suggestion by Senator Sheehy Skeffington and with a view to having the procedure brought into effect. If there is to be any question of amendments and chopping and changing, I do not know what to say.

Mr. Horgan

Might I explain to the House and to Senator Ó Maoláin why the amendments are necessary at this stage? They are necessary because I believe there are two substantial differences between the letter we originally got from the Cathaoirleach and the motion as presented to us today. I think this should be brought to the attention of the House. I would prefer to go into more detail if given the opportunity to do so.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Part of my objection originally to taking this merely as a circular letter from the chairman was that the opportunity of amending what were called decisions of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was not ours. We had not the right to amend those. Part of what I sought was a motion which we could not only discuss but, if necessary, amend. As Senator Horgan has pointed out, there would appear to be at least one, if not two, differences between the text now before us and the text originally circulated. The first would seem to me to be quite important. I refer to the first paragraph commencing with the words: "Where it has been agreed that such motions are to be taken, then,..." The implication is that unless there is agreement between Government and non-Government Senators the motions will be postponed just as long as the Government want. This will not be a change from the present situation. Therefore, it seems to me that this initial paragraph rather spoils the whole intention. I would support the amendments which Senator Horgan is asking to put to the House.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There would have to be agreement regarding the taking of any motion. Surely Senators do not expect the House to sit at 10.30 in the morning and take any motion on the Order Paper without prior indication being given to the Minister concerned. There would have to be agreement before any motion could be taken. There is nothing unusual in that.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I accept that where there is good faith but, having suffered before now with motions being on the Order Paper for 18 months and having seen other Senators' motions being deferred indefinitely on what I would call spurious grounds that this Minister or that Minister was not available, I have become rather weary.

Mr. Horgan

Could we have the Chair's ruling on the question of the amendments?

Acting Cathaoirleach

If it is proposed to introduce amendments to this motion I suggest it would be preferable to adjourn consideration of the motion until the next sitting day in order to give the House an opportunity to consider the amendments. I think it would be unsatisfactory to discuss them now because the House has not seen them yet.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I put down the motion because the House agreed on the last occasion that we should have some law and order in regard to motions. This motion is a reasonable interpretation of the decision arrived at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and it carried out, in effect, the wishes of that committee. If amendments are going to be put down, that is not in accord with what I undertook to do and I am not interested in it.

Mr. O'Higgins

It seems to me that the Chair's suggestion is a reasonable one. I sympathise with Senator Ó Maoláin's position because, as he has said, he brought in the motion at the request of the Cathaoirleach when the matter was raised here before. On the other hand, the framing of the motion was a matter for the Leader of the House without further consideration by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. In the original recommendation a suggestion was made that Ministers attending on motions should also be subject to a time limit but that suggestion does not appear in the motion before us. It seems to me that the correct thing to do in the circumstances, particularly if Senators wish to propose amendments, would be to leave consideration over until Senators have had an opportunity of seeing and digesting the proposed amendments.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Four hours is allotted for discussion of a motion: half an hour for the proposer, a half an hour each for others wishing to speak and half an hour for the Minister. That need cause no trouble. I cannot see that any further amendments would make any difference to the point we had in mind when we discussed this matter at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. If there are going to be amendments I certainly shall not have any further interest in the motion. I was asked to deal with a motion and I put it down. If Senators want to take a different view of it they can put down an amendment but I am not going to waste any more time on it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I support the suggestion that we defer this for a week. The Leader of the House has said that he is implementing what was decided by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but that decision was taken months ago and I should like to know why he delayed so long? The motion could have been put down six weeks ago. The House has not met for six weeks and we would have had plenty of time to make amendments but, in fact, we got notice of this for the first time only this morning. The reason for the delay is based on Senator Ó Maoláin's delay. He has said that he assumes the Minister would not speak for longer than the Senator opening the debate on the motion. If that is what Senator Ó Maoláin means why cannot he put it into the motion? Under the terms of the motion, as it is at present, it would be possible for a Minister to talk at great length and as a consequence shut out most of the Senators from speaking on the motion. In later years it will be no good our saying that we remembered that the Leader of the House way back in 1970 was prepared to assume that no Minister would do any such thing. We have a right to study this motion carefully and put down any amendments we think necessary. I would have appreciated it if the motion had been circulated earlier but as the Leader of the House was dilatory I do not think he can blame us for wanting to put down amendments.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

On the last occasion we dealt with this matter the only objector was Senator Sheehy Skeffington, but now I find there are others.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think there is one substantial change in this motion as regards ministerial interventions.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

No, there is not.

Mr. Horgan

We would be prepared to delay discussion on this motion until the next sitting day provided we were guaranteed that discussion would take place then.

Acting Cathaoirleach

It is a matter for the House to decide whether to take the motion as it stands, accept amendments now or defer consideration. I do not think we can discuss it for very much longer. I should like a positive decision.

Mr. O'Higgins

I have not seen the amendments but it does seem reasonable that if a motion is proposed by even one Senator he should have an opportunity to put it down. I am not familiar with Standing Orders on this.

Acting Cathaoirleach

The amendments are relatively simple but it is a matter for the House to decide whether to consider them at short notice. The amendments merely suggest the deletion of all words from "where to then" in paragraph 1 and the addition in paragraph 3 of the words, "and the speech of any Minister intervening in the debate shall not exceed 30 minutes". These amendments are proposed by Senators Horgan and Sheehy Skeffington.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am agreeable to considering amendments to the motion now.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

If there are going to be amendments I am not interested in a motion any further.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Leader of the House is getting very petulant because we are insisting on correct procedure. He wanted to foist this motion on us as the decision of the committee which have no right to impose any decision on this House. It does not matter to me if the Leader of the House has lost interest.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The motion is not put down as a result of any decision taken by the committee. It is put down as my interpretation of the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges at the request of Senator Sheehy Skeffington.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

For correct procedure.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not know whether it would help Senator Ó Maoláin to know that, as far as I am concerned, I would disagree with the first amendment and I would agree with the second amendment proposed.

Mr. Russell

I should like to say that we would accept the proposal in the form in which it came from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. In fact, there has been a change and, if Senator Ó Maoláin does not mind my saying so, he might have explained to the House why this change took place. Any amendments that have been made at this juncture are amendments made by Senator Ó Maoláin to the original proposal from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. That is the only objection we have to it. I am speaking for the Fine Gael Party. If it came to us in the original form, I think we would have accepted it without question.

Acting Cathaoirleach

The motion is before the House and amendments have been proposed. In view of the fact that the House has not had the text of this motion before it for very long I will have to rule that the amendments should be permitted at short notice if the House wishes to discuss the motion today. Apparently the House does wish to discuss it today so the amendments are before the House.

Mr. Horgan

I move amendment No. 1:

In paragraph 1 to delete all words from "where" to "then".

The amended motion would then read:

In each week in which the Seanad sits on Wednesday such motions...

That is referring back to motions other than Government motions in the preamble of the Resolution

...shall be taken on Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at which time proceedings on the motion then under consideration shall be interrupted.

This is the nearest I can get and I believe the nearest anybody can get to the relevant paragraph in the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which was sent to each Senator by the Cathaoirleach on the 6th February, 1970. This paragraph reads, without qualification:

In each week in which the Seanad sits on Wednesday motions should be taken on Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

We now have a situation in which a qualification has been introduced with the words: "where it has been agreed that such motions are to be taken then." This may give rise to some difficulty. It may be argued from the other side of the House, as Senator Ó Maoláin has already argued, that agreement is, of course, necessary for everything and to this extent one would agree with him; but clearly, if words mean something, they are put in to have a particular meaning, a particular force, a particular effect. Therefore, one must examine the words that are put in in order to see what effect they are intended to have. If they are not intended to have any effect there is no point in having them there at all and the Members on the other side of the House would have no difficulty in agreeing to their deletion, but since there is opposition from the other side to the deletion of these words I can only conclude that they do mean something.

My reading of what they mean is they are designed to introduce into the thought of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges a proviso which gives the Government an effective veto over the discussion of Private Members' Business in this House, a veto which it has had and has exercised fairly ruthlessly since this House was set up in its present form. I see very little difference—in fact I can see no difference at all—between the state of affairs set out in this motion, as Senator Ó Maoláin has presented it to us, and the state of affairs which existed before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges ever sat to examine the matter. I further think that this qualification which has been introduced here in paragraph 1 is in a very real sense almost a reflection on the Chair, which framed and sent out this message to each Senator in a very positive way. To import at this stage a qualification of such a serious nature to what we have before us, signed by the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, is in fact almost a reflection on that Chair.

I believe, and many Members of the House on both sides would agree with me, that this House should be its own master at least in matters of procedure if nothing else.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Hear, hear.

Mr. Horgan

This is purely a procedural matter but nevertheless a matter of some considerable importance. When I detect in this change an attempt to give the mastery of the House's own procedural affairs to one party alone, in spite of a contrary recommendation from an all-party Committee on Procedure and Privileges, I feel we must object very strongly. This, I feel, is the most substantial amendment that needs to be made. I would be very interested to hear from Senator Russell what he disagrees with in it or what alternative wording he has to suggest because, if he has alternative wording to suggest, I believe it would be with precisely the same effect in mind.

This does not mean to say that I do not feel equally strongly about my second amendment. It reads:

To add to paragraph 3 the words "and the speech of any Minister intervening in a debate shall not exceed 30 minutes".

When we look back over the history of this particularly thorny procedural question we realise how important this is. I would not suggest that one of the reasons why the Government all too infrequently accepted Private Members' motions in this House was simply because they had not any regard or esteem for this House. I would not accuse the Government of that. It is clear that one of the biggest objections from busy Government Ministers to the taking of Private Members' motions in the Seanad was that Ministers could never be certain when they were to be called upon to reply to a debate. One can sympathise with Ministers who have many other things to do—not necessarily more important but very often at least equally important—being kept hanging around Leinster House as various long-winded gentlemen of all parties——

Mr. O'Higgins

Or none.

Mr. Horgan

——made it clear that they wanted nothing more than to hear the sound of their own voices and were not really concerned with facilitating the Minister, which I think one should always do, at least to a certain extent.

It is clear that the original recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which I again quote from——

The speech of the proposer and of the Minister intervening should not exceed 30 minutes...

——is particularly relevant here.

In speaking on the first amendment I pointed to the fact that if words had been added it must be because they meant something. In speaking to my second amendment I would say that if words are left out it is because they mean something just as if words are put in it is also because they mean something. There is little reason to think that Ministers will always behave in the way in which the Leader of the House assured us they will behave. I think Ministers, within the terms of the original letter from the Cathaoirleach and the terms of this motion as amended, have been given what many of them would consider a very valuable opportunity to make statements to this House on matters of public importance, all the more so at a time in which Ministers are all too frequently attacked for choosing places other than the Houses of the Oireachtas for making public policy statements.

I stress that both amendments are simply to reintroduce the full force of the all-party agreed recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and that both these amendments ensure a fixed time limit for every motion. I find it difficult to foresee any debate on Private Members' Business collapsing in less than the four hours anticipated in the motion, so the amendments also ensure that the Minister concerned, if he is in the House from 1 p.m. on the day in question, will be out of it by 2 p.m. I do not think any Minister could ask for more or that this House should ask for anything less.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I formally second both amendments which, I take it, will be voted on separately. I make the point initially that these motions obviously will have to be taken one at a time. There is at each of our meetings an agenda agreed at the beginning and the fact that motions are on the agenda does not necessarily mean we will take them or that we will depart from the agreed agenda. We know that on a Thursday morning some motions will be dealt with in so far as it is humanly possible to do so and we are not any longer content to allow motions to be deferred almost indefinitely. The point has been made fully by Senator Horgan.

I wish to remind the House that when Senator Ó Maoláin introduced the motion earlier he was asked by Senator O'Higgins if there was any change in the phrasing from the original motion agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and very hesitantly the Leader of the House said that as far as he could interpret it there was no change.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Not in the phrasing.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am prepared to accept that this misleading of the House by the Leader of the House —I hesitate to call him the mis-Leader of the House——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I understood Senator O'Higgins to ask was there any change in the phrasing and Senator Sheehy Skeffington now insists on pursuing the line that I was misleading the House. I ask him to withdraw that. I was not misleading the House.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

As I was about to say when so vigorously interrupted, I am prepared to accept that this misleading of the House was not deliberate. However, it was misleading. This is not merely a question of phrasing, no matter how much Senator Ó Maoláin would like to make it such. There has been one addition to the original motion—a substantial addition—and one subtraction and this is therefore not a question of phrasing but of actual import. It is a question of whether a motion should be agreed before we take it or whether there should be a time limit on the Minister——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I must interrupt again. I said that this was my interpretation of the views of the Committee and of the meaning of the letter of the Cathaoirleach. I did not say it was the same phraseology. I said it was my interpretation, and so it is. I maintain that the motion means the same thing as the Cathaoirleach's letter and if the Senator is not able to appreciate this I cannot help him further.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The record will show. In my belief this was unintentional, though the Senator is sowing doubts by the very delicate nature of his conscience in this matter. However, we have two clear amendments before us. When I originally objected to the method whereby we were asked to accept this innovation, what I was objecting to was the procedure adopted. It was not correct procedure for the House simply to say that we got a circular letter from the Cathaoirleach to the effect that this was the decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and that therefore, since we have received this letter, this becomes fresh procedure of the Seanad. I made the point that it is not the Committee or the Cathaoirleach but this House, and that therefore such decisions should come before the House for approval and if necessary amendment. It was on that procedural point that the House supported me on the other occasion and it was not some fractious point on my part. I was standing up for the rights of the House. With these things in mind, I second both amendments.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington is undoubtedly right in his view that the Committee cannot take a decision which will be binding on this House as regards its procedure. I think it is accepted that despite the particular wording of the Cathaoirleach's letter the intention is that the views of the Committee should have been recommendatory to the House and that it was then a matter for the House to approve of them or not. I agree also with what I take to be the view of Senators Horgan and Sheehy Skeffington that it should not lie entirely with the Government, with the Leader of the House or with the largest party in the House to decide when motions will or will not be discussed.

Although I cannot agree fully with the terms of the first amendment proposed here, I sympathise with its objectives because it seems to me that a Senator who goes to the trouble of putting down a motion is entitled to some kind of assurance from the House that that motion will see the light of day within the reasonably foreseeable future, that we will not have a situation where motions can indefinitely be kept out of discussions here.

On the other hand, if the amendments as proposed by Senator Horgan and Sheehy Skeffington were accepted I think it would create considerable difficulties here. It would make it obligatory on the House, no matter what emergency situation might exist to spend from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. each Thursday considering motions and if there were no motions down for consideration I do not think the House would be free to consider anything else In such circumstances we might have the ridiculous situation in which we meet on a Wednesday and in which we might meet again on a Thursday but, because there were no motions down we could not do anything on a Thursday from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. This would provide that in each week in which the Seanad sits on Wednesdays, such motions could only be taken on Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. I may be wrong in that view but that is the view that I take of the amendment as it stands. I fully appreciate why the motion was put down because in the original recommendation from the Committee, the Cathaoirleach's letter read in the first paragraph:

In each week in which the Seanad sits on Wednesday, motions should be taken on Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

The use of the word "should" shows the recommendatory nature of this letter. What was being proposed was that that should be the ordinary procedure and as far as I am concerned it should be the ordinary procedure. The only difficulty I see with regard to the first amendment is to decide whether it goes too far. I am inclined to think that if the amendment were accepted and we were to start off bluntly with the mandatory obligation to take motions at this hour each week, we are going too far. I would suggest, by way of comparison, to Senators Horgan and Sheehy Skeffington, that it would attain the same object as they have in mind if this motion were to start "Where so requested by or on behalf of the Senator who has tabled the motion." In other words, that the right of a Senator who puts down a motion should be preserved, that if he wishes it to be taken it will be taken but difficulty would not arise if there is no motion or if the Senator does not wish the motion to be taken on a particular Thursday. As far as the first motion is concerned that would probably meet the point of view of both Senators Horgan and Sheehy Skeffington and it would certainly meet the point of view that I am expressing here in so far as the Senator who has tabled the motion should have a say in the motion.

In so far as the second amendment is concerned, I support it fully. It was agreed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that the Minister should be restricted to 30 minutes as well as the Senator proposing the motion. I do not understand why that was deleted from the motion when it was being put down. It should be reinstated. I am sure that Senator Ó Maoláin will agree that the reinstatement of this restriction will meet the recommendation made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. McDonald

I regret that this crux has arisen. During the past few months, when the Whips and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges endeavoured to improve the situation which has existed during the past years with regard to motions, I must say that among the people concerned there was quite an amount of co-operation and understanding. Perhaps the House is losing sight of the fact that this motion only relates to a trial period, that it only covers the period up to the Summer Recess. No matter how bad this arrangement will prove to be in practice, it cannot be any worse than what we endured during the life of the last Seanad. I should not like to see the House dividing on this point at this time. If this motion, amended or otherwise, can make it possible to deal with seven or eight motions it will be worthwhile but Senators must realise that all through the talks that have led up to this motion we have worked towards finding a solution or formula that would improve the situation.

I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington when he says that it was frustrating to have motions on the Order Paper for as long as one and a half years until they were completely out of date. Therefore, to have some formula by which one could expect a motion to be taken at some time would be a vast improvement. If at all possible, we should preserve the co-operation and agreement that has been evident all along the line when dealing with this subject.

Professor Kelly

I should like to repeat the appeal made by Senator McDonald for co-operation. From the little experience I have had in this House, it seems to me that there is no reason for one side to be unduly suspicious of the other. For that reason, I cannot understand why it should have seemed necessary for Senator Ó Maoláin to leave out of the motion, as drafted, any restriction on the length of time allowed to a Minister for intervention. As Senator Horgan said, these words meant something and, therefore, their deletion must imply something. The terms of the motion as put down by the Leader of the House are likely to give rise to suspicion in the minds of those of us on this side of the House. All of us must be aware that some Ministers are able to talk for hours on end but I am not for a moment saying that that will happen in this House. However, I cannot understand why Senator Ó Maoláin should be afraid or unwilling to incorporate the restriction on the time to be allotted to a Minister which, as Senator McDonald has said, could only have a temporary effect in any case. I know that I am very often partisan but I appeal to the Leader of the House in all sincerity not to give us additional reason to be more partisan. The Leader of the House can imagine what it would be like here in the months of May, June or July if we had several Ministers who continued to talk for, maybe, an hour and a half. We would have uproar and I am giving warning of my taking part in any such uproar. While it is unreasonable to expect that many Ministers will do that, I appeal to Senator Ó Maoláin to allay the suspicions that have been created by the rewording of this motion.

Mr. Horgan

At this stage I am to inform the Leader of the House that on the basis of the fact that these provisional arrangements are only to last for a number of months, both Senator Sheehy Skeffington and I are proposed to withdraw the first amendment and we would be glad to hear what Senator Ó Maoláin has to say about the second one.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am very glad to hear that because it saves me a lot of further explanation. With regard to the second motion the reason for not tying the Minister down to exactly 30 minutes was that in the case of something exceptional he might require a further ten or 15 minutes. I visualise the Minister taking 30 minutes the same as any Member. However, in the event of something of extreme importance or extreme difficulty in discussing or explaining, a little extra time might be required, and in that case I do not think that anybody would grudge that extra time.

Mr. O'Higgins

Could that not be dealt with by agreement?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Of course, by agreement. I do not think that anyone would grudge that if the indication is that these matters should be seriously discussed and information given to the Members of the House. I assure Senators that there is nothing sinister whatever in this thing. Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I know, of course has a jaundiced mind in regard to everything that Fianna Fáil, the Government or I do. I do not mind his suspicions but I am surprised at the line that Senator Horgan took at the start, but now that he has seen the light I will forgo further criticism of it.

I assure the Seanad that that is the position with regard to the second part of the motion. There is nothing sinister in leaving out the name of the Minister, and that is the proper way to do it. Senator McDonald quite rightly drew attention to the fact that Senator Sheehy Skeffington apparently did not see, although he asked about it on the last occasion, that the introductory paragraph here shows that this thing was experimental for the next four months. Senator Sheehy Skeffington at the last meeting of the Seanad insisted that there should be something in it to show that this was only experimental, but he never drew attention even to the inclusion of that in this motion.

I do not think that the Seanad need have any doubt about this. By withdrawing the second amendment we could, as Senator McDonald said, experiment with this for the next four months, and at the end of that time if anybody is not satisfied—perhaps I will not be satisfied myself—then we can think again.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is the second amendment being accepted?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

No.

Mr. O'Higgins

I just want to say in relation to that, that I appreciate what the Leader of the House said with regard to the odd occasion when a Minister might for some reason wish to exceed 30 minutes. I do not think that he would find the House ungenerous if that situation arose, even if you put in the 30 minute time limit which was recommended, after all, by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Certainly, speaking for my own party I have no doubt at all about this. If the Minister in his discretion wants an extra ten or 15 minutes to conclude or to make his case we will give it to him, and I think that we should adhere to the recommendation of the Committee as far as the motion goes.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This is a constructive effort to try to cure people on the other side of the House who have the unceasing suspicion of everything the Government does or that we do here. There is this suspicion that the Minister might do this or that so we must put it in to tie him down. That is the very thing that will get my back up to the extent that I will resist to the limit.

Mr. Russell

From what Seanadóir Ó Maoláin tells us now it is obvious that his interpretation of the proposal —I will not say a decision—of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was, I would accept, correct in the first instance. Senator O'Higgins has pointed out that the word "should" is important here, and how Senator Ó Maoláin could possibly think that by deleting reference to the restriction on the Minister he was interpreting the wishes of the Committee I cannot understand. It is fairly obvious that the intention of the Committee was to put in this phrase and to suggest that it is limiting the Minister is in fact the complete antithesis of the recommendation of the Committee. I would like to support what Senator O'Higgins has said, that this House should be given every opportunity to show that it is prepared to extend to any Minister concerned the courtesy of an extension. The 30 minutes limit suggested by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was preferred to leaving it wide open. I would like to ask Senator Ó Maoláin again to reconsider his position in that regard. The House should be given an opportunity of extending to a Minister the courtesy of 15, 20 or 30 extra minutes if the necessity arose on a matter of possibly a major pronouncement. The Minister should not be given carte blanche to talk as long as he likes, since Ministers have been known to talk as long as five hours in certain instances. I appeal to the Senator to consider the second amendment.

Acting Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Horgan

The second amendment is being pressed.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 28.

Tá

• Boland, John.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Dunne, James.
• Fitzgerald, Jack.
• Horgan, John.
• Kelly, John.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• Malone, Patrick.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• Owens, Evelyn P.
• Russell, G.E.
• Sheehy Skeffington, O.L.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Brennan, John J.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Cranitch, Mícheál C.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Doyle, John.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Farrell, Peggy.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Thomas P.
• Gallanagh, Michael.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Desmond.
• Honan, Dermot P.
• Keery, Neville.
• Killilea, Mark.
• McElgunn, Farrell.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• Nash, John J.
• Norton, Patrick.
• O'Callaghan, Cornelius K.
• Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
• O'Sullivan, Terry.
• Ryan, Patrick W.
• Ryan, William.
• Walsh, Seán.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Horgan and Sheehy Skeffington; Níl, Senators Brennan and Farrell.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. O'Higgins

There is just one point in connection with the motion. It would seem as a matter of courtesy, in view of the various drastic changes in the motion, that it should be referred back to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Acting Cathaoirleach

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges, of course, can consider this at any time but the decision of the House, I understand, is that the motion be carried.

Mr. O'Higgins

The only thing which worries me is that the motion in its present terms, which I think the Leader of the House quite honestly from his interpretation is putting before the House as the recommendation of the Committee—this is a view which I hold and which others hold—is not the entire recommendation of the Committee and I do not think it should be put before us as the recommendation of the Committee unless it is referred back first to the Committee.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do not know what the Senator is talking about. There was a motion put down, it was discussed and it was carried.

Mr. O'Higgins

It was not carried. There was an amendment defeated.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.50 p.m. sine die.