It is proposed to take No. 1 only and to sit until it is completed.
Order of Business.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he would accept an alteration to the Order of Business whereby, on the conclusion of No. 1, the House would take item No. 19, of which I gave notice only yesterday. The matter is extremely important and urgent. It concerns a statement regarding the transfer of a person to military custody, or out of military custody, and it purports to be a statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas in conformity with section 2 (6) of the Prisons Act.
My belief is that this statement does not conform with the Act and six other such statements which have been laid before the Houses equally do not conform with the Act. The matter is serious because if the statements are not in conformity with the Act the whole question of the validity of such transfers and, of course, of the custody in which those men now stand is necessarily waived. If the Leader of the House consents to vary the Order of Business, it will not take me long to make this case. I do not know how long the matter will take on the opposite side of the House but it will take no more than a quarter of an hour on this side. I therefore move:
That the Order of Business be amended by the addition of item 19.
I do not know if Senator Kelly is putting that formally by way of an amendment to the Order of Business. If he is I should like to second it. Having discussed the matter with Senator Kelly, it seems to me that the point he raised in relation to item 19 is not only important but a matter of considerable urgency. It is a matter which, obviously, should be dealt with on the first opportunity when raised in the House. The other House of the Oireachtas is not sitting now and it obviously cannot be raised there. Senator Kelly is quite right in raising it here. I would suggest that the Order of Business should be amended to enable the point Senator Kelly wishes to make to be raised. I appreciate that the leader of the House may experience some difficulty in getting the appropriate Minister to attend but I have no doubt that either the leader of the House or someone else will be able to convey the importance of the point raised by Senator Kelly to the Minister.
I am sorry I cannot agree with Senator Kelly in regard to this matter. I did not get an Order Paper until I entered Leinster House about a half an hour ago due to the vagaries of the post in my district. Immediately I arrived I made some telephone inquiries to find out what it was all about. My inquiries indicated that it was a matter of much ado about nothing and therefore I cannot agree with Senator Kelly that it is a matter of grave or urgent importance. In consequence, because of the fact that the notice given was far too short to enable any kind of analysis to be made of the motion, I cannot accept the amendment.
May I say briefly that it was not from any intention of taking the Government side by surprise that this notice was, as Senator Ó Maoláin rightly said, very short indeed. I noticed only yesterday that this statement does not conform with the Act. In my considered view, it is not worth the paper it is printed on. I only noticed it yesterday because I saw on the Order Paper that one of those statements had been laid before the House, and out of curiosity, I went down to the Library and looked at it. I could do no more than to put in a notice of motion which I did within five minutes of satisfying myself that the statement was not in order. I am sorry the notice is so short and I know it puts Senator Ó Maoláin in difficulty, but I would ask him not to judge the substance of this matter as he has done until he has heard what I have to say about it.
I should like to support Senators Kelly and O'Higgins in this. I do not think it is very fair of the Leader of the House to say that this is much ado about nothing. Senator Kelly went to some trouble to contact some Senators this morning to try to explain this point and I believe he is to be congratulated on doing what more Senators ought to do, that is to look at the papers laid before the House in this way. This is a very important matter because it concerns the liberty of the individual. It is not much ado about nothing; it is part of the machinery of the Prisons Act, which we passed under the guarantee that this sort of machinery would be in operation and Senator Kelly's allegation, which he is prepared to substantiate, is that the statement has been made and does not comply with the Prisons Act. It is an extremely important matter. If we cannot give half an hour of the Seanad time to discuss it, then I wonder if the Seanad is really doing its job. I very strongly support it and I hope that the House will amend the Order of Business to allow time to discuss this matter and have it corrected.
If the case is as important as Senator Robinson states, surely it is a matter for the court—it is a question of the liberty of the subject, not a matter for the Seanad.
If that were the case there would be no point at all in laying papers before the Seanad or the Dáil. It is in order that this House and the other House can satisfy themselves that the orders that they have given by statute are being observed by the Minister, that the whole pantomime of laying papers before the House takes place in the first instance.
Before calling on Senator Quinlan I should like to remind the House that they are discussing a motion on the Order of Business and therefore each Senator should speak only once.
I appeal to the Leader of the House to accede to Senator Kelly's request. Obviously there is a grave need to look at the point raised by Senator Kelly. If we can dispose of it in an hour—Senator Kelly assures us we can—surely that would be an hour well spent. It will show that the Seanad is active in following its task of looking at orders made in conjunction with legislation passed.
An amendment has been moved to add No. 19 to No. 1.
Question put: "That the Order of Business be amended by the addition of No. 19."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Belton, Richard.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Kelly, John.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- Mannion, John M.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- Owens, Evelyn P.
- Quinlan, Patrick M.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- Russell, G.E.
Níl
- Brennan, John J.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Doyle, John.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Farrell, Peggy.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- McElgunn, Farrell.
- Nash, John J.
- Norton, Patrick.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Gallanagh, Michael.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Honan, Dermot P.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Sheldon, W.A.W.
- Walsh, Seán.
Tellers: Tá, Senators McDonald and Reynolds; Níl, Senators Brennan and J. Farrell.
Amendment declared lost.
In that event I wish to move the adjournment of the Seanad for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance to it. It is the question of the validity of the document laid before the Seanad on 12th July, 1972, described as a statement pursuant to section 2 (6) of the Prisons Act, 1972, and the associated question whether, in the event of the document being invalid, the person named in the document is in lawful custody, and other persons in respect of whom similar statements had been laid before the Seanad, are in lawful custody.
I am afraid the Senator is late. The Standing Order provides that such an application must be made at the commencement of public business, in other words, before we embark on a discussion on the Order of Business.
I interpret that as meaning that that takes place when the Order of Business is settled because until it is settled we are not doing business.
At worst it is at the commencement if we are discussing it when the Order of Business is being discussed.
Such requests have always been made before the commencement of Public Business, that is immediately after the Seanad comes together and before the Chair calls on the Leader of the House to move the Order of Business. That has always been the practice.
I am not questioning your ruling, but with respect, that does not seem evident from Standing Orders. I chose the sequence which I have employed out of a desire not to make this matter seem more contentious than it is but out of a desire to allow it to rank in the Seanad's ordinary business if the Government side would agree to that being done. It was only when I established that they were not willing to have it done that I took this exceptional step.
You will agree that more unusual and drastic measures such as moving the adjournment of the Seanad should be something resorted to only when the ordinary Order of Business cannot be got to accommodate this question which I believe is of serious importance, all the more so when the other House is not sitting. I do not question the good intention of the advice you are getting. I cannot believe that this order should be so interpreted as to make impossible a sequence of procedure which I have just adopted. It seems to me to be rational to try and get a subject incorporated in the ordinary Order of Business before moving by an unusual method such as Standing Order No. 26 provides for.
I regret if it seems to be a precedent here that the only way of moving something urgent on what may be the last day of either House sitting before October, is to use Standing Order No. 26 without trying to get it into the Order Paper in the ordinary way and get it on the Order of Business in the ordinary way so that it can be discussed uncontentiously. I wish to make it clear that there is no partisan element in this matter and I regret being forced to rely on Standing Order No. 26. I would prefer if the leader of the House acquiesced in what I originally suggested. We have taken more time since then than I would have taken to explain this point in the first instance, if I had been allowed to do so.
The Senator will appreciate that the Chair is bound by the provisions of Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 26 is quite clear that this application must be made at the commencement of Public Business. We have already commenced Public Business. Some time ago a motion was moved by the leader of the House in respect of the Order of Business. We had a discussion on it. We had a division on an amendment and we are now discussing Public Business. The fact that legislation has not yet begun is immaterial. I must rule in accordance with all the precedents.
May I just make a point before the Chair gives a positive ruling on this? As the Chair has pointed out the wording of Standing Order No. 26 is "at the commencement of Public Business". To me it seems logical that that means that Public Business must have commenced before we are in Public Business. I suggest that within the meaning of the Standing Order we are still at the commencement of Public Business. We are still dealing with the item that commences the Public Business for the day.
Might I add my voice to those of other Senators by saying that the application of Senator Kelly is for the adjournment of the Seanad? The Seanad must have commenced before it is possible to adjourn it.
That is not so. For example, there is provision for adjourning the Seanad in the absence of a quorum before any business has commenced.
With regard to these applications, the invariable procedure is that they are made at the start of the sitting of the Seanad. The Public Business refers to the distinction between Private Business—Private Bills and such— and Public Business. Public Business is regarded as having commenced with the moving of the motion for the Order of Business. I feel bound by the precedents of this House to rule that such an application must be made at the commencement of business, that is, at the very start of the proceedings before any motion on the Order of Business had been moved.
I do not want to prolong this discussion but the first item listed on the Order of Business and numbered is a piece of legislation. What passes in this House before that business starts is entirely preliminary and extraneous to it. The interpretation I placed on that Standing Order was an entirely reasonable one. There may be two views on it but it is a reasonable interpretation and it is regrettable that, when the other House is in recess and when a matter which affects the liberty of the citizen is raised, the other interpretation, whatever may be said in favour of it, should be invoked against me.
This party have been accused of being the law and order party, of having too little sympathy with people who are under the lash of the Minister for Justice and of siding too easily with the Government in matters of public order. Naturally we believe in law and order, but we believe also that the people who are at the receiving end of the law and order have rights too. If the other House expects a statement to be made in regard to an important matter like a transfer to military custody or out of military custody, that rule will be rigidly adhered to and respected. This party will uphold the rights of people who depend on this kind of thing just as much as we will uphold the rights of the majority who are trying to keep the subversive minorities under control.
I do not call into question the good faith of the Cathaoirleach in his ruling, but it is regrettable that on the last day on which either House will be sitting for the next three months, what I can only call one of two possible interpretations of Standing Orders has been called in order to prevent me from explaining to this House why, in my opinion, this House's instructions to the Minister for Justice have been ignored.
The Senator is going into the merits of his application. This is not a matter of two conflicting interpretations of Standing Order No. 26. For very many years only one interpretation has been placed on this Standing Order. The invariable interpretation has been the one the Chair is now putting, that the commencement of Public Business means before any motion has been moved. If the Senator had come into the office before we sat today to inquire about this, he would have been given this advice. I am ruling that the application is not one contemplated by the Standing Order. Is the Order of Business agreed?
I accept your ruling. May I ask if this means for the future that anybody who having proposed a motion perhaps a month ago, which because of some public event suddenly becomes topical, has no option if he wishes to have it discussed there and then in the Seanad but to rely on Standing Order No. 26. In other words, he has forfeited his rights under Standing Order No. 26 if he takes what might be considered the more polite and usual route of asking the leader of the House to incorporate that item in the Order of Business. Is that the position?
Any Senator who wishes to make use of Standing Order No. 26 or any other Standing Order has to comply with the terms of the Standing Order. It is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair is bound to carry out the Standing Orders of this House and it is a matter for any Senator who wishes to make use of any Standing Order to carry out the Standing Order in the manner provided for by the Order. Is the Order of Business agreed?
As a protest against the failure of the Seanad to allow this matter to be discussed, I do not agree with the Order of Business.
Order of Business put and agreed to.