It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in that order. If not already reached, it is proposed that we interrupt business at 7 o'clock to take Nos. 2 and 3. It might be of assistance if I indicated that it is proposed to sit tomorrow at 3 p.m. If the Anti-Discrimination Bill comes from the Dáil it is proposed to have the Second Stage debate and also to continue the discussion on Motion No. 5.
Order of Business.
Before the Senator resumes his seat might I remind him there is a meeting of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges at 6 o'clock? He might, therefore, like to say 7.30 p.m. rather than 7 o'clock.
That is agreeable to me, if it is to the Senators opposite. I hope this will not arise, as we may have reached it. If we do not reach No. 2 shall we say 7.30 p.m. instead of 7 p.m.?
What is the element of urgency about the Anti-Discrimination Bill that it has to be taken in this manner? I would refer to Standing Order No. 74, paragraph 1, which refers to a Bill that comes to the Seanad from Dáil Éireann. It says:
... save in the case of a Certified Money Bill, and a Bill the time for the consideration of which by the Seanad shall have been abridged under Article 24 of the Constitution, shall not be considered, unless the Seanad otherwise orders, before the expiration of three clear days after it has been received from the Dáil by the Clerk.
I accept that under Standing Orders the Seanad can order that a Bill be taken less than three days after it reaches the Seanad, but it is clearly the normal and accepted fact that three days should be given.
I suggest that we might leave that until tomorrow's Order of Business. I was merely giving an indication to the Seanad of what was intended. It is not ordered for today.
In all fairness I should give an indication now that our group could not agree to the taking of a Bill of this importance, this magnitude and this complexity at this kind of notice. It is not simply a question of niggling about the exact wording of Standing Orders. The provision of three clear days has been put down for a very good reason. It is to provide adequate time for people to prepare their position on a Bill of this importance. It would be quite wrong and contrary to ordinary parliamentary practice to ask us to take it at that kind of notice.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House to take steps to allow time in the near future to allow a debate on Motion No. 11:
That Seanad Éireann notes the critical situation in Northern Ireland and requests the Government to outline its policy of reconciliation and the steps it intends to take towards a political solution.
This was put down in my name and in the names of Senators Browne, Robinson, Quinlan and Brosnahan. Shortly after this motion was tabled the Senators who signed it requested that a debate in the Seanad be held at the earliest possible opportunity to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland. That was the time at which the delicate Sunningdale negotiations were going on and we were asked not to press this request. We took a perfectly responsible attitude and did not press our request to have this motion because of the delicate negotiations which were proceeding at that time. This House is not fulfilling its duty if in the near future it does not have a debate on the situation in Northern Ireland. We are elected representatives. We are paid to put our views forthrightly and fearlessly to the people. Surely our views on the situation in Northern Ireland should be debated in a straightforward manner as soon as possible?
When we made our request previously the argument presented to us was that the situation in the North was too grave to warrant discussion and that we might in some sense rock the boat. It is clear that the situation in the North—and perhaps in this part of the country—will be grave for a long time to come. That argument therefore would preclude debate taking place for many years. It is our duty not to step away from a discussion of this nature. We can only do good in the long term and in general by having a debate on this motion.
The Lower House discussed the situation in the North on various occasions. It is of the utmost importance that we assert our right—more than our right; our duty—to discuss the Northern political situation. We can only do good by expressing our fears and our hopes, by putting forward policies and asking the Government to make a statement of their policy.
I hope the Leader of the House will see his way to accede to this request in the near future. This is a matter of extreme urgency which we should not put off any longer. We should not accept the excuse that because the situation is grave the Seanad are therefore not to discuss it. That is treating the Seanad as if it were not a political forum. We are the body to discuss such deep and serious problems. It is our responsibility. That is what we are elected to do. I should like the Leader of the House to take these views into consideration and to arrange a debate on this motion as a matter of urgency.
I should like to support Senator West in asking for an early debate on the situation in Northern Ireland. It may seem strange in years to come, in view of the events which have taken place here over the past 12 months, if there is no attempt to have a debate in this House. The delicacy of the situation is evident to all. Rather than being an excuse to avoid having a debate in this House, this ought to be an incentive to try to clarify issues—to try to have an expression of the views of the Government and of the various representatives in this House on the record of the Seanad at this time. If we are talking about the whole idea of Parliament being relevant to what is happening in the country, if we are talking about the idea of the Seanad being able to encompass the events which occur in the nation at a particular point in time, we must, as responsible Senators, be afforded the opportunity of a debate of this nature.
In a sense it must be seriously regretted that we did not have an opportunity to debate the Sunningdale Agreement shortly after its conclusion. It would have been invaluable to have had the views of the Seanad on that agreement. More and more there is a need for a public expression of views and for putting opinions on record. It is not necessary to have opinions that are completely uniform. There is a value in encouraging people to express their political viewpoints, to put them on the records of the House, and to have a responsive answer from the particular Government of the time.
Therefore I endorse completely the arguments put forward by Senator West and join with him in asking the Leader of the House if we will be afforded this opportunity in the very near future.
As regards Senator Yeats's point, we could discuss that on tomorrow's Order of Business. As he very properly pointed out, it will be necessary to have an Order of the House, which would be made on the Order of Business, if we are to take the Second Stage of the Anti-Discrimination Bill at shorter notice than provided for in Standing Orders. I was trying to be helpful to the House in mentioning what we have in mind.
With regard to Motion No. 11, Senator West may be right in his recollection of the arguments advanced, if they were advanced, against taking this particular motion when it was put down previously. I honestly do not recall having ever argued that this House should not discuss this particular motion because of the grave situation in the North.
On a point of information and to help the Leader of the House, the arguments on the previous occasion would not be on the record of the House, because the discussions were held in private. We did not press to have the motion discussed. Senator O'Higgins is therefore correct when he says that this is not on the record of the House.
I do not recall having ever argued that case either in public or in private, because it is not a point of view I hold. However, while I have not argued it, there is manifestly good reason at times to take that particular point of view. Sunningdale may have been one of those occasions. If it was justified in the case of Sunningdale my personal view would be that it is far more justified now. As Senators will appreciate, this is not a decision which will rest with me. The particular motion is worded in a way which calls necessarily for a statement of Government policy. According to the arrangements made in connection with such motions, it will be necessary to have a Minister in attendance for the discussion and it would be very much a matter for the Government in these extremely tense times to decide if it would be appropriate to have a discussion just at this juncture.
It is fair to say that a similar motion in the other House was postponed at the request of the Opposition because of the tense circumstances which surround the whole situation at the moment.
It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and if No. 2 is not reached by 7.30 p.m. to take it at that time.
Order of Business agreed to.