It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in that order.
Order of Business.
Items 1 and 2 could be described as formal. Item 3 could be of moderate length but certain motions which it was hoped would be taken cannot be taken for good and valid reasons that are known to Members. It seems to me that there will be time available later today to discuss other matters. I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that, because of the urgency of the matter, time be given to this House, one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, to discuss the telecommunications dispute. The amount of damage which is being done to the country is immeasurable. In spite of what the Minister said, it is immense. I am personally aware of industrialists who have had to have a week's forced holidays in their premises and are on a three-day week. This matter is extremely serious and I think that one of the Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to discuss it, especially when there will be time available this evening. I would appeal to the Leader of the House to give time to discuss this most serious matter.
Also, on the Order of Business, on Thursday, 13 April, I was informed very courteously by letter from the Government Seanad Whip that it was hoped to take Motion No. 10, on women and taxation, today. Two days later, I was equally courteously informed by the Leader of the House that it was not possible to take it because it might perhaps be sub judice. The summons regarding the case which is presently awaiting hearing was lodged on 7 March last and on 11 March a major speech was made by the Minister for Finance on the very issue.
Might I intervene here? This is not the time to go into the merits or demerits of the motion. I have been speaking to the Senator personally on this matter and I suggested that she should raise it at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges this evening at 6 o'clock and she agreed to do that.
Can I get a ruling, therefore at that point on whether it is sub judice or not as regards this House?
There is no other ruling necessary in this case.
No ruling necessary?
No, not at this stage.
How am I to know? I have not any official notification that the matter in my motion is sub judice and cannot be discussed at any point. I have not been informed officially by anybody that this is the case and I wonder when could I have that information?
As I explained to you on Thursday this matter will not come before the Chair unless ordered. If this motion is ordered for discussion by the House the Chair will give any ruling that is necessary on it when it comes up by way of motion.
Yes, thank you.
On the Order of Business, may I inquire from the Leader of the House when it is likely that the debate on the White Paper on National Development will be arranged? May I recall that in this House on 26 January the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance said:
I want to make it clear to the House that my colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, proposes to arrange for a full Parliamentary discussion on that White Paper at an appropriate time in each of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Let me also express my surprise and disappointment that after a recess since 15 March it is proposed to discuss only items 1, 2 and 3. May I say, incidentally, that country Members have no real foreknowledge of what is going to be discussed in this House? They are given the Order Paper certainly, but there should be some method whereby the actual Order of Business as proposed by the Leader of the House should be made known to them before they come to Dublin. In any case, my main point is that, as I said before, time is being wasted in long recesses and one-day sittings with masses of Private Members' motions piling up. On the last day the name I gave to this approach was "ineptitude" but on consideration I now see that it is a very skilful strategy because if we look at what is going on in the Dáil at the moment, several Government Bills are nearing completion and doubtless the tactic next week will be to tell us that we will be far too busy dealing with this rush of Bills from the Dáil to have any time at all to spare for Members' business. I see no reason whatsoever why No. 10, in which Senator Hussey has expressed such an interest, should not be added to the Order of Business and I therefore now propose that No. 10 be added to Items 1, 2 and 3.
I would like to add my voice to the voices of those who have spoken on the Order of Business roughly along the same lines, that we did get an undertaking at the beginning of the year that the Government would honour their frequently expressed attitude towards the piling up of Private Motions on the Order Paper. Here is a golden opportunity to get at least one of these discussed. I am not particularly wedded to any one but I would certainly support Senator Hussey's Motion No. 10. It seems to me also that Motion No. 11 in her name and mine, which is concerned with the closure of the Dominican College, Eccles Street, Dublin, and its implications for the future of religious, privately-owned schools in Irish education, seems to be a very urgent one coming near the end of the school year when such long vacations will take place that the whole matter will disappear from sight. So, I would support the view of Senator Murphy on the Order of Business that it is scandalous that we should be assembled here to discuss merely the Committee Stage of a Bill which will take only a couple of hours, and then be sent back about our business today. I should like to second Senator Murphy's motion that No. 10 be added to the Order of Business. We should make as clear as possible what is being done. I formally second that motion.
I should like to join in the views of other Senators who are disappointed and frustrated by the lack of continuity of business coming before the Seanad. I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he has any indication of whether the Government will introduce legislation in this House, we are available and ready to look at legislation? If there is any problem that the Dáil is unable to process legislation as speedily as the Government would wish, then could the Government perhaps make more use of the Seanad to initiate Bills, as has been the practice, in fact, in recent years? The Seanad risks very sharp criticism as being too expensive a luxury for the people to afford unless we address ourselves seriously both to Government business and to better opportunities for Private Members' motions. I would like some indication from the Leader of the House whether he knows of any Government Bills that might possibly come before the Seanad or if he would seek to put the views of Senators to the various Ministers that we feel the Seanad is not being given a significant enough role and that further options should be used to ensure that we meet regularly and that we perform the tasks for which we were elected.
I would like to remind Members of the House that business comes before this House only by way of Bills, Government or otherwise, or by way of motions. The position at the moment is that other than the Landlord and Tenant Bill there is no Government Bill ready to go ahead. I would also like to point out that this is not unique. It is normal when there has been a change of Government. Exactly the same thing happened in the last session of the Seanad. When non-controversial Bills which were taken up by the incoming Government were concluded, there was a hiatus until the incoming Government had new Bills ready.
The Senator's recollection is faulty.
Exactly the same thing happened when the previous Government were in power, approximately six months or a year after they got into power. I am merely saying that to indicate——
The Senator's recollection is very faulty. There was no question of that at all.
There were complaints time after time in the Seanad on the last occasion that there was no business being done—at exactly the same time, approximately a year after the Government got into power. If you look up the Official Reports, or the lack of Official Reports, during that period, you will see that there was no business being done. However, I am just pointing out that this is not a unique situation. The position is that those who are complaining of there being no business should realise that there are no Bills coming forward at present for the reason which I have mentioned. As regards the suggestion made by Senator Robinson, I think that is a good one and one on which I have already acted. I have suggested that Bills be initiated in the Seanad and I will continue to do so and I hope the Government will act on that.
With regard to motions, the position is that this House agreed to the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that one motion should be taken per month. That undertaking will be adhered to. A motion was agreed: it was agreed to take Motion No. 10 today and it was only last Friday that it was found that it could not be taken. The position about that motion is that because of advice received from the Attorney General's Office, the Department of Finance decided that the Minister should not come in and debate a motion because the subject matter of the motion was sub judice. There was no point in my ordering a motion on which the Minister would not speak and which I am quite sure the Cathaoirleach would not allow to be discussed. That is the reason the motion was not ordered. The motion had been arranged. It was then too late to arrange another motion and consequently there is no motion being taken today. But I am arranging to make up the lee-way that has been lost and to take two motions within the next few weeks so that we will be up-to-date in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the undertaking which I gave to provide time for at least one motion a month.
That having been done, the House is doing everything it can do to proceed with business. We cannot just begin a discussion about something half-way through an afternoon when there is no Bill and no motion ready to go on. If Senator Murphy thinks he is going to get headlines by making a protest every time he comes in here he will probably get headlines but he is not being realistic and he is not really being responsible in continuing to make this kind of protest.
Senator Cooney mentioned the telecommunications dispute. Again, if he wants to raise that he should do so on the Adjournment. I cannot see how else it could come before the House.
I have been informed it is not appropriate for the Adjournment. That is why I have asked the Leader of the House to use the spare time that is available this afternoon for this most important matter.
The Senator knows there is no way it can be brought before the House except by way of motion or by a motion on the Adjournment.
A motion could be circulated within the next half-hour for debate this evening. Would the Leader of the House not give time for that?
If it is not urgent and important enough to be taken on the Adjournment then it cannot be taken——
It is too important, we are advised, for the Adjournment according to the rules of this House. It is a major matter. That is why I suggest that a matter which is a major matter and of vital public interest should be debated in this House when there is time. The country is grinding to a halt and one of the Houses of Parliament is silent on this subject.
A change-over works wonders.
(Interruptions.)
With regard to Senator Whitaker's inquiry, I will ask the Minister concerned when that motion can be taken. A motion will have to be put down by either a Member of the House or possibly by myself as Leader of the House. I will arrange to have that done as soon as possible.
The Leader of the House has moved that the Order of Business be Nos. 1, 2 and 3. There is an amendment to that in the name of Senator Murphy, seconded by Senator Martin, that No. 10 on the Order Paper be included in the Order of Business. Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put: "That Item No. 10 be added to the Order of Business."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- Kilbride, Thomas.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McCartin, John Joseph.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Martin, Thomas Augustine.
- Molony, David.
- Murphy, John A.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
Níl
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Cassidy, Eileen.
- Cranitch, Mícheál.
- Crowley, Flor.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
- Ellis, John
- Goulding, Lady.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Harney, Mary.
- Herbert, Anthony.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jago, R. Valentine.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lambert, C. Gordon.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Noel William.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
- Whitaker, Thomas Kenneth.
Tellers: Tá, Senators West and Hussey; Níl, Senators Hanafin and W. Ryan.
Amendment declared lost.
Order of Business agreed to.