Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Nov 1981

Vol. 96 No. 7

Business of Seanad: Motion.

Mrs. G. Hussey

I move:

That Seanad Éireann considers that—

(1) if the exigencies of business allow, at least one motion other than Government motions should be taken each month; and

(2) in determining the order of priority in which such motions should be taken regard should be had to—

(a) rotation between different groupings, and

(b) the availability of the Ministers concerned: provided that a motion not necessarily involving a statement of Government policy may be proceeded with without a Minister being in attendance.

Professor Murphy

Last week the subject of this motion was discussed informally by the Whips representing the parties and by myself, presumptuously representing the Independents. I pointed out that we should pay particular attention to the wording "at least one motion". I checked our records in that regard and I am indebted to the Clerk Assistant of the House for supplying the basic data.

There are various ways in which you can go back over the last four years and calculate in what way we discussed Private Members' motions at the rate of one a month. My basis of calculation is to take the calendar years, beginning January 1978 and ending December 1980. Over that period there were 19 motions discussed. If we accept the definition of motion as being the phrase here "other than Government motions" and also exclude that kind of motion which is incumbent on us to discuss, stemming from EEC directives, secondary legislation and so on and if we agree then as to what a motion other than a Government motion is, we had 19 motions over the period February 1978 to December 1980. Was that at least one motion each month? The answer is: "hardly".

The number is not very disappointing but there were months in which we sat and did not take motions. Incidentally, Members might be interested that the breakdown of the 19 motions was as follows: five were sponsored by Labour, — full marks there — four, Fine Gael, four Fianna Fáil, four Independents, one joint motion by Labour and Fine Gael, and one joint motion by Labour, Fine Gael and Independents. The distribution and order of motions is fair enough. We should take up any implications of the questions posed here by my fellow Independents. There is no reason why we should not step up this record. It is not really good enough.

The motion before the House refers to the exigencies of business. It is for the Seanad to declare its own exigencies of business and there is no reason why a motion should not be regarded as exigent. This is not a debating Chamber and motions have an impact on the execution of Government policy and certainly have an impact on the formation of public opinion. I urge the House not only to accept the motion before us but to see to its implementation as well.

Mrs. Robinson

as a Member of this House who has suffered in the past the kind of frustration that Senator Murphy was referring to of having a number of motions down on issues which this House is very well fitted to debate and to discuss to better inform ourselves and provide a useful forum to have these opinions placed on the record and to influence either policies or particular ministerial decisions or to be critical of them I would welcome an assurance from the new Leader of the House that every effort will be made not just to ensure that we have one motion but that the words "at least" be given a very positive and affirmative meaning. I would like an assurance that it will be the minimum we will have and that she will so order, as so far she has so ordered, the business of the House, or attempts to, to ensure that the Seanad meets regularly throughout the parliamentary session to give concrete meaning to the motion we are passing this afternoon.

Mr. B. Ryan

I support this motion but I do not understand a certain implication that has come across to me that matters that are properly the affair of the Government, like poverty, should be handled in Private Members' Time. If the Government take an issue and make it a Government issue I would expect them to use their time to debate such an issue and not have the valuable and limited Private Members' Time taken up discussing issues that are properly the responsibility of the Government.

Dr. Whitaker

I am in favour of the motion but I would like to raise a matter that I think relevant. I have found in the past that some motions attract so much interest and so many people wish to participate in discussing them that the time limits for the discussion of Private Members' motions become too constrictive and I would like to see this resolution supplemented by some flexibility on the part of the Government and the House in extending Private Members' Time for discussion of motions when obviously the time available under Standing Orders is insufficient. People are already limited to, I think, 15 minutes of participative time but often on very important motions, like that on Northern Ireland, people who wish to contribute have been further confined to perhaps two, three or five minutes, to their great regret. I ask for some greater liberality in this respect in the future.

Mrs. G. Hussey

I am very glad that so many Senators are expressing a desire to use this House as fully as possible. I am sure that Senators are aware that it is my own wish that the Seanad should sit as often as is necessary to deal with important business, be it in the form of Government motions, Private Members' motions or legislation. I welcome the determination of Senators to make that sort of contribution to the deliberations of this House. In regard to the question of the actual terminology used in the motion, which is "at least one motion" each month, I certainly hope that that expression "at least" means what it says and that we are not going to limit ourselves to one per month.

The month problem raised by Senator Murphy is, of course, a bit of a conundrum because is a month sitting counted as every fourth sitting, sitting once a week, or is it counted in a calendar month? That is a question which requires examination. We should consider that 19 motions over four years, as he points out, certainly is not one per calendar month. Flexibility is the key word in this instance. Of course the motion uses the expression "if the exigencies of business allow" which has to be taken seriously because there are times in the sittings of this House when there are real pressures upon us to deal with important business quite rapidly. I hope that we would not be faced too often with urgent business which would cut short the other deliberations of the Seanad which Senators might rightly consider to be at least as important.

I am very sorry that Senator Brendan Ryan put the interpretation which I certainly would not have intended, that poverty is the business of Private Members only. I regret very much if he thought that was my attitude. The Government, and all parties and groups in this House are, I hope, equally concerned with that question. Will the Senator please not imagine that I am talking about poverty as Private Members' Business only?

I agree with Senator Whitaker about the problem of time limits. We have had situations when at the beginning of a motion Senators were getting the full time allotted under the original agreement and then, because of a time limit, suddenly they found themselves limited to five or eight minutes, which is most undesirable and can be very frustrating. I am sure all Senators who find themselves in Opposition at one time or another suffer from the kind of frustration mentioned by Senator Robinson. I certainly would be very glad to exercise the utmost flexibility in all these areas.

I hope the motion will be carried, that the Whips will get together and that we will have a good solid embarcation on the discussion of Private Members' motions.

Question put and agreed to.