Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 1986

Vol. 113 No. 15

Order of Business.

Mr. Ferris

It is proposed to take Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, as on the Order Paper. It is proposed to have a tea break between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. I should like to advise the House that agreement has been reached on No. 10, to be taken tomorrow between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. It is the all-party motion on apartheid in South Africa. It will be taken earlier, if the business ordered for tomorrow has been concluded before that time. If the business has not been concluded we will interrupt it at 5 p.m. A Minister will be available to respond. It has been agreed also that there will be a ten-minute contribution from each group in the House. How the ten minutes will be taken up is a matter for the groups — they can divide the time between two speakers if they so wish.

I would draw the attention of the House to No. 7 on the Order Paper. I appreciate that agreement was reached last week on the business to be taken before the adjournment of the House. That agreement did not include No. 7. During the weekend I tried to reach agreement with the various groups to take the initial stages of Second Stage of the Status of Children Bill, 1986. I still hope to get agreement and to be able to announce it tomorrow morning on the Order of Business. The intention is that at least one speaker from each side would contribute, the Bill having been introduced by the Minister. Then we would adjourn the Second Stage debate until after the summer recess. I hope to be able to get agreement during the afternoon about when we will take that Bill tomorrow.

Mr. Lanigan

We have agreement on the Order of Business for today and that No. 10 will be taken tomorrow. However, I suggest to Senator Ferris that it is wrong that the Status of Children Bill should be introduced in the manner proposed. The Senator said we may have an opening statement from the Minister involved and one from each side of the House. This Bill has been awaited for years by many people because it affects the lives of many people throughout the country. I cannot understand why, immediately before the summer recess which will take us, from what we can gather, to October, it is proposed to take only the opening stage of the Bill. The Bill should either have been introduced earlier in the session or left over until it can be adequately dealt with in the autumn.

I cannot see the value of having opening speeches which may or may not give publicity to the Minister just before the summer holidays. That seems to me to be the only purpose of the proposal. We want to see a speedy discussion of the Bill. The attitude of this side of the House will be constructive. The Bill contains many technical points. It is necessary to regularise problems regarding the status of children. Many problems will arise as a result of this Bill because of succession and property rights and the rights of parents and children. I appeal to the Deputy leader of the House to accept that we will deal with this Bill in a very constructive manner when it comes before this House.

Mr. McDonald

I do not share Senator Lanigan's view. This is a very important Bill. It is——

An Cathaoirleach

I take it, Senator McDonald, there will be discussions today between the parties on this. If they do not agree, they do not agree.

Mr. McDonald

I quite agree. The Bill is very comprehensive and the intention is to launch it so that it will attract further examination and discussion over the summer period. It is a very complicated Bill containing over 50 sections. Therefore, it should not be rushed. It is a good idea to introduce it. We would then have time to study it at our leisure.

Mr. Ross

I would like to endorse what Senator Lanigan said. I do not understand why this Bill is being taken in part. I do not understand why it cannot be taken this week and next week, because it is a Bill of some urgency. I got up for the final time this session to ask about item No. 14. Over the year we have had constant assurances, nods and winks and reassurances from both the Deputy Leader and the Leader of the House that this Bill would come up at a suitable time. I gather this is part of Government policy and the only reason why it cannot be introduced is that there is no time. We have three and a half months to introduce it. Why can we not take it this week or next week? Why can we not take the Air Pollution Bill and the Status of Children Bill next week? What I do not accept is the leader of the House saying we have not taken it for two years because we have not had the legislative time to do so. Not having legislative time is no excuse whatsoever for not taking any legislation. We could take one month's holiday instead of two and a half. I would like to know from the Leader of the House now what the intention of the Government is about the abolition of capital punishment, whether they intend to abolish it, whether they intend to duck it, or whether they intend it not to be brought up for another year until they go out of office?

Mr. M. Higgins

I would like to support what Senator Ross said about the abolition of the death penalty. This has come up on the Order of Business on several occasions. On nearly all occasions assurances have been given that it would be ordered shortly for decision. A consensus now exists in the House and in the country. We should dispose of it. On Senator Ross's point, as to the merits and demerits of listening to opening speeches as opposed to a full discussion on the Status of Children Bill, I feel almost provoked to make the remark that when a Status of Children Bill was introduced by other Senators and myself 11 years ago, we needed a longer period of time for people to make up their minds that they could support it. Maybe on this occasion we are reflecting an evolution in social thinking in that we may all be of one mind about passing the Bill.

Mr. Kiely

I agree with Senator Lanigan that it would not serve much purpose for the Minister to move the Status of Children Bill followed by a speaker from each side and adjourn the debate until after the summer recess. After the summer recess we might have a different Minister, a different Government or a different Leader of the House.

Mr. Ferris

At the outset I mentioned that negotiations were continuing in order to reach agreement. I would like to reach agreement if at all possible. Senator Lanigan will be aware of the consultations I had with the representative of his party over the weekend. There will be no objection from this side of the House to finishing Second Stage of the Bill. It was indicated that many people want to contribute on this legislation. Therefore, I confined myself to getting whatever contributions were required from the individual groups but I would be open to the suggestion to carry on discussing Second Stage of the Status of Children Bill tomorrow and Thursday, if necessary though it was intimated to me that that was not the wish of Members from various sides of the House.

I welcome Senator Lanigan's commitment to a constructive debate on what we all agree, as Senator Michael D. Higgins said, is a very important piece of social legislation and one that has evoked a certain interest. Since the result of the referendum particularly, people have been anxious about the status of children and what exactly the legislative arm of the Oireachtas intend to do about this question.

Section 7 deals with some of the problems which have been raised. I hope that during the day, with continuing discussion and dialogue with my colleagues, we can reach agreement. For the benefit of Senator Ross, I had discussions with Senator McGuinness over the weekend and she represents the independent group on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. She intimated that the independent grouping would have no objections but would have reservations about completing Second Stage because all of them, like Senator Ross, want to contribute on this legislation.

I want to refer to Senator Ross's comments on item No. 14. I share all the sentiments he expressed on the abolition of the death penalty. I took the opportunity on the occasion of the anniversary of the setting up of Amnesty International to make a special plea to the Minister for Justice on behalf of the Members of this House regarding No. 14 and I asked when it was likely that Second Stage would be resumed and whether the Government will introduce their own Bill. I had a positive and constructive response from the Minister for Justice in this regard. This Bill is a replica of the Government Bill which is presently before the Cabinet. Until such time as that has been cleared by the Cabinet I have no idea whether we will be taking this Bill or a new Government Bill. There is a commitment, for the Senator's information, from the Government either to introduce their own Bill or to continue this Bill.

Mr. Ross

When will that be?

Mr. Ferris

I am not privy to all the Cabinet discussions but I understand this matter was referred to ten days ago by the Minister for Justice when he said it would be decided on within the next number of weeks. I take it, then, that as soon as the Cabinet have an opportunity to discuss it, agreement will be reached as to whether they will introduce their own Bill. If they do, I hope the Bill will be initiated in this House, particularly as we have before us a Second Stage Bill dealing with the issue. I hope to continue discussions during the day to reach agreement.

Order of Business agreed to.