It is proposed to take the Finance Bill, 1987, to its conclusion today.
Order of Business.
I would like to raise a point which I should have raised yesterday, but which was overlooked in the confusion. I thought the Chair might have raised it herself. Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of Bunreacht na hÉireann. It would be appropriate if the Seanad devoted a day or two to a lengthy debate on the Constitution, how it has or has not worked and whether there is need for change. In the coming weeks virtually every major institution in the country will be examining the Constitution, making various proposals and putting forward ideas. It would be a great shame if the only place a debate does not take place is in the Oireachtas itself. I believe this House, which is free from the passions and intrigues of the Dáil, is the ideal place to have such a debate. I would suggest that the Leader of the House initiate such a debate largely as a celebration of 50 years of our Constitution and also as a way of looking ahead.
He might invite the Taoiseach to speak in this particular debate. It could be held before the end of this session. I believe Members on all sides would be very happy to put aside a day for a debate of this sort, even a Friday if need be. We would welcome the presence of the Taoiseach to outline his thinking and his reflections on the Constitution, and to give Members an opportunity to debate in the Oireachtas what is a very important document at this time. I would be very pleased if the Leader of the House would respond in a positive way on this matter.
Secondly, I would like to hear from the Leader of the House if there is any response to the proposal yesterday from Senator Ferris and me that the Taoiseach might visit us to report on the recent European Council, especially since the other House is not now in session. Finally, not being mischievous in any way which certainly would not be my style, I would like to ask the Leader of the House to clarify if motion 37 represents Government policy, Fianna Fáil policy, or if it is just an over-enthusiastic freelance effort which can be ignored.
I support Senator Manning's proposal that we should have a discussion on the Constitution. I did not know he was going to say this, but I immediately assent to it and to the spirit in which it is proposed, because he has said we should discuss the Constitution not in any carping critical spirit, but as a celebration. I think the Seanad is the right place to do that, particularly in view of the fresh information that has come to light which has fleshed out the whole context in which the Constitution was drafted. Senator Manning's is an excellent idea.
This is one of the most sensible and refreshing suggestions I have heard in the Seanad for a very long time. In a non-partisan way it would be very helpful if all parties could get together while the Dáil is in recess and discuss the Constitution, which was certainly a fine document in its day but which deserves debate and criticism at this stage. I ask the Leader of the House to take this suggestion very seriously.
The Labour Party go along with this idea. We think it is appropriate that, first, the Constitution should be celebrated in having achieved its 50th anniversary. It is relevant now because of the publication of the de Valera papers which were pertinent to that period and to the Constitution. The Taoiseach gave a commitment to all the party leaders, at least in the other House, that he was prepared to have the Constitution discussed and, if necessary, amended but the process of discussion here would not necessarily be an amending process.
It is appropriate to recognise the Constitution for what it is, to admire what it has done over the period and to recognise how well it has lasted and responded to the changing times. We should also look at the possibility of how we can, in the future, address the Constitution to the needs of society. The Labour Party would be pleased to agree to this suggestion and contribute to it when it is debated.
I am not too sure about the passions and intrigues of the other House, but I can assure Senators Ross, Murphy and Manning that I will not get involved in any passions or intrigues in this House on the Order of Business. We have a very heavy legislative load for the next few weeks including the Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill, 1987 and the Tourist Traffic Bill, 1987. We have to finish the Opposition motion on the abolition of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. We must debate the Safety, Health and Welfare (Offshore Installations) Bill, 1986, the Export Promotion (Amendment) Bill, 1987, the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill, 1987, the Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1987, the Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987, the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill, 1987, the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (Amendment) Bill, 1987, and the National Monuments (Amendment) Bill, 1986. It is essential that this House should get down to dealing with the very heavy load before us in terms of legislation.
I can understand the wishes of Senator Manning to have the Constitution, which has served us extremely well since 1937, discussed in this House but if he wants that he should put down a motion before the House. If he does that, if the motion is seconded by Senator Ferris and if Senator Ross also puts his name to it, I guarantee I will not stop the House from debating the matter. However, the priority of this House for the next number of weeks will be legislation and we will not be able to take any motion such as that mentioned by Senator Manning in the next couple of weeks.
On item No. 37, I made myself quite clear yesterday. That motion is down in a number of names and it will come up for discussion on the Order of Business when appropriate.
I am disappointed——
We should remember that the Leader of the House has concluded.
I am disappointed by the extraordinarily negative and timid response by the Leader of the House to a very positive suggestion. It flies in the face of the great surge of enthusiasm shown here during the debate on reforming the workings of the Seanad. I ask the Leader of the House to think maturely on this consideration and on the spirit in which it was made and to see that the Seanad could make a very powerful contribution to the holding of a one-day structured debate which we would agree to hold on a Friday if necessary.
We cannot have a discussion on it.
The Leader of the House omitted to respond to my suggestion yesterday that the Taoiseach should be available to brief this House on the meetings of the Heads of State, the meetings of the Ministers for Agriculture and the meetings of the Ministers for Transport all of which matters are relevant to the economy. From what he said yesterday, I understood he would try to assist us on that but he did not respond to it in answering the questions. Perhaps he just forgot about it. Would he care to respond to it now?
I am sorry I omitted to mention the request of Senator Ferris. I suggest to Senator Manning there is nothing timid about my response, I am being very positive. We will deal with legislation in this House until it is finished and after that we can discuss any other matter on the Order Paper or requested by the Opposition. I apologise to Senator Ferris for not responding to his remarks about the Taoiseach. We will have discussions with the Taoiseach this morning on that matter and I will report back to the House.
Will there be a break?
We will discuss it with the Whips.
Order of Business agreed to.