Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Dec 1988

Vol. 121 No. 13

Report of Committee on Procedure and Privileges: Motion.

Mr. Lanigan

I move:

That the amendments to Standing Orders relative to Public Business recommended in the Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges (T.278) dated the 2nd November, 1988, be adopted with effect from the first sitting day after the Christmas Recess.

In moving this item I would like to say that the report recommends three changes in Standing Orders in regard to recording dissent and divisions. Originally these recommended changes were part of the committee's ongoing review of Standing Orders but it was decided to go ahead with these ones as the committee felt they should be implemented as soon as possible. The changes are relatively minor but it is hoped that they will go some way towards making the working of the House run more smoothly. The main recommendation is to provide a new additional procedure to allow Senators dissenting to be recorded by name without recording a vote.

The other two recommendations are minor and concerned with (1) reducing the time during which bells are rung for divisions and reducing notice for a division where it occurs immediately after another division. When the record of divisions for this Seanad indicates (1) a significant increase in the overall number of divisions over a previous Seanad, and (2) up to 25 per cent of these record votes on one side in single figures and in many cases record votes of less than five, the minimum required to claim a vote, this obviously means that a sizeable proportion of the calls for votes emanates from minority groups and are realistically aimed at recording dissent rather than affecting or challenging a decision of the House. This goes back to the point I made earlier that dissidents can be recorded by name without requiring a vote.

The significance of this trend is twofold. It means that minority groups are perhaps more active or rebellious in seeking so many votes or that there are rather rigid procedures and they have no other recourse open to them but to force a vote in order to have their dissent recorded. Dissent cannot be indicated in any other way. The committee and we on this side of the House have no desire to restrict the rights of Members to call for a vote. That is an absolute right of any Member who disagrees with a measure before this House. However, whether that right extends to Senators who agree with the measure but who stand and support a claim for a vote on it is another matter.

Another outcome of this trend has been the inordinate number of times all Members have been summoned to the House for a division that may never take place. It was with these factors in mind that the committee adopted the new procedures which, in effect, are a halfway house or compromise between those on this side of the House who would have liked to see wider changes than those proposed on the other side who would view any change in this area as an attack on their democratic rights.

The record of dissent procedure has been drawn up to meet these various but complementary needs. It provides for greater flexibility by allowing Senators to record dissent by name other than by vote. By being able to be implemented by proxy in signing the register in advance all Members are not required to be summoned in order for dissent to be recorded. This is an additional new procedure and does not interfere with how decisions are determined in the House or the right of a Member to claim a vote. In fact, when the Chair declares the result on the question under the procedure a claim for a vote can still be made which would supersede the record of dissent procedure. It should do away with the need for Senators to stand and support a claim for a vote on behalf of their dissenting colleagues although they themselves are not against the measures before the House. The committee will review in 12 months time how the new procedure works in practice and will see if further wider changes are required.

I will comment briefly on the other two minor recommendations. The second recommendation is to reduce the time during which bells are rung for a division to once for four minutes instead of twice at present for six minutes and one minute. The overall notice of eight minutes for divisions from the commencement of bell ringing to the locking of doors is unchanged. I stress that the overall notice of eight minutes is unchanged. All that is being reduced is the time for the ringing of the bells. It was felt that having the bell ringing for seven out of eight minutes was far too long and unnecessary.

The third recommendation is to reduce the notice for a division where that division occurs immediately after another division. In this case the bells will ring for two minutes and the doors will be locked after a further two minutes, that is, an overall notice of four minutes. It was felt by the committee that the full notice of eight minutes is unnecessary for a second or subsequent division occurring immediately afterwards. At that stage all Members would have assembled for the first division so it is reasonable to reduce notice of a second division which is four minutes. As a means of informing Senators of the reduced notice the Vótáil signs on the close circuit TV will indicate "Vótáil ceithre noiméad." The suggested different sounding bell for the reduced notice was regarded as not being feasible and could lead to confusion and was not proceeded with.

It should be remembered that all that is being proposed is a reduction of four minutes overall in the notice of the second division. In addition, the second division must occur immediately after the first one. Therefore, there would be no debate in between the business. All that would be allowed would be the formal moving of the amendment or whatever was to be voted on. If any debate intervenes the full eight minutes notice will be required for the other division.

The recommendations in this report are only minor but, perhaps, are significant in their own way. They represent part of the ongoing progress of the review of Standing Orders which has been undertaken by a sub-committee of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges since June of last year. Some changes have already been agreed upon such as discussing urgent matters under Standing Order 29 and the making of statements under Standing Order 30. These changes are awaiting final adoption by the committee in conjunction with other changes to the first 50 Standing Orders. When the committee have completed their examination of this interim report covering these 50 Standing Orders the committee will report to the House. Alternatively, the major changes could be taken one by one as they are agreed and that might be a better way of seeing them implemented.

The trouble with a long report covering 50 Standing Orders is that it tends to get bogged down and never see the light of day. The best method of approach is something the committee can take up in the first instance. The review of the first 50 Standing Orders is only a beginning. It is hoped that wider areas of reform can be addressed in the near future. I recommend the adoption of the report to the House.

Mr. Manning

I support these recommendations since they were the subject of all-party agreement in the Committee on Procedures and Privileges. There were a number of interesting discussions at the committee. We find ourselves in a Parliament where the bells ring and Members are required to be present, where the doors are locked and where people must physically pass through the lobbies. In the past in the other House we had the spectacle of people having to be helped through the lobbies, people who were ill and who came along to record their vote. There have been calls from time to time to adopt some other system such as push button voting, proxy voting, and so forth.

Those views got a great deal of support. For all of us the division bells and coming into the lobby and going through physically to record one's vote for or against a motion are an essential part of the parliamentary democratic process. I do not think any of us would like to see any fundamental change in that way of doing things. What is proposed here this morning is a simplifying of that procedure to an extent while, at the same time, not diminishing the rights of those who wish to record dissent but simply a speeding up of the procedure.

One thing we discussed during our deliberations was the tone of the bells. Some people find the Seanad bell, the cuckoo as it is known, somewhat discordant and feel that it can drown out conversation in certain parts of the House. We experimented with variations of the cuckoo but none of them was particularly satisfactory.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Manning

That is an offer we might very well take up from the Senator. The Senator has offered us, from his collection of wild life species, a better cuckoo. Perhaps we should invite him to the committee to hear some of them.

I am very pleased to hear from the Leader of the House that the work on the general review of Standing Orders is proceeding satisfactorily. I hope we will be in a position fairly early in the new year to make a series of recommendations aimed at streamlining and updating the Standing Orders. I should like to ask the Cathaoirleach to turn her mind back to a debate we had early in the life of this Seanad when great enthusiasm was expressed for ways in which the Seanad could become more effective and make more of an impact both on policy formulation and on the shaping of public opinion generally.

In that debate a number of very interesting ideas were discussed. I know the Cathaoirleach is very supportive of many of the ideas. She has always been a great upholder of this House and what it stands for. I hope we can go back to looking at some of these ideas in the near future. For example, I would greatly like to see this House used as a forum for debate on major matters of public concern, where we could invite in people — we do not need Ministers — to discuss, for example, the question of 1992. In an ongoing way we could ask the leaders of industry, the trades unions, agriculture, finance and other areas to report directly to the Members of the House on progress in their particular areas of expertise and activity, where we, as parliamentarians, could question them and we could involve the great vocational groups in the work of this House.

We should never forget that this is a vocational Chamber. I believe that it would greatly strengthen the vocational aspect of this House if we invited in the great interests in this State, those representing poverty, those representing education, agriculture, industry and so forth, to speak to us, to inform us and to take questions from us. I believe it would also provide them with a great forum, especially if the medium of television was installed — radio is here. This would allow the public to participate in a debate of this kind in a much more meaningful way. I hope that in the new year, with the support of the Cathaoirleach which I know is there, we may be able to move in this direction.

I also mentioned in the past that this House is ideally suited as a forum, as a place where our members of the European Parliament could have right of audience on matters dealing with the European Community, where they could speak to us, where they could act as the interface between this national Parliament and the European Parliament. There is a danger that our members of the European Parliament can be cut off from the mainstream of national policial life. They do not have, at present, a forum where they can interact with Members of the national Parliaments. I believe this House is ideally suited for that. Especially, as we face into a European election, we might begin to discuss this with some urgency.

The other point I should like to make this morning is on the question I raised on the Order of Business. I do not wish to take the Leader of the House to task but simply to comment on a reply he made. I suggested that we should have a debate fairly soon on Item No. 43, which refers to the whole question of press freedom, libel, defamation and so forth in this country. This is a matter of great concern, both to those in the media who can unwittingly find themselves subject to very heavy penalties and to people who may find themselves, wittingly or unwittingly, the subject of defamation or libel. It is a matter where there is general agreement. Our laws are archaic.

An Cathaoirleach

We have not decided to take Item No. 43. Does the Senator realise that?

Mr. Manning

I am simply using that as an illustration. I am sure the Cathaoirleach will allow me to develop the point. This is a question of great public concern and there is need for discussion. The Leader of the House said this morning that he would see if the Minister could be present. It is my view that it is not always necessary for a Minister for be present for this House to do its business. I would like to see us less dependent on Ministers for discussions on matters of this kind which are matters of general public interest and where this House could take a lead in shaping and leading public opinion, where frequently there is the possibility of all-party agreement and consensus and where we could be seen to be fulfilling our role as legislators, as people who actually shape policy, put forward ideas to the Government and to the other House, ideas which could then pass into the law of this country.

Obviously I am happy to welcome these small changes this morning. I look forward to the full report of the committee reviewing Standing Orders. I ask the Cathaoirleach to put her full weight and her formidable enthusiasm behind the overall process of making this House into the House we all want it to be.

Mr. Norris

These are quite small technical changes. Most people, if not all, will welcome them because they appear, as both the Leader of the House and Senator Manning have said, to make the working of the House more efficient. Without wishing to classify myself as a rebel, to use the terminology used by the Leader of the House, I have been one of those who have called for votes. The Leader of the House is perfectly correct in his interpretation of that move. It was not to be obstructive. It was, however, to look for a mechanism whereby dissent from a majority opinion in this House could be recorded. I welcome the fact that under the new Standing Orders it will be possible so to record that dissent without having to go to the trouble of calling for a vote and inconveniencing people who may be doing other valuable work outside the immediate precincts of this Chamber, in other words, in their offices.

As I understand the situation with regard to the ringing of the bells, there will not be a substantial reduction in the amount of time, which I think is important, because not all of us have offices in this House. A number of us are across the road in Kildare Street. It is important, particularly if you happen to be on the telephone, that you are able to say goodbye courteously and physically get yourself across here, particularly for those Members who are not in the House. That is an important point.

I should like to support what Senator Manning has said about the necessity for going further. These are quite important but they are small, technical changes. There was, as Senator Manning rightly pointed out, quite a degree of enthusiasm for a more wide-ranging investigation and examination of the whole proceedings of the House's mechanism, by which we do our work. I know the Cathaoirleach has given guidance to Senators with regard to various technical matters. I think I detected, occasionally, a regret that some of the Standing Orders were not sufficiently flexible to allow her to rule that certain matters were relevant.

There is the question of Standing Order 29 and how it can be used. Those who want to raise relevant items that are of immediate importance are continually left trying to employ fairly antiquated machinery. It sometimes seems that the rules of this House make it difficult for the Chamber to be as relevant as all sections of the House would wish it to be. Recently we had the example of a really serious health situation caused by the smog. Yet it was not possible for this House to discuss that matter, despite the fact that the Chief Medical Officer indicated that it was a really serious health problem, amounting almost to an emergency. I would like to feel that we would look at these rules of procedure so that this House can make itself directly relevant.

Another point that was made by Senator Manning, which I would welcome, although I am not quite sure how it would work out, is the idea that the Seanad should be able to listen to leaders of industry and different sections. It sounded to me as if that was tending towards the American committee system. I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly but, if it is, then I certainly welcome it. I hope there will be a greater investment of intellectual energy by the Government in the committee system and that shortly they will give official blessing to a committee of both Houses on foreign affairs which I believe will be the important committee, but at the moment it has not received this particular sanction.

I should like to end by saying that I welcome these judicious advances that will make us more efficient and, in particular, what seems quite a small move, that there will be a reduction of time in the ringing of the bells for the second vote. It is nonsense to have them ringing endlessly when people are all assembled here and we are just talking. I welcome these moves. They will make us more efficient. I would, however, hope that in the new year it will go further and look right into the meat of the rules under which we operate in this House.

Mr. Ferris

As a member of this sub-committee which is chaired by the Leas-Chathaoirleach I accept the spirit in which the Leader of the House has put forward this minimal change. It is one of the minimum changes in the recommendations but it is important because it expedites the workings of this House particularly in the case of a second vote when all Members are present. It only arises usually when an amendment is defeated and the substantive motion becomes a subject for agreement or disagreement. It is important then that we can either record our dissent from the substantive motion or cut down the bell ringing period.

I want to assure the House that we have gone painstakingly through all the Standing Orders to retain the decorum of this House and its importance as a House of the Oireachtas because there are occasions when people treat the House with not just the amount of respect that it requires. Any changes that take place in Standing Orders will have to have regard to the fact that it is a House of Parliament and not a county council meeting, an urban council meeting, a health board meeting, a debating society meeting or otherwise. It is a House of Parliament with a responsibility to the Government and the Government have a responsibility to the House.

There was a widespread belief also that we could make the working of the House relevant to important national issues. This would involve Government intervention or a request that they should intervene. There is agreement already that that change should, if at all possible, be made in Standing Orders. I am aware that the Government may resent this but, as a separate House of the Oireachtas, we believe that the Government should in some way be answerable to this House as well as to the other House and those are the recommendations that will be coming forward.

The question of the receipt in decorum here of distinguished visitors has been agreed previously by way of resolution but needs to be reactivated. There is a widespread belief that it is important to be able to receive distinguished visitors to address this House. I hope when the Chamber is back in use again proper facilities will be included to allow that. I know the Cathaoirleach would welcome this and that every member of the committee would also welcome it.

Whether vocational people should be allowed to address a House of the Oireachtas is a matter for debate and possibly the way to overcome it is through a committee procedure. Perhaps the House could go into committee to allow this procedure. I would certainly be open to that kind of suggestion. However, we must not get away from the fact that it is a House of Parliament, that it is a House which could and should accommodate parliamentarians, whether they are European parliamentarians or parliamentarians of world repute. That is an important concept.

Other changes will have to be looked at but there will have to be a response from the Government so that this House can be made as relevant as possible to crises which occasionally arise to which we, as Members of the Oireachtas, want to respond to. A facility should be available to enable us to do so. I know that the Cathaoirleach is a staunch believer in this House, the importance of it and the fact that is should be run properly and I know that you will be willing to accept suggestions from the committee if they reach all-party agreement.

I welcome this first step because it will expedite the voting procedure which is also fundamental to many of us who may not necessarily agree with substantive motions or resolutions from the Government, particularly when they cross party lines as they normally do in a political structure.

Mr. M. O'Toole

I welcome the recommendations in the report of this committee as a member of it and hope they will go some way to removing some of the confusion we have had here in the Seanad. The change is not as technical as people may think. It means amending Standing Orders which have been in operation for many years and have served us well. It is because of the confusion that the changes need to be made. Senators will note from the statistical data in the report that the number of times we are summoned to this House for divisions has increased enormously. We have had 69 votes in 50 Seanad sittings and that is a lot of votes. As a result, it was necessary to examine the procedures and we did so. The recording of dissent procedure is a half-way house measure in that it will allow Senators to record their dissent by name or by proxy, as the Leader has already said. It will give minority groups an opportunity to record their dissent without calling for a vote and having Members summoned to the House.

There are many reasons for calling votes and nobody on this side of the House disputes the right of Senators to claim a division. That is not the point at issue. It has been made clear in the report by the committee that they will not be making other changes in that regard. The committee decided to hold its fire on the issue that wider ranges of amendments should be made for another while. We will have a look at how these changes work over this period and we will review them after some time. It is important that this House should work effectively.

I am in full agreement with giving Members an opportunity to air their views and not to curb them in any way, but I am against the Order of Business taking one hour to complete. We all have representation on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and we should be able to come up with a smooth mechanism which will run this House effectively with the dignity the House requires and has always upheld. If these changes do that, I am completely in favour of them.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to thank my colleagues who serve on the sub-committee for their co-operation and understanding and for the progress we have made. We have taken our review of Standing Orders in a very sober and orderly fashion. I tend to be traditional in these matters and there is no reason to change for the sake of change. The measures — announced by the Leader of the House this morning will, we believe, improve the procedures and the operation of the House. If for any technical reason they do not work out as we envisage, there is always an opportunity to look at them again.

I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their patience and co-operation. The work we are doing should be of lasting benefit to the orderly management of the work going through the Seanad. I hope to have our final report completed by the spring so that we can have it in effect when we move back into the Seanad Chamber. It is very difficult to maintain the kind of decorum and formality that is required in a Chamber such as ours in small temporary accommodation. Following our discussions with the architects of the Office of Public Works we are making certain changes in the layout of the building which will more easily accommodate the suggestions made by my colleague, Senator Manning, here his morning. While we are always aware of our constitutional requirements and obligations as Members of the Seanad, it is important that we should nudge the House very gently into a situation where it can more effectively and more easily and pragmatically serve the interest of Ireland in the eighties and the nineties.

There have only been two reviews of Standing Orders since 1937. It is important that they should be systematically reviewed from time to time to see that they give the Members of the House an opportunity to serve as effectively as possible. Again my thanks to my colleagues for their co-operation and understanding during this rather tedious time-consuming task of reviewing the Standing Orders, of looking at the Standing Orders in comparable parliaments right across Europe and, indeed, beyond, which we have done, endeavouring to pick ideas that will be of benefit and enhance the quality of the work in the House. I wish to thank the Leader of the House and support the proposal.

An Cathaoirleach

Before we get agreement on this, I would like, as Cathaoirleach, to be associated with what has been said. I am a firm believer that reform can be made in the Seanad which is relevant to the Government and more important to the people of this nation. I have the greatest respect for past Seanads. I hold warm and deeply in my heart the men and women who have served in past Seanads. However, with all the challenges that face us today and in the future I do think we could make the Seanad more relevant and in doing we could once and for all destroy the concept held by certain people who will never be able to come in here to vote that the Seanad should be abolished. Even if it has taken an hour to clear the Order of Business, that has been corrected. What we had were enthusiastic new Members who liked to let it flow and they are now shaping up.

The CPP is meeting more often. It is an excellent committee. Everyone of us is in there to make the Seanad, as well as playing its role, be seen nationally as doing the job we are elected to do. I want to see some reform here but we have to be very careful about reform we might propose and try to pass on to the Government. We must remember that this is a House of the Oireachtas.

I wish to thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the dedicated members of the committee. I want to put on record the fact that we are getting more recognition media-wise. That is important to say and I thank both RTE and the newspapers for it. It is only the second time that such a review has taken place since this distinguished House was set up in 1937. With regard to the bells, it has driven people in other parts of the House nuts when that second and third bell rings. If Senator de Buitléar can find a less noisy cuckoo he should get it. I listened to bells and we could not get a less noisy bell. This is a most important debate because changes could come out of this. It is not just another amendment passing through; it is a very important piece of business. One has only to serve here to realise the commitment all Members have to the Seanad and how seriously we take our job.

With regard to the Seanad Chamber we hope to get back in the new year or at Easter, 1989. It is a colder Chamber to serve in. I will never forget my entrance to it in 1977. Not alone did I freeze in the chair after getting there, I froze on the way in. It has that effect on one. At times when I see trouble coming at me as Cathaoirleach, I wonder should I put so much energy into making it work when some Members are not co-operating with me. I am a firm believer in this House. I think it has a strong and important role to play in today's Ireland and in the Ireland which is ahead of us. That is why the changes proposed here this morning are of crucial importance to this Seanad in the years ahead. I am sorry for going on for so long but I feel so strongly about this that I wanted the Members to know that I am totally happy about the little movement that has taken place and this committee and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will do all we can to make this House relevant to the people of this country.

Mr. Lanigan

I am glad the House has accepted the recommendations made. Even though they might seem minor, they will make the working of the House proceed in a more orderly manner. A number of points were made during the debate. Something the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will have to take on board is the question of the reception of guests of honour or people of importance. Two suggestions were made. One is that a formal committee of the House could be set up and that people of importance and distinguished speakers from abroad could relate to it rather than actually addressing the House. As Senator Ferris said, we are not a county council. We are a House of Parliament. I would say that his suggestion is one that we could go along with rather than actually have people addressing the House. Senator Ferris also said this House has a responsibility to the Government. Whether we are in Government or in Opposition we must accept that we have a responsibility to the Government but I also accept the Senator's point that the Government have a responsibility to this House and that the Government should not renege on their responsibility to this House. That is a very important attitude to take up.

The report is just a minor element within the review of Standing Orders that is taking place. A major review of Standing Orders is taking place. It is better that we take each change as a separate entity rather than coming back with a major report which tries to adopt the full range of the changes we feel are necessary to make this a modern House of a modern Parliament. As decisions are made by the CPP, they will be brought before the House.

I would like to thank the members of the sub-committee who are looking at the Standing Orders for the enormous amount of work they have done in the past few months. Their work will make this House more relevant and more modern. It will enhance the House and if it enhances the House it will enhance democracy in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Lanigan

We will now suspend the sitting to enable the visit to the Seanad Chamber to take place.

Sitting suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.