The Order of Business for today: item No. 2 will be taken first and it is hoped to finish this item at about 5 p.m. If it is finished by 5 p.m. we will move on to item No. 3, which is the Local Elections (Specification of Local Election Year) Order, 1990. If we find that the Larceny Bill will not conclude by 6 o'clock we will adjourn discussion on that Bill until 8 p.m. and finish the Larceny Bill today. It is proposed to take the Limerick Markets Bill at 6 p.m. until 6.30 p.m. and it is proposed to take the Fine Gael motion from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Order of Business.
On the Order of Business, may I congratulate Senator Fallon on his appointment as Leader of the House. We all know him on this side of the House to be a very decent, straightforward and helpful person and we can assure him that he will have the full co-operation of the Fine Gael group in making the House work efficiently and, hopefully, in expanding the horizons of the House. I hope that before very long he will be able to come to us not just with an agreed programme of work but also with ideas whereby the role of the House can be enhanced in a meaningful way. I promise him our full co-operation.
I would like to pay my own tribute to the outgoing and former Leader of the House. Over the past three years I found him at all times to be a person of great courtesy and decency and very straightforward in all his dealings with the Opposition. It is unfortunate he has had to pay the penalty for mistakes which were not his but that is politics. It is a rough business at times, but I want to assure him that he has the respect and good wishes of all Members, I am sure, of this side of the House. We thank him for his help and courtesy over the previous years.
We cannot agree to the Order of Business today for one very strong central reason, that is, that the use of Standing Order 90 in this case to recommit the Larceny Bill is, we believe, contrary to the spirit of the way in which these matters should be resolved. On only two occasions in the past has a Bill been defeated in this House; the Bill to abolish PR in 1959 and in the mid-sixties the Pawnbrokers Bill, when the present Taoiseach was Minister for Justice. On neither of those occasions was any recourse made to Standing Order 90, which we believe is a sneaky way of going against the constitutional spirit of what the role of the Seanad should be. It is our strong view that the Larceny Bill should go ahead.
I do not wish to interrupt the Senator but to point out that what he is addressing at the moment I do not recall being ordered when the business was announced.
I think the Leader of the House said it was intended to take the Larceny Bill today and it is my understanding from the Government Chief Whip that it is proposed to recommit to Committe Stage.
I was going to suggest to you, in your own interest as well, that if that were to be the situation you might wait until it is confirmed for you because you could be speaking hypothetically.
I do not think so. I had a very clear and a very courteous intimation from the Government Chief Whip in the other House last Friday that that was the intention. I bow to your judgment in this matter, but we want to discuss the question fully. I thought the Order of Business was the appropriate place to do so. If you say it can be deferred until later on, I will simply note now that we will be very strongly opposing this proposal.
Thank you, it was only that, if it does arise in the way that you perceive it, you might wish not to repeat yourself.
Some things are worth repeating. Is the Bill coming in to continue where it left off last week or is it proposed to recommit it?
Until the contrary is shown, I have to take it that it is coming in at the point at which it was terminated the last day.
Perhaps two debates could be prevented if the Leader of the House could clarify this point at this stage.
It will be my intention to move a recommittal notice at the appropriate time.
It makes more sense then if we combine both debates at this stage.
If the House is agreeable to that there is no difficulty.
I have made the point that essentially we would regard what is being proposed as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. The very clear intention is that if amendments are made in this House, whether they be sensible or daft does not really matter; if amendments are made they should go from this House, they should then be considered in a proper way by the other House and the final view taken there. I think that the use of Standing Order 90 is not appropriate in the circumstances and for that reason we will be strongly opposing the Order of Business.
It is fair to say that there is a perception of the House that it is in a shambles at the moment. There is a great perception of incompetence. I was asked at the weekend if it was true that Fianna Fáil Senators were still on the roof.
I would like to go along with the points made by Senator Manning. In all my dealings with Senator Lanigan as Leader of the House, I found him to be honourable and dependable, despite the fact that we had many differences of opinion and rows. I would like to put that on the record. My differences of opinion with the previous Whip were well known. I have not been attending the meetings of the Whips since last November because of the difference of opinion and the way I felt that I was being misrepresented. I did indicate to the House that I felt this type of situation could not have continued. I now would like to make it clear — and I have made it clear to the new Chief Whip of the Government side — I will be attending and that the Independent group will be represented at Whips meetings from now on. We wish to see the House working competently, effectively and efficiently and we will do all in our power to ensure that that is the case.
I would also like to extend congratulations to the new Leader of the House, Senator Séan Fallon, and to assure him of my best co-operation. Of course, there will be differences, there will be votes, there will be arguments, there will be rows. That is the nature of politics, that is the nature of debate. I would put forward the point of view that people in this House have all got different points of view on issues but that they all should have one guiding principle also and that is to make the House effective in its operation. By taking that point aboard it should be possible, if not to reconcile all differences, at least to promote those points of agreement and to make progress in that way.
I would also like to extend congratulations to my colleague from Dingle, Senator Tom Fitzgerald, on his elevation to the position of Assistant Whip and to wish him well in that post.
We are now faced with the first argument: the proposal on the Order of Business today to have an item recommitted. I would also like to put on record — and I would wish the Leader of the House and Chief Whip to take it on board to save the question being asked over the next six months — that the Independent group operate as a group. For people on both sides of the House who do not know the difference between a group and a party, I would advise them to read the Standing Orders and they would all then be aware of the fact that the Independent group are an Independent group for the purposes of the Standing Orders of the House as outlined by the Standing Orders of the House, and for no other purpose. That is not a difficult matter to accept or to understand. We are not a party. In fact, there is no mention of parties in the Standing Orders of this House or in the Constitution, which governs the operation of this House. The fact that some Members of some groups happen also to be members of a party is a matter of pure coincidence as far as the Constitution is concerned. We should note that fact and operate on that basis.
On the matter of the Order of Business, we hope the Government side will make every opportunity to clear some of the outstanding business which is now on the Order Paper, which is extraordinarily long. That means that the nettle must be grasped on a number of issues. I repeat again the need to extend Private Members' time. I do not believe it is a threat to Government, I do not believe it is a threat to the operation of the House, I do not believe it is a threat to the legislative programme of the Government that there should be more Private Members' time allowed in the House. I ask the Leader of the House, as a first request from here, to consider disposing of Private Members' Business on a weekly basis — in other words, to have a three hour debate per week; to propose it and dispose of it in a week. It is not something on which I expect a yes or a no from the Leader of the House in his reply to me, but I am putting it on the record.
On the question of the recommittal, I think it is quite clear that the Government have been seriously embarrassed by the decision of the House here last week. It is important to record that it was a decision of the House. It is also important to recognise that the Government party are quite entitled under the Standing Orders of the House to recommit. Nobody is denying that fact; there is no question of using any questionable tactics. The Government were defeated last week on a procedure and they are now fighting back with another procedural reply. Those are the rules of the House, that is the way they operate and nobody can object to what they are trying to do. However, what we do object to, and the reason we would also object to the recommittal, is the reason for it. We believe it has only peripherally got to do with the nature of the amendment and has far more to do with the fact that the Government do not wish to have to discuss this matter again in the Dáil.
The fact is that the Standing Order is there in order to allow some serious mistake to be retrieved. There is no mistake in this case. The House properly, democratically, under this Standing Order and through the structures of the House, decided to reject a certain aspect of the legislation. The operational rule is that it should now go back to the Dáil; it should be considered in the Dáil again. It is quite clear that many of the matters which it will raise are matters which the Government do not wish to consider in the Dáil and that it is in an effort to avoid debate as opposed to an effort to institute debate that the Government have decided to propose the recommittal.
I would certainly say that they should just take their medicine at this stage. They were defeated last week for whatever reason — it was gone into all over the place last week and everbody knows the ins and outs and stories about it. I think they should just take their medicine, bring the Bill back to the Dáil, deal with it there, face the debate and the objection there and come back here with the amended Bill when we can deal with it again.
I am not sure if Senator Manning proposed an amendment to the Order of Business. There is a slight procedural problem here. I understand we are dealing with the Order of Business and that it is proposed to take the Larceny Bill, followed if time permits by the Local Elections Order, followed by the Limerick Markets Bill, then the Private Members' motion on Telefís na Gaeltachta, with a return if necessary to the Larceny Bill at 8 p.m. We do not object to that. I find it impossible to have a debate on the Order of Business to include what I understand to be the first proposal coming from the other side under the heading of the Larceny Bill: a motion under Standing Order 90. I am not sure how we can vote for the Order of Business and vote in opposition to the motion.
That was the fear I had at the outset. I understood initially that the Order of Business was proposed in the normal way by the Leader of the House. When I interrupted Senator Manning it was to point out to him that there was no motion to recommit the Larceny Bill and that he might wish to leave it until such a motion was formally put. The Leader of the House has indicated he proposes to put such a motion but until that is done, which I understand will obviously be after the Order of Business, and has been concluded, it is not at this time part of the Order of Business. We are dealing only with the Order of Business.
Thank you for the clarification. The position there is quite clear. From my own point of view I would have no difficulty with supporting the Order of Business. However, on the basis that the Larceny Bill covers two items, the first of which is the proposal under Standing Order 90 to recommit certain amendments and sections of the Larceny Bill, I certainly would be opposing that.
On a point of order, is it not a fact — and I look for your guidance on this — that the motion we have come to expect in relation to Standing Order 90 dealing with the Larceny Bill should be on the Order Paper as a motion as such?
No. In the circumstances there is provision for the motion to be moved without notice. That can be done at any stage. Clearly, the Order of Business is being dealt with at this time without that motion having been put as part of the Order of Business. I now call Senator Pat Upton in order of the arrangmeents we concerned ourselves with last week.
Thank you. At the outset I want to congratulate Senator Fallon on his appointment as Leader of the House. I wish him well and assure him of our co-operation in his work. I also look forward to co-operating with him particularly in relation to new initiatives he might introduce to make this House a more effective part of the whole constitutional process. I would also like to extend my congratulations to Senator G. V. Wright and to Senator Tom Fitzgerald.
I must say I am sorry to see Senator Lanigan go. I always found the Senator to be an exceptionally pleasant, decent and honourable person and on a personal level I very much regret the fact that he is no longer Leader of the House.
Like the previous speakers we, too, will certainly be opposing this Standing Order 90 stratagem as a means of rectifying what happened last week. There are a variety of reasons for doing this. The notice we are being given is certainly very short. The Seanad is meant, as I understand it, to work as part of a whole process of checks and balances and this stratagem which is being used is simply being used as a damage limitation exercise to try to cut down on the amount of harm which was done to the Seanad by the proceedings here last week. Certainly, I find this kind of strategy irreconcilable with the notion that the Seanad is going to be afforded the proper level of dignity and respect it is entitled to as part of the whole constitutional process. For those reasons we will be opposing this strategy being used by the Government party this afternoon.
I would like to take the opportunity, as the other Fianna Fáil Senator from County Westmeath, to congratulate Senator Seán Fallon on his appointment. He has brought great honour indeed to our county and to his family with his appointment. Going back to 1967 as a member of Westmeath County Council, he is, I can honestly say, one of the most hardworking, dedicated public representatives we have had in our county for quite a long time. He has our total support and I would like to wish him well in his appointment. Having said that, I would also like to wish Senators G. V. Wright and Tom Fitzgerald the best of luck and success and assure them of full co-operation from me personally in their work and endeavours as Whip and Deputy Whip.
As a Senator here for eight years, under the stewardship of Senator Mick Lanigan, I would like to pay my tribute to him. I knew him first on the hurling field with his great county, Kilkenny. He has been a tower of strength to me personally since I arrived here as a young Member and I want to thank him for all the kindness and courtesy he has shown to me. In regard to the other officers, Senator Paddy McGowan, and the other two Assistant Whips in their term here in this Seanad, I want to thank them for the great services and kindness shown to me as well.
First I would like to ask the new Leader of the House if he has any further comments with regard to item No. 87, which refers to the question of the addressing of both Houses of the Oireachtas by Mr. Nelson Mandela. I quite understand that the last day it was not possible to give a clear answer. I wish it would be done because I understand that the reason given — that Nelson Mandela is not a Head of State — did not operate when Nelson Mandela addressed both Houses of the American Congress. I also understand from authoritative sources that this is being construed as a snub in senior circles in the ANC. I believe this House has a perfect right to be present and to be addressed by a gentleman who is to be made a citizen of this city. I ask you, Sir, to take this matter up as a matter of urgency and as a very serious matter.
With regard to the ordering of business, I would like of course first to congratulate you, Sir, on your appointment as Leader of the House, through the Cathaoirleach, and to say that I cannot give you the carte blanche that has been so emotionally presented to you by some of my colleagues because I respect you——
We would not expect it.
——as somebody with both a sharp mind and a sharp tongue. I shall co-operate with you, Sir, when I think it is appropriate. I do not imagine you would expect me to co-operate when I thought it was inappropriate, when I thought that you were wrong. Of course, when you are — on the many occasions I have no doubt you will be — absolutely in the right, you will find me to be a constructive Member of a constructive Opposition group in this House. As such, I would like to point out that although I was the Member who aimed the gun and pulled the trigger — a gun which had been ably loaded by Senator Joe Costello, assisted by Senator Dan Neville — I have some understanding of the Government's position and it would be appropriate for me to say in support of what my colleagues——
(Interruptions.)
It is not a speech. It is less of a speech, may I say, with great respect to yourself, Sir — a respect which I cannot always extend to the Government's benches — than many of the contributions that were made here, but perhaps it is more telling. Perhaps that is why it is not liked. I think they should wait until they hear the substance of what I am going to say. My colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole, was perfectly correct when he said this was a procedural device by the Government. Of course, it is——
On a point of clarification, a point of order, are we discussing here the Order of Business or the proposed amendment? Are we going to rehash the whole thing again? If we are discussing the Order of Business here, let us get on with it.
The Leader of the House, Senator Fallon, is to move the motion after the Order of Business has been made known and, consequently, it is being referred to in that context. It is convoluted, but it must be taken in the form we have been dealing with it now.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I appreciate your ruling and I understand it. I hope it is understood on the Government side. I mentioned this was a procedural tactic, a manoeuvre by the Government. Of course, it is. It is a perfectly appropriate one. Why should I deny them this capacity since it was a tactical procedural manoeuvre that I employed against the Government — in my opinion perfectly correctly — on the last day. The Standing Orders, as interpreted in discussion in this House this afternoon, indicate that such an employment of Standing Order 90 may be used to rectify a mistake.
In the interests of getting the Order of Business concluded I would ask you, as I have asked other Members, not to deal with something that is not formally put to the House because, quite honestly, it seems a waste of your time and everybody else's at this stage.
I am not dealing with the substance; I am dealing with the procedural matters.
The procedural matters have not been invoked as of now and they will only become relevant when the motion is formally proposed.
In that case I take your guidance and I will reserve the opportunity to speak again on the procedural matter. I will, I may say, also wish to address the substance at the appropriate time; and I do know the appropriate time and I will have quite a lot to say at that point.
I would like, finally, to refer to a point that was raised by Senator Manning and express my concern. He mentioned in his contribution, during which he was not interrupted, that he has been informed by the Government Chief Whip in the other House. I wonder, Sir, if you take as seriously as I do the constant implications we have that there is an interference in the business of this House by the Chief Whip in the other House. Perhaps I misinterpreted this, but I would be very interested to hear something on this.
Finally, absolutely finally, I would like to add to the genuine tributes that have been paid to the former Leader of the House, Senator Mick Lanigan. The words that other people have used are the words that have automatically sprung to the lips of everybody who has spoken from this side of the House: "decent and honourable" and certainly this is something that can be said of Senator Lanigan — decent, honourable, approachable. It cannot be said of all of us — and I include myself — that there is not a malicious bone in their body; it can certainly be said of Senator Lanigan, and I regret on a personal basis that he has had to leave this office. However, could I say that, as Shakespeare said in a play which for superstitious reasons I will not mention in this House lest it bring upon me bad luck, "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it." He behaved in a most gracious way at a difficult time when he accepted responsibility as the captain of a team and, as a former sportsman, I think Senator Lanigan understood exactly what that meant. I compliment him on the years I have had the pleasure and privilege of knowing him in this House and on the very graceful way in which he left a job to which he brought certain particular human qualities that were appreciated on this side of the House.
I crave your indulgence and I hope to be more brief than the learned Senator opposite. We in the Progressive Democrats also welcome the appointment of Senator Fallon as Leader of the House and we congratulate him. During my time in this House, and I know I speak for my colleagues on this, he has always behaved very courteously towards us and I know that he will fulfil his job very well. He can look forward to our co-operation in fulfilling his duties.
I would also like to join with the other tributes that have been paid to Senator Lanigan. I knew Senator Lanigan shortly before I arrived in this House. Outside and in the House both I and my colleagues have been treated with nothing but the utmost courtesy. In every respect he has been kind to us. We thank him for that and I wish him well in whatever activities he continues to pursue in the Seanad and outside it. I would also like, on behalf of my colleagues, to congratulate Senator G. V. Wright and Senator Tom Fitzgerald on their appointment as Whips.
I hope now we can finally get on to the proper business of this House, that is to fulfil its legislative programme. I know that the Leader will do everything in his power to facilitate that. I would not know what carte blanche was, we would probably need córas aistriúcháin to elucidate that for us, but I take Senator Norris's point. We, for our part, look forward to co-operating with the Leader of the House.
I just want to point out that I am endeavouring to take speakers from the different groups and to give everybody an opportunity, as is expected of the Chair. There are four Senators offering. I propose to take Senator Costello, Senator Des Hanafin and Senator John A. Murphy in that order.
My hearing may not be the best but I did not hear any Senator refer to the outgoing Whip as being a very cooperative and understanding person. I would like to put that on the record and thank him for all his help.
I certainly had intended to refer to the outgoing Whip. I have always found him very courteous. I am sorry he has had to relinquish his post. I have also found Senator Farrell and Senator Lanigan courteous and helpful at all times and I want to put that on the record. I want to congratulate Senator Fallon, Senator Wright and Senator Fitzgerald on their appointments and hope we will have a happy and productive relationship from now on.
In relation to the Order of Business, I want to raise a matter in relation to motions Nos. 44, 48 and 50. These are motions relating to one aspect or other of the prison service. I raised this matter the last day on the Order of Business and the then Leader of the House, Senator Lanigan, agreed he would speak to me afterwards. I requested at the time that a statement should be allowed by the leaders of the groups in relation to the prison situation arising out of the rooftop protests, the various crises, the visiting committee report and particularly arising out of the publication of the annual prison report which was issued last Friday. I asked that the Leader of the House would take that into consideration and either allow a statement to be made or else allow time for a debate on the issue. Senator Lanigan was to come back to me on it but I understand that in the circumstances that would have been rather difficult. I hope the new Leader of the House will address that problem.
In relation to the request for Nelson Mandela to address the other House, I think it is a snub to this House that we are not being included in the address. In fact, the request was made first in this House that Nelson Mandela be invited to this House before it was made in the other House. It is improper that an excuse should be put forward as to why the two Houses should not be addressed by Nelson Mandela.
In relation to the other little matter that is causing some dispute, that is the Larceny Bill, I must say I am amazed at what is happening here today because we have on the Order of Business the statement that Report Stage will be resumed and now we find that it will be subject to Standing Order 90. Of course, in relation to that we also have Standing Order 91 which allows for a response at least from a Senator who opposes the motion. No notice of that has been given to us.
As I have explained, there is no need to give notice. Such a motion can be moved at any time. Again, I repeat, in the interests of yourself and other Senators, that until the motion is formally moved the Senator might think it worthwhile to desist from making any long speech about it.
I raised this because some Senators have made speeches on it and it seemed to be the Chair's earlier ruling that speeches could be made on it, that the matter could be addressed. If it is made clear that we will be given a full opportunity of addressing the item, if Standing Order 90 is being brought into play, I will refrain from making any further reference to it at this point.
When the motion is formally put I will rule at that time if it is necessary.
The last item I wanted to raise is in relation to the overall Order of Business. One of the biggest problems in the House is that there has been no legislative programme, there has been no clear indication to Senators as to where we are going from one end of the session to the other. A lot of the frustration that has been caused, a lot of the trouble that has arisen in this House has been due to that fact. Senators, particularly on this side of the House, feel they are being treated unfairly, that they do not know from time to time what is coming up, that there is no opportunity to debate motions and Bills on the Order Paper. Unless and until we have a proper structuring of the Order of Business, I believe it will be very difficult to have proper co-operation on both sides of the House. I address those remarks particularly to the new Leader of the House so that we can get moving on a positive note from now on.
I would like to congratulate the new Leader of the House and wish him well. I am particularly pleased to note that every Member who spoke here today paid tribute to the previous Leader of the House, Senator Langian. All the words used were genuine and they could not be anything else because Senator Lanigan is a gentleman and without malice. I regret this has happened to him; he has accepted the blame publicly for something that I do not believe was his fault.
On the matter of the Order of Business and what is likely to crop up — if I am out of order, a Chathaoirligh, I will be pleased if you will bring me to order — Senator Norris made reference to the business of last week and the matter that caused some problem. He made a long speech and quoted Shakespeare. At that stage I felt like using the words of Brendan Behan.
Brendan Behan used more than two words. I think the two words to which the Senator is referring were not the entire scope of his vocabulary, although they may be the ones with which you are more familiar, Sir Desmond.
Thank you. You are the only Senator who has any respect. I would like, if I am in order, to deal with the particular section that was deleted last week.
That opportunity will arise after the Order of Business has been concluded. It would be inappropriate to deal with it on the Order of Business.
If that is your ruling, a Chathaoirligh, I accept it.
It is an informed ruling. I got advice.
I accept your ruling.
I would like to join in the good wishes that have been extended to Senator Fallon and the other new officers on the Fianna Fáil side——
Senators Wright and Fitzgerald.
When I require Senator McKenna's advice on the phrasing of my speech, I will ask him. In the meantime, I would be glad if you would teach him some manners. Apparently, the Taoiseach in his directions to the party last week forgot to tell them to behave themselves. I would like also to extend my good wishes indeed, as always, to Senator Lanigan and to endorse what has been said about him. He and I met each other first in a somewhat abrasive encounter, he will recall, in 1977 but I like to think we became friends and remained friends thereafter.
I am very glad the Taoiseach has at last shown a serious interest in this House. I have frequently referred to the fact that the Taoiseach's interest in Seanad Éireann heretofore has been confined to gala occasions. However, I welcome this new interest, más maith is mithid. I am only sorry that his reforming zeal cannot be applied retrospectively and that it was felt apparently only when the party discipline began to crumble, not when the interest of the Seanad as a whole was at stake.
I respect your ruling on the other matter but I really just wanted to make a very brief point, simply to endorse what Senator Manning said, that though the Government are perfectly within their rights and within Standing Orders in moving recommittal they are, I think, morally in contempt of the House. The impression was given here last week by the Minister that somehow the fact that the amendment was passed was irresponsible. There was a total ignoring of the fact that it is the constitutional right of the Seanad to pass amendments like this, even though it does entail inconvenience. The Constitution does not anywhere spell out the word inconvenience. I believe that recommitting this matter is an attempt to short-cut the consitutional process even though Standing Orders provide for it legally and I repeat I will oppose it because I believe that the irresponsibility really lies on those who tried to get back by the back door what was fairly, legally and constitutionally passed last week.
I would like to congratulate Senator Fallon and the other officers and to pay tribute to Senator Mick Lanigan for his courtesy, kindness and dignity in the House. I would like to ask the Leader whether the committee which was to be set up last week in relation to the examination of the extension of the Seanad franchise to Limerick University, Dublin City University and the other third level institutions, was set up, and if not, will it be set up today?
I want to join in the words of congratulations to Senator Fallon, Senator Wright and Senator Fitzgerald on their promotion and I look forward to working with them in harmony and goodwill. I want also to express my appreciation of the co-operation I got from Senator Lanigan, Senator McGowan and Senator Farrell. We may have found at times that there were issues which we had to work hard at resolving, but at the end of the day we did resolve them. There was good co-operation there and I want to thank them for it.
I want in particular to be associated with the tribute that has been paid to Senator Lanigan and may I repeat the very many compliments which have been paid already. I agree with every word that has been said as a genuine tribute to him. We came into the Seanad the same day, and practically on the same count and indeed I have nothing but the utmost respect for him during the years since then.
With the permission of the Cathaoirleach, may I say I am very conscious of the fact that it was the absence of the Members from the House that has led to the problems which have arisen in the case of Senator Lanigan and his two other colleagues. On that point, I am reminded of a statement made by the late James Dillon. It may have been made by others also but I am referring to that particular gentleman because of the resounding way he could say things. He made the statement that it is an honour for any person to serve in the Parliament of their country and that is something that should be borne in mind. There are 3.75 million people in this country and of that number only 60 at any time are privileged to serve in this House. I believe that privilege carries responsibility and respect for the position. May I say that I have been concerned, particularly in recent years, at the attitude of some of my colleagues, and this is not confined to any particular side of the House either. It often appears that these seats are too hot to sit on and that people find it difficult and often try to avoid coming into them. I feel it is necessary to make that point.
I wish to repeat the statement that I made earlier which was, of course, the statement of a very fine parliamentarian. It is an honour to serve in the Parliament of one's country. I think that respect for that position and that privilege alone should encourage a top-class performance by Members of this House. If it does not, there is another point that should be borne in mind and that is that there are hundreds out there that would be very glad to occupy these seats and serve the interests of their constituents.
Finally, I wish to get clarification on a point. We agreed at the Whips meeting earlier today to take the Limerick Markets Bill from 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. If it is not taken today. I understand it will lapse. I want confirmation that if by any chance the debate on Second Stage is not concluded at 6.30 p.m. that there is no problem in relation to the Bill, that it still stands on the Order Paper.
Cuirim fáilte roimh Cheannaire nua an Tí, seanchara liom. Bhí aithne agam air ón chéad uair a tháinig mé isteach sa Teach seo, beagnach deich mbliana ó shin. Tá mé ag druidim i dtreo meánaoise ó thaobh mo bhallraíochta den Teach seo agus ó thaobh mo bhallraíochta den chine daonna. Dúirt an Seanadóir Murphy rud éigin nár chuala mé agus b'fhéidir go bhfuil sé níos fearr nár chuala mé é.
I would like to compliment Senator Fallon on his appointment and, at the risk of repeating myself but it is a form of repetition that I am sure you will permit, to join in the tributes to Senator Lanigan. He knows without my saying much that what I say is sincerely meant and I say that as one who has had many spectacular confrontations with him here. I know the difference between a political row and a personal vendetta. I do think that it is a pity that this House cannot address the fundamental question in detail of what is wrong in this House. I accept the indications of goodwill which have been offered both inside and outside the House from the Government side that we will do better, but we do not have a legislative programme. We do not yet know what we will do in a fortnight's time. We will perhaps know soon and it may well have been agreed but we have progress to make. May I say, since perhaps they are not allowed to say it, that it would help a lot if we did not have an impression in this House that Fianna Fáil Senators are perpetually silenced by Ministers to get business through quickly and if they were allowed and encouraged to take a full part in debates as the previous Coalition Government allowed and encouraged we would have a much more vibrant Seanad. To have 31 Senators from one party who seem to be subdued and silenced to the extent that very often they do not know what business we are doing is unfair to them and unfair to this House and I suggest that if the Minister is pushed they should not allow themselves to be pushed. They have rights too. I am opposed to the Order of Business for the reasons that have already been given and, therefore, I will be supporting Fine Gael.
May I say in conclusion, however, that I regret the fact that four very decent people on the Government side were forced to resign because of a mistake. If we are to restore this House to its previous position we have to go a bit further, may I repeat, because once it is said it cannot be unsaid, that we can only restore this House if you, even at this stage, Sir, choose to resign.
That matter has been dealt with and I am ruling you out of order if you persist with it.
I do not want to delay the House any further today but I would like to thank in particular all those who expressed words of commiseration in some cases and congratulations, and it may be that if I had continued the way I started with Senator Murphy we might not have come to this stage. The words "abrasive" and "garrulous" have been used. If I had been garrulous or abrasive I might not have got into this situation. May I assure the House, and in particular the new Leader of the House and the new Whip and Assistant Whip, that I will be totally behind them in their efforts to ensure that this House gets back to what it was in the old days.
I would like to thank the Cathaoirleach, the former Cathaoirligh and the staff of the House. I would like to compliment Senators McGowan, Wright and Farrell for the work they have done over the past number of years. For many years, in previous Seanaid, I had only one Whip, and that was Senator Willie Ryan, and he had one assistant at one stage, Senator Sean Haughey. I would like to thank everybody, particularly the leaders of the Opposition with whom I dealt and, when I was in Opposition, the Leader of the House.
It is important that this House regains its self-respect and it is only from inside this House that that can be done. I commit myself with the whole House, I hope, to regaining the confidence of the people in this House and I know that under the leadership of Seán Fallon this can be done. I thank Senators for their kind comments. I shall do my utmost to ensure that this House plays its proper role as part of the legislative structure.
At the risk of embarrassing Senator Lanigan, I would like to join in the tributes paid to his leadership of this House and to say that he was as fine a Leader of the House as I have seen in the time I have been here. I greatly regret he is no longer in that position and I regret the circumstances which have led to it.
Unlike Senator Murphy, I did not welcome the intervention of the Taoiseach in the affairs of this House during the last week. It seems to me very strange that the Taoiseach was happy to take sudden, severe and fairly ruthless action in the internal affairs of this House. I am sorry, Senator Lydon, I cannot hear you. Do you want to stand up?
He did not interfere with the House, he interfered with the party.
He changed the positions of many of those who actually order the business of this House. It seems to me it is inconsistent of the Taoiseach to come so suddenly to this House to take action of that sort when only a few months ago——
That is not a matter for the Order of Business, neither is it a matter for this House.
——he fiddled while this House was going up in flames.
That is not a matter for the Order of Business. The relationship between the Taoiseach and his party is a matter for the Taoiseach and the party, not for this House.
I think in paying tribute to those four innocent people whose heads have been delivered on a plate, I might be allowed to comment on the circumstances that brought it about.
At least be relevant.
As Senator Murphy said, I would welcome the interest of the Taoiseach in this House if he came here a little more often, if he interfered in things which were matters of State and of concern to the dignity of this House, and he did not just come in when the television cameras were here and he did not just interfere when it was a matter of party discipline. It is absolutely significant that he has demonstrated that his only interest in this House is for his own personal promotion and for the matter of party discipline.
I must point out to you that you are not speaking to the Order of Business and you are engaging in something that has no bearing whatever on this House.
I am worried about the dignity of the House, a Chathaoirligh, and I am worried about the institutions of the State. Having said that — and I have said all I wish to say on that matter and I have made myself absolutely clear — I would welcome the Taoiseach in certain circumstances, and taking action in certain circumstances.
He might come in while you are in South Africa.
He might well do and I hope he does. I hope Mr. Mandela does as well. Finally, in response to Senator Jackman's point about a committee to deal with the universities, most of us have made it quite clear where we stand on that — we would like this — but it is my understanding that in order for such a committee to be set up it takes more than standing up on the Order of Business every day. A motion of that sort has to go through the House and you could have taken that in your time — through the Chair——
It is important that you look at the Chair if you are going to speak through the Chair. You are addressing Senator Jackman.
I have no intention of turning my back to the Chair. I wish to inform Senator Jackman that I shall be putting down an amendment to that motion to include an examination of all the electoral systems in this House, including her own and I am sure that that would be welcomed by all sides.
That is not a matter relevant to the Order of Business.
Well, Senator Jackman raised it as well. I have finished.
On a point of order, my understanding is that the House accepted the setting up of that committee many weeks ago and I was told last week that it would be set up on Thursday. As far as I am concerned it should have been set up.
It does not arise on the Order of Business. You have spoken already, I thought you had something else to say.
I would like to put on record that the committee has been sanctioned to be set up.
On a point of order, we had a meeting of the Whips at 1 o'clock today and, as I understand it, the only items that are before us on the Order of Business are the Larceny Bill, 1989, the Local Elections (Specification of Local Election Year) Order, 1990, the Limerick Markets Bill, 1989 and Private Members' business. If that is the Order of Business we will not be voting against it. We will, however, when the motion comes up be voting against the motion.
My understanding from the Whip's office was that the first item today would be the motion on Standing Order 90, but if the Order of Business is the four items announced and if there will be a full discussion on Standing Order 90 we will not oppose the Order of Business either.
I would like to place on the record of the House that the Taoiseach did not interfere with this House, at this time or any other time. What he did in his own party is his own business. He did not interfere with this House and I think it is despicable that Senator Ross should have even suggested it.
I am calling on Senator Fallon to reply.
At the outset I would like to thank all the Senators for their expressions of congratulations and I know that those good wishes will be matched with what might be an easy way of life for me. Hopefully, that will be the case. I would have to say publicly, as I have said many times, that I pay tribute to Michael Lanigan, the former Leader. He has been a friend of mine for many years, long before we went into politics. At all times, he had my support, my loyalty and my admiration for the man has not diminished one iota as a result of what has happened. Equally, in the case of Senator McGowan and Senator Farrell, I want to congratulate them for the job they were doing very well.
On the order of Business, Senator Manning referred in anticipation of what might happen, or to what is on some Order Paper, not the Official Order Paper. My understanding, and it may cover points made by Senator O'Toole and other Senators, is that while the recommittal procedure has never been invoked in respect of amendments already disposed of on Report Stage, there is a precedent in the Dáil in the case of the Judicial Separation Bill.
A further point made by Senator Manning is, if amendments agreed to on Report Stage are undone, say, on recommittal, it could not be said that the Dáil is being denied any constitutional right to consider amendments made by the Seanad. Whether the Seanad has made amendments to a Dáil Bill does not arise until the Seanad has passed the Bill and the message to the Dáil with the Bill and amendments has been returned to the Dáil for its consideration. That is covered under Standing Orders 116 and 118.
Is the Senator replying to the motion?
I am replying to matters that were raised.
We were prohibited from speaking on the matter.
You were invited not to take up the time of the House on something that was not before the House and I thank you for responding positively to that invitation as did Senator Manning.
Among other things that were suggested was a three hour debate each week. I am not sure that will happen. I will think about it and come back to the House on it. Senator Doyle had a query as to why a motion in relation to the appropriate Standing Order was not on the Order Paper. I have checked that matter out and have given the explanation. The points made by Senator Upton and Senator Cassidy have been covered.
Senator Norris referred to Nelson Mandela. My understanding is, as he said, that as Nelson Mandela is not a head of State protocol demands that we are not to be represented, in the matter, much as I and others would like to be.
Senator Dardis supported the view of most of us that we proceed with the full legislative programme of the House. He can have my assurance on that.
Senator Harte had a query which was not appropriate to the Order of Business. Senator Costello referred, among other things, to prison matters. It is something I will discuss with him. In particular, he referred to the prison report. I suggest to the Senator that it might be a matter he would consider putting down in Private Members' time. Senator Hanafin referred to other questions which were not appropriate to the Order of Business.
I have noted Senator Murphy's point. Senator Jackman referred to the committee. I am not sure of that. I will check it out but it is not appropriate to the Order of Business.
Senator Howard paid tribute to Senator Lanigan and others. He also referred to the Limerick Markets Bill. In relation to that Bill, which is a private Bill, I would like to point out that the Second Stage of the last four Private Bills were passed without debate. However, to facilitate some Senators who may wish to speak, I have suggested that the Second Stage be taken at 6 p.m. this evening until 6.30 p.m. That has been agreed with the Whips.
Senator Brendan Ryan talked about the question of a legislative programme. On that point we can find out what is the programme by checking the Dáil Order Paper. Bills that are there will come to us soon. Hopefully, more legislation will come to us and will be given time. The Finance Bill will be debated here in two weeks' time. I accept the points made, that Senators would like to know in advance what legislation is coming on and I will try to keep the House informed on that point.
Senator Lanigan made his own contribution. The final speaker was Senator Ross, who had no comment to make on the Order of Business.
Order of Business agreed to.