I move:
That, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders relative to Public Business, item 2 on today's Order Paper shall be decided without amendment or debate.
Business of Seanad.
I formerly second the motion. I could comment on this in much greater detail but I will refrain from doing so because I have already spoken on this issue on the Order of Business.
For the reasons I outlined on the Order of Business we will be opposing item 1 today. Like the Leader of the House, I do not intend to repeat the arguments I made then. I simply want to indicate the strength of feeling on this side and our utter and total opposition to taking this motion today.
Is it in order at this stage for me to propose my amendment to the motion?
It is.
I propose that the words "item 2" be replaced with the words "item 8". I do this to indicate that there are certain items which may be taken without amendment or debate, when there is clear consensus.
I have chosen "item 8" on the Order Paper because it is legislation which would have the support of all Members of all groups and parties in the House. I am proposing that the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Bill, 1989, be taken at this time. This is a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1878, for the purposes of removing a statutory obstacle to free access to secondary education for girls and of deleting a discriminatory subsection regarding the education of girls. I have examined this legislation carefully and discussed it with different interest groups. I am not going to go into the details of the legislation, a Chathaoirligh, because I can see you are concerned——
I wanted to point out that to you.
I can assure you I will not go into the details of the legislation, I simply chose it as an example. This motion is anathema to modern opinion and utterly incongruous in the context of legislation passed in this House during the past 15 to 20 years. However, the proposal before us today on the main motion, that we take item No. 2 without discussion or debate, is an abuse of the powers of the majority party. A voting majority will never give a moral authority and the purpose of this item — and the reason I have found it necessary to amend it — is because it is a cheap attempt to undermine the process of legislation and democracy and to bring the parliamentary process into disrepute. It is unworthy of the proposer that he should put it as he outlined in his response to the Order of Business. He was not particularly happy or content with it himself, which is even more worrying.
This House has been faced with a similar situation on previous occasions. There were references during the earlier part of this morning's debate to the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government. During the period of that Government when the Criminal Justice Bill was introduced — there was a lot of controversy about that legislation then — pressure was put on the Leader of the Government side in the House, Senator Dooge, to press ahead with that legislation. He refused to bring it through on a guillotine before the summer recess and he insisted that the House return in September to debate it. I put forward that point as an example of the fact that we have been faced with this before. I regret that the Leader of the House does not take a stand on behalf of the House and its Members on such an issue. The proposal to adjourn sine die cannot be taken without amendment. One of the proposals that brings the House into disrepute is the fact that we never order our business properly.
There are certain elements in that motion which the Leader of the House proposes we take without amendment which are in conflict with the Constitution or the Standing Orders of the House. The Standing Orders of this House make it quite clear that each day the Order of Business should be proposed and decided on by the House. What we are attempting to do without debate today is to decide the Order of Business for three days. If we do that, where is the need for an Order of Business for any of the following days? It is totally outside the spirit and the definition of Standing Orders, which indicate and require the House to establish the Order of Business on each day.
I also wonder whence comes the authority to decide that only Government amendments are taken without debate. I do not understand how that can be justified in the context of our Standing Orders and the Constitution. I am making these points, a Chathaoirligh, on the basis of what you said earlier that issues relating to item No. 2 might be raised under item No. 1 as it was not allowed on the Order of Business, a ruling which I accepted from you at the time.
I believe that taking matters without amendment or debate is the quickest way to bring the House into disrepute and gives ammunition to those people who wonder how public representatives and parliamentarians spend their time. The function of the parliamentary process and of a House, particularly a second Chamber in a bicameral parliamentary democracy as we have, is precisely to debate matters, to consider what modifications might be made and to make recommendations to Government. The proposal that we simply consider this matter without debate and without amendment goes against all precedent and tradition and is opposed to what this House was set up for in the first place.
The context in which this motion is put to us is the Government refusing to face up to the arguments against their legislation. Despite the views put forward by the Leader of the House earlier, all sorts of proposals were put to this side of the House in order to facilitate legislation. I was of the view that if the Government find themselves in difficulty later on in the week they could discuss it with the Whips then to see what way the debate was going. The proposal here today was one to cut the lot at this point and say that the House could take it or leave it. I cannot go along with that motion and it is totally inappropriate that it should be taken without debate. I do not understand how Standing Orders 28 and 29 can be set aside like that. What are Standing Orders for? They are for the orderly conduct of business. The proposal before us today disregards Standing Orders; it is something which should be used very sparingly. I accept that there are occasions when it becomes necessary to set aside Standing Orders of the House in order to deal with matters which may not be dealt with within their context but this is not one of them; there is no rush and we have an opportunity now to deal with the legislation.
A proposal to adjourn the House sine die plays into the hands of the Government Chief Whip in the other Chamber because it is clear that he is not content at any stage to initiate important legislation in this House. If we were to adjourn to a particular date in September — I ask the Leader of the House to give this some consideration — we would then have the opportunity to process the Broadcasting Bill which could then be enacted on the due date of 1 October if that is what the Government have in mind. I see no reason for the necessity to sidestep or to cut that process.
The proposal to put without amendment — except Government amendments — three Bills such as the three nominated is utterly unacceptable. The Insurance Bill is a most significant development but has hardly been discussed at all. I noticed this morning when the Leader of the House was talking about the various hours given to one Bill as opposed to another in the two Houses that he did not mention the fact that a State asset, which I believe is worth £750 million to £800 million, will be disposed of as a result of a couple of hours' debate in the Dáil last week and may be a shorter debate here this week. We are bringing the House into disrepute and I do not want to be seen to be part of it. From a selfish point of view I want to go down on the record as opposing what is being proposed here. Apart from the arguments made we are now also establishing a precedent for the future so that the next time it becomes uncomfortable for the Government to debate legislation, the easiest way to do it is to bring in the guillotine. It cannot be said that the debate on the Insurance Bill in the amount of time being proposed for it could be seen in any sense as being a filibuster. That is the difference. It could be that a filibuster might take place on one of the Bills, perhaps in relation to the Broadcasting Bill, as you said. If that is the case it is a bona fide parliamentary method of dealing with legislation which is opposed. The Government have a method of dealing with it and have brought in the guillotine before. I know that two years ago when discussing the Forestry Bill your predecessor as Leader of the House brought in a guillotine at 3 a.m. to stop me speaking. I agree that I was filibustering but it was for very good and honourable reasons. There comes a time when it is quite clear that that is the case but there is no evidence that there would be an attempt to filibuster on the Insurance Bill. It demands and requires detailed consideration which it has not been given in either House. It can be said about the Broadcasting Bill that one House of Parliament will have given it whatever number of hours was outlined to us.
From 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Whether that argument is acceptable — it is not to me — at least it has some sense in that the Parliament is being seen to do its duty. In this instance — and we are going on to the Insurance Bill — it is a matter which could cost the State anything up to half a billion pounds in lost assets. I believe there will be lost assets and that is a point which I wished to make and undoubtedly will be able to make on Second Stage but I am not sure that I will be able to go beyond that. We will not be able to discuss the details of the Bill. We will not be able to point out those aspects of it which create difficulty. We will not be able to outline for the parliamentary process those aspects of the Bill which should be changed or modified. That has not happened in either House. This critically important Bill which is dealing with an asset which is worth between three-quarters and four-fifths of a billion pounds could be sold off at a loss to the State of half a billion pounds, because we are going about it in the wrong way, and this is going to happen without any kind of discussion.
It is not good enough. It needs to be teased out. We will rue the day on this because we are establishing a precedent unnecessarily, which was not required by the situation that we found ourselves in. We could have continued the debate, let it run into the night over the next couple of days, over the end of the week, assessed where we were on Friday and then consider whether it would be necessary to meet next week.
This has been an error. It has been an unfortunate decision which has been foisted upon the Leader of the House, and my final point is that the Leader of the House should be prepared and able to say that he regrets that this was the only proposal that was allowed to him. His political masters should be told that this House is autonomous, this House makes its own rules, this House defines the method by which it will deal with legislation and this House should be allowed to conduct its business without interference from other places.
We will also, of course, be opposing item No. 1, and we are proposing an amendment, namely, that all words after "that" be deleted and that we substitute "this House adjourn to allow the Committee on Procedure and Privileges——"
Senator, I must point out that you are late in moving such an amendment and we cannot take an amendment across the floor in the way you have proposed it.
A Chathaoirligh, on a point of order, let me point out that I was the seconder of Senator O'Toole's amendment.
I was going to afford you that opportunity when your turn came to speak, but you can formally second it.
No, I want to speak on it.
You can second it and speak on it at the same time.
It is a pity we do not have the opportunity of allowing the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider the legality of what is being proposed here. What is being proposed is in contravention of Standing Orders. I have already outlined the main reasons I believe that to be so. Standing Order No. 123 states very clearly that Standing Orders may be suspended for one day's sitting. What is being proposed is that they be suspended for three days, sitting. Secondly, it proposes that it be done for a particular purpose, "upon motion made after notice". I am suggesting that here Standing Orders are being suspended for three purposes, namely the purposes of introducing three separate Bills. I am opposed to what is being proposed because of the risks that are involved in it. I see no necessity to order our business this way. Even given the objectives of Senators on the other side of the House, they can still do things in a legal manner. In other words, they can come in here and order the business in what I believe to be the proper way each morning. What alarms me is that what seems to be proposed is in contravention of Standing Orders. As I have said, that opens up the possibility of members of the public who feel aggrieved and dissatisfied with what is being implemented in any of these three Bills going to the courts and creating an unseemly constitutional squabble. Of course, that possibility also exists, for Members of the House, and we have had enough precedents of that type of procedure in the recent past. Therefore, I am very concerned that what is being proposed here is not in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House and accordingly there are tremendous risks down the road if members of the public feel they should resolve these problems by seeking a ruling ultimately from the courts on them.
The other reasons we are opposed to this procedure are fairly obvious. I accept that it is a legitimate parliamentary strategy to indulge in a filibuster. That is what is likely to happen and that is what was happening last week in this House and earlier on in the other House but, as Senator O'Toole said, it is legitimate. We do not have to apologise for it. We are opposed to this Bill for fairly fundamental reasons and for those reasons we are indulging in that strategy.
The Pensions Bill is essentially non-contentious and that is certainly accepted, but in the other House there was a whole series of amendments to that Bill, I imagine most of them non-contentious, which were not debated. What is being proposed in this House will not allow for a full and proper debate of these amendments in the hope that this Bill will be improved. The Insurance Bill is a fundamental change in policy which has been maintained from the foundation of the State. We are seeking the selling off of a vital State company. For our party that is a matter of the greatest concern and we would wish to have the fullest opportunity to debate comprehensively what is being proposed.
For those reasons I am opposing item No. 1. Again I reiterate, and wish to state very clearly for the record, my concern that what is happening here is not in accordance with Standing Orders. While I accept your ruling, Sir, it is a matter of regret to me that it appears that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges will not have the opportunity to consider the legality of what is taking place. I consider that we are all taking a great chance in what we are doing here this afternoon.
First of all, I would like to formally second the amendment of my colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole, for the very clear reason that item No. 8, which would replace item No. 2 by his amendment, is non-controversial. It removes discrimination from some of our legislation, so I am very happy to support it. I do not think that there should be any difficulty at all about it. I am rather surprised that it was not found possible at least to ensure a direct and immediate follow-on from the Pensions Bill, which is non-controversial, to the Broadcasting Bill. That at least would have ameliorated the situation somewhat.
I would like to say a little about the question of filibuster, because this side of the House was accused of filibuster. I am rather astonished that from the Republican benches, as they consider themselves, this particular parliamentary tactic should have been attacked. Perhaps it is a lack of understanding of our history that they should presume to do so. Perhaps they are unaware that this legitimate technique was perfected by the Leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, Charles Stewart Parnell. It was an honourable technique and a technique that was developed to fight against oppression, and this is what is happening here today. We are encountering naked, anti-democratic oppression which is why Senator O'Toole and myself have put down this amendment.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the final phrase of this noxious item No. 1 that "item No. 2 on today's Order Paper shall be decided without amendment or debate". I would like the Leader of the House to explain to me what he thinks the function of Seanad Éireann is. We are being precluded from debate and amendment. The purpose of this House as established under the Constitution is to debate legislation and to amend it. If you remove those two capacities from it you have nothing whatever. Senator O'Toole referred to the castration of the House. I thought that was rather extreme language to use but, in fact, that is exactly what it is. Let me say, continuing the metaphor, that there were shouts from the Government benches about constitutional experts and so on, but I would like to inform the Government benches that I may not be a constitutional expert but I have a nose for these kinds of things, as the Government side well know. There have been one or two notable occasions on which I grabbed them by a particular section of their anatomy, which Senator O'Toole appears to think they wish to excise on this part of the House, and gave them a pretty good squeeze. I have every intention of trying to do it again on this Bill. In one sense the Government are playing into our hands. They are attempting to ram through legislation which clearly carries with it a strong constitutional doubt. An editorial in The Irish Law Times stated categorically that this Bill is unconstitutional. I believe it is and I have a good amateur nose for that.
There is a machinery in this House, we can avail of unless of course we are able to excise that, guillotine it, vasectomise it, or something like that. Perhaps, they will throw the whole rule book out of the window, but there is machinery in this House for referring legislation through the President to the Supreme Court. I will see if we can get a majority of the Seanad to agree to that. It will not be that easy because of the mathematics, but, perhaps, a few Members, perhaps some of the broadcasters on the Government side, might develop a conscience and maybe the party I decribed as the poodle dog party might find their consciences. Miracles can happen. In any case we will raise such a constitutional doubt about this Bill in this House that President Hillery will have no option but to seek the advice of the Council of State and refer it to the Supreme Court. That will be the intention and the thrust of every word I will utter on Second Stage. The Bill is unconstitutional. President Hillery must be made aware of it and nothing would become him more in his leaving of the Presidency then if he were to take on this issue head on and refer this appalling legislation to the Supreme Court.
There has not been such a concentration of power in the hands of one man since the thirties. Minister Burke is Minister both of propaganda and police.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)
The merits of the Bill do not come up under this motion.
I am not talking about the merits of the Bill but about whether or not it is constitutional which is directly relevant to item No. 1.
Acting Chairman
That arises on the Bill and the Senator may make that argument on the Bill.
I am making a constitutional argument on this item. I have made my point with sufficient force and clarity and I will move on to something the Chair has reminded me of. I had been a little bit misled, and I wanted to conclude my point——
Acting Chairman
I am delighted to be able to enlighten an informed gentleman like Senator Norris.
The Chair is always enlightening, he brings a breath of fresh Sligo air into the Chamber. It is most invigorating.
Acting Chairman
Yeats country air.
There are two reasons people employ this filibuster tactic. One is because of the oppression to which I have referred and the other is that people are simply opposed to the Bill lock, stock and barrel. This proposition is seeking to remove from the Chamber the power to amend legislation. That is a devastatingly cynical move. Paragraph 3 of item No. 2 to which I am directing my attention states——
Acting Chairman
On a point of correction, the Bill can be amended.
But only by Government amendment. I am most enlightened by that information from the Chair.
Acting Chairman
Up until 11.45 p.m. the Bill can be amended by anybody.
The Chair should not play games with us.
Acting Chairman
What I have said is the position.
We are dealing with reality. The good Sligo air must have gone to the Acting Chairman's head.
The entire process is completely and utterly undemocratic. The method of forcing this legislation through appears to contradict the Standing Orders of the House. That is another good reason why President Hillery must refer this to the Supreme Court. We have unconstitutional legislation proposed here, which speaker after speaker on this side of the House has said is unconstitutional, and which people on the Government side of the House know it is unconstitutional but, in order to get it through the House, have to break the rules of the House.
Attention has already been drawn to Standing Order No. 123 regarding the suspension of Standing Orders. That can only be done for one day and by a specific motion on a particular matter. None of these conditions have been complied with. I would also point out that we are suspending or abolishing Standing Orders Nos. 28 and 29. Standing Order No. 28 deals with Adjournment debates. Why cannot we have them? I do not understand the reasons for this. The suspension of Standing Order No. 29 is even worse because Standing Order No. 29 makes provision for a motion for the Adjournment of the Seanad on a specific important matter of public interest requiring urgent consideration. Can the Leader of this House look into his heart, as a previous Leader of his Party was able to do, and read the future of the Irish people, even for 24 hours? Can he state with any confidence that he is positive he has direct information that there will not be an emergency, that there will not be any urgent matter to be discussed? How can the Leader of the House predict this? That seems to be flying in the face not only of Standing Orders and the Constitution but in the face of providence. I did not realise that fortune telling and future gazing was part of the apparatus of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Some comments were made about what is perceived here this morning on the Order of Business as a filibuster and some ill-informed Member said that we were acting in a foolish manner because we were curtailing the amount of time that would be spent on the Broadcasting Bill. We are not, because we are not taking the Broadcasting Bill today. I would certainly be happy to expedite things as much as I could if I felt we were honestly going to get on immediately after the Pensions Bill, which is non-controversial, into the Broadcasting Bill, but we are not doing that. There is no question of wasting time which could be used for the Broadcasting Bill. The Broadcasting Bill is not before the House today and because of the operation of this Item it will be before us for a specific, limited and a defined time which does not include today. Let us not fool ourselves that we are wasting time which could be used to debate the Broadcasting Bill.
Because of the nature of the Broadcasting Bill there is no need for any rush. Part of the apparatus regarding television broadcasting and TV3 cannot possibly come into existence for some considerable time, months, years, who knows? I am sure the Leader of the House knows because if he is able to tell us that there will not be an emergency or anything to be urgently considered tomorrow, I am sure he can look into his heart and tell us when TV3 will come on air. For the rest of us poor mortals who do not have that information there seems to be no urgency about the passage of this Bill.
One matter was raised by the Leader of the House with engaging honesty when he cited a number of items which would also be taken without amendment or debate. Some of them are ordinary items that no one turned a hair over but one item he mentioned related to joint committees. I very much regret that we did not debate and amend that item. That is another aspect of this Government's work that I do not like and, in fact, despise. If there had been a debate would we not have been able to worm in some reference to the parliamentary tier of the Anglo Irish Agreement. I would like to place on the record of this House my disgust that this was not allowed to be debated in this House. If the Leader of the House wants to know one thing that was decided for both Houses of the Oireachtas, outside of this Chamber with no consultation, it was the composition of the parliamentary tier of the Anglo Irish Assembly. That is absolutely despicable and is all of apiece with this rushing through of legislation.
I should like to remind Senators that each Senator has 15 minutes.
The Chair had better subtract a bit from what has already gone before.
Is this being taken under Standing Order No. 39?
Standing Order No. 41.
Are there any Standing Orders left?
There will be 30 minutes for the proposer and 15 minutes for each speaker after that.
The motion before us insults the integrity and purpose of this House.
On a point of order, Standing Order 41 relates to non-Government motions.
That is correct. This is a non-Government motion. It is in two names.
This is a Government motion.
It is a non-Government motion. It is in two names — Senator Seán Fallon and Senator G.V. Wright. If it was in one name, it would be otherwise.
We should allow that distinction to sink in before commenting, as it is a new one for most of us.
We are used to one-party Government; we should now get used to one-man Government.
We should dispense with one man speeches too.
I could do a duet any time you like.
The Senator has already made his contribution.
As I try to work out who the poodle party in this House are, I have made my main point which is that this motion insults the integrity and purpose of this House. We might well question whether there is a really strong function for this House. I accept that to the uninformed, the public generally, they find it hard at times to analyse what we do and how the bicameral system works.
The best way to underline the importance of the reflective and considered role we can fulfil, in terms of perusing the legislation that comes to us from the Dáil, is to look back on what happened the Trustee Savings Bank Bill in this House. The Government-Opposition voting strength of this House is 35 to 25. After the debate on the Trustee Savings Bank Bill in the Dáil was guillotined before Christmas — I am sure they justified it as eloquently as Senator Fallon justified his actions here today — it came to us for consideration. I tabled a large number of amendments, as indeed did others in this House, which I went through line by line. I stuck to my views because I was convinced on two particular points that what I was saying was correct. A Minister of State, Deputy Noel Treacy, was wheeled in, under the rent-a-Minister syndrome, to take a Bill about which he knew nothing and nothing was said that personally reflected on Deputy Treacy. We hammered it out minute after minute, hour after hour until finally, late at night, the Minister, Deputy Reynolds, came up to the Lobby to ask if we had a point. The amendment I had pursued so diligently all afternoon was accepted by the Minister who subsequently took on board that amendment and another one. In fact, it did not go to a vote. If it did, and all 25 had been present we would not have got that amendment through.
The Trustee Savings Banks and the financial institutions accepted that it was a small but very important amendment to the Bill, but unfortunately we did not have sufficient time to discuss all our amendments some of which perhaps could have been made. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Reynolds, for accepting in Seanad Éireann, having considered and reflected on the matter, Opposition amendments to a Bill that has passed through the Dáil where the debate had been guillotined. There is a lesson to be learned from that.
The debate on the Broadcasting Bill in the Dáil was also guillotined. We are being asked not by the Government but by Senators Seán Fallon and G.V. Wright, who are responsible for this motion to accept item No. 1 on the Order Paper. If I had to take my pick of the Government benches in this House, Senators Fallon and Wright would be two of the more learned and more able Senators, in my humble personal opinion. The fact this is a personal motion in their names and that they really mean to pursue it personally rather than as Government policy disappoints me greatly.
The question has been asked whether what we are doing is contrary to Bunreacht na hÉireann. I seek assurances from whatever quarter in this regard, because I do not want Seanad Éireann to be brought into further disrepute by the way in which this legislation will be forced through this House. It now appears as if it will be bulldozed through. If this legislation is questioned and is referred to the courts we will all be brought into disrepute for not having done properly the job we are charged to do in this House. I seek assurances from whatever quarter that what we are doing is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution, in terms of what is laid down in relation to the operation of the Seanad. This is being questioned by many learned Senators.
Fine Gael need to know whether what we are doing is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and also that we are complying with Standing Orders. I hope we are given the answers to these questions before a final decision is made on item No. 1 on the Order Paper. Is what we are doing today in order? Are Senators Fallon and Wright correct in what they are asking us to do with respect to Standing Orders and push through item No. 2 without debate or amendment? In other words, are we within our constitutional rights to do what we are doing and are we complying with Standing Orders? I sincerely hope we will be given answers to those two major questions.
Reference has been made to the former Senator, Professor Dooge, a very learned man, who was Leader of the House some years ago. The way in which he conducted business in this House is in contrast to the way in which business has been conducted during the past nine months which does no credit to the House. As has been said, when the Criminal Justice Bill arrived in this House from the Dáil Professor Dooge refused to be bullied by his own party Whip in the Dáil. He was put under orders by the Chief Whip in the Dáil and the Government to push the Bill through the Seanad before the summer recess. He refused to be forced at the point of a gun by his own colleagues in the Lower House and insisted that the House give the Bill due reflection and consideration which is what we are supposed to do in this House. Instead he recalled the Seanad in September when it went meticulously through the very difficult and controversial Criminal Justice Bill.
We ask the Leader of the House, in relation to the Broadcasting Bill which will not come into effect until October, to recall the Seanad in early September, if it is not possible to meet next week, to tease out amendment by amendment and section by section this difficult and controversial legislation that has caused so much disharmony in the Oireachtas generally.
Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,
I would like to thank Senator O'Toole for ensuring that I had a quorum to listen to what I have to say. I hope not too many lunches were disturbed.
How many Members do we need?
We need 11 and the Cathaoirleach. We now have 13.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. There are three more points I would like to make on what is before us. It is worth reiterating now that Senator Wright has joined us again, that Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper, in his name and that of Senator Fallon, is not a Government motion. This, I am afraid, disappoints me even more than if it had been a Government motion. Perhaps we should look at this technique and see exactly what are the implications. If two Government Senators can table a motion are we to assume it has Government support? Are we to assume it has the support of the other side? If it has, it is effectively a Government motion and, as I say, worth looking at again for another day.
Total support.
A Government motion then, I assume. There are three points I would like to make.
We have total confidence in them.
A Government Senator referred to the filibuster in this House in recent weeks. Filibustering has been an honourable enough tactic and has been used by very honourable and distinguished people over the years, but having said that, we can claim no credit for any filibuster last week or indeed any other week.
Last week, we had three speakers on the Broadcasting Bill, none of them repeated themselves. There was absolutely no repetition and if Senator Ó Foighil spoke at considerable length, I think those who were in a position to understand his contribution will agree that "as Gaeilge" his contribution to the Broadcasting Bill and that aspect of our heritage was noteworthy and worth the space it will take up on the record of this House.
Senators
Hear, hear.
Senator Doyle to continue without interruption.
In relation to the point made by Senator Fallon about failing to get agreement despite the fact that he tried extremely hard in terms of the working order for this week, and, if necessary, next week, or September, to complete the three Bills we are discussing here this morning, I think he will realise, despite his reasoned articulation of the situation, for which I thank him — I feel he perhaps did try his best to resolve the dilemma in which we find ourselves — he must realise, as indeed all of us do, that nobody can say when a Bill such as the Broadcasting Bill, will finish. It is very hard to say give us two days, or give us one day. A week could be too long, two weeks could be too short. It depends on the contributions being offered and the detail we manage to give section by section and amendment by amendment on Committee and Report Stages. For that reason, no one could say precisely when it would finish. We are all logical common-sense human beings and I think an extra couple of days would have seen the Bills through. The Leader of the House knows as well as anyone else that nobody can give guarantees as to the hour or to the precise moment a Bill will be through.
Finally, I made the point earlier that item No. 1 on today's Order Paper insults the integrity and purpose of this House, and reflects no credit on any of us. It particularly reflects no credit on Government Senators who would support the motion so framed there. The motion, as I understand it, refers to item No. 2 which must be taken without amendment or debate. Item No. 1 does not actually state that they are preventing amendments to the three Bills in question. I accept that, although I think there was some slight confusion in the contributions from this side in relation to it.
Effectively, the broadcasting legislation is coming into operation on 1 October — as we are told — and the Dáil does not resume until the end of October or early November. There is absolutely no point in the Minister or the Government accepting amendments from this House on Committee or Report Stages because those amendments cannot go back to the Dáil as would be necessary. In fact, we are precluded from having any amendments taken on Committee and Report Stages of the Broadcasting Bill, and that is the factual situation no matter what protestations come from Government Senators. Unless we get assurances from the Leader of the House that the Minister is prepared to have a recall of the Dáil to take on board Seanad amendments to the Broadcasting Bill, effectively what we are doing this week is making this House futile, asking us to behave in a farcical way and telling us that as far as the Government are concerned, Seanad Éireann is superfluous to the parliamentary system. That is insulting and I do not accept that insult to the integrity of this House. As a result item No. 1 must be rejected wholeheartedly by all Members of this House. It is in the names of Senators Fallon and Wright. We are told it is not a Government motion so I assume that the other Government Senators are free to support our view on this if they so wish.
We solidly support it.
May I make the point that the absence of comment from the Progressive Democrats at any stage this morning on the very difficult issues we have had before us on the Order of Business, on item No. 1, tells its own story We have had no comment at all. Do they support Senators Fallon and Wright?
Yes, no doubt about it.
There is a Progressive Democrat speaking, I hear. I hear a Progressive Democrat call from the back benches there. Senator O'Keeffe has joined the Progressive Democrats, I hear the voice from the distant benches in the back. I am sure they will welcome him to their numbers — perhaps even his colleagues will give him a send-off.
It is a happy family here.
On a more serious note, the absence of comment from the Progressive Democrats——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, would Senator McKenna say in public what he is saying in private about the Progressive Democrats?
That is not a point of order. You have 35 seconds left Senator Doyle.
Senator McKenna is licking his wounds. The treatment of this House by the Government must reflect their views of Seanad Éireann and I consider it a slight on the importance of Seanad Éireann and the constitutional position it has in our country.
The mind boggles at the thought of item No. 1 being in the names of two private individuals, Senator Seán Fallon, who is Leader of the House and Senator G.V. Wright who is the Chief Whip.
I wish to remind the Senator it is a group motion.
Two make a group.
It is not to be personalised in the names of the two Senators.
I have no intention of personalising it but it does take from the force of a party motion, or indeed of a Coalition motion, which I had thought it initially was, and that simply those two names represented the other two bodies. However, the motion states that item No. 2 on today's Order Paper shall be decided without amendment or debate. That is a scandalous motion. It is compounding already what is happening by the guillotine. It is a guillotine upon a guillotine. It is restricting any amendment or debate on something that is unprecedented in this House, ordering three days business in one day, contrary to what seems to be the intention of Standing Order No. 123.
In practical terms, it is totally unsatisfactory that we should conduct the debate and pass all Stages of three Bills in three days. We have to deal with amendments on Committee and Report Stages. The way this business is ordered means there is no time for proper reflection on the debate. This is no way to carry out business. Half way through the debate on the Pensions Bill in the other House a motion for closure was put with the result that a large number of amendments were not debated. The same procedure will take place in this House where only outstanding amendments in the name of the Leader of the House or the Minister shall be allowed to be proposed and taken. It really is unsatis factory to endeavour to deal with the Pensions Bill in this manner, to have all Stages taken with a large number of amendments more or less subjected to the guillotine in the other House neither will we be able to deal with them properly.
We have less than five hours to debate the Insurance Bill which is to be concluded by 3.45 p.m. when the question will be put. The Insurance Bill is an extremely important one. On all accounts it constitutes the first of the major privatisation Bills about to come onstream from the Government side. Therefore, it will be clearly seen that we are beginning to sell off the family silver. If that is to take place here — as it has in so many other countries — we should be afforded an opportunity for a thorough debate on it. As Senator O'Toole said earlier, we are talking about in excess of £0.5 billion, perhaps £1 billion worth of assets in the case of Irish Life. That privatisation should take place after a mere five hour debate in this House is an absolute scandal, it undermines the constitutional function of this House and brings it into disrepute. There is absolutely no reason we cannot wait until the autumn to deal with that Bill. Indeed, the Leader of the House acknowledged in the course of his earlier remarks that it was a matter of controversy, a fairly serious matter. I consider it to be an extremely serious matter from the point of view of my party and the nation as a whole.
No reason has been given why the Adjournment motion proposed by my colleague, Senator Upton, was rejected by you, a Chathaoirligh. Why is it not possible for us to accept an amendment to adjourn the House so that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges can examine the legality of what is taking place here under Standing Order 123? I will read into the Official Report Standing Order 123(1) which states:
Any Standing Order or Orders of the Seanad may be suspended for the day's sitting, and for a particular purpose, upon motion made after notice.
That refers simply and solely to one day's sitting and the provisions of Standing Order 123(2) merely flow therefrom. From my layman's reading of that Standing Order, there is no indication that we are entitled to go through the process at present proposed. I have not heard any explanation for it. I would certainly like to have the ruling of the Cathaoirleach on it. Even if the motion proposed by Senator Upton is rejected I contend we are entitled to a ruling on the part of the Cathaoirleach — which is part of his function in this House — as to his interpretation of Standing Order 123 that item No. 2 is in accordance with that Standing Order and is not in breach thereof. Otherwise the proceedings here over the next three days may well be interpreted to be illegal. If we are to continue on the basis of the motion tabled here, if we continue our business on that basis and then find we have been in breach of procedures all along, that will stymie everything intended by this allocation of time motion in order to get legislation dealt with by the Government and will confound the intention of the Leader of the House. Therefore, it is important that we be given a ruling of the matter.
I would like you, Sir, to address that matter specifically. I believe it to be your function to rule on the status of Standing Order 123 in the context of Item No. 2 before us. Indeed, in that overall context the question of its constitutionality arises: how can the business of this House be conducted unless its procedures are followed? If there is to be a Standing Order suspended, and a variety of procedures, practices and functions of this House abolished in the process for those three days, then is it not constitutionally suspect that what we are doing is not in accordance with the provisions laid down in relation to the business of this House under the Constitution?
In addition, another two Standing Orders Nos. 28 and 29 are being suspended. Why do we have to suspend them? This seems to be gratuitous; why should they have to be suspended? Where will we stop? Does this mean that any Standing Order can be suspended? Certainly that would not be in the spirit of handling our business here satisfactorily. I cannot see any reason we should not be able to conduct a debate on the Adjournment or an emergency motion under Standing Order 29 that would not be interfering with our procedures here today, tomorrow or the following day.
I contend we are doing a very bad day's work here today. We are establishing a precedent which has certainly not been explained to me by the Leader of the House, nor is my understanding that such a precedent in relation to a full week's work has arisen in this House before. I contend we are dealing with our business in a manner which raises questions in regard to its legality under Standing Orders and indeed its constitutionality.
I have already explained to the House my sincere wish for and attempts to reach agreement with regard to the debate on the Broadcasting Bill. Senator Avril Doyle referred to this matter. Had I been able to get any indication of when that debate would finish everything would have been in order — whether in, say, one, two or ten days, but no agreement could be reached. I must stress that point. There was not even a remote indication given to me of when that debate might conclude.
With regard to the legal and procedural arguments advanced in dealing with Item No. 1 — agreeing the business of the week and so on and whether it was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution — perhaps I should explain that the practice is that, if the allocation of time motions are passed, then all proceedings in regard to them are in order, it then being clearly a direction from the House as to how its business is to be dealt with. I believe it is quite unnecessary to suspend any Standing Order unless that is specifically referred to in the motion, as the motion itself is in order. We all know well — Senator Norris in particular — that as Members of this House, we are masters of our own procedures.
Until today.
This is something we have spelled out time and time again. Earlier I explained my position very clearly and I have nothing further to add.
Is amendment No. 1 withdrawn?
No.
Question put: "That the word and figure proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- ÓCuív, Francis.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators O'Toole and Norris.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Dardis, John.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Wright and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Howard and O'Toole.
Question declared carried.